Thread: Climate Change and our Land of Fire, Flood and Drought.

Originally Posted by rick130

The Guardian and the SMH/Age appear to have the least bias of any mainstream news sources.

The Australian is a shadow of what it once was, so much bias and conflicted opinion in certain areas.
The rest of News Ltd is a joke.

Perhaps you should read this.

Media 'impartiality' on climate change is ethically misguided and downright dangerous

Originally Posted by rick130

.....
They are just backing the science, and their board believes strongly enough I the science they are putting their funding where their mouths are.

.....

While it's all well and good, science is hardly on their mind(eg. below)

Originally Posted by rick130

Their editorial bias is pro environment, they've broken a lot of the (possible) corruption and mismanagement of water resources here in the east and are unabashed in backing the science supporting anthropogenic climate change.
Their editorial board believe it is the existential threat of our time.

....

Again, I could applaud the philosophy, but the job of a respectable news outlet should be to present facts in an unbiased manner, and in effect, allow the readership to form their opinions.
News/reportage is not, nor ever should be, allowed to have any biases .. no matter how well meaning their intent.

the example(of how stupid their science is):

In the link provided by Bob10 their are two bits of very relevant info(or news) that we should take very careful notice of.

1/. is their Bushfire bunkum commentary. I won't challenge all of their points, even the one about hazard reduction, as more info reveals that more had been done .. so fair nuff, their point is accepted.
BUT! on the point that bushfires have historically been worse, which they have, or more or less numerous, they provide zero data to disprove the conservatives commentary that they have been worse. Yes, for sure this last season has been monumentally severe, but has it been the worst. Where's the actual data(scientific) to prove that their counter claim is relevant.
He said, she said BS reporting! .. While I can never side with the conservative media outlets .. on this specific topic, I'm afraid the The Conversation loses out. No proof, just a load of hot air(and most likely due to climate change).

2/. so they can't work on their due diligence and provide any scientific facts about worse or not bushfires, so they provide some idiotic mumbo-jumbo video by some random lunatic on the topic of maximum temps in Adelaide.
Most folks will just watch the video and believe. I dare you to watch it very carefully and notice how stupid it is.
At about the 5 sec mark, this video shows that maximum temperature in Adelaide in 2017 show a maximum of 50 odd degrees.
In fact the video graphic really doesn't show anything of value to anyone .. other than some pro action alarmist group hell bent on showing anything to scare folks into submission!

I've searched for max temps in Adelaide. There are 4 relevant BoM weather stations, maximum temp ever recorded in Adelaide was 47.7 on the 24th Jan 2019.
This real value(from BoM) doesn't show up in the video graphic!
Then at the 6sec mark, it gets worse! Didn't think it could, but it does. The video then shows a 2020 max temp value of about 52.5°C!
Note that this video they link too was uploaded on 19 Jan 2020 too.
The video clearly shows a small very brief spike in temperatures in the very high 40's to very low 50's in 2017 for Adelaide.
The video supposedly shows soem predictive pattern for Adelaide, but you'd be wrong to assume it's based on any known historical data, going by it's content.

As said, there are 4 possible station that record climate for Adelaide, West terrace, Airport, Kent Town, and Parafield.
If you search through the BoM data for any of those 4 locations, the maximum temp recorded at any of them was 41.7 on Feb 8, 2017 at the Airport site. (no data for West terrace exists, as it was offline for 20 odd years till may 2017.
Where's this supposed 2017 high 40's low 50's max temp for 'Adelaide'?.. more to the point, which 'Adelaide'. Is this some other Adelaide, in a figment of someone's vivid imagination?
Is it not a priority on any news outlet of any actual value to fact check their news articles? Is that video as a source of scientific data, acceptable to be used by a media outlet trying to prove their credibility?

So this dubious 'Conversation' media outlet(that so many annoyingly continually keep referring too in this thread!) uses some pseudo scientific graphic to 'prove a point' .. which is that they're pretty much as bunkum as the conservative media outlets they vilify!
The main issue with this is that those that are blinded by the hyperbole don't have the intelligence to see through the garbage, and just straight out accept it as some form of science!
It's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. These conservationist lead media outlets seem to want to fight back with bogus information of their own!
Do that enough, and the general populace will just get tired of it, and this happens.
Circular, random debates that lead nowhere, where one or two folks continually linking to their preferred bunkum source of 'data'!

While I haven't read much of the Guardian myself, other than linked too random sites from this thread .. I haven't really seen all that much difference in their message to the content within The Conversation.

All I'm saying is, don't just believe it because you want believe it to be true. Fact check it.
Took me less than 10 mins to find out the info I did above, from seeing the ludicrous flash of >50°C temp in Adelaide in 2017 and 2020 to finding the actual max temp data on BoM's website.
If they make some claim, do they provide actual(verifiable) proof of their (counter)claim.

From the Royal Australian College of General Practicioners, Position Statement, Climate change and Human health.


https://www.racgp.org.au/FSDEDEV/med...man-health.pdf

We have the vaccine for climate change disinformation.

We have the vaccine for climate disinformation – let's use it

The Authors.

1. Stephan Lewandowsky Chair of Cognitive Psychology, University of Bristol
   
2. John Hunter University Associate, Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania

Originally Posted by bob10

Perhaps you should read this.

Media 'impartiality' on climate change is ethically misguided and downright dangerous

Why would I need to read that Bob?

Even though I already have

Originally Posted by rick130

Why would I need to read that Bob?

Even though I already have

When it comes to dealing with rusted on denialists, who keep posting unsubstantiated diatribe, all knowledge is gold. No other reason . Perhaps I should have headed it differently, sorry about that. My blood was up, after a chat on CA to such one person.

Originally Posted by AK83

While it's all well and good, science is hardly on their mind(eg. below)



Again, I could applaud the philosophy, but the job of a respectable news outlet should be to present facts in an unbiased manner, and in effect, allow the readership to form their opinions.
News/reportage is not, nor ever should be, allowed to have any biases .. no matter how well meaning their intent.

the example(of how stupid their science is):

In the link provided by Bob10 their are two bits of very relevant info(or news) that we should take very careful notice of.

1/. is their Bushfire bunkum commentary. I won't challenge all of their points, even the one about hazard reduction, as more info reveals that more had been done .. so fair nuff, their point is accepted.
BUT! on the point that bushfires have historically been worse, which they have, or more or less numerous, they provide zero data to disprove the conservatives commentary that they have been worse. Yes, for sure this last season has been monumentally severe, but has it been the worst. Where's the actual data(scientific) to prove that their counter claim is relevant.
He said, she said BS reporting! .. While I can never side with the conservative media outlets .. on this specific topic, I'm afraid the The Conversation loses out. No proof, just a load of hot air(and most likely due to climate change).

2/. so they can't work on their due diligence and provide any scientific facts about worse or not bushfires, so they provide some idiotic mumbo-jumbo video by some random lunatic on the topic of maximum temps in Adelaide.
Most folks will just watch the video and believe. I dare you to watch it very carefully and notice how stupid it is.
At about the 5 sec mark, this video shows that maximum temperature in Adelaide in 2017 show a maximum of 50 odd degrees.
In fact the video graphic really doesn't show anything of value to anyone .. other than some pro action alarmist group hell bent on showing anything to scare folks into submission!

I've searched for max temps in Adelaide. There are 4 relevant BoM weather stations, maximum temp ever recorded in Adelaide was 47.7 on the 24th Jan 2019.
This real value(from BoM) doesn't show up in the video graphic!
Then at the 6sec mark, it gets worse! Didn't think it could, but it does. The video then shows a 2020 max temp value of about 52.5°C!
Note that this video they link too was uploaded on 19 Jan 2020 too.
The video clearly shows a small very brief spike in temperatures in the very high 40's to very low 50's in 2017 for Adelaide.
The video supposedly shows soem predictive pattern for Adelaide, but you'd be wrong to assume it's based on any known historical data, going by it's content.

As said, there are 4 possible station that record climate for Adelaide, West terrace, Airport, Kent Town, and Parafield.
If you search through the BoM data for any of those 4 locations, the maximum temp recorded at any of them was 41.7 on Feb 8, 2017 at the Airport site. (no data for West terrace exists, as it was offline for 20 odd years till may 2017.
Where's this supposed 2017 high 40's low 50's max temp for 'Adelaide'?.. more to the point, which 'Adelaide'. Is this some other Adelaide, in a figment of someone's vivid imagination?
Is it not a priority on any news outlet of any actual value to fact check their news articles? Is that video as a source of scientific data, acceptable to be used by a media outlet trying to prove their credibility?

So this dubious 'Conversation' media outlet(that so many annoyingly continually keep referring too in this thread!) uses some pseudo scientific graphic to 'prove a point' .. which is that they're pretty much as bunkum as the conservative media outlets they vilify!
The main issue with this is that those that are blinded by the hyperbole don't have the intelligence to see through the garbage, and just straight out accept it as some form of science!
It's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. These conservationist lead media outlets seem to want to fight back with bogus information of their own!
Do that enough, and the general populace will just get tired of it, and this happens.
Circular, random debates that lead nowhere, where one or two folks continually linking to their preferred bunkum source of 'data'!

While I haven't read much of the Guardian myself, other than linked too random sites from this thread .. I haven't really seen all that much difference in their message to the content within The Conversation.

All I'm saying is, don't just believe it because you want believe it to be true. Fact check it.
Took me less than 10 mins to find out the info I did above, from seeing the ludicrous flash of >50°C temp in Adelaide in 2017 and 2020 to finding the actual max temp data on BoM's website.
If they make some claim, do they provide actual(verifiable) proof of their (counter)claim.

Originally Posted by AK83

While it's all well and good, science is hardly on their mind(eg. below)



Again, I could applaud the philosophy, but the job of a respectable news outlet should be to present facts in an unbiased manner, and in effect, allow the readership to form their opinions.
News/reportage is not, nor ever should be, allowed to have any biases .. no matter how well meaning their intent.

the example(of how stupid their science is):

In the link provided by Bob10 their are two bits of very relevant info(or news) that we should take very careful notice of.

1/. is their Bushfire bunkum commentary. I won't challenge all of their points, even the one about hazard reduction, as more info reveals that more had been done .. so fair nuff, their point is accepted.
BUT! on the point that bushfires have historically been worse, which they have, or more or less numerous, they provide zero data to disprove the conservatives commentary that they have been worse. Yes, for sure this last season has been monumentally severe, but has it been the worst. Where's the actual data(scientific) to prove that their counter claim is relevant.
He said, she said BS reporting! .. While I can never side with the conservative media outlets .. on this specific topic, I'm afraid the The Conversation loses out. No proof, just a load of hot air(and most likely due to climate change).

2/. so they can't work on their due diligence and provide any scientific facts about worse or not bushfires, so they provide some idiotic mumbo-jumbo video by some random lunatic on the topic of maximum temps in Adelaide.
Most folks will just watch the video and believe. I dare you to watch it very carefully and notice how stupid it is.
At about the 5 sec mark, this video shows that maximum temperature in Adelaide in 2017 show a maximum of 50 odd degrees.
In fact the video graphic really doesn't show anything of value to anyone .. other than some pro action alarmist group hell bent on showing anything to scare folks into submission!

I've searched for max temps in Adelaide. There are 4 relevant BoM weather stations, maximum temp ever recorded in Adelaide was 47.7 on the 24th Jan 2019.
This real value(from BoM) doesn't show up in the video graphic!
Then at the 6sec mark, it gets worse! Didn't think it could, but it does. The video then shows a 2020 max temp value of about 52.5°C!
Note that this video they link too was uploaded on 19 Jan 2020 too.
The video clearly shows a small very brief spike in temperatures in the very high 40's to very low 50's in 2017 for Adelaide.
The video supposedly shows soem predictive pattern for Adelaide, but you'd be wrong to assume it's based on any known historical data, going by it's content.

As said, there are 4 possible station that record climate for Adelaide, West terrace, Airport, Kent Town, and Parafield.
If you search through the BoM data for any of those 4 locations, the maximum temp recorded at any of them was 41.7 on Feb 8, 2017 at the Airport site. (no data for West terrace exists, as it was offline for 20 odd years till may 2017.
Where's this supposed 2017 high 40's low 50's max temp for 'Adelaide'?.. more to the point, which 'Adelaide'. Is this some other Adelaide, in a figment of someone's vivid imagination?
Is it not a priority on any news outlet of any actual value to fact check their news articles? Is that video as a source of scientific data, acceptable to be used by a media outlet trying to prove their credibility?

So this dubious 'Conversation' media outlet(that so many annoyingly continually keep referring too in this thread!) uses some pseudo scientific graphic to 'prove a point' .. which is that they're pretty much as bunkum as the conservative media outlets they vilify!
The main issue with this is that those that are blinded by the hyperbole don't have the intelligence to see through the garbage, and just straight out accept it as some form of science!
It's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. These conservationist lead media outlets seem to want to fight back with bogus information of their own!
Do that enough, and the general populace will just get tired of it, and this happens.
Circular, random debates that lead nowhere, where one or two folks continually linking to their preferred bunkum source of 'data'!

All news organisations editorialise, The Guardian is very upfront about where reporting is and what is opinion, so what's the issue?

The facts as they stand atm are anthropogenic climate change is happening, they are reporting that, that's not opinion, no matter how anyone doesn't like it or it goes against an entrenched world view.

Re-read what I said about cherry picking data and confirmation bias.
And at the end of the day, if the conventional science is wrong, what's the world lost by cleaning up our act?
We have a healthier, more livable world.
But if the science is correct, and we do nothing, we're ****ed.

Why take a bloody risk and sit on our hands?

All news channels/papers are bias and full of **** period.
Good good now we got that out of the way.

I am one of those who is unsure if human involvement has much of anything to do with climate change.
I think there are far more powerful forces at play and we are merely ****ing in the pool so to speak.

Lets just assume now the world decides no more coal or gas period.
Cool we stop those services completely.

Now we move to wind, solar and other forms of power.
To build these services we need precious metals, especially with batteries.
Metals that require the same mining equipment and refining abilities to create them.
Then you have waste to get rid of which would be intensive also i assume.

My question to the more intellectuals here is this.
Are we ultimately going to be any better off going this direction?

Hell right now they are trying to build a battery smelter locally and people are fuming.
Would only get worse if more were around.