"Everyone believes in the atrocities of the enemy and disbelieves in those of his own side, without ever bothering to examine the evidence."
^^ a quote by who? The assumption that everyone else other than the author can't apply logic, reason to weed through evidence to come to a reasonable conclusion is the height of arrogance.
Select to expand quoteBrent in Qld said..
^^ a quote by who? The assumption that everyone else other than the author can't apply logic, reason to weed through evidence to come to a reasonable conclusion is the height of arrogance.
George Orwell is the author, its just something to think about, something we could all apply to ourselves when we take a side, no need to get all offended.
Select to expand quoteShifu said..Paradox said..philn said..
What about the whole "overthrow the government" intention of January 6th? The riots in Kenosha only affected people in the area. Overthrowing the government would have affected 330 million people.
You might need to elaborate on that. Who claimed or stated they were going to overthrow the government and exactly how were a group of protesters going to "overthrow the government" by entering the capital building?
You are repeating nonsense fed to you by media. No one can overthrow a government without control of the military who use force to quell all resistance. You don't do it using an unarmed rabble entering a building and temporarily disrupting a parlimentary process.
Take that thought of how to actually overthrow a government a bit further and you might get an inkling of why US people are arming themselves and so resistant to give up thier weapons. The US constitutional amendment was made to allow the people to arm themsleves to help prevent such a thing from happening.
Rightly or wrongly some of the protesters outside were obviously agitated and upset, just like the BLM rioters were. But there has been no established intent by anyone to overthrow the government let alone how that could have been achieved. That is a political and media narrative unsupported by factual evidence. New footage has shown that they turned from agitated protesters into trespassers when a police officer threw a tear gas canister that landed into his own police lines. They basically had to abandon the line and the crowd simply followed into the building. There were scuffles, but nothing serious. Mostly they were simply allowed to enter and then eventually leave.
In fact the video footage that the republican controlled house has now forced to be released shows that once they entered the building, instead of looting, burning and destroying things like the BLM rioters, they were largely orderly, respectful and non voilent. They took selfies, were escorted around the premisis by guards and even held prayer meetings. In many cases they took instruction from security guards and lined up in many places to wait thier turn in seeing various rooms. I think the worst crimes committed inside the building were theft as some took souvineers.
Hardly the actions of an organised or even unorganised attempt to overthrow the government.
The story told from some perspectives is very different to the actual facts.
Orderly transfer of power...
So you have shown pictures of people protesting and standing around a building. I don't see any violence, although it could have been a bit argy bargy here and there. I see tear gas, so maybe that was the one that landed in the police ranks and allowed the entry....
What are you suggesting happened here that these photo's represent? We all know there was a protest that ended up inside the capital bulding. A person was shot climbing through a window, most simply entered though open doors.
The point being discussed was that there was no significant level of violence or destruction. Nor was there any means with which to "overthrow the government". The US government is not a building. It is not a matter of capturing the base and winning.
Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..
That's complete rubbish. The 2nd amendment, in1789, was adopted in the context of a frontier society, living in fear of attacks by native Americans and an attack from the British via the colonies in Canada that had not joined the revolution. That's why it says "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" That implies a chain of command and authorisations for firearms owners. It does not say that any idiot should be free to shoot people in the street.
Really? Did you just write down your personal interpretation of the US constitution and present them as facts? The inability of people to even do a casual amount of research is astounding and why the world is such a mess right now. You could have spent 5 seconds confirming your view before you wrote this and saved us all some time.
A key aspect of the second amendment was that armed citizens were a deterent to a the Federal Government using force against its own citizens. If people don't trust thier government they take up arms. Less trust more arms. We have seen a massive uptake of guns in the US over the last few years. A hostile federal government and its institutions is why.
Straight from Wikipedia. The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[12] While both James Monroe and John Adams supported the Constitution being ratified, its most influential framer was James Madison. In Federalist No. 46, Madison wrote how a federal army could be kept in check by the militia, "a standing army ... would be opposed [by] militia." He argued that State governments "would be able to repel the danger" of a federal army, "It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops." He contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he described as "afraid to trust the people with arms", and assured that "the existence of subordinate governments ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition".[13][14]
another one from George Orwell
"That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."
"Warren Burger... was a Republican who was appointed chief justice of the Supreme Court by President Richard Nixon in 1969 and served for 17 years until 1986. In retirement in 1991, Burger said that the Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."
I estimate over a million Americans have died from firearms since Burger made that comment.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..Mr Milk said..
That's complete rubbish. The 2nd amendment, in1789, was adopted in the context of a frontier society, living in fear of attacks by native Americans and an attack from the British via the colonies in Canada that had not joined the revolution. That's why it says "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" That implies a chain of command and authorisations for firearms owners. It does not say that any idiot should be free to shoot people in the street.
Really? Did you just write down your personal interpretation of the US constitution and present them as facts? The inability of people to even do a casual amount of research is astounding and why the world is such a mess right now. You could have spent 5 seconds confirming your view before you wrote this and saved us all some time.
A key aspect of the second amendment was that armed citizens were a deterent to a the Federal Government using force against its own citizens. If people don't trust thier government they take up arms. Less trust more arms. We have seen a massive uptake of guns in the US over the last few years. A hostile federal government and its institutions is why.
Straight from Wikipedia. The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[12] While both James Monroe and John Adams supported the Constitution being ratified, its most influential framer was James Madison. In Federalist No. 46, Madison wrote how a federal army could be kept in check by the militia, "a standing army ... would be opposed [by] militia." He argued that State governments "would be able to repel the danger" of a federal army, "It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops." He contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he described as "afraid to trust the people with arms", and assured that "the existence of subordinate governments ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition".[13][14]
"The security of a free state" not security against the state. It boiled down to "we need an army reserve, since we don't have a standing army.
Just by chance I've been reading a series of essays this week written by various Ivy League history professors about the founding myths of the USA. They make the point that Madison's contribution to the constitution was actually minimal, but was expanded in the imagination of politicians from the mid 1800s on.
Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..
"The security of a free state" not security against the state. It boiled down to "we need an army reserve, since we don't have a standing army.
Just by chance I've been reading a series of essays this week written by various Ivy League history professors about the founding myths of the USA. They make the point that Madison's contribution to the constitution was actually minimal, but was expanded in the imagination of politicians from the mid 1800s on.
It seems you have done a casual amount of research.
Not offended at all, I simply disagree with this particular statement. Considering he was aligned with the left/socialists etc... during the Spanish civil war, it's not a surprising quote as he would have witnessed the popularity and rise of fascism in Europe.
Really seems to be the Wild West over there. Shootouts over a home evasion or robbery at least make a little sense, but over an argument about where the bus stops? Insane! Seen similar things occur over disagreements about where someone places their rubbish bin.
abcnews.go.com/US/dramatic-footage-shows-shootout-bus-driver-passenger/story?id=99653654
Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..
"The security of a free state" not security against the state. It boiled down to "we need an army reserve, since we don't have a standing army.
Just by chance I've been reading a series of essays this week written by various Ivy League history professors about the founding myths of the USA. They make the point that Madison's contribution to the constitution was actually minimal, but was expanded in the imagination of politicians from the mid 1800s on.
You seem to be arguing that there was never any intention or motivation for the second amendment to include defence against a tyranical government. I am not suggesting there were not other reasons, of course there was, but one of them was that. Whether Madison's contribution was large or small is irrelevent. You and the navel gazing academics (who are no doubt staunt opposers to the second amendment) can pontificate on the relative weights each motivation at the time all you want, but the documented evidence from the time clearly shows that one of the reasons for the right to bear arms was defence against a hostile government. There was not just one reason as you seem to be suggesting.
Irrespective of actual motivations the reality that even your academics agree is that at least for the last 200 years the right to bear arms against a hostile government is a fundamental interpretation of the Second amendment by US citizens. That is all that matters.
Settlers in Colonial America viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes (in no particular order):[e][f][57][58][59][60][61][62]
-enabling the people to organize a militia system[63]
-participating in law enforcement
-safeguarding against tyrannical governments[64]
-repelling invasion[63]
-suppressing insurrection, allegedly including slave revolts,[65][66][67] though some scholars say the claim of a specific intent to protect the ability to put down slave revolts is not supported by the historical record[68]
-facilitating a natural right of self-defense[63]
Which of these considerations were thought of as most important and ultimately found expression in the Second Amendment is disputed.
As far as I am concerned they can keep their 2nd ammendment rights. Maybe it is an element in maintaining some sort of political stability for them? A question for historians. It doesn't come without drawbacks, however, and it's up to the citizens of the US to make a decision whether the costs outweigh the gains.
The fact is US culture is steeped in guns and violence, and steeped in the idea that the gun is a solution to many problems. Education standards are low, drug use is high, wealth is unevenly distributed and many, many people lack a strong moral and ethical compass and mature self-discipline. Result = thousands of dead people, thousand of dead kids.
Keep the 2nd ammendment Americans, but ensure your people are able to meet the challenges that gun ownership demands. Most do not and cannot. The 18th century mindset is not sufficient to manage 21st century weapons.
Select to expand quoteShifu said..
As far as I am concerned they can keep their 2nd ammendment rights. Maybe it is an element in maintaining some sort of political stability for them? A question for historians. It doesn't come without drawbacks, however, and it's up to the citizens of the US to make a decision whether the costs outweigh the gains.
The fact is US culture is steeped in guns and violence, and steeped in the idea that the gun is a solution to many problems. Education standards are low, drug use is high, wealth is unevenly distributed and many, many people lack a strong moral and ethical compass and mature self-discipline. Result = thousands of dead people, thousand of dead kids.
Keep the 2nd ammendment Americans, but ensure your people are able to meet the challenges that gun ownership demands. Most do not and cannot. The 18th century mindset is not sufficient to manage 21st century weapons.
The second amendment is certainly polarising. Your second paragraph is interesting. I suspect most US citizens would disagree with you.
The big thing is the culture of individual liberty in the US. The right to do as you will and take care of you and your own, provided you do not harm others. Government interference is not tolerated well by most. Certainlly in contrast to the abject acceptance of nanny states controlling every aspect of your life here.
Generally the level of education in the US is very high and wealth distribution is irrelevent. Wealthy people in a free market make poor people better off too. The main thing is that the poor are becoming wealthier faster than anyone else. You don't see people clamoring to leave the US....they want in.
I have swung from being against the US gun culture to now, after talking with many people from the US over the last 10 years, accepting it for what it is. Half the population would actively resist any attempts by authorities to take thier guns and efforts to legislate them away just cause more suspicion and mistrust, resulting in more gun purchases...... Those who support the second amendment do so with thier whole existance.
Ask yourself why the Uvalde police waited an hour before entering the school, all while children bled out and 21 people died. Were the cops afraid of the dysfunctional 18 year old who stuttered?
^^ I mostly agree with what you have put forward having spent many years in the US. Package it as you will, the repeated slaughter of citizens, particularly children, by nut jobs requires some form of action by any moral or ethical measure. The complacency around 'it is what it is' or 'thoughts and prayers' is nothing short of an impudent shrug of the shoulders towards those affected by gun related atrocities. As a supposed world leading culture, the US is a global embarassment on this issue and I shudder to think what it would take for the general population to change.
Select to expand quoteremery said..
Ask yourself why the Uvalde police waited an hour before entering the school, all while children bled out and 21 people died. Were the cops afraid of the dysfunctional 18 year old who stuttered?
They were sanitising their hands (true story)
safety first, follow the science
Government interference is not tolerated well by most. ----
---- Years of lockdowns and mitigation measures have proven otherwise.
People tolerated being shot at for leaving their house.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..remery said..
Once trusted faces on the news, meteorologists now brave threats, insults and slander online from conspiracy theorists and climate change deniers who accuse them of faking or even fixing the weather.
Key points:
Social media users claim weather bureaus around the world have been making up information
Australian's BoM has been falsely accused of doctoring temperature records
Globally there has been a rise in climate change denial - particularly among far-right supporters
amp.abc.net.au/article/102342754
Interesting comments. Key question is why do you believe the ABC article is accurate? Have you considered it may have been written in a biased manner? The article does not include comments from the scientists questioning the BoM methodologies, did you pick this up? If so how have you decided you are getting a balanced report on the issue?
I am familiar with many of the claims around the BoM's activities / methods being called into question and many of them have merit. None of them use the term "doctoring" as the article promotes, they question the methodologies used and the inherent errors and uncertainties they produce. For instance the BoM does not adhere to internationally accepted standards for temperature recording.
The ABC article references data obtained under the FOI act. It omits that it took 5 years and numerous court cases to force the BoM to release that data. And it has only released a small fraction. The data released does indicate some issues around warming bias in the transition from murcury to digital readings. But more importantly the resistance to make this information public is what drives the conspiracy theroists and the plainly one sided reports from a national broadcaster.
Exactly what is "climate change denial"? It is a very subjective term. Does it mean anyone who calls out potentially sub standard practices? Also what is "far right"? One could say that anything viewed from the far left is far right.....
This is a link to Morahassey's site that questions the BoM data. She is a qualified scientist and specialises in data analysis. You can make of it what you will, but many of the arguments she presents are compelling. I find her blog gets too emotional at times, but her analysis is often hard to refute. There are plenty of other experts who have called out the BoM and its practices or results. I guess to many they are simply far right science deniers. jennifermarohasy.com/2023/05/averaging-last-seconds-versus-bureau-peer-review/?fbclid=IwAR1uUrsi1zXWnS1_Pw9-advASTLIQR6h_5NcARyLli3vY2ucKr2-y4oNmaE
It's actually easy to refute much of her analysis. For example;
1- she says "the last editor who published me had his journal shutdown: GeoResJ was discontinued in 2018", implying that the reason that GeoResJ was shut down because it published Marahosy's paper. In fact, GeoResJ had a fairly low Impact Factor and a quick Google shows that it was allegedly not getting enough submissions - and that its own publisher found that the editor had acted unethically.
There is no evidence at all that I can find that the journal was shut down because it published papers against the consensus - it was shut down because of a bad editor and poor performance.
2- She also repeatedly claims that the BoM is trying to hide the fact that Australia's record temperature was allegedly hit in Bourke in 1909. However, it takes very little checking to see why there is a very good reason that the BoM has ignored that temperature. Put it this way, pubs are not the place to get scientific data!
Marohasy has made a huge deal out of the Bourke data, but she either ignored the local newspapers of the time or didn't bother to check them.
3- There seems to be a huge amount of cherry picking going on. For example, she works with Ken Stewart, not a scientist, who has done a paper looking at temperature data for 104 sites. However, he ignored the data for 19 of the sites, without giving any reason for it! Of course you can find trends if you just throw away 20% of the data!
Interestingly even Marohasy admits several times that the climate is warming.
Select to expand quoteremery said..
Ask yourself why the Uvalde police waited an hour before entering the school, all while children bled out and 21 people died. Were the cops afraid of the dysfunctional 18 year old who stuttered?
I believe the investigation clearly identified a weak police chief who failed to adopt standard protocols.
The Nashville shooting was a bit different and the cops charged into that scene quickly and stopped the shooter.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..remery said..
Ask yourself why the Uvalde police waited an hour before entering the school, all while children bled out and 21 people died. Were the cops afraid of the dysfunctional 18 year old who stuttered?
I believe the investigation clearly identified a weak police chief who failed to adopt standard protocols.
The Nashville shooting was a bit different and the cops charged into that scene quickly and stopped the shooter.
You don't think the cops were afraid because the 18 year old had, the day after his 18th birthday, legally purchased a Smith & Wesson semi-automatic rifle from a local gun store then another rifle with a "hellfire" trigger increasing the possible rate of fire. Along with 1,657 rounds of ammunition?
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..
It's actually easy to refute much of her analysis. For example;
1- she says "the last editor who published me had his journal shutdown: GeoResJ was discontinued in 2018", implying that the reason that GeoResJ was shut down because it published Marahosy's paper. In fact, GeoResJ had a fairly low Impact Factor and a quick Google shows that it was allegedly not getting enough submissions - and that its own publisher found that the editor had acted unethically.
There is no evidence at all that I can find that the journal was shut down because it published papers against the consensus - it was shut down because of a bad editor and poor performance.
2- She also repeatedly claims that the BoM is trying to hide the fact that Australia's record temperature was allegedly hit in Bourke in 1909. However, it takes very little checking to see why there is a very good reason that the BoM has ignored that temperature. Put it this way, pubs are not the place to get scientific data!
Marohasy has made a huge deal out of the Bourke data, but she either ignored the local newspapers of the time or didn't bother to check them.
3- There seems to be a huge amount of cherry picking going on. For example, she works with Ken Stewart, not a scientist, who has done a paper looking at temperature data for 104 sites. However, he ignored the data for 19 of the sites, without giving any reason for it! Of course you can find trends if you just throw away 20% of the data!
Interestingly even Marohasy admits several times that the climate is warming.
You seem to be critiquing some pretty banal aspects of the claim. Who cares why a journal shut down.....
Exactly what are you claiming regarding the Bourke temperature reading? If you think it was from a pub wall you are being misled. It was recorded at an official site, in an official Stevenson Screen and was entered into the sites official log where it remained for many years. Recently the BoM removed it from the record claiming no other sites around it had similar readings and so it must have been in error. Until someone looked in the archives and found the next nearest site had a reading almost as high....
You claim data has been ignored and suggest manipulation. There may be good reasons for why he did that. Maybe the data wasn't suitable for a host of reasons. Worth looking into but to properly rebut it you need to assess that data, why it was not used and see if it makes any difference to the outcome if it can be included. Blindly claiming cherry picking because of random reasons is not scientific or valid.
No one is disputing the surface temps have increased over the last 40 years. What is being debated is the extent of that warming and if it is any different to what has been seen in recent times. The Boms data shows significant departure from the satellite data. people are trying to work out why and Marahosy is focusing on the problems with temperature probes being calibrated properly with thermometers and as far as I can see, she has good points.
I will listen to any argument contradicting the conclusions they have come up with but yours are pretty weak bordering on rubbish.
Select to expand quoteremery said..
You don't think the cops were afraid because the 18 year old had, the day after his 18th birthday, legally purchased a Smith & Wesson semi-automatic rifle from a local gun store then another rifle with a "hellfire" trigger increasing the possible rate of fire. Along with 1,657 rounds of ammunition?
No more afraid than every day they pull over random cars with potentially a drug runner or similar inside with similar guns. Probably less as they at least knew what they were up against.
No different to the Sydney Lindt Cafe shooting. I don't think the cops were afraid, they just had poor decisions being made by thier leaders. He should have been taken out straight away.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..Chris 249 said..
It's actually easy to refute much of her analysis. For example;
1- she says "the last editor who published me had his journal shutdown: GeoResJ was discontinued in 2018", implying that the reason that GeoResJ was shut down because it published Marahosy's paper. In fact, GeoResJ had a fairly low Impact Factor and a quick Google shows that it was allegedly not getting enough submissions - and that its own publisher found that the editor had acted unethically.
There is no evidence at all that I can find that the journal was shut down because it published papers against the consensus - it was shut down because of a bad editor and poor performance.
2- She also repeatedly claims that the BoM is trying to hide the fact that Australia's record temperature was allegedly hit in Bourke in 1909. However, it takes very little checking to see why there is a very good reason that the BoM has ignored that temperature. Put it this way, pubs are not the place to get scientific data!
Marohasy has made a huge deal out of the Bourke data, but she either ignored the local newspapers of the time or didn't bother to check them.
3- There seems to be a huge amount of cherry picking going on. For example, she works with Ken Stewart, not a scientist, who has done a paper looking at temperature data for 104 sites. However, he ignored the data for 19 of the sites, without giving any reason for it! Of course you can find trends if you just throw away 20% of the data!
Interestingly even Marohasy admits several times that the climate is warming.
You seem to be critiquing some pretty banal aspects of the claim. Who cares why a journal shut down.....
Exactly what are you claiming regarding the Bourke temperature reading? If you think it was from a pub wall you are being misled. It was recorded at an official site, in an official Stevenson Screen and was entered into the sites official log where it remained for many years. Recently the BoM removed it from the record claiming no other sites around it had similar readings and so it must have been in error. Until someone looked in the archives and found the next nearest site had a reading almost as high....
You claim data has been ignored and suggest manipulation. There may be good reasons for why he did that. Maybe the data wasn't suitable for a host of reasons. Worth looking into but to properly rebut it you need to assess that data, why it was not used and see if it makes any difference to the outcome if it can be included. Blindly claiming cherry picking because of random reasons is not scientific or valid.
No one is disputing the surface temps have increased over the last 40 years. What is being debated is the extent of that warming and if it is any different to what has been seen in recent times. The Boms data shows significant departure from the satellite data. people are trying to work out why and Marahosy is focusing on the problems with temperature probes being calibrated properly with thermometers and as far as I can see, she has good points.
I will listen to any argument contradicting the conclusions they have come up with but yours are pretty weak bordering on rubbish.
It seems the experts at the BOM are ditching their method of spot reading temperature and moving to the international standard of averaging from digital probes .
Select to expand quoteParadox said..Chris 249 said..
It's actually easy to refute much of her analysis. For example;
1- she says "the last editor who published me had his journal shutdown: GeoResJ was discontinued in 2018", implying that the reason that GeoResJ was shut down because it published Marahosy's paper. In fact, GeoResJ had a fairly low Impact Factor and a quick Google shows that it was allegedly not getting enough submissions - and that its own publisher found that the editor had acted unethically.
There is no evidence at all that I can find that the journal was shut down because it published papers against the consensus - it was shut down because of a bad editor and poor performance.
2- She also repeatedly claims that the BoM is trying to hide the fact that Australia's record temperature was allegedly hit in Bourke in 1909. However, it takes very little checking to see why there is a very good reason that the BoM has ignored that temperature. Put it this way, pubs are not the place to get scientific data!
Marohasy has made a huge deal out of the Bourke data, but she either ignored the local newspapers of the time or didn't bother to check them.
3- There seems to be a huge amount of cherry picking going on. For example, she works with Ken Stewart, not a scientist, who has done a paper looking at temperature data for 104 sites. However, he ignored the data for 19 of the sites, without giving any reason for it! Of course you can find trends if you just throw away 20% of the data!
Interestingly even Marohasy admits several times that the climate is warming.
You seem to be critiquing some pretty banal aspects of the claim. Who cares why a journal shut down.....
Exactly what are you claiming regarding the Bourke temperature reading? If you think it was from a pub wall you are being misled. It was recorded at an official site, in an official Stevenson Screen and was entered into the sites official log where it remained for many years. Recently the BoM removed it from the record claiming no other sites around it had similar readings and so it must have been in error. Until someone looked in the archives and found the next nearest site had a reading almost as high....
You claim data has been ignored and suggest manipulation. There may be good reasons for why he did that. Maybe the data wasn't suitable for a host of reasons. Worth looking into but to properly rebut it you need to assess that data, why it was not used and see if it makes any difference to the outcome if it can be included. Blindly claiming cherry picking because of random reasons is not scientific or valid.
No one is disputing the surface temps have increased over the last 40 years. What is being debated is the extent of that warming and if it is any different to what has been seen in recent times. The Boms data shows significant departure from the satellite data. people are trying to work out why and Marahosy is focusing on the problems with temperature probes being calibrated properly with thermometers and as far as I can see, she has good points.
I will listen to any argument contradicting the conclusions they have come up with but yours are pretty weak bordering on rubbish.
You're not actually listening very hard, and your last line proves it.
1- Marahosy is the one who is making a deal about why the journal was shut down, not. The point you are ignoring is that she is drawing an implication that is utterly unjustified on the available data - in other words she's talking BS.
2- The point about the Bourke data is that Marahosy has made a big deal about it, without apparently even bothering to look at the contemporary newspaper for background. So did you. The underlying issue is that she has made a big issue without doing what could be called due diligence, aka proper investigation using easily obtained sources.
The funny thing is that Marahosy herself is a fan of using local papers as evidence of high temperatures - jennifermarohasy.com/2014/09/newspapers-as-the-guardians-of-hot-history/
I notice that you didn't use the clue I posted to do some research. That goes against the claim that many make, which is that those who believe in the consensus don't do their own research. In this case I did so some research, and it turns out that all the max. temps in Bourke at the time according to the daily reports in the local paper were from the "Federal refrigerator" - NOT from the post office's official thermometer, as you and Marahosy claim, but from a pub's fridge.
Marahosy can't write pieces saying how great local papers are as a source, and then ignore the fact that the local paper at the time and date she specifically makes a big fuss about specifically says that the relevant temps were taken from a fridge, NOT from the post office's thermometer with its Stephenson screen etc.
So Marahosy is relying not on a proper "official" source, but an outback pub's mechanisms - and then making a huge fuss about it. Having done some work in pubs in the outback, there's no way I'd trust all of their technology.
Oh, and notice that (a) there's incomplete records for the day in question and (b) it represents a deviation from normal statistical collection, both of which cast even more doubt on its quality and validity.
3- Sorry, but are you kidding about the fact that I'm "blindly claiming cherry picking" with reference to Stewart's paper? It's utterly unscientific (and not just that, but totally against logic in every area I'm aware of) to just ignore some data in the dataset that the author has selected, without giving damn good reasons in the study.
It's like rolling a six-sided dice 60 times, removing 20% of the results, and then saying that the fact that your results don't include any sixes is "proof" that the dice had no sixes.
No first-year student science student would remove 20% of the dataset they have selected from analysis without giving a reason and then expect to get a pass mark.
If the tax department or a kitesurfing contest scorer ignored 20% of your scores or tax records without giving any reason and then hit you with a bigger tax bill or a worse result based on their new calculations, would you just accept it? No reasonable person would, because no reasonable person accepts that a study can remove 20% of the relevant dataset without giving any reason for doing so, and then claim to come to any reasonable conclusion.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..
You seem to be critiquing some pretty banal aspects of the claim. Who cares why a journal shut down.....
Exactly what are you claiming regarding the Bourke temperature reading? If you think it was from a pub wall you are being misled. It was recorded at an official site, in an official Stevenson Screen and was entered into the sites official log where it remained for many years. Recently the BoM removed it from the record claiming no other sites around it had similar readings and so it must have been in error. Until someone looked in the archives and found the next nearest site had a reading almost as high....
You claim data has been ignored and suggest manipulation. There may be good reasons for why he did that. Maybe the data wasn't suitable for a host of reasons. Worth looking into but to properly rebut it you need to assess that data, why it was not used and see if it makes any difference to the outcome if it can be included. Blindly claiming cherry picking because of random reasons is not scientific or valid.
No one is disputing the surface temps have increased over the last 40 years. What is being debated is the extent of that warming and if it is any different to what has been seen in recent times. The Boms data shows significant departure from the satellite data. people are trying to work out why and Marahosy is focusing on the problems with temperature probes being calibrated properly with thermometers and as far as I can see, she has good points.
I will listen to any argument contradicting the conclusions they have come up with but yours are pretty weak bordering on rubbish.
You might find some. Interesting information in Trewin's PhD thesis, I believe he/she got a pass mark... "Extreme Temperature Events in Australia"
Blair C. Trewin
"This leaves the Bourke observation of 3 January 1909 remaining for consideration. The catalogue Climatological Stations: New South Wales (unpublished journal: lodged in the National Meteorological Library at the Bureau of Meteorology) indicates that a Stevenson screen was installed at Bourke in August 1908. However, no other station in New South Wales or southern Queensland is known to have exceeded 47.2?C on this day.
The original manuscript record for Bourke shows temperatures of 125?F (51.7?C)
observed on both 2 and 3 January. The observation on 2 January has been corrected on the manuscript to ll2?F (44.4?C), which is consistent with the temperatures over the
region, and with the 1500 temperature of ll0?F (43.3?C). The 3 January observation was not corrected. However, 3 January was a Sunday, and no other observations were made on this day (as was the usual practice at Bourke, and many other stations, at the time). It is therefore likely that the observation is actually the tnaximum temperature for the 48 hours to 0900, 4 January, and therefore it would be affected by the same error which was conected in the case of the 2 January observation. Reports from those stations in the region which did take observations on both clays suggest that temperatures in the region on 3 January were similar to those of 2 January."
Select to expand quoteParadox said..
No different to the Sydney Lindt Cafe shooting. I don't think the cops were afraid, they just had poor decisions being made by thier leaders. He should have been taken out straight away.
So you're an expert on police tactics as well as climate science?
So you reckon a motorcycle cop, armed with a pistol, should have somehow shot through a window and taken out a guy with a bomb vest, who claimed he was trying to stop other terrorists from blowing up other bombs around the city?
You know sooooooooooooooooooo much more about these incidents than the world's police forces and anti-terrorism guys that you know that their approach is wrong, and yours is right?
How many times have you analysed terrorist incidents? How many times have you worked out the proper procedure for sieges? Or do you just know this stuff better than the cops and terrorism experts because you know everything?
So you know more about climate science than the climate scientists, more about shooting suspects than the cops, and more about terrorism than those who work in the area? Wow...................
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..Paradox said..
No different to
So you're an expert on police tactics as well as climate science?
So you reckon a motorcycle cop, armed with a pistol, should have somehow shot through a window and taken out a guy with a bomb vest, who claimed he was trying to stop other terrorists from blowing up other bombs around the city?
You know sooooooooooooooooooo much more about these incidents than the world's police forces and anti-terrorism guys that you know that their approach is wrong, and yours is right?
How many times have you analysed terrorist incidents? How many times have you worked out the proper procedure for sieges? Or do you just know this stuff better than the cops and terrorism experts because you know everything?
So you know more about climate science than the climate scientists, more about shooting suspects than the cops, and more about terrorism than those who work in the area?
Is there anything you are not the world's leading genius about?
I know you're being sarcastic but if Paradox has a superior intellect he could outclass many professionals in their own field. And in fields that require far too much perspicacity for this to be possible he may just be able to observe the faults of others.
Select to expand quoteRango said..
It seems the experts at the BOM are ditching their method of spot reading temperature and moving to the international standard of averaging from digital probes .
Marohasy and others have long been critical of the fact the BoM have not adhered to thier own standards let alone international practice in thier temperature probe readings. It is just one aspect that is problematic, but it is a start.
It is good to see the pressure is finally paying off.
