Thanks Max, that's conclusive evidence, and it should read Rhode Island Red, not Road Island Red, different chook! I refuse to argue with the deniers, its lunacy, its like trying to argue with the flat earth people wearing their tin foil hats. I'm sure when it comes to denying climate change is real, there are a few on this forum wearing the same hats.

Dear Hasbeen,

Come on old cock, put up or shut up as they say in the classics.

You tell people "if you bothered to look at the records yourself".

Well just give me the station number you got your figures from and I will do just that.

Easy.

Hassy,

I wouldn't concern yourself too much. Here we have people who preen themselves that they follow the science when in fact that have very little understanding of the actual science and effectively no understanding of the societal implications of their ignorance.

They've been told to believe a certain story about the climate and they, being used to follow-the-leader type thinking, just accept that it's true. Let's remember that Max is the bozo who fell hook, line and sinker (and perhaps the anchor too) for the claims about a carbon budget of 565gt while in fact having no understanding of how the figure was derived and how invalid it was. He just wanted it to be true and that was good enough....for some that is following the science!!

Or ask him about RCP8.5! His misunderstanding of that most important of modelling scenarios is still the funniest thing I've ever seen on these pages.

The fact is the science is no longer the issue. The warmists have moved beyond trying to make their case since they can't. Instead they are just steam-rolling their desired changes irrespective of the science.

BTW, has anyone noticed that according to most temperature records, world temps have declined in the last 7 to 8 years while CO2 continued to rise? Best ignore that, heh?

Dear Hasbeen,

Didn’t think you would cough it up and a quick google search has revealed why.

Your weather station was BEAUDESERT CRYNA, Bureau of Meteorology station number: 040014.
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=139&p_display_type=dataFile&p_stn_num=040014

Its records go from 1887 to 2012.

And indeed they do show a figure of 1726.5mm of rainfall for 1893 and 434.2 for 1919 just as you said.

There is a slight problem though. A more modern station was installed 6kms to the north to replace the old one. It is called BEAUDESERT ALERT, Bureau of Meteorology station number: 040939.
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=139&p_display_type=dataFile&p_stn_num=040939

Its records go from 2002 until current which meant there was 10 years of cross over data to calibrate the two. The data is still italicised as BOM have yet to quality control it.

But as it stands the driest year on record was 2019 with 426mm and the wettest was this year at 1755mm.

Yet you had claimed: The results are now in, & 1893 is still the wettest year in my district, south of Brisbane, since records began. 1726mm still holds the record.”

Sure there might be a correction once the BEAUDESERT CRYNA data goes through a quality control procedure and calibration, but as it stands it seems you have been caught with your pants done and left looking like a bloody muppet.

Any explanation?

Dear mhaze,

The above was following the science and the data rather than Hasbeen’s earlier attempt to corrupt it.

Look and learn old chap.

As to world temperatures declining over the last 7-8 years do you have a source for that or are you going to do a Hasbeen and try and wing it with bulldust?

I shouldn't bother with you brain washed clowns but my 1893 record is from Tamborine House, which is very similar to Beaudesert. This year is from my very own rain gauge, just 900 meters from Tamborine house.

I gave up bothering with BOM when they started "corrections" it alter old records, & delete old records that don't suit the narrative.

This year is from my very own rain gauge, just 900 meters from Tamborine house, in Cecil's chook pen!