The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > You don't know the half of it: temperature adjustments and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology > Comments

You don't know the half of it: temperature adjustments and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology : Comments

By Jennifer Marohasy, published 28/9/2015

The resulting catastrophic flooding of Brisbane is now recognized as a 'dam release flood', and the subject of a class action lawsuit by Brisbane residents against the Queensland government.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All
If the undertakings given by the romantics to the rationalists; maintaining the existing approach toCO2 emissions to secure their support of the assassination, the rationalists should be at least a little concerned.

Because of the comments and demeanour of the Environment Minister Greg Hunt – firmly on the alarmist side of the ledger.

Firstly, why the necessity to boast that it was he who convinced the government not to investigate of the Bureau of Meteorology “adjustments” to the historical temperature record which to be generous, have not been well explained?

Is Hunt attempting to court favour with his fellow alarmists, soothe the offended bureaucrats at BOM or something else?

Secondly, isn’t there are a shred of concern from a party who expresses an appreciation of our current financial position, that the billions of dollars committed to changing the temperature,; should have a demonstrably scientific basis in terms verifiable scientific data?

BOM’s adjustments can reasonably give rise to suspicions when their effect is to reverse the contradiction between the observed temperature data and the models – the pause – at a time when it’s becoming particularly difficult for the alarmists to pretend it doesn’t exist.

It might well be that the adjustments can all be properly rationalised and the timing is coincidental.

If so, what’s the problem?

Why this this constant hysteria at the mere mention of the observed data?

Surely warmies and their propagandists in the establishment media, would relish an opportunity to rub the sceptics noses in a finding which validates an alarmist position?

Not a costly exercise financially – particularly comparable to what we are and will spend on this alleged future disaster.

It all just seems a little strange to me.
Posted by DionysusOz, Monday, 28 September 2015 2:09:14 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Jennifer, a great article. Ironically, the BOM are probably cutting their own throats. Your analogy of pedophilia and the church is very appropriate.
Posted by Wattle, Monday, 28 September 2015 7:33:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have been following this with interest for sometime.
I do not know whether a Royal Commission would be the best body to take
all this apart, but we have Royal Commissions and other types of enquiries
where a lot less money is at stake. It is not billions that will be
spent on global warming but over some years TRILLIONS !
If we do not get it right it will send us stoney broke.
It likely will send us broke if we do get it right !

My particular concern is that we need to urgently find a new energy
system no matter what happens with temperature.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 28 September 2015 11:14:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jennifer frankly I could not care less whether the data for Rutherglen is a bit iffy. The fact that globe has lost so much ice over the past 40 years, and particularly the last 10 years, should be clear enough evidence for even the most die hard skeptic that the globe warming is real.

http://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/global_ice_viewer
Posted by warmair, Tuesday, 29 September 2015 10:17:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
1. Read this sentence.
"For the true believer, it is too awful to even consider that the Australian Bureau of Meteorology could be exaggerating global warming by adjusting figures"
2. Looked at author name.
3. Read no further. Denialists just can't get a grip on reality.
Posted by Max Green, Tuesday, 29 September 2015 10:28:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Great riposte Mr Green #sarc The Global Warming Trolls used to complain that the skeptics (what you term deniers) weren't publishing in the peer reviewed literature. The assumptions were that they weren't good enough to do science, and that the peer review literature was always right.

Now you have an author who is skeptical and has published her skepticism in the peer reviewed literature, and all you can do is sneer.

How about you engage?
Posted by GrahamY, Tuesday, 29 September 2015 11:55:34 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy