Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Hottest January day. Ever.

johnboy 18 January 2013 43

The ABC has the intriguing news that today has been hotter than any other recorded day in January at 41.6 degrees.

The all time record is for a February day at 42.2 in 1968.


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
43 Responses to Hottest January day. Ever.
Filter
Order
chewy14 chewy14 9:54 am 21 Jan 13

Jethro said :

So what you are essentially arguing is that if you as a non-scientist don’t understand the science being out out then you can only accept the science through faith?

I think this is actually an important point.

Science is most definitely not a religion but there are people who, usually from their own ignorance, have faith in science the same as any religious person has faith in their own beliefs.

Educating the public about science and the scientific method are always the best way to fight people’s general ignorance about what scientific discoveries actually mean.

switch switch 9:28 am 21 Jan 13

And too many decimal points are never enough.

switch switch 9:25 am 21 Jan 13

LSWCHP said :

Gungahlin Al said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

[ Only 14.09% of the world is not religious, so faith seems to be quite the norm ]

Wow… This “logic” fails on SO many different levels…

But the Statistics! Fantastic use of statistics! 14.09%!!!! That’s Gold!!! Words fail me, but exclamation marks don’t!!!!!!!!!

Everyone knows that 67.249% of statistics are just made up.

davo101 davo101 8:56 am 21 Jan 13

Cimexus said :

Another interesting thing about today is the diurnal range. The low this morning was 13.6, and the high was 41.6, for a difference of 28 C.

That is exceptionally large and indeed only 0.4 C off the all-time largest diurnal range measured in Canberra (which is tied by two days: 8.8 to 37.2 on 6/1/1950 and 8.9 to 37.3 on 5/2/1952, both being 28.4 C ranges)

+1

That’s some Kairosphilia you’ve got going there.

LSWCHP LSWCHP 10:37 pm 20 Jan 13

Gungahlin Al said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

[ Only 14.09% of the world is not religious, so faith seems to be quite the norm ]

Wow… This “logic” fails on SO many different levels…

But the Statistics! Fantastic use of statistics! 14.09%!!!! That’s Gold!!! Words fail me, but exclamation marks don’t!!!!!!!!!

LSWCHP LSWCHP 10:32 pm 20 Jan 13

wildturkeycanoe said :

It takes as much faith to believe in science as it does to believe in God.

Ah look…no. I don’t want to hurt your feelings or anything, but no.

“Science” is simply a technique for finding out how things work in the world. In essence it involves forming a hypothesis about something, and then conducting experiments to confirm or deny the veracity of the hypothesis. There is no faith involved. There is no element of “belief”. It simply involves observing reality. And while not perfect, that technique works. It tends to iterate towards The Truth. It’s taken us from abysmal ignorance, and given us the understanding (incomplete though it may be) that we currently have about how the universe works. It’s A Good Thing. And it’s just a technique…a way of doing things. Claiming to believe or not believe in science makes no sense.

“Belief in God” is not a technique. It’s an unfounded belief in the minds of some people, without any evidence, that a being exists and has absolute power over everything in the universe.

One is a technique, or method of doing things. While some of the results are fallible due to flawed methodology, the technique of the scientific method (ie Science) is a universal truth. The other is a set of interesting beliefs. There is no comparison.

Jethro Jethro 8:09 am 20 Jan 13

wildturkeycanoe said :

So, when I show you an eroded road cutting like the one at parliament house with it’s layers and strata folded all over the place, you say it was from tens of thousands of years ago when the earth was forming. Then I take you to the banks of the Thames or a village in the English countryside, where archaeologists have dug up an old village from the 16th century. At the same depth we have civilizations supposedly tens of centuries apart. Then we travel to an island in the tropics where at the same depth a lava flow has just buried a modern village. To me, there is no science to explain the amount of time that elapsed between these events in history. All scientists can come up with is carbon dating. Radioactive isotopes, invisible to man, which can tell us exactly what happened. Then scientists use their scientific methods to read these invisible particles and explain why it is so.
I put as much ,or more, faith into the written records of the people that witnessed the events in our history.
You say an evidence based explanation is more plausable. An ordinary citizen of this planet listening to a lecture about how science has proven global warming has to put as much faith in science as they would listening to a sermon about loaves and fishes. Prove me wrong, with your evidence. [ Only 14.09% of the world is not religious, so faith seems to be quite the norm ]

So what you are essentially arguing is that if you as a non-scientist don’t understand the science being out out then you can only accept the science through faith?

I don’t claim to understand the complexities of most scientific theories and discoveries. With the AGW theory I have made sure to educate myself as well as possible on the issue and have a fairly good understanding of it. However, I am happy to admit that most of the mathematics being presented in the scientific literature is beyond me.

However, that does not mean that my accepting climate science is nothing more than a religious act of faith. I understand how the scientific method works and understand that the science being published has been rigorously analysed and tested, unlike claims of a deity, which cannot be tested.

When I post this message on the riotact website using my tablet device and wireless Internet connection, I don’t understand how it works, but accept that it works because of science. By your logic I should be equally willing to view this technology as pure wizardry because I don’t understand the science that makes it possible.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd 9:29 pm 19 Jan 13

wildturkeycanoe said :

Jethro said :

poetix said :

You can believe in god and also accept the discoveries of science and scientific method based on evidence. It is possible to think in more than one register.

Most Christians are not climate-change deniers who believe the world was created in a week. I dislike the way that some people automatically associate any religious belief with profound ignorance. Although it is understandable, given the noise made by some of the more idiotic religious people.

I never claimed otherwise.

What I did say was that accepting science is not a faith in the religious sense because it is based on testable evidence, whereas religious faith is not.

An evidence-based explanation of events is far more plausible and believable than a faith-based explanation.

So, when I show you an eroded road cutting like the one at parliament house with it’s layers and strata folded all over the place, you say it was from tens of thousands of years ago when the earth was forming. Then I take you to the banks of the Thames or a village in the English countryside, where archaeologists have dug up an old village from the 16th century. At the same depth we have civilizations supposedly tens of centuries apart. Then we travel to an island in the tropics where at the same depth a lava flow has just buried a modern village. To me, there is no science to explain the amount of time that elapsed between these events in history. All scientists can come up with is carbon dating. Radioactive isotopes, invisible to man, which can tell us exactly what happened. Then scientists use their scientific methods to read these invisible particles and explain why it is so.
I put as much ,or more, faith into the written records of the people that witnessed the events in our history.
You say an evidence based explanation is more plausable. An ordinary citizen of this planet listening to a lecture about how science has proven global warming has to put as much faith in science as they would listening to a sermon about loaves and fishes. Prove me wrong, with your evidence. [ Only 14.09% of the world is not religious, so faith seems to be quite the norm ]

This is why you are not a scientist.

Gungahlin Al Gungahlin Al 8:22 pm 19 Jan 13

wildturkeycanoe said :

So, when I show you an eroded road cutting like the one at parliament house with it’s layers and strata folded all over the place, you say it was from tens of thousands of years ago when the earth was forming. Then I take you to the banks of the Thames or a village in the English countryside, where archaeologists have dug up an old village from the 16th century. At the same depth we have civilizations supposedly tens of centuries apart. Then we travel to an island in the tropics where at the same depth a lava flow has just buried a modern village. To me, there is no science to explain the amount of time that elapsed between these events in history. All scientists can come up with is carbon dating. Radioactive isotopes, invisible to man, which can tell us exactly what happened. Then scientists use their scientific methods to read these invisible particles and explain why it is so.
I put as much ,or more, faith into the written records of the people that witnessed the events in our history.
You say an evidence based explanation is more plausable. An ordinary citizen of this planet listening to a lecture about how science has proven global warming has to put as much faith in science as they would listening to a sermon about loaves and fishes. Prove me wrong, with your evidence. [ Only 14.09% of the world is not religious, so faith seems to be quite the norm ]

Wow… This “logic” fails on SO many different levels…

Pork Hunt Pork Hunt 7:02 pm 19 Jan 13

The end of the world is nigh and I too believe in Armageddon.
Accordingly, Armageddon pissed tonight…

wildturkeycanoe wildturkeycanoe 5:49 pm 19 Jan 13

Jethro said :

poetix said :

You can believe in god and also accept the discoveries of science and scientific method based on evidence. It is possible to think in more than one register.

Most Christians are not climate-change deniers who believe the world was created in a week. I dislike the way that some people automatically associate any religious belief with profound ignorance. Although it is understandable, given the noise made by some of the more idiotic religious people.

I never claimed otherwise.

What I did say was that accepting science is not a faith in the religious sense because it is based on testable evidence, whereas religious faith is not.

An evidence-based explanation of events is far more plausible and believable than a faith-based explanation.

So, when I show you an eroded road cutting like the one at parliament house with it’s layers and strata folded all over the place, you say it was from tens of thousands of years ago when the earth was forming. Then I take you to the banks of the Thames or a village in the English countryside, where archaeologists have dug up an old village from the 16th century. At the same depth we have civilizations supposedly tens of centuries apart. Then we travel to an island in the tropics where at the same depth a lava flow has just buried a modern village. To me, there is no science to explain the amount of time that elapsed between these events in history. All scientists can come up with is carbon dating. Radioactive isotopes, invisible to man, which can tell us exactly what happened. Then scientists use their scientific methods to read these invisible particles and explain why it is so.
I put as much ,or more, faith into the written records of the people that witnessed the events in our history.
You say an evidence based explanation is more plausable. An ordinary citizen of this planet listening to a lecture about how science has proven global warming has to put as much faith in science as they would listening to a sermon about loaves and fishes. Prove me wrong, with your evidence. [ Only 14.09% of the world is not religious, so faith seems to be quite the norm ]

Jethro Jethro 11:23 am 19 Jan 13

poetix said :

You can believe in god and also accept the discoveries of science and scientific method based on evidence. It is possible to think in more than one register.

Most Christians are not climate-change deniers who believe the world was created in a week. I dislike the way that some people automatically associate any religious belief with profound ignorance. Although it is understandable, given the noise made by some of the more idiotic religious people.

I never claimed otherwise.

What I did say was that accepting science is not a faith in the religious sense because it is based on testable evidence, whereas religious faith is not.

An evidence-based explanation of events is far more plausible and believable than a faith-based explanation.

poetix poetix 10:39 am 19 Jan 13

You can believe in god and also accept the discoveries of science and scientific method based on evidence. It is possible to think in more than one register.

Most Christians are not climate-change deniers who believe the world was created in a week. I dislike the way that some people automatically associate any religious belief with profound ignorance. Although it is understandable, given the noise made by some of the more idiotic religious people.

Jethro Jethro 10:04 am 19 Jan 13

wildturkeycanoe said :

Wow, it is amazing how people who put their faith in scientific research, logic and “facts” get so defensive when challenged by those who don’t believe in global warming. I would go so far as to say that it is almost exactly the same response as religious people being told there is no deity looking out for them in the afterlife.
It takes as much faith to believe in science as it does to believe in God.

You must think modern technology is wizardry and witchcraft.

Accepting evidence based science that is constantly tested and refined is nothing like faith-based belief in an invisible man who lives in the sky.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd 8:33 am 19 Jan 13

wildturkeycanoe said :

Wow, it is amazing how people who put their faith in scientific research, logic and “facts” get so defensive when challenged by those who don’t believe in global warming. I would go so far as to say that it is almost exactly the same response as religious people being told there is no deity looking out for them in the afterlife.
It takes as much faith to believe in science as it does to believe in God. I’m sure there is compelling evidence to back up the claims of Christian theology too, but non-believers won’t hear a word of it because “science” is right. Just because you can’t see God, doesn’t mean He isn’t real. Just because you can’t see hole in the ozone layer, doesn’t make it a myth. There are clues and signs, signs and wonders, for all of us to see and feel, to make up our own minds what we perceive to be real.

I don’t think you understand what science is.

rosscoact rosscoact 6:02 am 19 Jan 13

Climate change denialists should be pitied, the same way as you would pity the bloke walking down the street yelling at his hands, or the cat lady who smells like urine. It’s a disease and they cannot help it.

The ones who should be brought down are the pollies who rationalise inaction but why should we be surprised? We legitimise their position when we keep bitching and moaning about any attempt to do something about it that causes us any inconvenience whatsoever.

Big generalisations I know (the last para not the first, climate denialists are barking mad loons)

wildturkeycanoe wildturkeycanoe 5:52 am 19 Jan 13

Wow, it is amazing how people who put their faith in scientific research, logic and “facts” get so defensive when challenged by those who don’t believe in global warming. I would go so far as to say that it is almost exactly the same response as religious people being told there is no deity looking out for them in the afterlife.
It takes as much faith to believe in science as it does to believe in God. I’m sure there is compelling evidence to back up the claims of Christian theology too, but non-believers won’t hear a word of it because “science” is right. Just because you can’t see God, doesn’t mean He isn’t real. Just because you can’t see hole in the ozone layer, doesn’t make it a myth. There are clues and signs, signs and wonders, for all of us to see and feel, to make up our own minds what we perceive to be real.

watto23 watto23 11:51 pm 18 Jan 13

So all thepPeople who live in denial of global warming and climate change, why not just be nicer to the environment anyway. So you may lose some convenience, cost a little more now and if you were right no big loss. If you are wrong, things could get bad. Of course then again you probably all think you’ll be long gone by then anyway so why bother?

My views are that humans can affect the climate and probably have. Does this mean all the predictions are right? probably not, but it does mean we should do whats right, rather than find out the hard way.

bryansworld bryansworld 11:11 pm 18 Jan 13

bryansworld said :

Jethro said :

dungfungus said :

Jethro said :

Roundhead89 said :

No it’s not getting warmer.

I think you will find that the actual scientists who collect and analyse the data will disagree with you on that one.

Scientists are not the only people who collect and analyse data either so why should their claims be weightier than other people? I don’t believe it is getting warmer either and hot spells such as we are experiencing now have happened before and will happen again. We are probably becoming more aware of the weather (climate variation as the professionals call it) because most of us live in an aiconditioned world so when we do venture out into the open we are acutely aware of it. In other words, we are becoming wimps.

Well, you’re more than welcome to read and analyse the data NASA has collected.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

I give the evidence presented by NASA more weight than your observations because they are trained experts and you’re a halfwit who thinks that science is just someone’s opinion.

+1. You trust scientists to design and test the cars and aircraft in which you travel for safety. You trust them to ensure your food is safe. But you think the foil hat brigade can do a better job of collecting and analysing climate change. “Sceptic” is to gentle. It is denial, and it is madness.

Sorry, that should have been “..and analysing climate change DATA. “sceptic” is TOO gentle.” Denialism remains a madness, or disingenuous at the very least.

bryansworld bryansworld 11:08 pm 18 Jan 13

bryansworld said :

Jethro said :

dungfungus said :

Jethro said :

Roundhead89 said :

No it’s not getting warmer.

I think you will find that the actual scientists who collect and analyse the data will disagree with you on that one.

Scientists are not the only people who collect and analyse data either so why should their claims be weightier than other people? I don’t believe it is getting warmer either and hot spells such as we are experiencing now have happened before and will happen again. We are probably becoming more aware of the weather (climate variation as the professionals call it) because most of us live in an aiconditioned world so when we do venture out into the open we are acutely aware of it. In other words, we are becoming wimps.

Well, you’re more than welcome to read and analyse the data NASA has collected.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

I give the evidence presented by NASA more weight than your observations because they are trained experts and you’re a halfwit who thinks that science is just someone’s opinion.

+1. You trust scientists to design and test the cars and aircraft in which you travel for safety. You trust them to ensure your food is safe. But you think the foil hat brigade can do a better job of collecting and analysing climate change. “Sceptic” is to gentle. It is denial, and it is madness.

Ooops, should be “collecting and analysing climate change DATA”. Sorry. I still think climate change denialism is lunacy. Or at least disingenuous.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site