# wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 8:28pm:


are you even aware that the IPCCs 95% confidence factor was a complete fabrication???  they simply made it up with zero supporting data.  given the complete and utter failure of all the climate models and all the predictions, the confidence level should have DROPPED

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 10:53pm:


quite the contrary.  he (and I) are merely saying 'prove it' and you have demonstrably failed time and time again.  It is not being a 'denialist' to expect proof and evidence to support a claim.  you on the other hand are a CLIMATE GULLIBILIST

Bam wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 8:14am:


that climate change is a more than recent event?

here's how (aprox) 80% of Australians surveyed feel about 2013 temperatures...

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 7:18am:

I don't have the skills or knowledge to usefully debate climate change with you and more importantly you don't have the skills or knowledge to disprove climate change (or more particularly, in your case, the projected catastrophic effects of climate change) in the face of what the overwhelming majority of expert climate scientists are telling us.  So I do what any rational human being in the 21st century does. I accept what the experts tell me esp when (i) the consensus is as overwhelming as it is in the climate change debate and (ii) the stakes are as high as they are in the climate change debate.  That's why I don't believe that you are genuine in your denial of climate change.  Clearly you can have misgivings about what the experts are telling you.  But to be so forthright and ardent about your position when you couldn't even possibly know where to begin to properly assess the evidence, tells me that there are other things at play here then what the truth of the matter might be.  Esp when you insist like a school boy denied his favorite toy that "There is no evidence" when literally tons of evidence has been produced and continues to be produced in support of climate change; esp when you insist that "there is no consensus" when the consensus has remained overwhelming for almost a decade now; esp when you insist that "they must be lying for the funding" with no evidence to back that up beyond conjecture; and esp when you rely for your information and arguments on internet sites sponsored by fossil fuel industry that has much to lose if the world breaks its dependence on fossil fuels. Question the motives of the fossil fuel industry? Oh no you can't do that but how quick you are to accept that the expert scientists have conspired to dupe you for a relative pittance in extra funding.  "Oh yeah that's the reason, that's why they're telling us all this BS, its for the funding".  If I accept that you are a rational human being and I do then your approach to this issue leads me to the conclusion that you are not being truthful about what you really believe about climate change.

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 3:44pm:

A year has 12 months and Australia is a continent. You're also assuming that the tomatoes are "late", but for all you know this was probably normal 30 years ago.

The BoM observations are based on temperature readings in the whole of the country, not when tomatoes ripen locally or the timing of the blooming of Jacaranda trees in your area.

Quote:

The plants and animals don't know how to read a thermometer. They just feel hot or cold and act accordingly. Do crows have an opinion on whether Celsius or Fahrenheit is better?

Conversely, BoM readings are from instruments, not tomatoes. In this case, they have taken the temperatures across the whole of the country (or those parts with weather stations, at least), added them up and announced that the average for the whole country was the highest recorded. That doesn't mean the average for every part of the country is the highest.

You're also assuming that the average temperatures across the whole year and whole country must of necessity have a particular influence on the local behaviour of plants and animals in specific locations and at specific times. Do the tomatoes that were planted in September have any idea what happened the previous February?

Quote:

Again, you're confusing local weather with continent-wide averages. Much of the continent is desert and this is where the most extreme effects were seen. In populated areas the effect was measurably less, perhaps highest decile in many cases but not the highest on record.

I've posted it twice already without commenting on it. Here's the BoM map again.

The dark orange is the area of the country where the average temperatures in 2013 were the highest on record. It covers only about 30% of the country. Most people here seem to have the misconception that "warmest on record" means that the whole country recorded the warmest temperatures on record. That's simply not true.

Then we have people here who are remarking that their own particular dot on this great big map didn't get record high average temperatures, therefore they're not going to believe it.

Averages don't work that way!

Averages are calculated by adding up all the readings and dividing by the number of readings. In particular, it does not add up by the number of PEOPLE. Some populated areas might not have had such extremes but that does not mean that the country as a whole did not have a record high average. Take a look at the east coast strip in particular - few extremes and lots of people. Note the following points: (1) there are also weather stations in remote towns with a population that only gets to double digits if the dogs are counted, (2) most of the country is uninhabited desert, and (3) it is mostly in these remote parts of the country where the greatest extremes in average temperatures were seen.

Take a look at the map again. The dark orange area of highest on record averages extends from western Queensland through SA towards southwestern WA. Not a lot of people live in these areas.

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 10:39pm:


You certainly have a lot of froth and fuss to say about something you are not sure about.
I think you simply don't know. Why not just come out and say it? Why beat about the bush endlessly?

No shame in it - nobody understands how the climate work. At best they know a bit here and a bit there. But how it all hangs together is not understood.