Select to expand quote
Harrow said..
This is freaking incredible... handpicking a start date to get +1.47 instead of +1.06. Is it any wonder people don't trust the work of these people? It only makes you wonder what else they have done in all their calculations and forecasts.
Hey Harrow,
I think you might be making the same error as I did. I think remery put that table together himself, I don't think it is directly from BOM or anyone.
So I assume he didn't handpick a start or finsh date just to distort the numbers, I guess it was, as he kinda said, just the month PM33 started the thread to now. (Although I may be wrong because there are three versions of the initial table in the seabreeze image gallery, so maybe there was some jiggling of things to get the answer that best suited the argument).
But - even if no mal-intent was intended it still makes an interesting point. A very small change in random start / finish date gives a very large difference in average change.
Now, I may disagree with PM33's general gist that the planet is static and is exactly the same everyday, and I have no doubt it is warming compared to some point somebody may pick in the recent past, and also that human activity is adding to that warming - but I also struggle with the concept the 'science is in' and the figures clearly show that by 2010 eastern australia will be in permanent drought, by mid this century humans will be limited to a few isolated family groups around the poles and by 2030 sea levels will have flattened 90% of the worlds cities - unless we all pray to the temple of the climate crisis industry.
oh yeah, and as per CH3MTR4IL5's point, I think plenty of other people have already said exactly the same thing over the last 15 pages or so.