The Forum > Article Comments > Bureau caught in own tangled web of homogenisation > Comments
Bureau caught in own tangled web of homogenisation : Comments
By Jennifer Marohasy, published 15/9/2014The Australian Bureau of Meteorology now acknowledges that they change the temperatures at most, if not all, the weather stations that make-up the official station network from which national temperature trends are calculated.
- Pages:
- ‹
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Page 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- ›
- All
Posted by DavidK, Wednesday, 17 September 2014 6:28:43 PM
| |
DavidK
Do you concede that 1. relying on logical fallacies invalidates an argument? 2. appeal to absent authority is a logical fallacy? Yes? No? Come on, don't run away when faced with total defeat. Please answer my question: If it’s true that I can prove you categorically wrong and you either can’t or won’t answer questions that prove it, what negative consequence will you accept? Sign over your house? What consequence? Surely if the planet is going to become uninhabitable it's got to be worth something if I can show your beliefs cannot be rationally justified? It would be a relief to you wouldn't it? - that is, if your beliefs are falsifiable? Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Wednesday, 17 September 2014 8:20:11 PM
| |
Back to the beginning.
Jennifer, in her original posting, said: "The Australian Bureau of Meteorology now acknowledges that they change the temperatures at most, if not all, the weather stations that make-up the official station network from which national temperature trends are calculated." and: "But why even bother with the homogenisation when there was no good reason in the first place to apply it to Rutherglen?" ".. now acknowledges ...." Ridiculous, wrong, and presumably deliberately so. See this paper: http://www.stat.washington.edu/peter/593/Trewin.pdf Titled: "Exposure, instrumentation, and observing practice effects on land temperature measurements" which details why and when homogenisation is required. And it was published in 2010. A couple of minutes googling found this. Perhaps Jennifer is not capable of such sustained research. If serious, Jennifer could prepare a rebuttal to that paper, and submit it to reputable journal. Rutherglen now has an Automatic Weather Station, which has probably not been there for Jennifer's period of interest. At the switch to the AWS, there would most probably have been a step change in temperature records - ample reason for homogenisation Posted by Tony153, Wednesday, 17 September 2014 9:30:45 PM
| |
JKJ gets bonus points for using the term "logical fallacy" twice in succession.
(That's quite a feat even for JKJ who likes to stick to his script - and "logical fallacy" always has a starring role) "Appealing to absent authority" is also a hackneyed favourite of his... Nice to see it wasn't left out of his latest spiel. "Come on, don't run away when faced with total defeat..." He knows nothing about climate...but likes to trot out his usual - and then to crow triumphal. Fascinating.... Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 17 September 2014 10:23:19 PM
| |
Poirot is not a climatologist and therefore according to her own standard lacks the competence to make any comment on the entire subject.
Note her last post: 1. openly ridicules the idea that demonstrated irrationality invalidates the warmist belief system, and 2. tells us nothing about climate 3. consists of nothing but back-bites unrelated to any substantive issue. So we are still left with Tony and DavidK not having established any problem, and just assuming that pointing to temperature data establishes their argument for them. Poirot, Tony, DavidK, What would you accept as disproving your beliefs in support of global warming policy? Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Wednesday, 17 September 2014 11:47:14 PM
| |
Dr Karl Kruszelnicki, another ignorant lefty loony posts an article on the 16.9.14
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/09/16/4088609.htm Posted by markjohnconley, Thursday, 18 September 2014 7:00:14 AM
|
I understand where you are coming from but this is neither the place, nor do I have the time or space, to burst your bubble.
You can huff and puff as much as you want here (your believers just love it).
However, there are more appropriate forums to make your case and for it to be reviewed and tested.
You knew that anyway, right. So why here on an opinion site?
It doesn't matter that you're retired - be a co-author with Stockwell if you like - Jennifer too, what a bonus!
Try here:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/%28ISSN%291467-9868/homepage/ForAuthors.html
or here:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/%28ISSN%291467-842X/homepage/ForAuthors.html
Seriously, if you (or Jennifer, or David) really think you are on to something, have a go!
If they knock it back, try a few journals on climatology, meteorology or atmospheric physics - you might get lucky.
Seriously Bill, preaching to your acolytes here is one thing, but you have to get your stuff reviewed by real peers, not OLO believers.
It's not that hard, really. Think of African Love Grass and Fireweed.