staringclown

Advanced members
  • Content count

    6957
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

56 Excellent

About staringclown

  • Rank
    My life is a very complicated drinking game...
  • Birthday 06/06/66

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Canberra
  1. Wentworth showed that the complete clusterf*ck that was the libs this week will be repaid with rancour. Either they change course or they are doomed. If they continue with religious freedom/anti gay, no climate change policy, follow trump , kill bill policies then we will have a change of government by May. Can scomo rein in the right?
  2. Luicidal sound a lot like Suicidal Tendencies. Nice anti trump song mr m.
  3. Tor's right. The article doesn't exactly disparage EV's It just states that in countries that use more coal fired power, the time taken for EV's to break even with conventional fossil fuel vehicles in terms of CO2 emissions takes a bit longer. In countries with more renewables the time is quicker. QED we need more renewables. There's a small mention of EV manufacturers using fossil fuels to produce the batteries. Again renewables as in the case of Tesla who use solar in their battery production can solve this. To be fair, I don't know whether the equation counts shipping of rare earth minerals and other components of batteries in the calculations. However, conventional vehicles use the same electronic components so it probably doesn't matter in a comparative sense. I no fan of Musk TBH. I think he's a bit of a dick. But the idea that EV's won't eventually replace fossil fuel vehicles is akin to coach builders trying to hang on to the horse and cart. Incidentally, the particulates emitted by diesel are toxic. They will eventually be banned.
  4. Looks like it's at least been a partial referendum on climate change policy. Can't wait to see the liberals response. No matter how many weather reports you might post, you're mob seem to be losing the argument?
  5. Oh yeah, Tim Ball. Is he the same guy that claimed and stills claims that he has a PhD in climatology despite his admitting in defamation suit that his PhD is in Geography? Is he also the guy that claimed then retracted that he was a professor for 28 years only to admit it was only 8? Pretty sure that guy has been comprehensively discredited. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Ball
  6. I am with mebank that have purported to pay a measly three per cent if I spend on their card. Better then most terms. But US bonds are rising. The only benefit is they're liquid. Most other deals are for the first three months before dropping back to rubbish. It's all high maintenance at the moment
  7. Interesting that the farmers that host wind turbines suffer no ill effects. My neighbours dogs yapping all night certainly give me the sh*ts (metaphorically) but I always sleep better with white noise.
  8. Seeing we're getting into predictions lately let's take a look at John McLeans past work. 2011 he predicted that the La Nina would drop the temperature by 0.8 degrees globally... I could slip quietly away to if my own 'predictions' don't materialise. And if I do then you would be correct in discounting any credibility that I might have clung to. McLean has removed his previous blog and is therefore discredited. It is no coincidence that he comes out with his latest bullsh*t on the same day as the IPCC report. It is by design. It makes him no more credible than his previous efforts however at least it provides the denialists with a talking point. BTW farmers in this country at least have come out against the fossil fuel industry this week. But what would they know? The Wentworth by-election should it prove to be a referendum on climate change may prove interesting. A 17% margin reduced to marginal. Maybe it is Mals personal magnetism. Maybe disgust with the liberals in general. But the majority in Wentworth want something done about climate change and Morrison is regressive at best.
  9. This article on the other hand is bollocks. The author targets low rent 'journals' that I personally could publish my opinions dressed up as research. Anonymous reviewers do not inspire confidence. The author has variously been known as Alberto Boretti but now publishes as A Barker. He is not a climate scientist, rather a mechanical engineer for Fiat. I can only assume he has found a more lucrative use for his doctoral thesis than manufacturing engines. His papers (and he is prolific) have been described as unintelligible. http://theconversation.com/no-the-bureau-of-meteorology-is-not-fiddling-its-weather-data-31009
  10. Only the abstract is available so no way of judging any conclusions or methods Anders. Even so the authors check out as credible. I'm not sure where you get the urban heat island effect from for this paper. The authors make no mention of it. Only that sparse geographical temperature stations in certain areas produce uncertainty which they advocate can be (and should be) corrected. No reading of the abstract disputes global warming.
  11. Your thoughts on the whole global weather network being corrupted Anders?
  12. So we’re going to rely on the records that you personally notice? The people with thermometers that produce the data have been got to and cannot be trusted? In that case we can never know whether it is warming or cooling. Or whether we should carry a brolley for that matter? No prediction can be verified. Any article published about weather can be questioned. The met bureau should be shut down and this thread along with it?
  13. No. As I've already said, you should expect to see more warm records broken than cold records. If there was no warming then you should expect an even ratio of warm to cold records broken. You doubt models due to manipulation. Temperature records are simply thermometer readings. No corrections are applied and the data is verifiable. Are you prepared to accept this ratio as an indicator of warming or not?