It ain't gonna rain no more, how in the hell can the greenies know, it ain't gonna rain no more? Well they can't of course, & quite obviously, neither can the "no rain until the end of May" weather bureau. It really is hard to believe that they can actually claim, with a straight face, that one little molecule, a minor trace element in our atmosphere can do so much.

Currently they are claiming it caused a more than year long drought, followed by 2 months of fire, followed by a huge rain event. Looked on in that context it is obvious they are not rational, & those silly enough to go along with them are not much better.

They are telling us that, not even counting the fires it is supposed to totally control our rainfall, like a light switch.

It is supposed to have restricted us to just 19 inches of rain in 2019, then turned on the tap, & dropped 22 inches in the last month. I guess it is possible to think Mr O could be silly enough to believe such foolishness, & perhaps Paul, but SR, no way. He obviously has an ore in the action somewhere. Come on SR, do you sell solar panels, or perhaps windmills, or perhaps write impact statements. There has to be a quid in there somewhere for you.

My dam that was down to 50mm is overflowing, the river that was dry for 3 months has flood warnings on it, yep Australia as usual, no need for a fictitious effect of a trace gas, just our wide brown land the ratbag greens want to take from us.

My son is off next door, winching the neighbor out of where her Range Rover is bogged in her driveway. Guess she'll have to get a couple more loads of gravel in there during the next drought, ready for the next big wet, CO2 or no CO2.

Hasbeen,
please quote where the Bureau of Meteorology said it wouldn't rain till May, otherwise I'm calling this post a bald-faced, dumbarsed, denier tinfoil hat lie.

But hey, climate science is ONLY endorsed by every National Academy of Science on the planet. It's not my fault daft old codgers on the internet think they know better than ACTUAL SCIENTISTS!

Meanwhile, in the real world...

"Average global temperature 2.5F above 20th-century average. Antarctic has begun February with several temperature spikes"

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/13/january-hottest-earth-record-climate-crisis

Wind dries the land ! Evaporation creates precipitation !

The same people who were squealing for a drought 'emergency' to be declared are now squealing for a flood emergency to be declared. There are no climate emergencies in Australia: every thing the climate does is normal- part and parcel of our country. Anyone not realising this is either very young or is suffering from amnesia.

Let me help you out there, Hassie...

Max rants "please quote where the Bureau of Meteorology said it wouldn't rain till May, otherwise I'm calling this post a bald-faced, dumbarsed, denier tinfoil hat lie."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7778895/Australian-forecasters-warn-no-significant-rainfall-six-months.html

Apologies are due but don't hold your breathe.

Its funny isn't it. These people use their models to predict the next six months and get things utterly, laughably wrong. Yet there are a whole army of drooling alarmists who think these same models can be relied on to tell us what things are gunna be like in 80 years time.

They call this science. No really...stop laughing..they really believe it.

Yeah, the same retards contribute incoherent rants and disprove what exactly? Antarctica DIDN'T have it's hottest January on record? CO2 doesn't trap thermal energy? Every National Academy of Science on the PLANET suddenly hasn't verified AGW?

Also, ttbn thinks he's being clever confusing weather with climate. Dude, your tiny little brain needs to grab a dictionary and look up the 2 words "weather" and "climate".

Then, when you've mastered these kindergarten level words, realise that the atmospheric physics allows 5% more water to be carried for every degree warmer the air gets. In other words, more DROUGHT in some areas as weather systems MOVE and water vapour whisks more water AWAY faster, but it also means more DUMPING DELUGES in other areas. Famine and flood!

If you think climate change is over because some of the worst droughts on record have been ended by some very serious floods, then you're even MORE retarded than I thought. Go back to preschool, this is the big boy's room. Grab a dictionary!

You guys are jokes, but no body's laughing. In fact, rational adults just shake our heads and wince that you share the same country and someone let you VOTE!

I can not know Max Green, if you are merely another useful idiot, or one of the smarties making a quid out of the global warming scam, but I can guess. It is doubtful anyone but a useful idiot would quote such a discredited propaganda sheet as the Guardian, but I guess if you are desperate enough, any prop will do.

The Guardian is in the same category as James Cook university of proven cheating organisations who will do anything to turn another quid. Our once highly regarded scientists are now tared by the same brush that so called climate scientists have been caught out so many times to cover their lies.

Don't you remember the "hide the decline" fabrication. Any group who could stand by & let such barefaced lies be published as truth are proven to have no morals, & nothing they do ever again can be trusted.

No Max we don't think climate change is over, it will never be, what we don't think, but know with certainty exceeding 97% is it has nothing to do with that sweet essential little molecule, CO2.

Hasbeen,

I think it would be safe to leave off the adjective 'useful' when describing the idiot.

[Deleted for abuse.]

"You people are such dumbarse gullible twits it really makes me embarrassed to be an Australian".

Just imagine what sensible Australians think about you, Maxy.

Dear mhaze,

Just for the sake of the exercise please show me a direct quote from anyone from the BOM in the article.

Hasbeen,

Do people in your town refer to you as 'That crazy old man'?

No direct quotes SR. Why?

Are you suggesting the various ministers at the briefing got it all wrong? That the BOM didn't say what they were said to have said. Well presumably there's evidence of them setting the record straight, eh? Somewhere....Bueller, Bueller.

There's plenty of other articles on the WWW about this. Perhaps you could check some of them out to set your curious mind at ease. But you'd better hurry...these inconvenient facts tend to get 404'd pretty quickly.

The BOM had a nice little lady with a Chinese sounding name on one, [probably all], of the evening news programs telling the world rather forlornly that there was no prospect of even moderate rain to help with the bush fires before the end of May.

I don't watch the rather useless rubbish that is produced by TV news rooms, or read newspapers either for that matter, but must have been passing through the lounge room at the time.

My immediate thought was that the BOM was challenging fate rather with such a pronouncement, particularly as their predictions of rain particularly are usually wrong at more than 48 hours.

What the hell do you Greenies do at night, this pronouncement was on all the TV channels my lady watches for a couple of days.

The BOM has trouble getting daily forecasts right. The most useless government department; easily replaced by a cheap barometer and a look out the window.

Mark Twain said: "Everybody talks about the weather but nobody does anything about it."

I bet he had the AGW/CC denialists in mind when he said that.

I bet he thought that one day there would be a whole bunch of people who refuse to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence.

Dear mhaze,

Do try and get all slippery again mate. It's getting really tiresome.

Hasbeen put in quotation marks this supposed quote from the BOM; "no rain until the end of May".

Max Green rightly challenged him with “please quote where the Bureau of Meteorology said it wouldn't rain till May”.

You leapt to Hasbeen's defence saying; “Let me help you out there, Hassie..” and providing the link below;

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7778895/Australian-forecasters-warn-no-significant-rainfall-six-months.html

The thing is there is absolutely no quote from the BOM saying "no rain until the end of May" is there. What it did report second hand was that the BOM's prediction for Australia as a whole was;

“Australia is set to swelter for another six months before its next significant rainfall, forecasters have warned”

Hasbeen got called out. You got called out. And you both really need to apologise for yet again misrepresenting the facts.

Standard operating bullsh!t from SR.

Parse a sentence to its very limits and then claim errors.

1. The Hassie quote was correct. It was from the article.
2. There was a meeting in Moree where the BOM told ministers from around Australia that there'd be no rain of any significance for 6 months. That was in December. If you get a calculator and ask a 10yr old for help you'll find that 6 months takes us to May.
3. BOM got it wrong. Manipulating the odd word here or there doesn't change that.

But SR has so many ways to ignore things he doesn't want to be true that its really hardly surprising when he ends up leading himself up the garden path. If your first response to any unwanted data is to find a way to ignore it, you'll rarely end up with a full understanding of the facts.

“Australia is set to swelter for another six months before its next significant rainfall, forecasters have warned”
And said forecasters were wrong. Utterly, laughably wrong. And their models were wrong. Utterly and laughably wrong.

mhaze,

When are you going to fix the weather? This is all your fault you know!

First, climate is 30 year averages.

Weather is what happens next month.

Climate can predict STATISTICAL changes, but weather ATTEMPTS to predict which roll of dice those changes happen on. (Which month.)

So pointing at an incorrect WEATHER prediction and sneering just shows how utterly incompetent the SNEERER is, and is to be ignored as it likely the sneer of the raving lunatic.

However, the BOM actually said: 12 Dec 2019

_______________________________________
The rainfall outlook for January to March suggests only small areas of the southeast and northeast are likely to be drier than average, with some small scattered areas of the northwest likely to be wetter than average. However, much of Australia has roughly equal chances of being wetter or drier than average for January to March.

While outlooks for drier than average conditions may ease heading into 2020, several months of above average rainfall would be needed to see a recovery from current long-term rainfall deficiencies.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ahead/outlooks/archive/20191212-outlook.shtml

Dear mhaze,

Oh dear. Really?

You keep wilfully conflating “not rain” with “no significant rain”. They are not the same thing. Hasbeen wanted to gild the lily and you defended him.

You claim “The Hassie quote was correct. It was from the article.”. Wrong. It was from some clickbait title which for the Daily Mirror is par fro the course.

The article was published on the 10th of December 2019. Here is the longer term outlook from the BOM published on the 11th of December.

Quote

While the remainder of December is likely to be drier than average for the NT, Queensland, eastern SA, NSW, Victoria, Tasmania and southwest WA, the rainfall outlook for January 2020 suggests the area of drier conditions will contract to small parts of the east, including Tasmania.
The outlook for the fortnight covering the Christmas–New Year period (23 December to 5 January) suggests drier than normal conditions for much of the eastern two thirds of the continent. 

The rainfall outlook for January to March suggests only small areas of the southeast and northeast are likely to be drier than average, with some small scattered areas of the northwest likely to be wetter than average. However, much of Australia has roughly equal chances of being wetter or drier than average for January to March.

While outlooks for drier than average conditions may ease heading into 2020, several months of above average rainfall would be needed to see a recovery from current long-term rainfall deficiencies.

End quote

Pretty well spot on.

How does that equate with the click bait title from the Daily Telegraph?

See what a difference is when you are prepared to quote directly from the source without the need to sell newspapers.

Grow up mate.

Yes SR,

I'm very aware of the BOM's penchant for making every prediction and then sitting back to see which one turns out to be true, then claiming that was indeed their actual prediction.

The fact remains that they went in a conference with government officials and ministers and fed them the same scary scenarios they force-feed the alarmists on a regular basis. And those predictions were wrong. Utterly and laughably wrong.

If you did any checking you see that it wasn't just the the DailyMail (you said Telegraph but I'm used to you getting it wrong) but any number of news sources. But now you're claiming it was all wrong and it wasn't what the BOM rooly trooly believed. So show me where they set the records and the various governments straight.

For anyone who has followed this whole saga for any time, this is pretty standard. Issue super-scary stories about how dire things are so as to achieve the propaganda aims, and then, when the stories fail to eventuate, pretend to have never made such predictions....oh and hope fellow cultists will forget in a big hurry the error.

Dear mhaze,

Whatever.

Dear Max Green,

Beat me by two minutes. Amazing how far these guys will run with something which is so easily checked.

rational adults just shake our heads and wince
Max Green,

So, what do you rational thinkers propose to stop the present trend in all things Climate ?
Deny three billion people the comforts & frivolities of life that you thinkers enjoy ?
Please tell us !

So we now have new BFFs...SR and 565gtMax. Safety in numbers, eh?

I've always thought that part of the reason so many people fall for the We'reAllGunnaDie story is that they've been conditioned to think that that's what the majority think and these people are desperate to be in the majority.

So fellas, did the BOM representatives tell the various governments there'd be no significant rains til May? SR has already conceded that point and Max.... (well it is Max).

Were they right? Is all the flooding a mirage?

They were wrong, weren't they fellas? That they made other contradictory predictions doesn't make these erroneous ones better. It just makes them (BOM) more suspect.

Case closed.

These idiots pull their weather predictions out of a hat.

Has this fire event taught us anything?
If we backburn we'll increase the likeliness of rain?

Weather predictions will fail if the system is too chaotic, if there is insufficient data, or because of governing factors that are not understood and consequently not part of the modelling. Maybe the bushfire smoke has had an influence on rainfall. If it were known to be the case then it might be possible to replicate the effect of the smoke without the need for catastrophic fires. From what I read the catastrophists would rather have the bushfires as many of them are convinced that such action would provoke their gods to an apocalyptic rage.

18 degree's C in Antarctica. Massive iceberger snapping off. 43 C evaporation has to be at an all time high. So why wouldn't it rain.
Victoria with tropical storms. Cyclones lurking off the lower east coast. Hailstones the size of footballs. Power outages or surges. This weather is very complicated.
If you think this is normal i fear for your thoughts for what is abnormal.
Our govt needs the Abbott treatment, his tenure is going downhill faster than Hasbean's mind.

We can always benefit from better understanding the world, but how does "It's climate change." enhance our understanding? My concern is with an ideological dogma that pushes unfeasible and economically damaging "solutions" whilst excluding scientific research and technological development which could be beneficial in their own right. The climate debate has ceased to be about scientific research and technological development. It has been hijacked by radical ideologists, and that raises a red flag for me.

Cheers

With all this foaming-at-the-mouth raving about the 'hottest year ever' and 'unprecedented', 'catastrophic' bushfires, no mention has been made of the actual, fair dinkum low temperatures in Adelaide - mid twenties daily - in the middle of summer.

A recent cartoon in the media had a climate nutter lecturing to an audience, 'Remember, a week of low temperatures is a cold snap, but one hot day is a heat wave'. The hysterics and scare-mongers have no credibility at all.

More rain and the creek is a banker, climate change in action!!

A climate denier walks outside and feels cold, grabs his jumper, and sneers “So much for global warming.”

A climate denier walks outside and sees rain drowning his town and sneers “So much for the drought!” without once bothering to read the news that the NSW drought isn’t over, much less the whole of Australia!

The BIG falls were mainly coastal. From the ABC:-

>>"In NSW, the big irrigation storages of Hume, Wyangala and Blowering and Burrinjuck have largely missed out on any big inflows. Tony Webber from Water NSW said although there was extensive rainfall, "almost nothing made it into the dams".
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-12/when-will-the-drought-end/11937468

A few small areas flood, but Australia's a big place.

This drought's not over yet boys and girls!

Think about Australia as a great big continent 4000km wide, not your little patch of the woods.

Try reading the following BOM prediction for what it is, a prediction about the WHOLE of Australia, with the WHOLE of NSW and Victoria and Queensland (areas larger than most countries in Europe) covered in short phrases like “Eastern Australia.”

From the BOM 2nd January 2020 Climate Outlook:-
>>January rainfall is likely to range from average to drier than average in eastern Australia, while average to wetter than average conditions may occur over much of WA and SA.
>>In February this pattern is likely to weaken, and although there remains a slight dry signal in parts of the east, much of the country shows no strong tendency towards either wetter or drier than average conditions for February to April.
>>Days and nights are likely to be warmer than average for much of Australia from January through to April.
>>The positive Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) has weakened, with most climate influences now neutral.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ahead/outlooks/archive/20200102-outlook.shtml

Again, if you check the ABC map, most of Australia is STILL IN DROUGHT or has had only MINOR RELIEF!
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-12/when-will-the-drought-end/11937468

Keywords for climate Deniers to read in the dictionary:
WEATHER,
CLIMATE,
RECORD AS IN ‘RECORD DROUGHT 2019’, and of course
MYOPIC as in ‘He was myopic and thought his Shire portrayed the world.’

Come on Fester. If they don't have enough information to make even moderately accurate predictions a few days or weeks in advance, how the hell can they claim to have any idea decades & even centuries in advance, for gods sake.

Incidentally, how do you think a bit of smoke over the Tasman sea changed the Indian ocean dipole way out south of Indonesia? Still it's an interesting thought, natural cloud seeding may be better than silver iodide or dry ice, which doesn't appear to work that well.

Those vermin filled national parks just may become useful after all. We could light a couple when ever a drought became a problem, & bring on some rain, or a flood.

Incidentally, that river flooded high enough to put a foot of water over my bottom paddock. This is only the 3Rd time in my 28+ years here it has done that, although it & the 90s flood of similar height were 5 meters lower than the 2017 effort, the highest in living memory.

Interesting isn't it, that Dorothea Mackellar, a teenager in 1904 could make better predictions in her poem, published in 1908, than the weather bureau in 2019, super computer, satellites & all

I am sure the warmist search the internet each day for a weather event they think confirms their hopelessly flawed narrative. You would think the warmist would crawl in a hole with each failed prediction. Instead they dream up new insults for anyone exposing their pseudo science and failed predictions.

runner,

And I am sure that you, Hasbeen and all the other AGW/CC denialists have your noses stuck in the bible looking for the truth. Why? Because you are devoutly religious people who explain their world by recourse to God.

HASBEEN,
>If they don't have enough information to make even moderately accurate predictions a few days or weeks in advance,
They DID make even moderately accurate predictions.
The majority of Australia is STILL in drought!
Don't you know how to read?

>how the hell can they claim to have any idea decades & even centuries in advance

You didn't do your homework, naughty boy!

Keywords for climate Denier schoolboys to read in the dictionary:
WEATHER,
CLIMATE,
RECORD AS IN ‘RECORD DROUGHT 2019’, and of course
MYOPIC as in ‘He was myopic and thought his Shire portrayed the world.’

INDIVIDUAL

>So, what do you rational thinkers propose to stop the present trend in all things Climate ? Deny three billion people the comforts & frivolities of life that you thinkers enjoy ? Please tell us !

I have, but you didn't read it the first time.

This is the Ecomodernist Manifesto.

http://www.ecomodernism.org/manifesto-english

It has been co-authored by many of the world's top scientists, climatologists, biologists, and leading thinkers in civilisation.
http://www.ecomodernism.org/authors

It basically proposes accelerating the roll out of modern nuclear systems to power the world, modern agricultural production to feed the world, and that once a world of maybe 10 billion by 2050 has all we need to eat and be educated and empowered to enjoy a modern lifestyle, the global population will stabilise due to a worldwide demographic transition. But it all starts with clean energy, which WILL have to happen anyway because fossil fuel resources ARE finite and MUST be replaced with sustainble clean energy sources that can power us for hundreds of millions of years. The fact that climate change is REAL only makes this more urgent than peak coal anyway.

Australia has enough uranium to run the world for the first few centuries is just an added bonus for us, I guess.

Mr Opinion,

Those that believe in God and an afterlife shall never be disappointed.

Hasbeen,

Meteorology is an applied science of probability, not of certainty. I mentioned a possible influence on the weather. That does not negate other influences.

Max,

As you know, the error of a prediction increases with increasing time frames, even if it is made by top scientists. Making predictions about the world in fifty or a hundred years might have entertainment value, but it is wasted as an intellectual exercise. Certainty is the present day. I think it far more sensible to focus efforts on present problems rather than make bad decisions for the present in the belief that you are mitigating problems you may face in decades hence. The bushfires are a strong example of why that is a bad idea.

Cheers

At my first lecture of my meteorology course, the prof walked in & said, "now chaps, I'm going to prove to you that meteorology is not the dry boring subject you all think it is". "You will find it not so boring the first time you get your little aircraft caught in a thunder storm, & besides if you can point up at a great big cumulonimbus cloud, name it & correctly predict a thunder storm, because you understood the effect of the approaching cold front you saw on the weather map, the girls are mightily impressed". I liked him from that moment.

I never did find the latter statement was correct, but his approach certainly made the subject more interesting. It was very useful when I was running tourist boats in the Whitsundays. With a little local knowledge added I could see from the mornings weather map, if I should take a couple of hundred land lubbers 48 miles out to the reef, or cancel that day.

It also gave me the understanding to forgive the Bureau when they got the landfall of a cyclone wrong by 48 hours, causing me to sail right through it, fortunately in moderately sheltered waters.

However, all that is weather, not the scam that is so called climate science.

'Because you are devoutly religious people who explain their world by recourse to God.'

yes Mr O and you devoutly irreligious people explain the world by fantasy and denial. Have the fools found the missing link yet or are still continuing to revise your text books. No wonder you have adopted the gw religion when you are naïve enough to have swallowed the evolution myth.

Thank you runner.

HASBEEN,
The Garnaut report predicted 2019 spot on, discussing statistically drier, hotter weather, but not *predicting* when that weather would fall across 2019 - because exactly when is not climate, but weather. See the difference?

Again, look up:

Keywords for climate Deniers to read in the dictionary:
WEATHER,
CLIMATE,
RECORD AS IN ‘RECORD DROUGHT 2019’, and of course
MYOPIC as in ‘He was myopic and thought his Shire portrayed the world.’

"The United States saw the largest decline in energy-related CO2 emissions in 2019 on a country basis."

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/report-us-led-all-countries-reducing-co2-emissions-2019

If you don't support fracking, you aren't serious about emission reductions.

Runner & Mr Opinion,
I live in Sydney's bible belt, and most of the Christians I know are Theistic Evolutionists. There's simply no reason for Runner to fear evolution or old earth sciences like climatology. There is a long history of recognising that early Genesis Chapters 1 to 11 was written as a borrowing Ancient Middle Eastern cosmology as metaphor for making theological statements, not literal ones. It’s a theological polemic, correcting the theology of surrounding creation narratives. EG: Genesis 1 contains the theological bombshell that God made the stars to tell us the seasons and basically serve *us*, and not us to serve the stars! Keep in mind that the Jewish thinker Philo read early Genesis as literary, not literal, and that was 2000 years ago.

Reading Genesis literally is a modern American (and Queensland) fad. Many of Darwin's friends were Anglican Reverends, and they encouraged him to publish “On the origin of species”. http://www.publicchristianity.org/the-history-of-creationism/

Trashing Genesis by appealing to *science* is simply missing the genre. It's a category mistake, like debunking Shakespeare with appeals to cosmology. For example, if you read, "But soft, what light through yonder window breaks? It is the east, and Juliet is the sun!" hopefully you don't react "Boo! Boo! Juliette is *not* a giant ball of fusing hydrogen!"

Dr John Dickson, Phd in history and theology, explains further.
"To put it starkly but no less accurately, even if science ended up proving that the universe was created in six days around 6000 year ago, this happy correspondence between the scientific data and the surface structure of Genesis 1 would not affect my interpretation of the text at all. I would still insist that the opening chapter of the Bible does not aim to teach a particular cosmic chronology and that to suggest otherwise misconstrues the author’s original intention."
http://www.iscast.org/node/268

mhaze,

After you have posted your comments do you take a minute out to pray and thank God for his guidance? Because we all know that you are a deeply religious man.

MHAZE,

We can do vastly better than fracking! That's just enhanced oil recovery, and as we have already seen oil is finite and about to peak.

Nuclear + EV's = ZERO emission energy sector.

(When I say Electric Vehicles above as well as cars I also have in mind trains and trams and electrically derived oil alternatives like the synfuels in e-diesel, etc. If it's not running on a battery, it's running on nuclear or renewable derived synthetic e-fuel that we manufactured from clean energy.)

Yup. Pretty much zero, even from the embedded energy in the energy infrastructure capital hardware! When we replace the diesel used to mine stuff with e-diesel, and the coking coal with hydrogen as reductant, we can have pretty much CO2 neutral manufacturing. There are even proposals for CO2 negative concrete using seaweed in the chemical processes of manufacturing concrete. (See Tim Flannery's "Can seaweed save the world?")
http://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/saving-the-oceans/

Climate: the most boring, old hat subject imaginable. Dorathea MacKellar was writing poetry about it in 1904. Since then, the climate has been up and down like a yo yo - just as she described it. Yawn.

ttbn,

Shouldn't you be in church?

'I live in Sydney's bible belt, and most of the Christians I know are Theistic Evolutionists. There's simply no reason for Runner to fear evolution or old earth sciences like climatology.'

I assure you Max I don't fear the evolutionary theory. It is simply unscientific and irrational. Probably most church goers believe 'Theistic Evolutionist'. They simply throw away what can be observed naturally to fit in with the crowd to avoid critism. Its kind of ironic that now the global warming high priest use exactly the same tactics on those demanding science as the evolutionist have done to those who believe in creation. They ridicule, mock and sneer. Why? Because their theories/religion is hopelessly flawed. No sane person could believe the something from nothing farce (big bang) pushed by god deniers.

John Dicson would not hold the position he does if he taught the truth of Genesis. Yep much of the church is as much part of the problem as the answer. You should know how academia works and the Anglican church is no different.

runner,

If you are happy having a religious view of the world then so be it. You're not alone. Hasbeen, ALTRAV, mhaze, Loudmouth, individual, LEGO, Alison Jane, and the other usual suspects are all in the same boat.

Opinion,

"..., and the other usual suspects are all in the same boat."

Possibly not all, but I know that I will never be disappointed in the Christian teachings, especially about life after death and the rewards of Heaven; just think a moment and apply some logic and you will see that I am right.

';You're not alone. Hasbeen, ALTRAV, mhaze, Loudmouth, individual, LEGO, Alison Jane, and the other usual suspects are all in the same boat.'

Mr O

several of those you mentioned I doubt very much have 'religious views'. In fact in the past both Loudmouth and Lego have both vehemently disagreed with my faith in the book of Genesis and Jesus Christ. I can't speak for them all.

What I do know is the climate change faith is not scientific and extremely illogical and everything that can be observed defies it. IN other words you live by pseudo science/irrational faith.

"and as we have already seen oil is finite and about to peak."

Oil is always "about to peak". Has been about to peak for the last century. It never quite gets there though. Anyone who understands economics understands why...the rest, not so much.

Yes oil is finite. At current usage we'll run out of the stuff in 2000 yrs or so. Oh the humanity.

Of course, anyone who thinks we'll still be using oil in major quantities in 100 years just hasn't been paying attention to the last 300 years of innovation.

Nuclear isn't emission free..,,on a whole-of-life calculation it emits about 140g of CO2 per kwh. Lower than most power sources but not zero.

Ditto EV transport. Research the emissions related to mining rare earths to see how dirty the creation of these batteries really is.

Yes mhaze Peak oil is another fantasy of the global warming fraudsters, & the elites who despise the ordinary folk, & want to put them back in their box. For so long I was silly enough to trust academics to tell us the truth, I am ashamed of my self.

In the 70s I was sailing around the Pacific islands & the fantasy had me dreaming of commercial sail making a comeback.

In the 80s I was breeding horses, show jumpers, & the same fantasy had be thing working horses might have a place after motor transport.

In the 90s we were making quality products of solid brass, & thought peal oil might reduce the competition of cheap plastic products. Instead the quality & volume of oil based plastic improved so much there wasn't much room for old fashioned brass quality.

The lying scammers will keep it up, until we jump on them, or they destroy the best civilisation yet developed.

Mhaze,
Nuclear isn't emissions free? Seriously? That's it? No scientific paper justifying why? You usually argue better than that and have me checking source documents: I'm disappointed. I actually had to define my terms and be careful with you the last few engagements. This isn't up to your usual standard!

But yeah, nuclear has some low amounts of Co2.
I already know why. Embedded energy.
The power plants are being made in a dirty economy.

But as we clean up the grid and generate alternative fuels for low emissions trucking and cleaner mining methods, we'll release less CO2.

Even better, after we build out this generation of reactors which could last 60 to 100 years (for just $130 billion for the whole of Australia for 80 to 100 years of clean reliable zero carbon power), by then we'll have perfected BREEDER reactors.

Once those babies are deployed, the 'nuclear waste' from a century of regular reactors will run Australia for ages. Breeders get 60 to 90 times the energy out of each bit of uranium. A century multiplied by 60 to 90? You get the picture. We could shut down uranium mining for a loooooooooong time!

That's even cleaner energy!

Max,

"No scientific paper justifying why? "

Surely you realise that I lost interest in providing you with links, papers, research etc after you categorically refused to look at evidence I offered because it was correlated by people you didn't like.

If you didn't/don't know that on a whole-of-life basis nuclear has emissions roughly equal or double (depending on who's doing the calculations) that of solar and half that of natural gas, then you really haven't looked into very thoroughly.

This information has been available for a long time now although the proportions change over time. But I really don't have the energy or desire to do your research for you.

Mhaze,
blah blah blah "I can't be bothered to link to scientific papers" blah blah.

You completely failed to demonstrate a reasonable adult understanding of the SOURCE of the CO2 emissions in nuclear, and I don't have to converse with an infant troll on this any more. Goodbye.

"blah blah blah "I can't be bothered to link to scientific papers" blah blah."

You put that [I can't be bothered to link to scientific papers] in quotes. But I didn't say that.

You really do struggle with even the simplest level of truth, don't you.

But somewhere in there, mainly through omission, we see an admission that nuclear isn't emission free, as per his original assertion.

So job done.

I have to spell it out for you with grown-up words, don't I?

"Nuclear power reactors do not produce direct carbon dioxide emissions
Unlike fossil fuel-fired power plants, nuclear reactors do not produce air pollution or carbon dioxide while operating. However, the processes for mining and refining uranium ore and making reactor fuel all require large amounts of energy. Nuclear power plants also have large amounts of metal and concrete, which require large amounts of energy to manufacture. If fossil fuels are used for mining and refining uranium ore, or if fossil fuels are used when constructing the nuclear power plant, then the emissions from burning those fuels could be associated with the electricity that nuclear power plants generate."
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/nuclear-power-and-the-environment.php

Exactly as I said above.

The ONLY emissions come from building clean nuclear in a dirty energy economy. As nuclear starts to clean up that economy, the future emissions will vanish.

"Exactly as I said above."

Well exactly as you said above AFTER I'd pointed out that your original assertion was rather lacking in truth.

It seems to happen a lot, Max. You make some outlandish assertion, ('do the maths'), I point out it's rubbish, you then adjust your claims to something less outlandish and assert you were always right.

Look, I'm not opposed to nuclear. I'm not opposed to any form of power generation. I am opposed to undue government intervention and cherry-picking in said power generation. I'd prefer that the market determine the most efficient and cheapest power facilities whatever that may be. Right now its coal, gas and nuclear. But all suffer from government restrictions.Equally the least efficient and most expensive are so-called renewables, which luxuriate in government subsidy.

My view is get rid of the subsidies. Get rid of the restrictions. And let the market-place work it out.

That view is coloured by my knowledge that we ought not be worrying about emission levels.

Nuclear power is zero emissions and a whole lot better than fracking - period.

> I am opposed to undue government intervention and cherry-picking in said power generation.

As the climate emergency is real and governments have a duty of care to their citizens, the intervention is entirely DUE, not undue, and in fact with this particular right-wing denialist government's inattention of the last decade is entirely OVER-DUE!

Max Green,

You better watch out for these AGW/CC denialists. I hope you're aware that they are all religious nut jobs.

Opinion,

Some of us may be religious nut jobs but I note that you have nought to say to refute my claim that my belief in Christian teachings and life after death will not lead to disappointment, and I even offered a logical explanation, but you, it seems, can only offer willful unsubstantiated opinions and no logical argument.

Well, I know too many people that are religious from different traditions and faiths that:-
A/ Are quite sane
B/ Accept climate change
...so unless someone like Runner has specifically come out as a Young Earth Creationist, there's no reason to target their faith as a reason they don't accept climate science or are particularly nutty. The Catholic Church has officially accepted it as a concern, and various Protestant and even Islamic and Buddhist traditions have all accepted climate science.

I don't know why these guys can't?

Also, Runner has specified that many of the participants have attacked him for being a Christian so it's a bit too simplistic to say they are "all" religious nut jobs.

Basically, long metaphysical debates is not why I'm here.

oh now I get it Max.

You know (or now know after I pointed it out) that nuclear plants emit enormous volumes of CO2 when looked at as a whole-of-life issue.

But you've created this little fantasy world where nuclear is thorough emissions free and have now convinced yourself that that fantasy world is reality. Well good luck with that.

Mhaze,
1. Nuclear power plants THEMSELVES don't emit CO2. CO2 is only emitted when combusting fossil fuels or wood or whatever, not when fissioning atoms!
2. It's the CONSTRUCTION OF nuclear power plants that emits CO2.
3. CO2 is only emitted because the nuclear power plants are constructed in a dirty energy economy.
4. When future nuclear plants are built in a future nuclear economy, where is the CO2 coming from?

Mhaze, I'm concerned. Normally your powers of comprehension and debate are better than this. Are you unwell? Overtired? Have a nice warm mug of milk and an early night, and come back tomorrow. Maybe then the lightbulb will go off.

Max,

Don't worry about me...I still live in the real world. You know, the world where all the inputs to nuclear power result in emissions. Not the fantasy world where all those emissions magically disappear due to the judicial application of unicorn powder and fairy dust.

Ah, the real world...You should join us some time.

"You know, the world where all the inputs to nuclear power result in emissions."

Yaaaay, MHaze finally grew up and admitted it!

As I said two days ago:-

> But yeah, nuclear has some low amounts of Co2.
> I already know why. Embedded energy.
> The power plants are being made in a dirty economy.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=9074#299690

Good for you Mhaze! It only took 2 days, but you got there! Now all we're waiting for is for you to grow up a LITTLE bit more and admit the next bit of what I said 2 days ago.

>But as we clean up the grid and generate alternative fuels for low emissions trucking and cleaner mining methods, we'll release less CO2.

Also, if you live in the real world, then vastly lower emissions than fracking must also be a priority because in the real world climate change is a thing.

Also in the real world? France. They mass built nukes with 1970's technology and now have some of the most reliable low emissions power in Europe.

But fission itself? No. Sorry pal. Fission doesn't produce CO2. It's not combustion, but uranium particle splitting resulting in 2 slightly smaller atoms, where a tiny amount of the mass is converted into energy. The old E = MC2 kicks in, meaning that your WHOLE LIFE could be powered by 1 golf ball of uranium.

Once we HAVE a 100% nuclear grid and nuclear-powered transport system the next generation of EVERYTHING we build will be zero emissions.
By then I'm pretty sure we'll have zero emissions concrete from seaweed and / or other sources. Those industrial chemists sure can crack one thing into another!

Because you're struggling, I'll let the World Nuclear Association help you.

"Nuclear power plants produce no greenhouse gas emissions during operation. Over the course of its life-cycle, nuclear produces about the same amount of CO2 equivalent emissions per unit of electricity as wind3."

If you look at the graph here, you'll see that nuclear is 12 grams CO2 per kwh, where natural gas (fracking) is about 40 times worse at 490 grams CO2 per kwh. Coal is 820.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/nuclear-essentials/nuclear-energy-and-climate-change.aspx

So while we're here I'll just correct your retarded claim that nuclear has 140g = only exaggerating 11 times hey? Why is that mHaze? ;-)
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=9074#299671

Once again, you just shoot your retarded mouth off without even checking the BASICS at the wiki!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#Carbon_emissions

Why is that Mhaze? Why do you have such a bad case of Dunning Kruger's, and try to spank me down with your bold assertions that all turn out to be not only wrong, but at least an order of magnitude wrong? A factor of 10 or more!?

Basically, what's wrong with you that you can't even shut your mouth till you've read the basic bleeding wiki?

You still have dodged the real question Max.

How the hell does CO2 cause a drought this week, a bush fire next week & a flood the week after.

Do try to give some valid reason, none of this airy fairy bulldust, but some solid scientific explanation.

If you can't do that, please stop boring us with bulldust.

Incidentally I don't give a continental damn what is used to generate my electricity, as long as it comes at the lowest price. It will have to have some beneficial side effects, like fertalising the flora & greening the planet to win the contest.

Max,

It started with you asserting (evidence free) that "Nuclear + EV's = ZERO emission energy sector"

I then pointed out "Nuclear isn't emission free".

You then complained I haven't offered any "scientific paper justifying why?"

NOW you're asserting that indeed nuclear isn't emission free and proclaiming that " It only took 2 days, but you got there!"

Dear oh dear Max. Is it that you just hope that I won't point out your cant or do you really struggle to follow the flow of a thread.

Of course its all a storm in a teacup. I don't oppose nuclear or solar or gerbils on treadmills or whatever. I just oppose boosters who are happy to simply distort the facts in support of their favoured form of energy production.

On a side note...which country led the world in reducing emissions from energy production last year? Research it...but if the research doesn't result in the answer being Trump's USA, you did it wrong.

HASBEEN,
you're really really starting to bore the hell out of me.

The Garnaut report predicted 2019 spot on, discussing STATISTICALLY drier, hotter weather for longer periods, but not predicting WHEN that weather would fall across 2019.

Statistics are climate.
Exactly when something happens is weather.

Again, look up:

Keywords for climate Deniers to read in the dictionary:
WEATHER,
CLIMATE,
RECORD AS IN ‘RECORD DROUGHT 2019’, and of course
MYOPIC as in ‘He was myopic and thought his Shire portrayed the world.’

You REALLY NEED to know what the difference between climate and weather! Lately I've been wincing every time you post. I try not to look!

But to try and break down a long subject into shorter soundbytes:-
climate change increases BOTH droughts and floods as:-
1. It makes some weather systems move
2. Warmer air can get 'wetter', moving more water vapour from where it is drying (drought) to increase dumping deluges somewhere else (flooding). Famine and flood both increase.

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2881/earths-freshwater-future-extremes-of-flood-and-drought/

Mhaze,
maybe if you had thought more about what the following formula actually meant, you would have held your tongue and shut your mouth and held in your Dunning Krugers.

"Nuclear + EV's = ZERO emission energy sector" IS TRUE in that everything done from that moment on is emissions free. Every new nuke and car and tree cut and table transported is emissions free, at least as far as the energy it took to do those things. (I'm not discussing semantic games like land use CO2 changes or other things when we cut down trees, as you'll probably want to debate like a little pissant totally missing the main point - I'm talking about the ENERGY used to do these things.)

But instead of accept the truth that fissioning forward doesn't produce CO2, you want to quibble over the past energy it took to build the nuke, even when that's only 12 g / kwh.

It's not my fault you embarrassed yourself by lying and stating it was 11 times worse! Whatever. You're a pissant, and can't be trusted - especially when you're all pissy and got your knickers in a knot.

Hot is cold, wet is dry, these people trying to justify their ill begotten income from the global warming scam expect us to believe the idiotic. Max you are a fraud just like CO2 caused global warming scam.

You & SR trying to pretend the BOM no rain until may didn't happen, even after it was all over TV radio & print highlighted your desire to make fraudulent statements so much that you make fools of yourselves, if you think you can get away with it.

Sorry mate, back to conman 101 for you.

" You're a pissant, and can't be trusted - especially when you're all pissy and got your knickers in a knot."

From the great Christopher Hitchens..."I always think its a sign of victory when they move on to the ad hominem".

I'll accept the victory and move on.

These weather people belong at the Mad Hatters ball.
C'mon seriously no rain till May?

Seriously I don't know what happens where you people live in Australia;
- But where I live, at the end of summer every single year we get a decent downpour over 2 or 3 days that marks the end of summer.

Every year, without fail.

"I always think its a sign of victory when they move on to the ad hominem."

I dunno, just the look of some people makes me want to 'ad hominem'
Maybe they were holding back the entire time just to be polite.
I wouldn't necessarily call being abused a victory.

If you want, I could help you to become an even bigger winner?
Only thing is I don't necessarily go out of my way to 'ad hominem'
And I don't even have anything against you mhaze...

Hi Armchair,
except if you bothered to read what the BOM actually said, you'll find Hasbeen really is a Hasbeen and is full of it, once again.

He cannot define the difference between weather and climate.

He cannot understand that even in a radically climate changed world, there will be periods of rain after long droughts.

Record breaking droughts.

Record breaking fires in areas where they don't usually burn, especially with that intensity.

And then we have close to record breaking rain!

D'uh! (slaps hand to forehead).

Add onto this the fact that Hasbeen DIDN'T find a BOM source that said ANYTHING like "no rain till May" and you've got a glimpse of how utterly retarded the trolls in here are.

From the BOM 2nd January 2020 Climate Outlook:-
>>January rainfall is likely to range from average to drier than average in eastern Australia, while average to wetter than average conditions may occur over much of WA and SA.
>>In February this pattern is likely to weaken, and although there remains a slight dry signal in parts of the east, much of the country shows no strong tendency towards either wetter or drier than average conditions for February to April.
>>Days and nights are likely to be warmer than average for much of Australia from January through to April.
>>The positive Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) has weakened, with most climate influences now neutral.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ahead/outlooks/archive/20200102-outlook.shtml

THAT is what they said!

But whenever you show these absolutely retarded dumbarses that they're wrong from the official sources, they say "Oh everyone knows TV media blah blah blah!" But that's because these rejects are listening to right-wing shock-jocks like Alan bloody Jones! D'uh! Good job guys, you really showed me! ;-) No really! ;-) Great sources guys, I'll go off and lick my many (non-existent) wounds!

MHAZE:
Hey, Mhaze, want to take that victory do you? Boy, you must be desperate, given I caught you lying to the list about something as basic as how many CO2 emissions / kwh nuclear is 'supposed' to emit. You only exaggerated it by 11 times! (Dumbass.)

But really, fission doesn't emit ANY emissions, does it?

What we're looking at is an accounting trick to spread out the CONSTRUCTION emissions into the OPERATION emissions. But really, there are no operation emissions. NONE! ZERO!

Because, fission, right? You do know what that is? Fission = atom splitting, not combustion? Are you with us?

See, it's just an accounting trick. People want to know figures like CO2 emissions per kwh, and include the life cycle analysis of the steel and concrete etc for wind and nuclear in that and spread it out over to get an hourly basis.

But what we can confidently say is that a 100% nuclear + EV (& other synfuel) civilisation would have NO *energy* emissions moving forward. None. Sure there would have been CO2 in building that world, but the moment we shut off the last coal mine, gas pipe, and oil well, is the moment energy finally becomes clean and sustainable and CO2 neutral. It's when our skies clean, our geopolitics stabilises and we stop making deals with countries that don't like us very much, the oil wars stop, the cancer rates reduce, and our climate stabilises.

And all these Denial-tards can do is sneer? One has to wonder what serious psychological problems and life challenges they have to ignore all the many OTHER benefits of solving climate change.

Hey Max Green,

I'm more of a practical person, and I don't want to cut my nose off to spite my face;
- That is I won't support shutting down coal plants before a better alternative comes online.

I don't care about emissions any more than I care about rolling blackouts.

"Sure there would have been CO2 in building that world, but the moment we shut off the last coal mine, gas pipe, and oil well, is the moment energy finally becomes clean and sustainable and CO2 neutral."

I can't argue with what you're saying, it holds merit.

I think there would likely be some CO2 cost in waste disposal;
but more importantly what they'll do is reprocess that waste into ammunition and radiate some country until the people living there (the ones that weren't killed by the wars) have all kinds of birth defects etc.

I don't like that idea, it goes against my ethics that
'everyone has the right to live however they choose so long as it doesn't have a negative and detrimental effect on others.'

I can support the power generation side of things, but I'm not sure I can support the waste side of it.
I'm not sure that I even support them putting the proposed waste facility in on native land against the native peoples wishes.

Ideally I'd like a win with Alan B's thorium and mox reprocessing type of ideas as a preference, but I'm not necessarily opposed to nuclear in principle.

I think the nuclear industry on the whole is extremely shady.
There are some SMR's however that look pretty good though.
http://www.nuscalepower.com/

HASBEEN,
I'm really not sure what you intended to convey in your rant but you just sound a bit unhinged right now. According to your 'logic' every National Academy of Science on the planet are in on a 'conspiracy' and the basic laws of physics have been faked since Eunice Foote in 1856. Seriously, seriously unhinged.

As for all your Denialist "authorities" I have only one thing to say.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiYZxOlCN10

" given I caught you lying to the list about something as basic as how many CO2 emissions / kwh nuclear is 'supposed' to emit. You only exaggerated it by 11 times!"

Well I can't let the "lying" accusation stand.

There are any number of estimations about how much each of the forms of energy production emit in a whole-of-life scenario. I used one of the more informed estimates. Max found another lower one.

But given his proven incompetence about numbers (I don't call him 565gtMax for nothing) Max thinks only the number he found is correct and that any deviation from the one true value is a lie. He has no understanding of estimations and ranges and MoE's. Totally above his head.

My number isn't a lie just as his number isn't a lie. They are just different estimations of the same issue. Max won't comprehend that.

But, nonetheless, nuclear does involve the GHG emissions, contra Max's original assertions.

" (Dumbass.)"
More ad hominems = More winning. Thank you.

So much for Hasbeen's whole premise!

___________________

More than 99 per cent of the state remains in drought, despite record rainfall in Sydney which will see the desalination plant switched off next month and water restrictions wound back.

As Sydney recovers from the worst drought on record, the situation is still "diabolical" for most of the state, in what is likely to create tensions in the Coalition ahead of the May budget.

Data presented to the government this week shows 99.4 per cent of NSW is still in drought, with about one-third in the highest category - "intense drought".

Discussion about how it will take YEARS for the agricultural & grazing sectors to recover even if the drought did break!

http://www.smh.com.au/politics/nsw/drought-remains-diabolical-for-most-of-nsw-20200218-p541yo.html

Hey Mhaze,

>”Well I can't let the "lying" accusation stand.”

All you have to do is cite your source, not make rubbish up.

It’s that simple.

In the meantime, for your edification…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiYZxOlCN10

hi Mhaze,
I'm still waiting for you to prove you weren't lying.

Hi Hasbeen,
If the rest of NSW doesn't get any rain in the next few months do we join with The Daily Mail and declare "It ain't gonna rain no more!"?

Or are you too intellectually dishonest to admit that most of the state IS STILL ACTUALLY in drought!?

Now droughts are new to Australia. UNPRECENTED, What a joke!

see the 1970's scare from the Great Barrier Reef has been rehashed yet again. Yawn!

Hi Runner,
It’s not THAT there are droughts – that would be an absurd statement – and is a particularly sad little straw-man from a sad little science denier.

It’s the undisputable mathematics of measurable DAYS WITHOUT RAIN across large regions that is ‘RECORD-BREAKING’ and ‘UNPRECEDENTED’.

One is a strawman. One is science. See the difference?

It’s the same with the Great Barrier Reef – there have been other bleaching events – but this time it's the magnitude.
http://theconversation.com/the-great-barrier-reef-has-been-bleaching-for-at-least-400-years-but-its-getting-worse-101691

Actually bothering to point this stuff out makes me feel dumber for wasting my time on you!

MHAZE - YOUR SILENCE CONVICTS YOU.

So now we know, It's max the greenie, not Max Green.

We have a radical ratbag, who I'll bet actually believes even the proven garbage from James Cook & the rest of the ratbags in Townsville.

Won't waste any more time there.

Ah, personal insults rather than admit the truth that most of the state is STILL in drought Hasbeen? Honestly, I was hoping to be wrong. NSW agriculture is being hit BAD!

"Drought not broken
Even after significant, widespread rain, 99 per cent of NSW remains drought affected.

The latest data from NSW Department of Primary Industries showed 23.5 per cent of the state is suffering intense drought.

Dam levels across western NSW remained low"

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-21/river-flows-replenish-critically-needed-supplies-in-western-nsw/11983444

Anyway, because the whole opening premise of this thread has been utterly destroyed by these inconvenient things we call FACTS, and because Hasbeen has just taken to laughably petty ad homs at my user name, what was the expression....?

"I'm taking that as a win!"

Why bother with them Max? All they post is opinion. Lacking any substantive reference how can anyone take them seriously. Most of their posts are very narrow sighted anyway.

I know that the drought is not broken by a long shot but the good news is that around here everything is green.
Driving from Glen Innes to Inverell yesterday afternoon it rained all the way and at three places there was water over the road and as I was driving into it it wasn't just a heavy shower that was going the same way as me; once it was so heavy that I was going to stop as it had overwhelmed the wipers but it eased off a bit so I didn't need to pull off the road.

Nice for you and your area.

But what does that mean in terms of statistical relevance to this thread?

I know I shouldn't bother, but here goes.

Max the weather bureau, when they said no likelihood of significant rain before the end of May were speaking in terms of rain to help with the bush fires. The statement was there will not be rain to help the fire fighters. Anyone who did not hear this must live in complete isolation

They were not talking about western NSW, & made no comment regarding rains in that area, but it is fair to assume that it would not rain in that area, without rain on the coast.

Low & behold, with in a week the northern bushfires were drenched, & in only another week the southern fires were spluttering under lots of rain.

Simultaneously greeny ratbags were screaming the rains were a curse, as they would cause floods & erosion, filling the rivers & dams with fire residue. Can a greenie ever be happy, except when they are destroying someones livelihood?

I know I shouldn't, but I am starting to feel sorry for fools like Max & Mr O. It must be dreadful living with a head so full of so much hate & garbage, it is impossible for them to see anything clearly, even the truth.

The latest Newspoll reveals that only 35% of respondents blame climate change for bushfires (that's about the percentage of the ABC audience), but 56% blame lack of hazard reduction. Another rebuff to the likes of Minority Max.

Max,

No statistical relevance whatsoever, just thought that I'd share the good news.

I think the only thing that is UNPRECENTED is the dumbed down media along with the pseuso scientist who keep pushing the gw lie. To think that still over 30% of people believe the recent bushfires were a result of burning coal is probably not surprising as of many of our illerate teachers prefer to show Al Gore movies than teach kids to read and write. The UNPRECENTED belief in such nonsense surely shows the UNPRECENTED dumbing down of society. No wonder we are behind Kazacstan in schooling.

Sorry but I skim read you Hasbeen because I didn't see any links to any official sites: just your own 'opinions' and 'logic'.

You just dismiss everything I've linked to from the OFFICIAL BOM site because ... [insert tinfoil hat here.]

Am I correct? I didn't actually read a word, I was just looking for what official links you used. I didn't see any. Not a good sign.

Was I right or was I right?

I knew I should not bother trying to talk to an arrogant peanut greenie who thinks the only way of discussing any thing is appeals to authority.

How's the weather up the garden path where you've been led these days?

Meanwhile, anyone that respects climate science knows climate is about 30 or so year statistical averages and that *everything* that's happened is pretty much right on track.

Sadly, most of the state is *still* in record drought!

Sadly, there are *still* some bad fires out there.

Sadly, a warmer atmosphere is a wetter atmosphere which also means more flooding.

Sadly, climate change means contradictory things or "global weirding" as some climatologists put it: increased droughts and famines and fires but also increased floods. Look it up: they've said it all along.

But eeewww, I went back and read your post Hasbeen!

"Max the weather bureau, when they said no likelihood of significant rain before the end of May were speaking in terms of rain to help with the bush fires."

Ha ha ha ha, oh you make me laugh! Now it's all about putting the fires out! Except you didn't mention in this in the first post or pretty much till now!

Show me where *they* said that!

BTW: I'm not ashamed to appeal to authority when they're a scientifically backed organisation keeping reputable scientific data and reporting as accurately as they can on a chaotic scientific phenomenon like micro-climate forecasts.

But I'd be pretty darn ashamed if I outright *lied* about what an authority said, put it on record in a forum, and then couldn't verify my claim! That you call it an appeal to authority when I show what *you* said they said is wrong by showing what they *actually* said... well, you're just embarrassing yourself now.

I'm not appealing to authority: I'm debunking your false strawman appeal to authority!

Now about those quotes!

I've already shown you mine: how about you show us yours! ;-) Oh, that's right, you don't have one! ;-)

Finally it looks like some rain is on the way for much of central Queensland and NSW!
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-04/bom-says-ex-cyclone-esther-to-bring-more-rain-to-drought-areas/12024184

Not that it's a problem for climate science as:-
1. There's a difference between climate and weather, and Hasbeen has yet to demonstrate that he understands that difference.
2. Hasbeen is yet to quote an actual BOM source that said "It ain't gonna rain no more."
3. I've quoted BOM sources that said the opposite about this period, see above posts!
4. Who you going to trust - a tinfoil hat wearing climate denier or the findings of every National Academy of Science on the planet?