Thread: Katoomba Monthly Temp average set to be SMASHED!!! AGAIN!!!

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

As for your "stealing childhood" comment: that is completely unnecessary, unhelpful, and somewhat melodramatic.

But it was ok for you to lay that crap on me, misrepresenting my intentions and I was just supposed to take it?

Originally Posted by DavidG

Ok...... Shed time for a while........

DavidG Moderator......

OOPS - I just saw this on the next page of the thread after I made the reply above

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Stated or quoted doesn't matter. Not trying to be deliberately obtuse here, but I still don't know what you mean. "Otherwise" to what?

You said:

“ And I didn’t say that you said I only quote one source.”

Yet you said -

“Furthermore, I have quoted a number of other sources such as The Guardian, NASA, et al. I don't take news and info from one source only.”

Quiet time.............

So...you go to the doctor and after a few tests the doc says "you've got idiopathicthrombocytopenicpurpura. Its a rare disease and it will kill you most unpleasantly if we don't treat it. The only thing to do is to take a course of cortisone and that might stop it. You say "Hang on I don't want to take cortisone or any steroid drugs I am going to get a second opinion. So off you go to another doc, more examination, more tests..."Yep, you have idiopathicthrombo etc. and you will have to take cortisone! "No thanks, you say, I am going to get another opinion...Doc number three says the same thing, as does Doc number four...At what stage do you decide to go to the witchdoctor club and get a script for activated mud to rub on your temples while humming a lullaby? That is how climate change deniers are thinking. You don't need to be a doctor to listen to a doctor. You don't need to become a climate scientist to get what is happening. You just need to understand that science is a tool which allows us to understand reality with a degree of accuracy that has never before been available to the human race and with this tool we have built global civilization. You deny science as the world community has been doing for the last thirty years or so and the whole thing will fall apart, as it appears to be doing right now. The consequences of adding gigatonnes of carbon to the atmosphere are well understood and if we do nothing the resultant climate chaos will be very bad indeed. That is all there is to it.

Originally Posted by Lappa

You said: “ And I didn’t say that you said I only quote one source.”
Yet you said - “Furthermore, I have quoted a number of other sources such as The Guardian, NASA, et al. I don't take news and info from one source only.”

I'm going to have to give up trying to figure out what the problem is there. I do not see any contradiction - just a statement that I don't take news from only one source. I didn't mention my New York Times subscription, which is mainly for USA political news during the current turmoil, but they do also cover CC.

Originally Posted by Lappa

As the the ABC reporting from various sources, it would seem that they choose whom they report. That could be construed as pushing an agenda in my opinion.

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Who do you think we should be reading then, if you think that the ABC could be construed as having an agenda? What are the sources to be trusted?

You haven't responded to that. Who can we trust, in your opinion?

Here's a very detailed breakdown of what the population thinks about it all. With a sample size of 54,000 it's about 50x more reliable than political opinion polls (which sample 1000 people at most).

Apologies for it being not only FROM the ABC, but BY the ABC (but the opinions are those of the population - it's just the cunning way the ABC manipulated them into answering the questions the way the ABC wanted them answered). Pardon my sarcasm, but under the circumstances
What Australians really think about climate action - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Originally Posted by crowie

Interesting facts on "Rising Sea Levels"

Attachment 468244

As a Dehydrated Hydrographer, I'll leave it to Alex to cast an expert opinion on that ahem, half-page "paper". In the interim I think I'd be more likely to trust someone with a nasa.com email address rather than 4/6 people with the same surname and a Bigpond email address.

You say you are wary of people with an agenda to push to justify their own end, so we'll have to see if the Fitzhenry clan have one.

Originally Posted by crowie

BUT it's an ABC News thing......

You mean the pdf you posted? Firstly, you need to provide a link if that's the case (in the interest of full disclosure and context), and secondly...I have never said that I place unfailing trust in the ABC (if that is what you are driving at). As I said yesterday, most of the time the ABC is reporting other scientists etc so it's not whether or not the ABC is to be believed, but rathermore the scientist or whomever they are reporting on.

Originally Posted by crowie

Interesting facts on "Rising Sea Levels"

Attachment 468244

Thanks Peter. I'm tend to be pretty sceptical about this type of thing, especially if it's an individual not backed by a major institution. Scientific rigour is everything in my book and anybody who fudges figures should be ostracised.

I looked up the monthly BOM records for Fort Denison. Firstly that bloke is quite wrong. The 1914 average was not 1.111, only May 1914 was. They started recording Fort Denison data in May and took 8 monthly readings that year resulting in an average of 0.925. He claims 2019 at 1.05 but its actually 1.006. I imagine sea levels at any given period are a function of temperature, humidity, el nino, la nina etc. and the data is statistically very noisy.

I was disappointed to hear Jim Molan, speak about "scientific opinion" on Q&A. It's not opinion, it's fact. I'm still waiting for some credible scientific evidence from the deniers.

mick

Originally Posted by Glider

I looked up the monthly BOM records for Fort Denison. Firstly that bloke is quite wrong. The 1914 average was not 1.111, only May 1914 was. They started recording Fort Denison data in May and took 8 monthly readings that year resulting in an average of 0.925. He claims 2019 at 1.05 but its actually 1.006. I imagine sea levels at any given period are a function of temperature, humidity, el nino, la nina etc. and the data is statistically very noisy.

It definitely looks "noisy" when plotted on a graph. Here is all available records from Fort Dennison graphed. There is a visible rise over the 100+ years.

Monthly sea levels for Fort Denison (Sydney) - 1914 to 2019

Originally Posted by Glider

I was disappointed to hear Jim Molan, speak about "scientific opinion" on Q&A. It's not opinion, it's fact. I'm still waiting for some credible scientific evidence from the deniers.

This. Glider is right.

Science isn't an opinion.

It is the seeking of facts.

I fail to understand how CCD's can accept all other areas of our life that involve science as good/acceptable/right, yet be so sceptical on this single area of study? Medicine (more than fine! Its keeping half of you alive and sane), Biology (food preservation), Genetics (food! Disease prevention!), Physics (your microwaves, digital watches and the damned computers you are typing on)...

Worse, CCDs aren't being asked what they THINK. They are being TOLD a fact.

Its data. Hard, calculated, verifiable data.

What I don't understand, truly... really truly, is why CCD's are so violently opposed. It won't affect them, really. It wont generally cost them a job. It wont make their lives WORSE. I simply don't get it.

If the rest of us a wrong, so what? What harm have we done by... planing more trees, increasing solar, wind and other energy sources, reduced pollution from coal and petrol, being more economical with our resources... WHAT FRICKIN HARM IS THERE?

Oh, and there is this: What Australians really think about climate action - ABC News


edit 1: There is one reason for CCD's to deny this so utterly... They are terrified. Utterly existentially terrified, filled with dread that "we" might be right.

Their world views, centres of understanding, religion, moralities, assets, social circles and ability to cope are fundamentally challenged.

It isn't CC that they are denying - they are denying their ability to cope. To understand. To conceive of something different... or worse, make them redundant.

This isn't about the planet, or humanity, or society - its about themselves.


edit 2: Here is a Wikipedia article that discusses denial and what it means: Climate change denial - Wikipedia

Quite right, woodpixel!!

I'm going back to the shed...

mick

As I have said before, the climate has been changing ever since the planet had one. Nobody seems to be denying this. Of course human activity has had an impact on this particularly over the industrialized time. We are a very large part of the makeup of the planet and our influence is obvious everywhere.

What I do not get in this whole discussion in this thread is why it is so important to a few members here that all and sundry are of the same opinion as they are on the subject. The whole thing has become more heated and pointless than a religious war.

I have been treated as a pariah after being accused on no evidence of being a climate change denier for saying the climate change has been going on forever but neglecting to also say in the same paragraph that man is complicit in its acceleration. I also did not say that Canberra is the capital city of Australia so I guess that means I don't believe that either?

I really think it's time some people had a good look at how they are responding to others' opinions and not get all caught up in the hype surrounding what is of course a very important issue.

If someone is not as passionate about the issue as you are, or for that matter even if they have a different point of view (and yes you can have a different point of view without being in denial, their opinions are no less valuable than yours. Some are showing exactly the sort of intolerance as they are claiming the CCD;s are giving them. If the entire matter was as cit and dried as some are making out then the solution would be obvious and would have been put into place already. This has not happened so obviously there is room for debate over different ideas.