Hi Max, ant :-)

@Shadow Minister1
You're wasting your time making a mountain out of a mole hill drawing. Give it up.

@Shadow Minister2 12 September 2016 4:59:51 AM
There are logical grounds why you're a poster on OLO and not employed at BOM nor doing Climate Science yourself. Any ideas what those grounds might be?

re: "essentially presenting manipulated data"

Nope it is DE-Manipulating it and taking out obvious ERRORS in the original recorded figures using best practice scientific statistical rigour not possible in 1939 or before.... in order to have a consistent basis to develop national and global mean temps.

Marohasy keeps distorting the truth and filling people's heads with BS - eg her stupid dishonest reference to temps/weather warnings about Bush Fires which DO NOT use those "112 homogenized" temp records but use ALL the data available from the BOM at a local regional level. DOH!

One could reasonably assert that yet again Marohasy is lying to her readers and spreading gross disinformation and planting distortions in her reader's heads! It could be intentional or merely rank incompetence, but I believe it is both and worse than just that.

Why do you (Shadow Minister and others) believe anything Marohasy "claims" when you have not seen it for yourself?

In her many "stories" she has claimed the Rutherglen site was NEVER MOVED. Which is it? - it moved - it didn't ? When did it switch to automated instruments?

Why does anyone believe Marohasy without a speck of evidence bar her Pixel dust on social media sites?

re: "then data should be split into separate measurements say Rutherglen A and B"

Who says? You? Why? Who decided you were the expert on weather station data collection and analysis and correcting errors? I already know Marohasy isn't.

A BOM FOIA request relating to Marohasy is underway as promised.

Such as Marohasy's Abbot's self-seeking 'pseudo-papers' published at the seriously flaky Wessex Institute of Technology?
http://www.witpress.com/elibrary/wit-transactions-on-ecology-and-the-environment/196/34171

List of Bogus Fake Journals/Pseudo-Science
http://www.google.com.au/#q=%22Wessex+institute%22+journal+bogus%3F&gws_rd=cr

http://theaimn.com/coalition-environment-committee/

http://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPbXkzb1RlVGJaZFU

"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
John Maynard Keynes

Thomas,

You are tilting at windmills, I suspect you don't grasp what I am trying to say, because what you post does not relate.

Secondly, as a young engineer I did some post grad work on Antarctic atmospheric condition focusing on the Aurora and its influence on radio transmissions, so I have a more than passing understanding. (I am curious as to your qualifications as I can't locate any), and the main reason I don't work as a climate scientist is because I earn 2-3 times as much as an engineer.

From my posts:

1 I am not disputing climate change,
2 I know Rutherglen was moved and never disputed this,
3 I know and understand why the data is harmogenized.

However, harmogenizing the data is politically a stupid move as the skeptics can now claim that the climate lobby is manipulating the data (which it is), with the reasoning given sounding like excuses, and instead of simplifying things for the unwashed masses, it comes across like VW fudging their emission tests.

Get it now?

To get the masses moving the climate scientists need to maintain their credibility with the people, and this oversight has blown a big hole in it.

So it's a matter of how the data is presented? Semantics? I don't think BOM did anything wrong: I think Jennifer did the wrong. And the longer she writes, the 'wronger' she gets. But when your job is on the line, what can you do? (Oh, I know, when CIVILISATION is at stake, maybe change jobs and stop lying?)

easier to blame the idiotic gw faith for bushfires than fighting the Greens in order to have sensible clearing policies. Difficult to believe how adults have fallen for such a deceptive faith. Academia has certainly managed to dumb down the masses.

"Difficult to believe how adults have fallen for such a deceptive faith."

I struggle to understand how people maintain their conspiracy theory faith. Now *that's* a weird religion!

Please don't just switch off your brain and sit in a simplistic conspiracy theory and discount all the science as 'lies'. Think about what you are suggesting!

From Wikipedia:
>>The existence of the greenhouse effect was argued for by Joseph Fourier in 1824. The argument and the evidence was further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838, and reasoned from experimental observations by John Tyndall in 1859.[12] The effect was more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.[13] However, the term "greenhouse" wasn't used to describe the effect by any of these scientists; the term was first used in this way by Nils Gustaf Ekholm in 1901.[14][15] In 1917 Alexander Graham Bell wrote "[The unchecked burning of fossil fuels] would have a sort of greenhouse effect", and "The net result is the greenhouse becomes a sort of hot-house."[16][17] Bell went on to also advocate the use of alternate energy sources, such as solar energy.[18]<<
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect#History

This short history shows that any 'conspiracy' Deniers believe in must span nearly 2 centuries. Just *think* about what they are suggesting! Some world-wide scientific conspiracy started just after the Napoleonic wars, and continued through WW1, WW2, the Cold War, the fall of the Soviet Union, the re-unification of Germany, etc. Such a conspiracy surviving all these different world-changing political changes boggles the imagination. Deniers must live in a very scary world, and believe in an organisation that dwarfs James Bond's "Spectre"!

Max,

Remember the July election when labor ran the lie about the libs wanting to privatize medicare? It was a complete fabrication, but convinced a large enough portion of the electorate to almost win the election, and that was based on a lot less.

People that you need to convince are the men in the street who will bear the brunt of the high cost of power and who have a vested interest in rejecting climate action.

My skepticism lies more in the accuracy of the predictions, and the remedies (Strong proponent of nuclear) given the chronic difficulties of balancing a network without base load generation.