• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Refuting the Startling Nonsense About Australia's Bush Fires

Buzz said:
You think that the only way a month's temperatures can be called unprecedented is based on record temps alone. But I and most of the science is not so one dimensional and know that a statistical analysis can also be used to call a month's temps unprecedented. And unless you can prove that statistics can not be used in this way I am going to continue to say you are wrong.

So... if you want to prove me wrong with more than just your unsupported and uninformed opinion then you are going to have show that statistics are never used. And we both know you are completely incapable of doing something like that.
Click to expand...

Just more BS.
January 2020 Ohio temperatures have been met or exceeded before. They are therefore not unprecedented.
 
Indeed.

[FONT=&quot]Snow[/FONT]
[h=1]Warming and the Snows of Yesteryear[/h][FONT=&quot]Reposted from American Thinker By Gregory Wrightstone I was recently reminded of one of the most common misconceptions about our changing climate that is often accepted as fact by climate skeptics and true believers alike. Last week a commentary written by a fellow geologist and colleague lamented the less snow and cold in recent winters…
[/FONT]
 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Rutgers University Global Snow Lab and “the Snows of Yesteryear”[/h][FONT=&quot]Guest “geologist tag-teaming” by David Middleton This is a follow up to Gregory Wrightstone’s article from yesterday. A couple of the first few comments reminded me that I’ve been meaning to write a post on the Rutgers University Global Snow Lab and what their data has to say about “the snows of yesteryear” and the…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
Jack Hays said:
Just more BS.
January 2020 Ohio temperatures have been met or exceeded before. They are therefore not unprecedented.
Click to expand...

https://www.weather.gov/media/iln/climate_summary/ClimateReport_January2020.pdf

It may have been January, but everything about the temperatures during the month said “March,” with brief bouts of cold weather interspersed with extended periods of highs in the 50s and 60s and lows in the 20s and 30s. In fact, through the first half of the month, every day featured daily average temperatures that were above normal. In fact, a daily record was broken at Columbus (CMH) on the 11th(71°F), breaking the old daily record of 66°F set in 1890. A daily record high minimum of 45°F was also tied at the site the day before. A daily record high of 67°F was tied and a daily record warm low of 49°F was set at Cincinnati (CVG) on the 11thand 10th, respectively. The low of 47°F and high of 67°F on the 10thand 11th, respectively, set daily records at Dayton (DAY) as well.
Click to expand...
emphasis mine
 
Jack Hays said:
So what? It remains false to claim January 2020 weather in Ohio was unprecedented.
Click to expand...

In your opinion. Too bad you can't prove it statistically. But I will admit I can't prove that it was either.

I just thought some people might be curious about what the Weather Service says about Januarys "well above normal" temps.
 
Buzz said:
In your opinion. Too bad you can't prove it statistically. But I will admit I can't prove that it was either.

I just thought some people might be curious about what the Weather Service says about Januarys "well above normal" temps.
Click to expand...

No need for statistics. "Unprecedented" has a plain meaning.
 
Jack Hays said:
It doesn't preclude one but it doesn't require one.
Click to expand...

So what? It is still possible that the January 2020 weather in Ohio was statistically unprecedented.
 
Buzz said:
So what? It is still possible that the January 2020 weather in Ohio was statistically unprecedented.
Click to expand...

Nope. "Statistically unprecedented" was not the claim. The claim was simply "unprecedented." That is false.
 
Jack Hays said:
Nope. "Statistically unprecedented" was not the claim. The claim was simply "unprecedented." That is false.
Click to expand...

WTF?

So I guess ‘completely unprecedented’ or ‘surprisingly unprecedented’ are out too?

LOL.

Black knighting at its finest stub!
 
Jack Hays said:
Nope. "Statistically unprecedented" was not the claim. The claim was simply "unprecedented." That is false.
Click to expand...

And record temps were not claimed either. And a Statistical analysis is much more logical than your black knighting denialism.

Give up Jack. You are just making a fool of yourself again.
 
Threegoofs said:
WTF?

So I guess ‘completely unprecedented’ or ‘surprisingly unprecedented’ are out too?

LOL.

Black knighting at its finest stub!
Click to expand...

Sorry, but your poor grasp of English does not create a point to argue. "Completely" unprecedented is merely redundant. "Surprisingly" unprecedented does not change the meaning. On the other hand, "statistically" unprecedented creates a different meaning. You need better language skills to be effective.
 
Buzz said:
And record temps were not claimed either. And a Statistical analysis is much more logical than your black knighting denialism.

Give up Jack. You are just making a fool of yourself again.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but the fool here is you, trying desperately to find a way around the plain meaning of "unprecedented."
 
Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but the fool here is you, trying desperately to find a way around the plain meaning of "unprecedented."
Click to expand...

You are the one who keeps suggesting without evidence that "unprecedented" precludes a statistical analysis.
 
Buzz said:
You are the one who keeps suggesting without evidence that "unprecedented" precludes a statistical analysis.
Click to expand...

I did not say it precludes it. I said it doesn't require it. Stop lying.
 
Jack Hays said:
I did not say it precludes it. I said it doesn't require it. Stop lying.
Click to expand...

And I said you are "suggesting that it precludes" and not that you "said it precludes". So... stop lying.

Just because "unprecedented" doesn't require a statistical analysis, that doesn't mean it can't.
 
Buzz said:
And I said you are "suggesting that it precludes" and not that you "said it precludes". So... stop lying.

Just because "unprecedented" doesn't require a statistical analysis, that doesn't mean it can't.
Click to expand...

I have never suggested it either. "Unprecedented" means just what it says.
 
[h=2]On cue — after droughts and fires, then come the floods[/h]
[h=3]So much for the “hotter drier” future they were warning us about 3 weeks ago[/h]As predicted, droughts in Australia often end in floods. It is the way it has always been. Today people are already being rescued from the rising water and possibly another 200 -300mm of rain may fall before Sunday warns the BOM. Many fires have been extinguished.
Climate change has made no difference to the drought trends in Australia in the last 178 years and climate models are totally skilless at rainfall. When will the climate modelers admit that these are natural cycles?
[h=3]‘We’re only half way through’: East coast smashed by flashflooding and heavy winds[/h]Forecasters become increasingly concerned that even more rain could fall even faster than expected as five people have been rescued from floods.
The NSW State Emergency Service issued a flood warning for Sydney’s metropolitan areas, saying forecast weather conditions were “likely to cause widespread flooding”.
Flooding has already occurred in Roseville in Sydney’s Upper North Shore and the north-western suburb of Putney, where commuters are advised to allow extra travel time.
Meteorologists have said they are increasingly worried about the unfolding weather events in New South Wales and have “great concerns” that “intense bursts” of rain could see hundreds more millimetres fall far quicker than originally expected.

[h=3]NSW and Qld weather: flood warnings as torrential rain hits Sydney and much of east coast[/h]The NSW Rural Fire Service said the heavy rain was welcome in bushfire-ravaged parts of the state.
“We were over the moon to see rain arrive across many parts of NSW, with decent falls in the state’s north,” the RFS said on Thursday night.
When will our climate experts and the ABC “Science ” team mention that the solar cycles and ocean currents are linked to rainfall all over the world, and their models contradict each other, show no skill and are useless at rainfall.
Five years after rain returns, climate modelers redo models and “predict” more, less, some, different or same rain
Australian – Asian rainfall linked to solar activity for last 6000 years
Sun controls half of the groundwater recharge rate in China for last 700 years
Solar effects seem to shift wind and rainfall patterns over last 3000 years in Chile
Climate Models: 100% right except for rain, drought, storms, humidity and everything else
Delighted to hear it’s raining. Hoping everyone stays safe and its “well spread”.

 
From the apparently bottomless pit of alarmist BS:



[h=1]The Australian Fires/Climate Change Link: Activists Spread BS Across The Media – Because They’ve Got Nothing To Go On[/h]Posted on 25 Feb 20 by JAIME JESSOP • 15 Comments
A series of Comments and Correspondence have recently been published in Nature Climate Change and the legacy alarmist media has gone into overdrive to spin the false narrative once again that climate change ’caused’ the devastating Australian bushfires. . . .
 
[FONT=&quot]Climate Politics[/FONT]
[h=1]Sky News: Aussie Royal Commission to Investigate how Climate Activists “Hijacked” Forestry Management[/h][FONT=&quot]Guest essay by Eric Worrall There is growing pressure on the Australian Royal Commission investigating Bushfires to investigate how greens in positions of authority allegedly hijacked forestry management, to frustrate efforts to protect property and lives by back burning, to manage forest fuel load. Bushfire royal commission ‘to examine green movement to hijack back burns’…
[/FONT]
 
Jack Hays said:
[FONT=&quot]Climate Politics[/FONT]
[h=1]Sky News: Aussie Royal Commission to Investigate how Climate Activists “Hijacked” Forestry Management[/h][FONT=&quot]Guest essay by Eric Worrall There is growing pressure on the Australian Royal Commission investigating Bushfires to investigate how greens in positions of authority allegedly hijacked forestry management, to frustrate efforts to protect property and lives by back burning, to manage forest fuel load. Bushfire royal commission ‘to examine green movement to hijack back burns’…
[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Still nothing but unsupported allegations that environmentalists were interfering in forestry management that caused the fires to be worse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom