Post by greysrigging on Jan 9, 2024 17:50:07 GMT -5
An interesting read....
( just to be clear, i am not a fan of the Australian' newspaper, a Rupert Murdoch right wing bias publication.
And even less so the IPA, full of AGW climate deniers funded by the mining and coal industries and by AU's weathiest billionairs... )
In any case, in the balance of inherent fairness, here is the article:
ipa.org.au/ipa-today/bom-deserves-criticism-but-not-over-its-short-term-forecasts
Some replies:
Peter Lee I’ll repeat here what I said on a previous post, it might help you understand that data manipulation and homogenisation are not inherently “bad” things. They are processes used routinely in science, that have a specific meaning. And the BOM has better things to do than waste time on trivial, time consuming requests for information over and over again. The people running this BOM scare campaign aren’t interested in the data, they are only interested in throwing shade by whatever means. They will not speak honestly about the data, and you don’t have the skills to know one way or the other.
“I can give you an example straight from the classroom as to why data homogenisation is necessary. When we were measuring the boiling point of water (which we all know is 100 degrees) our spirit thermometers were consistently off by 1-2 degrees. When we were using the digital probes, the temperature was pretty much bang on 100 degrees. So rather than discard the older spirit readings, they were all adjusted to bring them in line with (a) the readings of the digital probe and (b) what the known boiling point of water is.
Clearly, data is inaccurate and meaningless unless homogenisation occurs. At the very least this has to occur for equipment. So if my spirit thermometer reads too high then I have to adjust it down, too low and I have to adjust it up.
I can guarantee you that Peter Ridd would not have a problem with me adjusting the data from low reading thermometers, but would lose his mind and scream conspiracy if I adjusted the high reading thermometers. If all of a sudden you seem to have a problem with data because you don’t like the direction of the adjustments, then its time to check for bias and conflicts of interest. The conflict of interest in this case is that Ridd is being funded by the IPA = Gina Rhinehardt (coal mining).
You should read the history of the tobacco industry and the strategies they used to undermine the science that was showing clear links to cancer. You might be surprised how callous and devious they were/are. The fossil fuel industry is doing the exact same thing, and the BOM is one of their targets.”
( just to be clear, i am not a fan of the Australian' newspaper, a Rupert Murdoch right wing bias publication.
And even less so the IPA, full of AGW climate deniers funded by the mining and coal industries and by AU's weathiest billionairs... )
In any case, in the balance of inherent fairness, here is the article:
ipa.org.au/ipa-today/bom-deserves-criticism-but-not-over-its-short-term-forecasts
Some replies:
Peter Lee I’ll repeat here what I said on a previous post, it might help you understand that data manipulation and homogenisation are not inherently “bad” things. They are processes used routinely in science, that have a specific meaning. And the BOM has better things to do than waste time on trivial, time consuming requests for information over and over again. The people running this BOM scare campaign aren’t interested in the data, they are only interested in throwing shade by whatever means. They will not speak honestly about the data, and you don’t have the skills to know one way or the other.
“I can give you an example straight from the classroom as to why data homogenisation is necessary. When we were measuring the boiling point of water (which we all know is 100 degrees) our spirit thermometers were consistently off by 1-2 degrees. When we were using the digital probes, the temperature was pretty much bang on 100 degrees. So rather than discard the older spirit readings, they were all adjusted to bring them in line with (a) the readings of the digital probe and (b) what the known boiling point of water is.
Clearly, data is inaccurate and meaningless unless homogenisation occurs. At the very least this has to occur for equipment. So if my spirit thermometer reads too high then I have to adjust it down, too low and I have to adjust it up.
I can guarantee you that Peter Ridd would not have a problem with me adjusting the data from low reading thermometers, but would lose his mind and scream conspiracy if I adjusted the high reading thermometers. If all of a sudden you seem to have a problem with data because you don’t like the direction of the adjustments, then its time to check for bias and conflicts of interest. The conflict of interest in this case is that Ridd is being funded by the IPA = Gina Rhinehardt (coal mining).
You should read the history of the tobacco industry and the strategies they used to undermine the science that was showing clear links to cancer. You might be surprised how callous and devious they were/are. The fossil fuel industry is doing the exact same thing, and the BOM is one of their targets.”