http://www.couriermail.com.au/
Looking through the newspaper record, there isn’t one shred of evidence to support the claim that the weather has gotten more extreme.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Maldives Refuse To Drown
- Game Over For The Climate
- Another Ice Age?
- Historic Heatwave
- Historic Heatwave
- Science-Free Journalism
- Why Is Venus So Hot?
- Color Or Monochrome?
- AI Doublespeak
- AI Doublespeak
- Net Zero Intelligence
- “The Green Party dropped nearly 9 per cent”
- Fake Record Heat In India
- RFK Jr’s Plan For $12 Gas
- Hockey Match
- Hockey Match
- Giving Proper Credit
- Conspiracy Theory!
- “No One Is Above The Law”
- CNN Experts Discuss Medicine
- Looking For Their Lost Keys
- Rapid Climate Change
- CBS News 1982 : One Fourth Of Florida To Drown
- Affordable Transportation
- “Why Scientific Fraud Is Suddenly Everywhere”
Recent Comments
- Bob G on Maldives Refuse To Drown
- Bruce of Newcastle on Maldives Refuse To Drown
- arn on Maldives Refuse To Drown
- mwhite on Maldives Refuse To Drown
- Disillusioned on Game Over For The Climate
- John B on Maldives Refuse To Drown
- Francis Barnett on Maldives Refuse To Drown
- Bob G on Maldives Refuse To Drown
- Conrad Ziefle on Maldives Refuse To Drown
- arn on Maldives Refuse To Drown
Steve ,
good to see that you have done the statistical analysis for the last few centuries.
Are you posting it here or saving it for that peer reviewed paper I have been bugging you to publish?
Are you as anal as you pretend to be?
Steve,
Only when it comes to science
Bad things happen when science is based on, “well, it’s more or less something like this”. I kind of want to fly or go over a bridge where the people developing the theory and designing the thing were extremely anal about getting it right.
What a load of crap. We have satellites and radar now, and can track more weather events.
satellites and radar developed by anal scientists who used statistics.
Show me the satellite records of the minimum low pressure of the 1935 Labor day Hurricane.
Real time monitoring from satellites guarantees that more extremes are caught. It is basic statistics that your statistics are flawed.
TonyD:
If you need to use Statistics to prove your theory, You are doing it wrong and need to find a new theory! Someone else can also use statistics to show how wrong you are! Facts do not need STATISTICS!
Things will ‘get worse’ until they were like they were in the past.
That could be a fact.
You need to rewrite all of Bohr, Heisenburg, Dirac, Feynman, and a few thousand other physicists theories that have been used to invent all this imaginary technology that we use that is based on statistics.
“Facts do not need STATISTICS!”
In the case of “Climate Science” this is true – all that “climate facts” need is an overwhelming “belief” in their existence. A lot like the concept of God – if enough people believe that God exists, then God exists.
There is a reasonably good grade-school definition of what used to be known as the “scientific method” here. Let’s assume for the sake of an argument that the “numerical data” included at Point #6 includes such things as “statistics” – given that that’s the way the dictionary defines it:
sta·tis·tics
–noun
( used with a plural verb ) the numerical facts or data themselves
Unfortunately Tony if you claim something is happening you need to produce proof, not expect others to prove it is not happening.
Paul,
It doesn’t work that way. if one person says one thing and 50 say something else, BOTH groups have to produce proof.
“It doesn’t work that way. if one person says one thing and 50 say something else, BOTH groups have to produce proof.”
What you are describing is more like the Socratic method, which is fine for debating societies. What used to be called the Scientific Method is altogether different: the proponent of a theory is obliged to prove it, opponents are not obliged to disprove it – except in the “Climate science parallel universe”, that is.”
Tony Duncan,
apparently the weather isn’t getting weirder.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.776/full
“The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project”
Sorry Jimbo,
Mike says that this sort of analysis using statistics is worthless. “facts don’t need statistics”.
that’s too bad, because if Mike hadn’t said that I would think this link was exactly what needed to be done.
I’ve posted hundreds of articles detailing historical extreme weather far worse than anything seen recently. Only an idiot would hide behind statistics.
Steve,
only an idiot would post things that everyone already knows and think that proves something.
I have not read any scientists that have said that huge natural disasters have never happened in the past.
You conflate “damage” and loss of life with intensity of disaster and as I have said before comparing loss of life in modern natural disasters to loss of life in other historical periods is meaningless.
Using your reasoning, even in modern times ,the Haiti earthquake with 200,000 deaths was an order of magnitude worse than the Japanese with only 20,000 deaths. therefore since the Japan earthquake was 9.0, then the Haiti earthquake must have been 10.0 and therefor the most powerful earthquake ever recorded. Obviously there is a HUGE coverup and seismograph reading have been doctored to show the Haiti quake was only a ridiculously low 7.3.
SUYTS,
since you are FINALLY appreciating my humor, I will say that Steve posting all these historical instances of disaster is in and of itself a very useful thing, and I do think that the media and some scientists are clueless about history.
Don’t tell Steve though!
Steve,
well if you are using statistics then by Mike’s reasoning, your comment is irrelevant and I will not respond in solidarity with Mike!
You should too Steve, otherwise you are agreeing with me in a convoluted way.
LOL, that is a beautiful circle!
An ever decreasing circle!!
I love the contradiction: Things are going to get worse, but it’s happened before!
Worse than what? I love these numb-nuts that give meaningless, unverifiable statements like that.
The first word says “scientists” – and then after that it degenerates into gobbledegook.
“The wet tropics will get wetter..” Wetter than what? Does our “scientist” want to put a figure on this?
“The dry interior will get drier..” Has our “scientist” looked out the window lately, I wonder? The “dry interior” has been under water the last 3 years. The latest flood covered an area greater than France and Germany combined. The people in the “dry interior” live for the day when they can be dry once in a while.
World’s best practice “Climate Science” in action here – if you need a factoid or two, just make them up. It’s not as if the media is going to challenge you on it. Some “scientist”.
Worse than they were like at present. Worse until it was like it happened in the past. In other words, there’s nothing new under the sun. What has happened before is what will happen.
So why do they build cities were huge floods have happened before?
I love a sunburnt country, a land of sweeping plains,
Of ragged mountain ranges, of droughts and flooding rains.
I love her far horizons, I love her jewel-sea,
Her beauty and her terror – the wide brown land for me!
-Dorothea McKellar, Australia, 1904.
http://www.dorotheamackellar.com.au/archive/mycountry.htm
Small wonder. When she wrote that, Australia was beginning to emerge from what was (and probably still is) the worst drought since white settlement.
“THE GREAT DROUGHT.
Queensland has suffered most of all Australian States. In 1891 there were more than 20,000,000 sheep in Queensland; to-day that number has shrunk to a little over 7,000,000. The financial loss represented by these figures is nothing less than stupendous.”
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/4315181?
~1 Jan 1904
For an alarmist, every present weather event is the end of the world. Any past event is based on flawed data from Stone Age 19th/20th Century weather instruments that needs to be adjusted or tossed out.
Tony Duncan says:
It doesn’t work that way. if one person says one thing and 50 say something else, BOTH groups have to produce proof.
—————————————————————–
sorry, but no. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim not the ones saying show me the proof. In this case, the claim is that weather has gotten more extreme. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the ones making that claim *NOT* on the ones saying “sorry, but I don’t see a shred of evidence to back that claim”.
Correct.
There is an unscientific name for unproven hypotheses or theories.
It’s called “bullsh!t”.
I think this was Tony giving us an example of his “serious comedy”.
Sorry but no back,
there is a theory that is accepted by every single climate scientist I know of. That theory says that increased CO2 causes in increase in net global radiation. that is why you have scientists like Spencer and Lindzen postulating mechanisms that offset that effect.
Since it is the accepted theory new information that impacts the theory needs to be compared to the theory, and any COMPETING theories.
Wow. You are defying the First Law Of Thermodynamics.
Funny.
“increased CO2 causes in increase in net global radiation”
Real funny. Not only does it defy the First Law Of Thermodynamics as Steven noted but it doesn’t even fit the AGW story.
Too much heat? Just add CO2 to increase its radiation.
Or wait… is the already catastrophically warmed CO2 molecules now in a new state, like the warmcold itself? Does this heat radiate out into a parallel universe?
I sure miss Monty Python. They could have done wonders with the spun gibberish being spewed these days. Unfortunately the people running the spew-machine are not joking and there’s a sucker born every minute.
My oh my. I made a mistake. Good for me I am secure enough to admit it.
No ACC does NOT cause a magical increase in radiation from the earth. What I should have said is that it causes a net decrease in radiation leaving the earth affecting mean global temps until a new equilibrium is reached.
I admit that Hansen predicted in 1988 that Manhattan would be underwater.
Steve,
you forgot a couple of parts. Let me remind you. You have repeatedly said Hansen predicted manhattan would be underwater by 2008. You ridiculed him for saying that repeatedly. I pointed out repeatedly that none of his writings or public comments said anything like that.
It turns out Hansen NEVER said that and in an interview the author of the book that has the CORRECT quote admitted he made a mistake, and nobody, including you bothered to check and see if the quote was accurate.
Surprised you keep forgetting these nagging little details, but I will be happy to remind you whenever you forget.
Anytime you want to admit you were wrong about this I will graciously accept your admission with due humility.
I hacked the Salon site and made the whole thing up. And I do think that Manhattan will soon be an aquarium.
Statistically more lives are saved and dangers are averted than ever before because more and more people come together to hammer out their views, opinions & ideas that are debated throughout the planet online, including blogs like this one.
I believe the debate is Statistically far more important than the Stupid Comments being made to the Press!
The debate is never over, the science is never settled and there is never a infallible consensus (unfailing in effectiveness or operation).
“That theory says that increased CO2 causes in increase in net global radiation.”
That must be the theory that has led to this breakthrough technology:
http://ilovemycarbondioxide.com/ipcc_oven.html
Ivan, you and your website are forgetting about a minor factor. While it is true that in a few billion years that energy will be gone for the moment the Sun provides a miraculous source of energy into the system, so your chicken really can cook that way!
If increased levels of co2 are causing a rise in global temps., can any alarmed theorist explain why periods of heating are ALWAYS followed by increases in co2 levels, rather than the other way? I purposetherun spot activitywould not have anything to do with this?
Tony Duncan says:
March 21, 2011 at 11:04 pm
Sorry but no back,
there is a theory that is accepted by every single climate scientist I know of.
—————————-
Again, sorry but no.
Appeals to authority do not change where the burden of proof lies. The one making the claim is the one for whom the burden of proof lies. That doesn’t change no matter how many people you know who agree with you. to paraphrase the old Wendy’s commerical “where’s the proof”.