Dr Jennifer Marohasy is a biologist, not a climate scientist. She wants us to know that she has written a book, and that she is writing another book which "you should be able to order for Christmas". Hmm.
msg said
10:26 AM Oct 22, 2025
Whenarewethere wrote:
Repeat a small number every few years and it adds up.
Whenarewethere I think you may have misunderstood my post. I wasn't commenting on the temperature but on Nine's over the top reportng and seemingly (to me) exagerated and dramatic form of narrative.
Ineedabiggerboat said
11:10 AM Oct 22, 2025
She could be a dressmaker for all I care, she is tabling facts. Unlike that idiot who said the snow will stop and the dams will never fill again. Oh, and the seas will rise and flood half the world. (He went on to buy a waterfront home on the Hawkesbury River.)
Re the author:
https://jennifermarohasy.com/2022/01/australias-broken-temperature-record-part-1/
dorian said
12:51 PM Oct 22, 2025
Ineedabiggerboat wrote:
She could be a dressmaker for all I care, she is tabling facts.
She's tabling her "facts" in a book that she wants us to buy. I'll pass.
Ineedabiggerboat said
02:36 PM Oct 22, 2025
Unlike some, everything she quotes is supported by evidence.
I dont care either way to be honest.
News does sensationalise it. E.g.
the hottest day since 1878.
What that means is that in 1878 it was hotter than today.
rmoor said
02:59 PM Oct 22, 2025
I think we have been flooded by propaganda from many sources.
Played a week of golf recently in a tournament.
After one of the rounds with some city based players, I had to sit back and cop the results of some of this propaganda.
Where I live we have been inundated with solar farms and wind turbines.
I am not wholly against all of this but do have a strong belief that they should be built on poor ground near the big transmission lines, not soft easy dig arable ground.
Of course these overseas power builders like to make a quick buck here and choof off.
They don't like the higher costs of 800 mm deep channels to dig on rocky ground. Less profit to b*gger off overseas with.
There is now significant opposition in the region, where locals have woken up to their prime land being taken from the landscape simply for the profit off others.
Where I copped it was, the city based claimed that the shows they saw on Aunty indicated sheep do far better under solar panels than they do elsewhere.
Whatever I said, or could offer was totally rejected, so I simply gave up the ghost and had to take it on the chin.
A bit like some of the discussions on this forum, come hell or high water, you are going to cop it and have to choose to either ignore it or state some facts - and still cop it sometimes.
Since then, I have raised the question with numerous local farmers and sheep farmers with years or generations of experience.
Every single one of them tells me it is bollocks that sheep do better under solar panels for weight, general health and value.
I say to them, aren't they eating the same bl**dy grass??? In fact many solar farms are weed ridden and not a sheep in sight.
So, how can they be doing better than in an open, well maintained grazing paddock, some of which are irrigated.
It is annoying when someone sees something on TV that is obviously agenda pushed propaganda and we have to cop it.
Ineedabiggerboat said
03:06 PM Oct 22, 2025
Thank god not everyone is drinking the green koolaid
Sarco Harris said
11:16 PM Oct 22, 2025
Climate records?
What are they really?
In geographic terms our climate records are the equivalent of a blink of an eye. Additionally, the hottest day since a given date. 200 years earlier than that date, was it hotter, colder or pretty much the same?
Further selective reporting is another issue.
Also of concern, since 1996 the Bureau has converted to custom-made electronic probes for temperature recording, and rather than averaging temperatures over one or five minutes as is standard practice around the world from such equipment, the Australian Bureau is recording one second extrema. To be clear a hottest temperature record is now a one second automatic download from a supersensitive electronic probe rather than a reading from a more inert mercury thermometer. This is another way the Bureau gets more global warming for the same weather with its own third generation probes.
Mercury thermometers? Is this idiot aware that it's the 21st century? Has she ever heard of thermal inertia? Are we really expected to believe that the temperature of a mass can change instantly? Well, yes it can, but only if you light a match next to it, and even then only if the mass is tiny. If I put ice cubes in my drink and then take it out into the 40C midday sun, it will take some time for the ice to melt.
I am going to explain all of this in more detail in a book Im sketching out, to write this year.
Wow, sign me up.
Ineedabiggerboat said
07:59 AM Oct 23, 2025
Whats your problem with books?
dorian said
08:33 AM Oct 23, 2025
Ineedabiggerboat wrote:
Whats your problem with books?
None at all, if the author is an authority on the subject. In this case we shouldn't need to wait for a book. A reputable scientist always quotes their references. These are conspicuously absent from her self-promotional rant.
In any case, it's already clear that she has no knowledge of basic thermodynamics. She seems to be saying that the BOM should revert to the old days when humans stuck a thermometer in the air and waited 5 minutes for it to acclimatise. Nowadays we have a technology called "telemetry". The temperature probe is no doubt permanently installed in the measuring environment, so it is always acclimatised. The BOM then reads the data remotely, without human intervention. There is no need to wait for the readings to settle. Furthermore, the temperature won't change if we wait an additional 5 minutes, so the initial reading remains valid.
Whenarewethere said
01:30 PM Oct 23, 2025
msg wrote:
Whenarewethere wrote:
Repeat a small number every few years and it adds up.
Whenarewethere I think you may have misunderstood my post. I wasn't commenting on the temperature but on Nine's over the top reportng and seemingly (to me) exagerated and dramatic form of narrative.
It was not necessary to do further investigation on said words as I on good faith took your interpretation as a quality interpretation of this article.
Please enlighten me of my error.
dorian said
05:16 PM Oct 24, 2025
I'm still trying to process this:
New study finds staggering number of deaths caused by one major factor: 'More people are dying than ever before':
Data collected by researchers at the University of Oxford's Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment found that changing weather patterns, including extreme temperatures, caused 1,700 deaths in the Swiss canton area of Zurich between 1969 and 2018. On average, this translates to over one heat-related death per year during this period.
While heat-related deaths had been recorded as early as 1969, the researchers found that they are rapidly increasing, even with improved access to modern cooling and healthcare solutions.
Many heat-related deaths can be avoided by staying indoors, staying cool with fans or air conditioning, and staying hydrated during extreme temperatures.
The University of Oxford study estimates that these heat resilience methods have prevented about 700 lives since 2004.
Rodsvan said
03:54 AM Oct 25, 2025
Quote " including extreme temperatures, caused 1,700 deaths in the Swiss canton area of Zurich between 1969 and 2018. On average, this translates to over one heat-related death per year during this period." end quote
Ok, someone needs to go back and check their maths.
Quote "The University of Oxford study estimates that these heat resilience methods have prevented about 700 lives since 2004." end quote
How on earth would anyone arrive at this conclusion? This sounds like a fake article/study to me.
rmoor said
09:28 AM Oct 25, 2025
Agreed, some things simply cannot be measured.
i.e. the effects of some medications, you may feel better, but how do you measure how much better you feel?
Some things simply cannot be quantified.
rmoor said
09:31 AM Oct 25, 2025
I read a newspaper article yesterday about the massive cost of meeting climate targets by 2030.
Billions per month.
I keep thinking "we are the ones going to pay for this".
We just haven't received the bill yet.....it is coming though.
Ineedabiggerboat said
11:10 AM Oct 25, 2025
Its the biggest snake oil con ever inflicted on earth.
Its not just us who will be paying for it, our great great grandchildren will be paying for it.
Thousands of private jets flying to COP meetings is a good example of the hypocrisy.
Australia is less than 1% of global emissions. Anything we do will have a bumteenth effect on global temperatures.
At what cost?
msg said
11:38 AM Oct 25, 2025
The globalists have to be stopped. They are ruining our climate, environment, food, culture, health, our children, the world. How? I think it has already gone too far. Anyone got any ideas? Talk about evil people and, they are doing it all "for our own good"
-- Edited by msg on Saturday 25th of October 2025 11:39:42 AM
dorian said
01:18 PM Oct 25, 2025
Rodsvan wrote:
Quote " including extreme temperatures, caused 1,700 deaths in the Swiss canton area of Zurich between 1969 and 2018. On average, this translates to over one heat-related death per year during this period." end quote Ok, someone needs to go back and check their maths.
Quote "The University of Oxford study estimates that these heat resilience methods have prevented about 700 lives since 2004." end quote How on earth would anyone arrive at this conclusion? This sounds like a fake article/study to me.
I was making an observation about grammar and simple arithmetic, but you missed it entirely. I have no doubt that tertiary educated climate scientists and medical practitioners understand their subjects much better that the average layperson, and that includes proponents and opponents alike. Should I get my advice from the learned professionals, or should I listen to a bunch of octogenarians who have absolutely no grounding in either subject?
Ineedabiggerboat said
04:44 PM Oct 25, 2025
Common sense has served me well over the years.
Magnarc said
07:30 AM Oct 26, 2025
Ineedabiggerboat wrote:
Common sense has served me well over the years.
You are lucky 'cos it aint so common these days.
dorian said
10:02 AM Oct 26, 2025
Common sense tells me that I should leave science to scientists.
rmoor said
10:14 AM Oct 26, 2025
"Its the biggest snake oil con ever inflicted on earth. Its not just us who will be paying for it, our great great grandchildren will be paying for it. Thousands of private jets flying to COP meetings is a good example of the hypocrisy. Australia is less than 1% of global emissions. Anything we do will have a bumteenth effect on global temperatures. At what cost?"
"Common sense has served me well over the years."
Spot on.
Although in fairness and using common sense, if we can do something better then, yes, do so. e.g. electric cars, renewable energy, reducing plastics (bags etc).
We have been flogging the poor old earth for decades with smog etc (there's an obsolete word!!!), so it is our responsibility to turn that around.
It is the fanatics that are the problem, many distort the truth and abandon logic.
I was waiting for someone to point out the legacy for our children, grand children etc down the lineage.
They will be the ones paying the bulk of the pending bill for our renewables costs.
I am also perplexed and confused why we are importing so many migrants into Australia when we don't have enough homes for our own or young people???
With Sydney house prices now hitting a median price of 1.75 million, how do these poor kids EVER put a roof over their heads or avoid paying 60% or so of their weekly income in rent. How do they live without the spectre of depression and have a good life?
I feel so sorry for the younger generations, they will be left with the bill and cornered financially at ever turn.
Ineedabiggerboat said
11:25 AM Oct 26, 2025
Dorian tell me the science behind Australia shutting down 17 coal fired power plants while china builds 100 a year. Common sense.
Tell me about Snowy Hydro 2 budgeted for $2 billion and now well over $12 billion (it will hopefully be scrapped.
Tell me about budget blowouts on interconnects.
Have you read the May AEMO report?
Probably not.
None of it is good news.
This green bullsh1t and immigration are about two things.
1- grifters
2- votes
Screwing over 26 million Australians and their descendants so they can retain power.
Common sense written all over it.
Not enough common sense but plenty of green koolaid and confirmation bias.
rmoor said
12:10 PM Oct 26, 2025
Have commented in recent times that our 50 Km road trip to a local large city will soon be a landscape of glass all the way along it. Both sides.
There are now numerous signs along that trip. "Stop Hampton Park Solar" and many other locations with similar signage the target of local community groups who have now woken up the fact we have been conned out of our prime farming land for overseas multi nationals to make huge profits building these seas of glass, then skip town with their pockets full.
I don't object to renewables, they are a good plan and PART of the future of power supply. But, the government should have insisted they be built on the other millions of acres adjoining the heavy load power lines on rubbish rough land, not our valuable soils that ultimately feed the community and the cities.
Madness on the part of our elected brainiacs.
So, so typical though.......
msg said
01:30 PM Oct 26, 2025
I wonder if it would be cheaper for the government to provide each house and business with their own power generating plant. Have them built into new dwellings. Like our Vans. rather than miles and miles of power lines and acres of solar panels.
The bigger blight on the landscape for me is wind power.
Could also solve the problem of all those boxes crammed together on 200sm of land. Developers are getting ridiculous. The old way of a small home on 1/4 acre was a good reasonable living space for everyone.
More people? more jobs? more progress? Not necessarily. IMHO that only props up the govt GDP ponzi scheme.
Small population, less infrastructure, less environmental damage, happier people less crime.
They need to do some numbers and find the sweet spot. Not just go all out for a big country that hides their incompetence.
I was just watching a utube video from a young couple who have been rather successful living on the road. They were discussing whether after 5yrs or so if it had got more expensive. They said no. Just that everything had gotten more expensive. I think yes. When I started 10yrs ago, there were numerous free camping spots. They are fewer now and are more likely to be "donation" camps. www.youtube.com/watch (if anyone is interested)
Caravan Parks were frequently beach front basic parks. Now they are "Resort" parks with Cabins along the water front or maybe they been demolished altogether and high rise built in their place. Surfers Paradise was a mecca holiday for ordinary people. Now you can't find it for all the development. We honeymooned on Hayman Island and in later years toured the Whitsundays on a sailboat that we hired. Really couldn't think about it these days and we have more money now than we ever had.
So, what has a big Australia done for us? Bad Air, Bad Water (whoever heard of iconic beaches being closed due to contamination) Less reliable power. Crime? Stretched resources will cause that. Divided Society.
What can we do about it? Nothing. Anyone got any ideas?
Anyhow I guess this has been a bit disjointed but there are so many things going wrong. How about some ideas on what we can do to make things better.
dorian said
05:06 PM Oct 26, 2025
Climate scientists tell us that the earth is warming and that human activity is responsible. I accept that as fact, as should we all. I'm an engineer, so my opinion on the subject has no value, just like the opinions of the greybeards in this place.
The question now is, what should we do about it? Should we care? How much are we willing to sacrifice? How much are we willing to pay? These are all valid opinions.
Personally, I don't care and I'm not willing to pay or sacrifice anything. The human race isn't worth saving. The world can go to oblivion, for all I care.
In any case, most of us will be dead within 20 years, if not 10. We won't be affected by our decisions. They will impact Greta Thunberg's generation, not ours. On that basis, we should abstain from any interference and allow the young to choose the kind of future that they want for themselves.
Sydney weather: Fire ban after NSW and Queensland break October temperature records
Repeat a small number every few years and it adds up.
Dr Jennifer Marohasy is a biologist, not a climate scientist. She wants us to know that she has written a book, and that she is writing another book which "you should be able to order for Christmas". Hmm.
Whenarewethere I think you may have misunderstood my post. I wasn't commenting on the temperature but on Nine's over the top reportng and seemingly (to me) exagerated and dramatic form of narrative.
She's tabling her "facts" in a book that she wants us to buy. I'll pass.
Played a week of golf recently in a tournament.
After one of the rounds with some city based players, I had to sit back and cop the results of some of this propaganda.
Where I live we have been inundated with solar farms and wind turbines.
I am not wholly against all of this but do have a strong belief that they should be built on poor ground near the big transmission lines, not soft easy dig arable ground.
Of course these overseas power builders like to make a quick buck here and choof off.
They don't like the higher costs of 800 mm deep channels to dig on rocky ground. Less profit to b*gger off overseas with.
There is now significant opposition in the region, where locals have woken up to their prime land being taken from the landscape simply for the profit off others.
Where I copped it was, the city based claimed that the shows they saw on Aunty indicated sheep do far better under solar panels than they do elsewhere.
Whatever I said, or could offer was totally rejected, so I simply gave up the ghost and had to take it on the chin.
A bit like some of the discussions on this forum, come hell or high water, you are going to cop it and have to choose to either ignore it or state some facts - and still cop it sometimes.
Since then, I have raised the question with numerous local farmers and sheep farmers with years or generations of experience.
Every single one of them tells me it is bollocks that sheep do better under solar panels for weight, general health and value.
I say to them, aren't they eating the same bl**dy grass??? In fact many solar farms are weed ridden and not a sheep in sight.
So, how can they be doing better than in an open, well maintained grazing paddock, some of which are irrigated.
It is annoying when someone sees something on TV that is obviously agenda pushed propaganda and we have to cop it.
What are they really?
In geographic terms our climate records are the equivalent of a blink of an eye. Additionally, the hottest day since a given date. 200 years earlier than that date, was it hotter, colder or pretty much the same?
Further selective reporting is another issue.
https://ipa.org.au/read/australias-broken-temperature-record-part-1
Mercury thermometers? Is this idiot aware that it's the 21st century? Has she ever heard of thermal inertia? Are we really expected to believe that the temperature of a mass can change instantly? Well, yes it can, but only if you light a match next to it, and even then only if the mass is tiny. If I put ice cubes in my drink and then take it out into the 40C midday sun, it will take some time for the ice to melt.
Wow, sign me up.
None at all, if the author is an authority on the subject. In this case we shouldn't need to wait for a book. A reputable scientist always quotes their references. These are conspicuously absent from her self-promotional rant.
In any case, it's already clear that she has no knowledge of basic thermodynamics. She seems to be saying that the BOM should revert to the old days when humans stuck a thermometer in the air and waited 5 minutes for it to acclimatise. Nowadays we have a technology called "telemetry". The temperature probe is no doubt permanently installed in the measuring environment, so it is always acclimatised. The BOM then reads the data remotely, without human intervention. There is no need to wait for the readings to settle. Furthermore, the temperature won't change if we wait an additional 5 minutes, so the initial reading remains valid.
It was not necessary to do further investigation on said words as I on good faith took your interpretation as a quality interpretation of this article.
Please enlighten me of my error.
I'm still trying to process this:
New study finds staggering number of deaths caused by one major factor: 'More people are dying than ever before':
https://www.thecooldown.com/outdoors/zurich-switzerland-heat-related-deaths-climate-change/
Ok, someone needs to go back and check their maths.
Quote "The University of Oxford study estimates that these heat resilience methods have prevented about 700 lives since 2004." end quote
How on earth would anyone arrive at this conclusion? This sounds like a fake article/study to me.
i.e. the effects of some medications, you may feel better, but how do you measure how much better you feel?
Some things simply cannot be quantified.
Billions per month.
I keep thinking "we are the ones going to pay for this".
We just haven't received the bill yet.....it is coming though.
The globalists have to be stopped. They are ruining our climate, environment, food, culture, health, our children, the world. How? I think it has already gone too far. Anyone got any ideas? Talk about evil people and, they are doing it all "for our own good"
-- Edited by msg on Saturday 25th of October 2025 11:39:42 AM
I was making an observation about grammar and simple arithmetic, but you missed it entirely. I have no doubt that tertiary educated climate scientists and medical practitioners understand their subjects much better that the average layperson, and that includes proponents and opponents alike. Should I get my advice from the learned professionals, or should I listen to a bunch of octogenarians who have absolutely no grounding in either subject?
You are lucky 'cos it aint so common these days.
"Common sense has served me well over the years."
Spot on.
Although in fairness and using common sense, if we can do something better then, yes, do so. e.g. electric cars, renewable energy, reducing plastics (bags etc).
We have been flogging the poor old earth for decades with smog etc (there's an obsolete word!!!), so it is our responsibility to turn that around.
It is the fanatics that are the problem, many distort the truth and abandon logic.
I was waiting for someone to point out the legacy for our children, grand children etc down the lineage.
They will be the ones paying the bulk of the pending bill for our renewables costs.
I am also perplexed and confused why we are importing so many migrants into Australia when we don't have enough homes for our own or young people???
With Sydney house prices now hitting a median price of 1.75 million, how do these poor kids EVER put a roof over their heads or avoid paying 60% or so of their weekly income in rent. How do they live without the spectre of depression and have a good life?
I feel so sorry for the younger generations, they will be left with the bill and cornered financially at ever turn.
There are now numerous signs along that trip. "Stop Hampton Park Solar" and many other locations with similar signage the target of local community groups who have now woken up the fact we have been conned out of our prime farming land for overseas multi nationals to make huge profits building these seas of glass, then skip town with their pockets full.
I don't object to renewables, they are a good plan and PART of the future of power supply. But, the government should have insisted they be built on the other millions of acres adjoining the heavy load power lines on rubbish rough land, not our valuable soils that ultimately feed the community and the cities.
Madness on the part of our elected brainiacs.
So, so typical though.......
The bigger blight on the landscape for me is wind power.
Could also solve the problem of all those boxes crammed together on 200sm of land. Developers are getting ridiculous. The old way of a small home on 1/4 acre was a good reasonable living space for everyone.
More people? more jobs? more progress? Not necessarily. IMHO that only props up the govt GDP ponzi scheme.
Small population, less infrastructure, less environmental damage, happier people less crime.
They need to do some numbers and find the sweet spot. Not just go all out for a big country that hides their incompetence.
I was just watching a utube video from a young couple who have been rather successful living on the road. They were discussing whether after 5yrs or so if it had got more expensive. They said no. Just that everything had gotten more expensive. I think yes. When I started 10yrs ago, there were numerous free camping spots. They are fewer now and are more likely to be "donation" camps. www.youtube.com/watch (if anyone is interested)
Caravan Parks were frequently beach front basic parks. Now they are "Resort" parks with Cabins along the water front or maybe they been demolished altogether and high rise built in their place. Surfers Paradise was a mecca holiday for ordinary people. Now you can't find it for all the development. We honeymooned on Hayman Island and in later years toured the Whitsundays on a sailboat that we hired. Really couldn't think about it these days and we have more money now than we ever had.
So, what has a big Australia done for us? Bad Air, Bad Water (whoever heard of iconic beaches being closed due to contamination) Less reliable power. Crime? Stretched resources will cause that. Divided Society.
What can we do about it? Nothing. Anyone got any ideas?
Anyhow I guess this has been a bit disjointed but there are so many things going wrong. How about some ideas on what we can do to make things better.
The question now is, what should we do about it? Should we care? How much are we willing to sacrifice? How much are we willing to pay? These are all valid opinions.
Personally, I don't care and I'm not willing to pay or sacrifice anything. The human race isn't worth saving. The world can go to oblivion, for all I care.
In any case, most of us will be dead within 20 years, if not 10. We won't be affected by our decisions. They will impact Greta Thunberg's generation, not ours. On that basis, we should abstain from any interference and allow the young to choose the kind of future that they want for themselves.