It's funny how I revert to imperial measures for natural measurements like speed and temperature and rainfall. Average national daily max temperature in Australia was 105.6. That's for the entire country (continent?)They set a record and they might beat it today. They have also endured a year of fire and poor air quality. I hope they get some relief soon. Temperatures that high are a hazard to life.
105.6 degrees
- Thread starter Hoid
- Start date
In a single place.
This is a national average.
I think I have already pointed out that science is not your forte
Since when did advocacy science become science? Why, I can tell you. It happened the day that leftist dregs decided that 32% was actually 97%.
So tell us Hoid, why would the IPCC admit that all their climate modeling was worthless? According to their own models the world is supposed to be 4 degrees warmer than it is right now.
Why are countries like Norway, the UK, the US, Mexico and Brazil allowed to have viable oil industries but Canada isn't?
Why do precious few of our leftist politicians actually own an EV for their personal vehicle while the big wigs regularly fly around the world in private jets to climate summits to wring their hands about the "state of the climate"? And why are actual scientists never invited to those summits?
Even some of the broadcasters and programming that have pushed the AGW angle for a while now are distancing themselves from that original assessment.
But there's another problem. The leftist penchant for intentionally misstating what someone else said. Something you do routinely in here. The argument has never been about whether climate change is real or not. It's always been about the assertion that humans are the primary cause. But since you idiots don't have any actual facts to back your claims, other than charts that show warming but show nothing of the human component that's supposed to be behind it, all you can do is impotently scream "Climate change denier" while implying that you have vastly superior knowledge of science. When in fact all you do is read your bias-confirming media sources for your "science" knowledge.
When the S02 crisis which was very real hit, atmospheric sciences knew full well after reductions of S02 there would be a temporary spike in temperatures.
Is that the best you can do? Prove me wrong Natty Daddy. Why haven't you taken the $500 up for grabs that I'm offering? It should be easy money right? What's the hold up?
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/showthread.php?t=165411
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/showthread.php?t=165411
Last edited:
Why is it that so many - actually most, people on here seem capable of only childish sneers and insults directed at others; unable or unwilling to engage in intelligent or informative discussion of real issues? What strange psychological disorder motivates them?
Real science is a childish sneer?
Are you capable of taking home the $500 up for grabs or you can only sneer and say "denier" as proof?
Are you capable of taking home the $500 up for grabs or you can only sneer and say "denier" as proof?
You are correct, however, when the data sets do not support your premise, well, much easier to manipulate the data as opposed to fight a losing position.
East Anglia University taught us that
Definition of empirical
1 : originating in or based on observation or experience
2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory
3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment
All known data is empirical and verifiable, climate change is theoretical.
No challenge to grab the $500?
No challenge to grab the $500?