Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..2019 was Australia's hottest and driest year on record. 
Source?
Select to expand quoteFlySurfer said..Source?holy guacamole said..2019 was Australia's hottest and driest year on record.
LOL, the Bureau Of Meteorology of course! What, were you expecting Info Wars?
www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/annual/aus/
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
^^ Interesting. Doesn't discount anthropogenic triggers like GHG's though - just outlines historical trends.
Meanwhile, perhaps we should deal with Coronavirus the same way we're dealing with climate change...
I actually laughed out loud. 
I am still not 100% sure if its a satirical article or not...
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..FlySurfer said..Source?holy guacamole said..2019 was Australia's hottest and driest year on record.
LOL, the Bureau Of Meteorology of course! What, were you expecting Info Wars?
Well, we know you are not Spotty then.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..I actually laughed out loud. I am still not 100% sure if its a satirical article or not...holy guacamole said..^^ Interesting. Doesn't discount anthropogenic triggers like GHG's though - just outlines historical trends. Meanwhile, perhaps we should deal with Coronavirus the same way we're dealing with climate change...
Haha I sure hope it isn't, I mean is....oh I don't know. This government is such a farce it's hard to know when I'm reading the satire anymore.
Select to expand quoteFlySurfer said..holy guacamole said..2019 was Australia's hottest and driest year on record.
Source?
It's well established that the last 7 to 8 years have seen a solid warming trend and 2019 recorded the highest average national temperatures in Australia since 1910, which is the year BoM has drawn a line in the sand for being able to compare the readings with modern records. Prior to that the number of temperature stations and the standards used gets increasingly difficult to correlate with modern coverage and methods.
So even though plenty of records are available prior to that time, the BoM does not consider them part of the official record any more as no true comparison can be made. Hence our recorded timeframe starts in 1910.
We do know there was a significant warming period in the mid to late 1800's that could be compared with recent temperatures just from the records that we do have available (especially with regard to the rate of warming), but the data is really not comprehensive enough to do a proper comparison and its unlikely it exceeded the current temperatures.
If you've been led to believe that's there a 97% consensus, here's a good video to show how this claim is a complete fraud. Designed to fool you, and even worse, stop you from thinking for yourself.
Select to expand quoteTonyAbbott said..
If you've been led to believe that's there a 97% consensus, here's a good video to show how this claim is a complete fraud. Designed to fool you, and even worse, stop you from thinking for yourself.
If you look at the papers that claim 97% the only real consensus that could be be drawn from them is that most of the papers read or scientists polled agree that humans have contributed to global warming, or that it exists because they mentioned it in a paper.
Thats it. No mention of how much humans have contributed to warming, no mention of CO2's role, no mention of whether it is of concern and no mention whether that contribution to warming contributes to climate change. I actually can't see how they didn't get 100%??
Anyone claiming 97% consensus on anything else is being deliberately misleading, or has not actually read the papers.
There's that baseless claim again about being "deliberately misleading"....
You can claim it was misleading but to go the next step of saying its deliberate is a serious and baseless accusation.
So western civilisation is saved for another day guys?
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
There's that baseless claim again about being "deliberately misleading"....
You can claim it was misleading but to go the next step of saying its deliberate is a serious and baseless accusation.
So western civilisation is saved for another day guys?
Well, if you make a statement that you know is incorrect, and keep making that statement even though you know it's not supported by facts and people are calling you out on it...... i'd call that deliberately misleading.
If you have some other definition for that feel free to share.
Cook the activist either deliberately misleading or is dumb when he made up the 97% consensus lie.
I don't think he is dumb so I believe he is deliberately misleading.
I think he is just another climate activist masquerading as a scientist in order to push his political agenda.
Select to expand quoteTonyAbbott said..I think he is just another climate activist masquerading as a scientist in order to push his political agenda.
As opposed to a hysterical British lord or a homophobe from Mosman or a Melbourne blogger masquerading as a climate scientist....
Select to expand quoteParadox said..Well, if you make a statement that you know is incorrect, and keep making that statement even though you know it's not supported by facts and people are calling you out on it...... i'd call that deliberately misleading.holy guacamole said..
There's that baseless claim again about being "deliberately misleading"....
You can claim it was misleading but to go the next step of saying its deliberate is a serious and baseless accusation.
So western civilisation is saved for another day guys?
Oh dear....Hang on, you said NASA was being deliberately misleading.....I didn't realise Cook worked for NASA?
And is this claim that Cook and the other corroborating aggregate assessments are wrong real or not? Again, no proof. Just an opinion. "Oh I've read the reports and you haven't". Right. You've read all the reports - hundreds of them.
Let's look at a local instance or repetitively misleading statements, like the LNP official line repeated ad nauseam that the only way to keep electricity prices down in Australia is to build more coal plants, rather than more of what's actually driving prices down as we type - cheap renewables.
Yeah, misleading statements like those. So by paradoxical definition, it MUST be deliberate.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..Paradox said..Well, if you make a statement that you know is incorrect, and keep making that statement even though you know it's not supported by facts and people are calling you out on it...... i'd call that deliberately misleading.holy guacamole said..
There's that baseless claim again about being "deliberately misleading"....
You can claim it was misleading but to go the next step of saying its deliberate is a serious and baseless accusation.
So western civilisation is saved for another day guys?
Oh dear....Hang on, you said NASA was being deliberately misleading.....I didn't realise Cook worked for NASA?
And is this claim that Cook and the other corroborating aggregate assessments are wrong real or not? Again, no proof. Just an opinion. "Oh I've read the reports and you haven't". Right. You've read all the reports - hundreds of them.
Let's look at a local instance or repetitively misleading statements, like the LNP official line repeated ad nauseam that the only way to keep electricity prices down in Australia is to build more coal plants, rather than more of what's actually driving prices down as we type - cheap renewables.
Yeah, misleading statements like those. So by paradoxical definition, it MUST be deliberate.
You really like to argue about things that no one said don't you, and then dissemble into something else entirely.
I did not mention Cook or NASA in my post. I merely made a statement as to what the typically referenced 97% papers actually say and then made the statement that anyone saying otherwise is being misleading or is ignorant or is deliberately lying.
Ive provided a robust series of easily checked facts on Cooks most referenced paper, those facts lead into a logical conclusion. im happy to go through it again if you tell me what you have an issue with?
I will state it again: the only consensus of anything that can be drawn from any of those papers is that scientists agree that Antropological Global Warming is a thing, no matter how small the contribution. Scientists generally agree on that, although it seems even 3% have an issue that there is some influence, however small.
For reference, here are the categories and numbers from Cooks 97% paper again, its not hard to interpret:
1,Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+% : 64
2,Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimize: 922
3,Implicitly endorses AGW without minimizing it: 2910
4,No Position: 7970
5,Implicitly minimizes/rejects AGW: 54
6,Explicitly minimizes/rejects AGW but does not quantify: 15
7,Explicitly minimizes/rejects AGW as less than 50%: 9
Select to expand quoteTonyAbbott said..
If you've been led to believe that's there a 97% consensus, here's a good video to show how this claim is a complete fraud. Designed to fool you, and even worse, stop you from thinking for yourself.
Misleading bollocks. For a start, it's hypocritical for a liar like TA to complain if other people are misleading. Liars cannot complain about other people being dodgy, and TA is a liar.
Secondly, it's wrong and misleading. The claim that "two thirds of the papers that Cook examined showed no view at all of the consensus" is utterly misleading in that it ignores the fact that they ignored these papers BECAUSE THEY DID NOT DISCUSS THE CAUSES OF CLIMATE CHANGE. The only reason these papers were "examined" by Cook et al is because they came up in a search. They were utterly irrelevant to the CAUSE and to imply that there was anything wrong with excluding them is dishonest and misleading. To claim that papers that are not about the cause of global warming should be included in a study about papers about the cause of global warming is just dishonest.
One odd thing is that the vid cites Toll and Duarte as critics of Cook, but ignores the fact that both Toll and Duarte are "warmists"; that is, they state publicly that they believe that there is a scientific consensus that humans are causing significant global warming and that the consensus is correct. Toll states " There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct" and "Published papers that seek to test what caused the climate change over the last century and half, almost unanimously find that humans played a dominant role."
Duarte also has strong criticisms of the Cook paper's methods, but he also states "I think the consensus of climate scientists regarding the reality of human-caused warming is both real and correct" . He says that the "climate science consensus" is between 78 to 84%, which is still very strong, and believes that the consensus is NOT a fraud. So basically Robson's own "authorities" believe in the general scientific consensus that Robson's vid (and TA) try to diminish. I wonder if Robson was ignorant of that, or whether he concealed it?
It's rather amusing to see Robson smilingly dismiss people who are not trained scientist or statisticians (around 12:10) since he is not a scientists and appears to have no statistics trained as far as I can see. So what we have here, is an untrained person sneering at other people because they are untrained, making false claims, claiming that there is no debate when there is (although the "deniers" are a minority in the profession) and using people WHO SUPPORT THE CONSENSUS to pretend that the consensus is way over-rated. Anyone who thought for themselves would know this vid is BS, of course......
www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2020/02/09/a-climate-blacklist-that-works-it-should-make-her-unhirable-in-academia/
More of cooks handy work.
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..
Misleading bollocks. For a start, it's hypocritical for a liar like TA to complain if other people are misleading. Liars cannot complain about other people being dodgy, and TA is a liar.
Secondly, it's wrong and misleading. The claim that "two thirds of the papers that Cook examined showed no view at all of the consensus" is utterly misleading in that it ignores the fact that they ignored these papers BECAUSE THEY DID NOT DISCUSS THE CAUSES OF CLIMATE CHANGE. The only reason these papers were "examined" by Cook et al is because they came up in a search. They were utterly irrelevant to the CAUSE and to imply that there was anything wrong with excluding them is dishonest and misleading. To claim that papers that are not about the cause of global warming should be included in a study about papers about the cause of global warming is just dishonest.
One odd thing is that the vid cites Toll and Duarte as critics of Cook, but ignores the fact that both Toll and Duarte are "warmists"; that is, they state publicly that they believe that there is a scientific consensus that humans are causing significant global warming and that the consensus is correct. Toll states " There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct" and "Published papers that seek to test what caused the climate change over the last century and half, almost unanimously find that humans played a dominant role."
Duarte also has strong criticisms of the Cook paper's methods, but he also states "I think the consensus of climate scientists regarding the reality of human-caused warming is both real and correct" . He says that the "climate science consensus" is between 78 to 84%, which is still very strong, and believes that the consensus is NOT a fraud. So basically Robson's own "authorities" believe in the general scientific consensus that Robson's vid (and TA) try to diminish. I wonder if Robson was ignorant of that, or whether he concealed it?
It's rather amusing to see Robson smilingly dismiss people who are not trained scientist or statisticians (around 12:10) since he is not a scientists and appears to have no statistics trained as far as I can see. So what we have here, is an untrained person sneering at other people because they are untrained, making false claims, claiming that there is no debate when there is (although the "deniers" are a minority in the profession) and using people WHO SUPPORT THE CONSENSUS to pretend that the consensus is way over-rated. Anyone who thought for themselves would know this vid is BS, of course......
Excellent post Sir!
Select to expand quoteFoghorn said..
www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2020/02/09/a-climate-blacklist-that-works-it-should-make-her-unhirable-in-academia/
More of cooks handy work.
How can you trust an article that calls Cook "a cartoonist" when he is in fact an Assistant Professor with a PhD in science?
Select to expand quoteParadox said..holy guacamole said..Paradox said..Well, if you make a statement that you know is incorrect, and keep making that statement even though you know it's not supported by facts and people are calling you out on it...... i'd call that deliberately misleading.holy guacamole said..
There's that baseless claim again about being "deliberately misleading"....
You can claim it was misleading but to go the next step of saying its deliberate is a serious and baseless accusation.
So western civilisation is saved for another day guys?
Oh dear....Hang on, you said NASA was being deliberately misleading.....I didn't realise Cook worked for NASA?
And is this claim that Cook and the other corroborating aggregate assessments are wrong real or not? Again, no proof. Just an opinion. "Oh I've read the reports and you haven't". Right. You've read all the reports - hundreds of them.
Let's look at a local instance or repetitively misleading statements, like the LNP official line repeated ad nauseam that the only way to keep electricity prices down in Australia is to build more coal plants, rather than more of what's actually driving prices down as we type - cheap renewables.
Yeah, misleading statements like those. So by paradoxical definition, it MUST be deliberate.
You really like to argue about things that no one said don't you, and then dissemble into something else entirely.
I did not mention Cook or NASA in my post. I merely made a statement as to what the typically referenced 97% papers actually say and then made the statement that anyone saying otherwise is being misleading or is ignorant or is deliberately lying.
Ive provided a robust series of easily checked facts on Cooks most referenced paper, those facts lead into a logical conclusion. im happy to go through it again if you tell me what you have an issue with?
I will state it again: the only consensus of anything that can be drawn from any of those papers is that scientists agree that Antropological Global Warming is a thing, no matter how small the contribution. Scientists generally agree on that, although it seems even 3% have an issue that there is some influence, however small.
For reference, here are the categories and numbers from Cooks 97% paper again, its not hard to interpret:
1,Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+% : 64
2,Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimize: 922
3,Implicitly endorses AGW without minimizing it: 2910
4,No Position: 7970
5,Implicitly minimizes/rejects AGW: 54
6,Explicitly minimizes/rejects AGW but does not quantify: 15
7,Explicitly minimizes/rejects AGW as less than 50%: 9
You said that NASA was being "deliberately misleading".
I suppose you've "read all the papers then"?
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..Foghorn said..
www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2020/02/09/a-climate-blacklist-that-works-it-should-make-her-unhirable-in-academia/
More of cooks handy work.
How can you trust an article that calls Cook "a cartoonist" when he is in fact an Assistant Professor with a PhD in science?
He is a better cartoonist than scientist and I have never seen his cartoons
Select to expand quoteFoghorn said..
I think you'll find he is a cartoonist and a cog psych.
Yes, but Pielke seems to use Meme Generator, and yet it would be unfair to describe him in an article like that as "Roger Pielke, meme generator" without mentioning that he is a climate scientist etc. Ignoring the fact that someone has highly relevant qualifications is not exactly ethical, nor is using hacked emails all that ethical in a piece that complains about poor ethics.
Interestingly enough, Pielke says " Ever since my PhD dissertation in 1994 I have argued that climate change poses risks and deserves significant action in response. I've also argued that our response efforts to date have been woefully inadequate. " So like the other Cook critics, he actually believes that climate change is a problem, and that humans are deeply involved in causing it with Co2 emissions.
It's funny when the experts that "deniers" trot out to try to prove that the "scientific consensus" is wrong actually believe that the consensus is right.
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..
Duarte also has strong criticisms of the Cook paper's methods, but he also states "I think the consensus of climate scientists regarding the reality of human-caused warming is both real and correct" . He says that the "climate science consensus" is between 78 to 84%, which is still very strong, and believes that the consensus is NOT a fraud. So basically Robson's own "authorities" believe in the general scientific consensus that Robson's vid (and TA) try to diminish. I wonder if Robson was ignorant of that, or whether he concealed it?
Chris, I would fully agree there is significant political spin on both sides. Nothing can be taken at face value and you need to look at what they are actually saying.
The biggest issue I see here is the spin and misdirection around the wording of "scientific consensus" and what the definition of that is. If you see statements that reference any sort of "scientific consensus" without defining it, my experience is that there is an effort to decieve going on.
Take the quotes you have posted above. "I think the consensus of climate scientists regarding the reality of human-caused warming is both real and correct" This sentence meets the outcome of the studies as it does not minimise human caused warming. A 1% contribution due heat island effect from cities falls into that statement. It's not exactly what they want to promote though.
Then he goes on to say this: "I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct" as the above definition of "consensus" is broad, then this is a nothing statement.
Then he says. "Published papers that seek to test what caused the climate change over the last century and half, almost unanimously find that humans played a dominant role." This is not supported, and it does not link back to the definition of "consensus" he used previously, however because he has used it in the same context, a casual reader will assume that sentance is about consensus. It is a very incorrect statement as no paper looked at "testing a cause of climate change" few looked at opinions of scientists and references in papers, and none looked at Climate Change, only Global Warming.
Pretty much every study or paper I have seen on the topic either supports a "Consensus" as "man has contributed to global warming to some degree, no matter how small the contribution". Or, if they use a tighter definition of majority contribution (50% or more) then they have been very selective in thier sampling or responses to achieve it and therefore cannot use general statements about broad "consensus".
In the case of Cooks paper he got a whopping 2% on the tighter definition of 50%+. And thats after discarding the 7000 papers who had no position. It's also why they declined to publish that category in thier paper. It only came out after the results were found by others on a UQ database.
There are so many examples of deliberate misdirection around consensus, it really is alarming. If the studies truly showed what they a saying they did, there would be no reason to be misleading.
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..
Interestingly enough, Pielke says " Ever since my PhD dissertation in 1994 I have argued that climate change poses risks and deserves significant action in response. I've also argued that our response efforts to date have been woefully inadequate. " So like the other Cook critics, he actually believes that climate change is a problem, and that humans are deeply involved in causing it with Co2 emissions.
Chris, I have not looked at this quote in context, but I can't help but point out that his comment you posted mentions "Climate Change" and "action".
You then use the words "humans are deeply involved" and "CO2 emissions" to refer to its meaning. Are you just projecting here or is there more to his quote than you posted, becuase they were not mentioned. He may well believe climate change is fully natural variance or that land use is a predominant cause of it if humans are contributing.
These are inaccuracies we need to avoid to maintain credibility.
He is attacked on skeptical science because of his assertion that the data does not show an increase in natural disasters due to climate change , so not upholding the alarmist propaganda .
Select to expand quoteFoghorn said..
He is attacked on skeptical science because of his assertion that the data does not show an increase in natural disasters due to climate change , so not upholding the alarmist propaganda .
"Alarmist propaganda" you say?
I would have thought that believing action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is about trying to bring about the end of western civilisation is alarmist propaganda! Hysterical alarmist propaganda.
I only believe that because it is what the watermelons keep saying.
wattsupwiththat.com/2018/08/29/un-appointed-climate-science-team-demands-the-end-of-capitalism/
It's OK TA, people believe in sky fairies too...it's a personal thing.
Paradox believes there's hope for nuclear power in Australia when in reality at present there's stuff all chance of it happening.
The trouble you seem to have, is separating the extreme left from the moderate action being contemplated by the world now. You think basically we should do nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That's also extreme.
Watermelons aren't in control of much, just like neo-nazis aren't in control of much and that's a good thing.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
Paradox believes there's hope for nuclear power in Australia when in reality at present there's stuff all chance of it happening.
Pressure is mounting HG 
, I don't believe "stuff all" is the smart money at the moment. The Nationals want to look at it, the Libs will look at it if Labour supports lifting the ban so it can be considered. All the unions want it and are putting pressure on the left to support a discussion...
Labour will eventually crack if they are as serious about climate change as they say.
www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/why-labor-must-embrace-nuclear-power-20200217-p541gc
www.afr.com/politics/federal/labor-bipartisanship-on-nuclear-energy-needed-awu-20200217-p541eh
www.createdigital.org.au/australias-look-at-clean-energy-sources-brings-the-nuclear-energy-debate-back-to-the-fore/
