You people are incredible.

A month ago the bureau forecast was for a 30% to 40% chance of above average rainfall. May be they don't understand their systems.

Since then we have had 14 inches, 3 times average. There is nothing on their website to explain this.

I don't complain about this, either, just the rubbish when they claim to know it all.

I have made a pretty serious study of meteorology. Being a BSc, a pilot, spending 6 years sailing a yacht 53,000 miles around the pacific, & another 8 years having to decide by 5.30 each morning, wether to send hundreds of tourists out to the reef in boats can do that too you. Hell, the airforce, & the navy even trained me in the stuff, using reall life professors, although not too well, I will admit.

I just get offended when some "scientists" tries to tell me they know about 4 times what they really do know. I'd cut them a lot more slack, if they just came clean sometimes, & admitted how little they really do know.

Quanda

Thank you for the bom link. many happy times ploughing through it.

And you expect hasbeen or contrarian to read this? You're either incredibly naive or have a wry and mischievous sense of humour.I'm opting for the latter

Getting any of the current assemblage of contrarians to actually read something more than 700 words would be an achievement. For them understand it would be stupendous enlightenment.
OLO has taught me that either stupendous and/or enlightenment are a foreign concepts to many of the contrarians.

If religion was not allowed in politics the Greens would not exist. To bad many are to blind to see that.

Unlike runner's imaginary friend, the environment really exists.

The greens may or may not have the right policies to protect it.

Unlike the ignorant, and (if his god exists) ungrateful runner, the greens might prefer not to lay waste to all of it as soon as possible.

Stuff you runner.

Read any real references for yourself yet? Just passing on quotes from books pastor reads for you? Thought so.

Rusty

Hasbeen sadly the scientists 4 times more than they know is ten times more than you seem to. :-)
Your overly simplistic black and white understanding is your problem not theirs.

Hasbeen, you've convinced me ... you are.

Climate is NOT weather, GET IT?

It was YOU who said your question has nothing to do with AGW, GET IT?

Weather is extremely difficult to predict, even weeks out, GET IT?

Climate is averaged weather over decades, GET IT?

"There is nothing on there website to explain this".

Bollocks. You just can not comprehend.

Right, you "have made a pretty serious study of meteorology. Being a BSc, a pilot, spending 6 years sailing a yacht 53,000 miles around the pacific, & another 8 years having to decide by 5.30 each morning, wether to send hundreds of tourists out to the reef in boats can do that too you. Hell, the airforce, & the navy even trained me in the stuff, using reall life professors, although not too well, I will admit.

I just get offended when some "scientists" tries to tell me they know about 4 times what they really do know. I'd cut them a lot more slack, if they just came clean sometimes, & admitted how little they really do know."

Hasbeen, we don't know everything - but we do know a lot more than you think we do. If you had bothered to look at ANY of the referenced papers, you would have seen that qualifier in words to that effect.

_____

Rusty, this is what science is up against:

http://catchthefire.com.au/blog/2009/10/31/one-world-government-is-almost-here-lord-monckton-of-british-house-of-lords-on-youtube-video-and-2gb-radio-interview-with-allan-jones/

Runner has mates, read some of the comments - no mention of politics of course.

____

examinator

Yes, I do expect sceptics to read and understand this stuff - they are sceptics after all (please, don't answer that).