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

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.

Conversation articles are opinion pieces by academics writing their opinions about issues in their fields of expertise. They are not intended to be impartial. They are the opinions of experts in the field saying what they think is important.

Are you confusing maximum temperatures with average temperatures? They are very different things.

Originally Posted by rick130

....
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?

Yep! totally get it, and a sensible philosophy.
I've never argued either for or against ... only pointing out the inaccuracies of the 'for campaigners' that always seem to pass through to the keeper without proper scrutiny.

The major issue at stake with 'cleaning up our act' tho is that those that can least afford to pay for it will end up paying more than their fair share of this cost!
And those that 'created it' or perpetuate it, will be the ones that will get richer from this impending cost burden.

If you read that last bit as conspiratorial, it's not .. it's the just the reality of how governments and business interoperate!

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

....

Are you confusing maximum temperatures with average temperatures? They are very different things.

Nope!
That infographic video thingie deals with 'maximums'.
I assume that historic values in the graph were taken from a well known source, not an unreasonable assumption if the person distributing the info is credible themselves.
Beyond the 6 sec mark it then shows expected maximum temps that 'someone' believes that Adelaide will endure for the rest of the century.

The video is titled distribution of maximum temperatures for the year.
I searched for the available maximum temps in the Adelaide area in the 4 closest and most relevant stations data, just to see how they related to what was shown in the video.