Whats a greater threat to Australia Climate Change deniers or terrorists?

Remove this Banner Ad

The Y2K bug, the ozone layer, the crown of thorns starfish, windmills to replace coal, the oceans are rising, throw the smaller fishes back and take the big breeding fishes home for dinner, salt is evil, so are eggs, AIDS is not related to homosexuals, smoking will send you blind and cause your toes to fall off... it’s endlessly illegally misleading and deceptive nonsense, yet it all has legal dispensation.
Global warming proved a load of old frog droppings, so now it’s “climate change”. CLIMATE CHANGE for God’s sake? What sort of meaningless title is that? Well, it’s a very sneaky title because every regular, climatic catastrophe could henceforth be attributed to, yes, wait for it... CLIMATE CHANGE!
Click to expand...
https://www.facebook.com/permalink....633955062&id=236991276355038&substory_index=0

Thank Christ not every one believes the s**t that is spewing out of the pinko lefties ;)
 

Log in to remove this ad.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2015/s4319361.htm

TONY JONES: First of all, is it true that Tony Abbott tried to set up a taskforce to investigate whether the Bureau of Meteorology had exaggerated estimates of global warming?

GREG HUNT: Look, the question was raised with my department by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. I'm honestly not sure of the provenance of that. My answer was very clear: we have perhaps the best or one of the best meteorological organisations in the world. I have full confidence in their data and the idea was killed at that point.

TONY JONES: Evidently, the idea was inspired by News Limited reports claiming the Bureau of Meteorology was, quote, "Wilfully ignoring evidence which contradicts its own propaganda." Now was there any evidence at all as far as you were concerned that the reports of the Bureau of Meteorology were propaganda?

GREG HUNT: No. And I've had full confidence in what I think is a world-class organisation which is based on hard science, hard data, literally millions of points of information through our satellite and our local monitoring. And I reaffirmed that and an idea which came to my department from another department was killed off, and frankly, my view was crystal clear. There was no need for such a review because there had already been the periodic normal review which found that their practices were sound, scientific and of the highest calibre.
 
Maggie5 said:
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2015/s4319361.htm

TONY JONES: First of all, is it true that Tony Abbott tried to set up a taskforce to investigate whether the Bureau of Meteorology had exaggerated estimates of global warming?

GREG HUNT: Look, the question was raised with my department by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. I'm honestly not sure of the provenance of that. My answer was very clear: we have perhaps the best or one of the best meteorological organisations in the world. I have full confidence in their data and the idea was killed at that point.

TONY JONES: Evidently, the idea was inspired by News Limited reports claiming the Bureau of Meteorology was, quote, "Wilfully ignoring evidence which contradicts its own propaganda." Now was there any evidence at all as far as you were concerned that the reports of the Bureau of Meteorology were propaganda?

GREG HUNT: No. And I've had full confidence in what I think is a world-class organisation which is based on hard science, hard data, literally millions of points of information through our satellite and our local monitoring. And I reaffirmed that and an idea which came to my department from another department was killed off, and frankly, my view was crystal clear. There was no need for such a review because there had already been the periodic normal review which found that their practices were sound, scientific and of the highest calibre.
Click to expand...


Hunt thinks we are stupid. If the BOM was proven to be squeaky clean then it would strengthen the support for action.
Nothing to do with News, that is a strawman.

Questions for the BOM

The BOM Technical Advisory Forum report is out. Finally there is the black and white admission that the BOM “adjusted” dataset cannot be replicated independently, has not been replicated by any other group, and even more so, that the BOM will not provide enough information for anyone who wants to try.

As we have said all along, the all new ACORN wonder-data was not created with the scientific method. Adjustments to Australian temperature data were done with a black box mystery technique that only the sacred guild at the BOM are allowed to know. Far from being published and peer reviewed, the methods are secret, and rely on — in their own words — a “supervised process” of “expert judgment” and “operator intervention”. In other words, a BOM employee makes their best guess, ruling in or out the “optimal” choices, making assumptions that are not documented anywhere.

It’s a “trust us” approach. Would we let an ASX company audit their own books? Would you buy shares in such a company, or let it inform national policy on billion dollar schemes?
Click to expand...
 
lol :D

Joanne "Jo" Nova (real name Joanne Codling) is an Australian writer, speaker, former TV host, anti-science presenter and a professional wingnut. She maintains a blog which regularly regurgitates debunked climate denial myths, making her the poor Aussie's Ian Plimer or Andrew Bolt. The site also has on its header the highly ironic phrase "Tackling tribalist groupthink." She has also written a handbook called "The Skeptic's Handbook," a brief pamphlet that reads like it was copy-pasted from another denialist site without the slightest whiff of actual research and peppered with pretty pictures.

The handbook concentrates on a few of the greatest hits, including: Satellites and weather balloons showing no warming (they do); the Oregon Petition "debunking" the scientific consensus (it doesn't); carbon dioxide lagging, not leading temperature change (ignoring Milankovitch cycles and feedbacks); the carbon dioxide effect being saturated (it isn't); and bad weather station siting (relying on the self-debunked work of Anthony Watts).

In between regurgitating debunked climate myths, she often posts non-sensical fiscal arguments; then breaks into a general bitching session about anything including the denial crowd pleaser, the Gore bash fest.

She downplays the funding she and other denialists receive from the Heartland Institute and the Science and Public Policy Institute.
Click to expand...

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Joanne_Nova
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Ripper said:
If they have nothing to hide then they should welcome an inquiry.
Click to expand...

right. because you guys accepted the outcome of 7x inquiries into so-called climategate. why should institutions/scientists have to constantly submit to politically-motivated attacks on their work?

I bet you don't believe that "people with nothing to hide" shouldn't fear mandatory data retention of their internet usage?
 
Long Live HFC said:
right. because you guys accepted the outcome of 7x inquiries into so-called climategate. why should institutions/scientists have to constantly submit to politically-motivated attacks on their work?

I bet you don't believe that "people with nothing to hide" shouldn't fear mandatory data retention of their internet usage?
Click to expand...

Those inquiries would have had more weight if they actually interviewed the complainants as you well know.

What's internet usage got to do with it? Oh a unicorn.
 
Ripper said:
Fair enough , at least I spent a couple of years of spare time checking the figures to prove up my partisan bias.
Click to expand...

with all due respect (and correct me if i'm wrong)- don't you think that climate scientists fudged the numbers to 'hide the decline'? pretty sure you said that last time we talked about it. if that's an example of your "checking of figures", then it leaves a lot to be desired.
 
Long Live HFC said:
with all due respect (and correct me if i'm wrong)- don't you think that climate scientists fudged the numbers to 'hide the decline'? pretty sure you said that last time we talked about it. if that's an example of your "checking of figures", then it leaves a lot to be desired.
Click to expand...

Your wrong, I spent 2 years analyising the adjustments to W.A. stations.
 
Have done many times in the past , over it now.
Here's one for you ,try to work out how the BOM got a 1.6 Deg / 100 years warming trend out of 2 essentially flat 50 year records.

hchomog.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Seeds
Australias tax system takes from the young to give to the old
2
Replies
36
Views
1K
Syd
Syd
Aristotle Pickett
Australian politician ‘sold out’ to foreign regime after being recruited by spies, Asio boss says
5 6 7 8 9
Replies
211
Views
6K
Rob R
R
QuietB
Inequality is out of control in Australia
2 3 4 5
Replies
115
Views
5K
Saint
Saint
CakeEater
New Immigration changes
Replies
6
Views
740
Carringbush2010
Carringbush2010
Geoff
The Joke that is the West Australian Liberal Party
2 3
Replies
59
Views
3K
blueboy25
blueboy25
nut
Labors Super changes
11 12 13 14 15
Replies
372
Views
11K
Kwality
K
Ohitsthatguy
Is it cool that Stokes, Murdoch and Costello own Australian media?
2
Replies
40
Views
2K
Gethelred
Gethelred

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top