First time looking at ON policies ... so many lies !

i.e  ON's denial of human caused climate change :

The longest-running weather collection station in Australia, known as the Nobby’s Weather Station at Newcastle, has shown no pattern of warming since temperature records were collected in 1862.


The claim that Nobby’s Signal Station has shown no warming since 1862 is misleading.  While raw data from the station shows higher temperatures in the late 1800s, climate experts and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) classify pre-1910 data as unreliable due to the lack of standardized equipment, such as Stevenson screens.

When analysed correctly:

Pre-1910 data is inconsistent: Early readings were often taken with non-standardised thermometers exposed to the elements, creating anomalies rather than reflecting true climate trends.

Post-1910 trend is clear: Reliable records from 1910 onwards show a distinct warming pattern, with average annual maximum temperatures rising from 21.5°C (1910–1950) to 22.1°C (1980–2020) and minimum temperatures increasing from 14.3°C to 14.9°C.

Broader context: This local trend aligns with national data showing Australia has warmed by approximately 1.5°C since 1910, with significant warming occurring since the 1960s.

Experts describe the selective use of uncorrected pre-1910 data to deny global warming as cherry-picking, noting that the station's coastal location also subjects it to local cooling influences like sea breezes that do not represent broader regional climate trends.

Ai_Took_Our_Jobs wrote on Jun 18^th, 2026 at 6:27pm:



Yes. What they are saying is you can't rely on older measurements, for no reason other than they were perhaps not taken within a Stevenson Screen. That also means as BOM have reduced the size of the Stephenson Screens you can't rely on the temperatures going back to 1910. That means you can't rely on temperatures at all, especially now that they use digital probes that react quicker than did Liquid-In-Glass thermometers.

And increasing temperatures alone cannot be proof of human cause climate change. it was warmer in the Holocene Optimum without the widespread use of fossil fuels.

BTW - BoM uses homogenisation out to 300 km's from the actual site. And as noted in the report to parliament that homogenisation relies on "expert judgment". Judgment expert or otherwise is not science.

You are a fraud.

The premise that Australian temperature records since 1910 are unreliable due to Stevenson Screen size changes and sensor technology is unsupported by meteorological science.  While the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) did reduce the volume of Stevenson Screens to approximately 25% of the original size and switched from slow-response Liquid-In-Glass (LIG) thermometers to fast-response digital probes, these changes are accounted for through peer-reviewed homogenization adjustments.

Stevenson Screen Size Reduction
Volume Change: The BOM reduced the internal volume of Stevenson Screens from approximately 0.23 m³ to 0.06 m³ (a 74% reduction).

Documented Bias: Research indicates this reduction creates a warming bias, increasing average yearly temperatures by 0.54°C and daily maximums by up to 1.7°C on hot, calm days.

Correction: The BOM explicitly states that "explicit corrections have been introduced for a change in instrument screen size" to remove these inhomogeneities from the long-term trend data.
Sensor Technology Transition

Response Time: Modern electronic Multi-Minimum Temperature Sensors (MMTS) react in seconds, whereas LIG thermometers take tens of seconds to stabilize. This allows digital sensors to record short-lived temperature spikes (e.g., from passing thermals or heat radiation) that LIG thermometers would miss.

Data Adjustment: The BOM applies statistical adjustments to historical data to account for the "precision anomaly" between different sensor types, ensuring that the faster response of digital probes does not artificially inflate long-term trends.
Historical Context (Pre-1910)

Exclusion Reasons: Temperatures prior to 1910 are excluded from the official record not primarily due to screen size, but because early thermometers were often exposed on Glaisher Stands or indoors, which introduced a warm bias of approximately 1°C compared to standard Stevenson Screens.
Adjustments: Groups like Berkeley Earth have analysed pre-1910 data, applying corrections for exposure and instrumentation.  Even after these corrections, modern extreme heat events (e.g., 2013) remain significantly warmer than late 19th-century peaks.

Conclusion: While the physical changes to equipment introduced measurable biases, the official Australian temperature record is adjusted to correct for these instrumental changes.  Therefore, the long-term warming trend observed since 1910 is considered reliable by climate scientists, as the data has been homogenized to remove non-climatic artifacts.

The Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) does not use homogenisation out to 300 km; this specific claim originates from critics and skeptics, such as Jennifer Marohasy and Jo Nova, who argue that the BoM’s methods are opaque and rely on distant stations.  The BoM states that homogenisation uses objective statistical tests with reference stations to detect non-climatic discontinuities caused by site moves or instrument changes, particularly when metadata is undocumented.

While critics assert that the process relies on expert judgment and that adjustments are made using stations hundreds of kilometers away, the BoM maintains that its ACORN-SAT dataset uses world best-practice methods.  Independent reviews and peer-reviewed studies have rejected claims that the homogenisation introduces bias or exaggerates warming trends, with the BoM noting that the warming trend is visible in both adjusted and unadjusted data.

Ai_Took_Our_Jobs wrote on Jun 18^th, 2026 at 8:11pm:


They don't believe in climate change at all.

Uneducated, ignorant, white supremacist morons.

The old bag is in her 70s - she won't last long, and the Beetrooter's alcoholism will send him to an early grave.

Ai_Took_Our_Jobs wrote on Jun 18^th, 2026 at 8:20pm:


Two very disturbing things about that.

1. Nepotism.

2. If she has a daughter, that means someone must have had sex with Pauline Hanson.

Ai_Took_Our_Jobs wrote on Jun 18^th, 2026 at 8:57pm:


That's the father, in the middle?