@JF Aus: "I don’t think JM is undermining real science. She has found and has the courage and integrity to question discrepancies in AGW temperature measuring."

Well, that's a very interesting way to put it. I've been questioning discrepancies and things my whole life. I never expected that qualified me to win a Bravery Award or something because of it.

It's good to question things. Even better to work out what are the right questions to ask. Better still is to arrive at the correct answers!

@JF Aus: "I have empirical evidence of substance indicating unprecedented anthropogenic nutrient pollution proliferated algae is causing ocean food web nursery devastation resulting in fish depletion in general. " and "I base my opinion there on underwater ocean exploration and general research spanning over 50 years."

If that is true then I wish you well in getting that 'work' published in a respected peer-reviewed Scientific Journal asap.

fwiw according to you this little interview is also on topic:

'Demise of the Great Barrier Reef' 2016 Coral Bleaching Event & more
16 minutes with Dr John (Charlie) Veron, the 'Godfather of Coral'
50 years and 6,000 plus hours diving on coral reefs and former chief scientist at the Australian Institute of Marine Science, just might be worth listening to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY9p746teHE

Or asking for his advice and professional opinion about your "research" / "empirical evidence"?

Charlie Veron's ‘Corals of the World’ website aims to preserve the Great Barrier Reef in digital form: http://coralsoftheworld.com

[ Note: there's something not quite right with this website when it continually drops off the last character of url copy/paste. ]

Replying Max Green,
Issues like 50 years of missing rain gauge data can be easily detected by eyeball simply by plotting the time-series and Marohasy has established that Rutherglen and Amberley have good data (which is a reason for their selection).

There are other perhaps more relevant data issues, for instance at the many Post office sites some were not manned on Sundays and PH’s and even in modern times there are days and short periods of no data. At some sites glass thermometers were eyeballed with varying skills and whilst most were given to a tenth of a degree it’s unlikely that they were that accurate, particularly before decimalization. Furthermore, many readings were overrepresented to half degree and integer values. With the widespread introduction of automatic stations a functional problems led to years of either no data or integer values only. Cape Otway showed integers for nine years solid and Larapuna seven in the minima parallel with seven of no data in the maxima. These problems overlapped at various sites and with their various instrument types for at least eleven years.

However, because these events are RANDOM in effect they have trivial and indeterminate effect on underlying TRENDS.

Marohasy has found that BoM homogenization has transformed cooling TRENDS to warming TRENDS; an entirely different matter.

Bob Fernley-Jones says:
Replying Max Green,
Issues like 50 years of missing rain gauge data can be easily detected by eyeball simply by plotting the time-series and Marohasy has established that Rutherglen and Amberley have good data (which is a reason for their selection).

What data does Marohasy have? Is it different data from BOM? Where did she get it? How does establish it is "good data"? Has she sent it to BOM for analysis?

Your support of her preposterous theories is unsustainable but you probably know that.

Algae is heating and killing the ocean yet evidence of heat in algae seems ignored in AGW IPCC Kyoto associated science and present day climate change comment and media.

Professor Brian Cox apparently has knowledge of electrochemical reaction in algae during photosynthesis but that knowledge seems not mentioned in the professor’s view about CO2 being the cause of AGW and climate change. See:

Rhodopsin | Professor Brian Cox | Volvox | Algae | Heron
www.mymultiplesclerosis.co.uk/wonders/rhodopsin.html
Mar 9, 2013 - It is possible that the light-sensitive properties of Rhodopsin can be traced as far back as cyanobacteria over a billion years ago.
http://www.mymultiplesclerosis.co.uk/wonders/rhodopsin.html

Algae plant matter uses rhodopsin during photosynthesis.
Rhodopsin has thermal properties.
Therefore cyanobacteria phytoplankton algae has thermal properties.

Electrochemical reaction involves transfer of electrons between two substances, one solid the other a liquid. Algae plant matter - ocean water.
http://www.britannica.com/science/electrochemical-reaction

Stanford University has harvested electricity from algae during photosynthesis.
http://inhabitat.com/stanford-scientists-harvest-electricity-from-algae-photosynthesis/

The BIQ building in Germany uses photosynthesis to multiply micro algae to give off heat.
http://www.fastcoexist.com/3033019/this-algae-powered-building-actually-works

Pinpoints of cloud and cloud streets can be seen forming above algae inundated waters. Images thanks to NASA. Zoom to see the pinpoints clearly beginning and forming cloud above algae visible in algae inundated waters.
e.g. Over the Bering Sea:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=40716
Over the Timor Sea;
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=88389

Empirical evidence of substance indicates unprecedented anthropogenic sewage and land use nutrient loads are now often amounting to nutrient pollution causing increase in algae plant matter causing increased precipitation leading to change in weather and climate including more intense storms.

Ocean dead zones are expanding and increasing.

Evidence indicates need for nutrient trading to reduce nutrient loads while generating productivity.
Sensible CO2 emissions trading that is not an economic burden should be applied to combat air pollution.

John C Fairfax.
23rd August, 2016.

John Fairfax,
give it a break. If you're that convinced you're onto something, take it to the CSIRO, NOAA, whatever. Just please stop spamming here.

Thanks.

Max Green,

Are you suggesting I am onto something?
And can you define what the spam is you refer to?
Why don't you point out where opinion and evidence I have posted is incorrect?
If you can.

With respect, I suggest try an exercise by considering views of a religion different to your own.