You're not actually listening very hard, and your last line proves it.

1- Marahosy is the one who is making a deal about why the journal was shut down, not. The point you are ignoring is that she is drawing an implication that is utterly unjustified on the available data - in other words she's talking BS.


2- The point about the Bourke data is that Marahosy has made a big deal about it, without apparently even bothering to look at the contemporary newspaper for background. So did you. The underlying issue is that she has made a big issue without doing what could be called due diligence, aka proper investigation using easily obtained sources.

The funny thing is that Marahosy herself is a fan of using local papers as evidence of high temperatures - jennifermarohasy.com/2014/09/newspapers-as-the-guardians-of-hot-history/

I notice that you didn't use the clue I posted to do some research. That goes against the claim that many make, which is that those who believe in the consensus don't do their own research. In this case I did so some research, and it turns out that all the max. temps in Bourke at the time according to the daily reports in the local paper were from the "Federal refrigerator" - NOT from the post office's official thermometer, as you and Marahosy claim, but from a pub's fridge.

Marahosy can't write pieces saying how great local papers are as a source, and then ignore the fact that the local paper at the time and date she specifically makes a big fuss about specifically says that the relevant temps were taken from a fridge, NOT from the post office's thermometer with its Stephenson screen etc.

So Marahosy is relying not on a proper "official" source, but an outback pub's mechanisms - and then making a huge fuss about it. Having done some work in pubs in the outback, there's no way I'd trust all of their technology.

Oh, and notice that (a) there's incomplete records for the day in question and (b) it represents a deviation from normal statistical collection, both of which cast even more doubt on its quality and validity.


3- Sorry, but are you kidding about the fact that I'm "blindly claiming cherry picking" with reference to Stewart's paper? It's utterly unscientific (and not just that, but totally against logic in every area I'm aware of) to just ignore some data in the dataset that the author has selected, without giving damn good reasons in the study.

It's like rolling a six-sided dice 60 times, removing 20% of the results, and then saying that the fact that your results don't include any sixes is "proof" that the dice had no sixes.

No first-year student science student would remove 20% of the dataset they have selected from analysis without giving a reason and then expect to get a pass mark.

If the tax department or a kitesurfing contest scorer ignored 20% of your scores or tax records without giving any reason and then hit you with a bigger tax bill or a worse result based on their new calculations, would you just accept it? No reasonable person would, because no reasonable person accepts that a study can remove 20% of the relevant dataset without giving any reason for doing so, and then claim to come to any reasonable conclusion.

So you're an expert on police tactics as well as climate science?

So you reckon a motorcycle cop, armed with a pistol, should have somehow shot through a window and taken out a guy with a bomb vest, who claimed he was trying to stop other terrorists from blowing up other bombs around the city?

You know sooooooooooooooooooo much more about these incidents than the world's police forces and anti-terrorism guys that you know that their approach is wrong, and yours is right?

How many times have you analysed terrorist incidents? How many times have you worked out the proper procedure for sieges? Or do you just know this stuff better than the cops and terrorism experts because you know everything?

So you know more about climate science than the climate scientists, more about shooting suspects than the cops, and more about terrorism than those who work in the area? Wow...................

remery said..

You might find some. Interesting information in Trewin's PhD thesis, I believe he/she got a pass mark... "Extreme Temperature Events in Australia"
Blair C. Trewin

"This leaves the Bourke observation of 3 January 1909 remaining for consideration. The catalogue Climatological Stations: New South Wales (unpublished journal: lodged in the National Meteorological Library at the Bureau of Meteorology) indicates that a Stevenson screen was installed at Bourke in August 1908. However, no other station in New South Wales or southern Queensland is known to have exceeded 47.2?C on this day.
The original manuscript record for Bourke shows temperatures of 125?F (51.7?C)
observed on both 2 and 3 January. The observation on 2 January has been corrected on the manuscript to ll2?F (44.4?C), which is consistent with the temperatures over the
region, and with the 1500 temperature of ll0?F (43.3?C). The 3 January observation was not corrected. However, 3 January was a Sunday, and no other observations were made on this day (as was the usual practice at Bourke, and many other stations, at the time). It is therefore likely that the observation is actually the tnaximum temperature for the 48 hours to 0900, 4 January, and therefore it would be affected by the same error which was conected in the case of the 2 January observation. Reports from those stations in the region which did take observations on both clays suggest that temperatures in the region on 3 January were similar to those of 2 January."

remery said..





Fig. 5.7 compares the temperature at Bourke with the mean of temperatures observed at
'rhargon1indah, Walgett and Coonamble on days when the daily maximum te1nperature at Bourke exceeds 40?C during the periocll959-95. The mean difference is 0.5?C, and the largest diflerencc observed during this 37-year period is 4.1 ?C, while the difference on January 3, 1909 was 6.9?C. This difference is sufficiently large to render the observation suspect. As the screen and instrumentation are known to be standard, a possible cause of any error would be clerical or observational. Nicholls et al. (l996b) note that many Stevenson screens used at this ti1ne were in poor condition, and some had split wood on top which allowed direct sunlight to enter the screen through the cracks, although the fact that the screen was only a few months old makes this unlikely in the case of Bourke, and the the remainder of the month was not exceptionally hot compared with other stations in the region. An observational error is more likely.

remery said...
An observational error is more likely.

psychojoe said..

I know you're being sarcastic but if Paradox has a superior intellect he could outclass many professionals in their own field. And in fields that require far too much perspicacity for this to be possible he may just be able to observe the faults of others.

Paradox said..








Putting credence in a rural newspaper article over official records is not exactly the height of scientific proccess. if that is what underpins your argument you are in a bit of trouble. If you bothered to look at the methodology they used, they dug into the national archives and found the official records. Which incidentally the BoM and whoever wrote that paper had obviously not bothered to do as it showed the Bourke reading was not only offical, recorded in a stevenson screen (a fridge, really??) and logged officially. It showed there was a similar high reading of 50.6deg at nearby Brewarrina on the same day. Thoughoughly detroying the argument by the BoM is was an outlier compared to other stations and had to be a mistake.

You seem hell bent on using heresay and dodgy articles to support your case. It is not very convincing.

jennifermarohasy.com/2020/07/hottest-day-ever-in-australia-confirmed-bourke-51-7c-3rd-january-1909/

Paradox said..





I seem to have stuck a nerve. I just research readily available facts.... and where I offer my thoughts I preface with "I think". You guys keep asking me questions, so I figure I might as well answer.

If you are referring to Lindt, there were snipers in position with shots available (perhaps not the best) for a long time before he was taken out. They waited and people died. there were probably good reasons at the time. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but thats what the end analysis generally came up with as far as I recall - should have taken him out quickly.

This is a bizarre tangent from a question of it the cops were afraid to enter the building in the US. Especially given at least 50 cops were on the scene very quickly. My view is they were not afraid more than normal, just my opinion knowing some cops. They were held back because no one took effective charge at the scene. My understanding is that after Colombine standard protocol is to actively engage as soon as practical. That is not my opinion, but the published opinion of experts after the event. Feel free to disagree.

As for climate science, my views come from the scientists. I can't know more than the ones I am learning from. If anything I say goes against the what the scientists are saying feel free to point it out.

remery said..
Debunking conspiracy theories is like playing Whack-a-mole.

Harrow said..

Also, Walgett is over 200 km away and Coonamble over 250 km away, while Brewarinna is around 90 km away and recorded almost the same temperature as Bourke. I know which I'd be comparing it to first.

What is the likelihood that staff at both the Bourke and Brewarinna would make the same error on the same day? Lottery ticket time I'd say. Or maybe they put their heads together and decided to.... nah, those silly conspiracy theories.

Paradox said..






There are certainly some like that. Many these days it is more like simply peeling the "conspiracy" label off them that the media and some politician glued on and staring at the facts underneath.

The problem is that now inconvenient truths get the label and when they turn out true, on mass, the real conspiracy nutjobs gain legitimacy for every whacko idea presented ever. Who can blame them.

The active suppression of factual information by governmetns and media by censoring it and calling it a conspiracy theory is causing an epidemic of distrust in all authority. And rightly so. We are in problematic times.

Harrow said..









Someone who's job it is to officially record the temperature daily would not be certain to check when they had observed an all time national record and underlined it in the record to emphasise that fact? I'm doubting that.

But the person whose job it was to record the temperature on that day didn't follow the procedure - we know that because they didn't put down the wet bulb and dry bulb temperature like they should have done and normally did---
--- The publican was feeling a little exhausted in the heat of the day so he let his son do the temperature recording, the boy had no idea what wet bulb and dry bulb means so he left that bit, and because the thermometer was above his head height the mercury wasn't level with the numbers.
Anyway you did a good job son have an ice-cream.

Chris 249 said..







But the person whose job it was to record the temperature on that day didn't follow the procedure - we know that because they didn't put down the wet bulb and dry bulb temperature like they should have done and normally did. So we know, as a fact, that they didn't do their job normally that day. Surely if they "had observed an all time national record" they would have done the usual thing, and what the Meteorological Observers Handbook said, and also recorded "the best index of the conditions"? Surely if they "observed an all time national record" they would have made damn sure that they recorded it correctly.

You also don't seem to have noted that the high temp at Bourke wasn't the same day as the high temp at Bre, as Remery has pointed out.

No one's saying it wasn't hot. All I'm saying is that there's no conspiracy or anything untoward in the fact that the BoM ignores a claim that (1) wasn't recorded as temperatures normally were at that place; (2) wasn't recorded as temperatures should have been recorded; (3) didn't use "the best index"; and (4) may not have been taken on the official thermometer. Under normal standards in science (and other areas) it's perfectly reasonable to discard data like that, just as we discard lots of other dodgy data like GPS speedsailing records that don't follow the accepted standards.

If someone claimed a world GPS speedsailing record but showed incomplete data that broke the usual rules (and was said to be on a GPS that didn't follow Speedsailing rules) then their record wouldn't be accepted. If someone claimed other sporting records but showed incomplete data that broke the usual rules, then their record wouldn't be accepted. So when there's a temperature record that shows incomplete data that breaks the usual rules then it's perfectly reasonable for the BoM and climate scientists to not accept it.

Chris 249 said...

But the person whose job it was to record the temperature on that day didn't follow the procedure - we know that because they didn't put down the wet bulb and dry bulb temperature like they should have done and normally did. So we know, as a fact, that they didn't do their job normally that day. Surely if they "had observed an all time national record" they would have done the usual thing, and what the Meteorological Observers Handbook said, and also recorded "the best index of the conditions"? Surely if they "observed an all time national record" they would have made damn sure that they recorded it correctly.

You also don't seem to have noted that the high temp at Bourke wasn't the same day as the high temp at Bre, as Remery has pointed out.

No one's saying it wasn't hot. All I'm saying is that there's no conspiracy or anything untoward in the fact that the BoM ignores a claim that (1) wasn't recorded as temperatures normally were at that place; (2) wasn't recorded as temperatures should have been recorded; (3) didn't use "the best index"; and (4) may not have been taken on the official thermometer. Under normal standards in science (and other areas) it's perfectly reasonable to discard data like that, just as we discard lots of other dodgy data like GPS speedsailing records that don't follow the accepted standards.

If someone claimed a world GPS speedsailing record but showed incomplete data that broke the usual rules (and was said to be on a GPS that didn't follow Speedsailing rules) then their record wouldn't be accepted. If someone claimed other sporting records but showed incomplete data that broke the usual rules, then their record wouldn't be accepted. So when there's a temperature record that shows incomplete data that breaks the usual rules then it's perfectly reasonable for the BoM and climate scientists to not accept it.

Funny how people who claim that they "distrust authority" listen to people like Marohasy, who is with the IPA which is about one-third funded by the richest person in Australia, Gina Rinehart, and follow the same line as Fox News, which is funded by Murdoch.

There's no "distrust in authority" in believing the stuff peddled by the paid hucksters of the tycoons - that's just swallowing the line the rich authorities want you to swallow. It's interesting that you appear to believe that you seek the truth but haven't even done the basics when it things to checking up on the claims Marohasy and her team make.

It's funny - somehow you have managed to go quiet on the fact that Marohasy PUBLICLY says that people should "put credence in a rural newspaper article over official records", which is the same thing you criticised me about. So apparently when someone who is effectively funded by a coal tycoon says looking at old local papers is good then it's fine by you, but when someone like me does the same thing you reckon it's wrong. So the difference between right and wrong, apparently, is whether one is paid by a right wing organisation paid by a coal miner, or not.

Just accepting what people who are paid by Rinehardt and Murdoch is not "distrusting authority", it's accepting what the rich want you to accept. Rinehardt's income depends on people believing people like Marohasy, who works with a foundation Rinehardt funds, so it's bizarre that people cannot see the bias that is involved.

I haven't checked all the stuff that Marohasy peddles, but the stuff I have checked doesn't show "active suppression of factual information" by the BoM; it shows that Marohasy, who works with an outfit funded by a coal baroness, will not just nit-pick and spin but will also ignore the very same records that she says people should put credence on, when those records don't suit her paymaster's case. She is tool of the authoritarians, not the working scientists.

remery said..
homogenise the data around the record, .... Kind of like the Bureau of Meteorology did with the Bourke outliers.

The truth (not a subject you're familiar with, so I'll cut you some slack) is that there is no conspiracy theory at all in my post.

Perhaps you could consider learning English. If you did, you'd see that a "conspiracy theory" is (to use the Oxford definition) "a belief that some covert but influential agency (typically political in motivation and oppressive in intent) is responsible for an unexplained event." To use the Miriam Webster definition, a conspiracy theory is "a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators."

So what you completely failed to understand is that nothing I wrote was anything about anything "covert" (to save you looking it up, that means something secret or hidden) or "secret". It's a publicly knowledged fact that Marohasy is "a Senior Fellow with responsibilities for Climate Change in the Research Program at the IPA" - that's a quote from the IPA's own site. And the also IPA publicly states that Reinhart, a major supporter of the organisation is an Honorary Life Member - check out the IPA's own site again. it is a simple publicly known truth that Marohasy works with an outfit that is funded by a coal magnate, and that the coal magnate's business is affected by climate change policy.

To make it plain for the slowest (or most paranoid or least honest) amongst us, by definition a "conspiracy theory" means you're claiming there is a secret. I'm not doing that, I'm referring to a connection that is publicly acknowledged by those involved.