Why is Bureau of Met manipulating data re Cyclone Marcia ?

[vicr3000]

Why is Bureau of Met manipulating data re Cyclone Marcia ?

They said it was a Cat 5 cyclone, yet all the wind speeds, sustained and gusts show that it was only a Cat 3.

In addition, the pressure level never got down to a Cat 5.

And regardless of the better building codes compared to Darwin/Tracy in 1974, the damage was no where near a Cat 5.

For a start, the trees still had leaves on them. In all the Cat 5 cyclones in the last 30 years, no trees had leaves

left on them.

In addition, "Data for Middle Percy Island has disappeared from the BOM site, but Jennifer Marohasy kept a copy.

(I’m sure the BOM will be grateful!)..."

Have a read of this.

http://joannenova.com.au/

IN ADDITION

It seems some of the media outlets wewre dissapointed that the damage wasn't worse. That was the impression I got.

Almost like Disaster porn.

Any comments ?

[myoclon1cjerk]

Joanne Nova.A molecular biologist,so no expertise in climate science.Put her in the same basket as Plimer and Monckton.Thank you.

[vicr3000]

She is probably closer to it than Al Gore, whose thesis was

"The Impact of Television on the Conduct of the Presidency, 1947-1969"

[myoclon1cjerk]

Makes sense to me.If he did a thesis today it could very well be titled "The Impact of the 24 Hour News Cycle and the Sound Bite on the Presidency(or Prime Ministership).

[myoclon1cjerk]

Nova's still a flat earther. 🙂

[vicr3000]

---

@myoclon1cjerk wrote:
Makes sense to me.If he did a thesis today it could very well be titled "The Impact of the 24 Hour News Cycle and the Sound Bite on the Presidency(or Prime Ministership).

---

And the relevance of his thesis to Climate Change is ???????

(Since you decided to rubbish Joanne's qualifications in relation to climate science).

At least she was a Scientist, something Al Gore was bad at.

[myoclon1cjerk]

Al Gore never claimed to be a climate scientist.His mission was as a messenger to bring to the public's attention the problems and challenges the world faces with global warming.He at least agrees with the scientific consensus.
If you're going to quote a scientist,at least make sure they're field of expertise is to do with climate science,not molecular biology.That's as far removed as metallurgy.
Most of the sceptics quoted have been shown to be connected with bodies like The Heartland Institute or the Koch Brothers.All of them have been discredited.Plimer for example works for the mining industry.

[myoclon1cjerk]

You're the one that mentioned Gore's thesis,not me,by the way.

[vicr3000]

Joanne doesn't claim to be a climate scientist either.

She speaks as a messenger to bring to the public's attention the problems with what is going on with BOM

and other climate related things.

Just on the other side of the fence to Al Gore.

Sceptics are allowed an opinion.

And Al gore was well paid by those who wanted an outcome.

[gleee58]

---

@idlewhile wrote:

---

BOM is under an inquiry for manipulating data. Why are they manipulating, removing  or harmonizing data? because it has been corrupted and infested by "global warming" fanatics.

They are under investigation, what, about that sentence, do you not comprehend?

---

You only have to read the information about the ACORN-SAT data set to understand what data was changed and why.  The BOM have no global warming agenda and global warming has absolutely nothing to do with ACORN-SAT.

They are under investigation by who?

The same lot of bandits that are attacking Triggs for a report they have not read?

[myoclon1cjerk]

That's all it is.An opinion.Not science.The sceptics have lost the argument.The world is moving forward to address the problem.Too slowly maybe,but moving nonetheless.And as more data comes in,the more crucial it'll be to act decisively.Otherwise your grandchildren will inherit an unpleasant planet to live on.Who knows.Maybe their fate is sealed,because we've known about this for decades and are still dragging our feet.