spindoc,

No, it's the science that "you" and your merry bunch of "skeptics" don't understand - here's another one:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/01/13/the-australians-war-on-science-81-matt-ridleys-20-year-old-wrong-prediction/

I seeenk Monsieur Poirot, you mees zee point,

The skeptics have no requirement or desire to restore for you, the infrastructure you have lost. Just so you don’t miss the point again.

The following have collapsed, we don’t want them but if your science can get them back, go for it. Write to them.

“Would this be the same climate science that the former Kyoto signatories don’t understand? Or would be the same climate science that the global CO2 trading markets don’t understand or the renewable energy industry that likewise does not understand?”

Your deliberate failure to address the main issue is not doing your cred any good

Here you all go again, worrying about the wrong problem.
A few points;

The temperature predictions are the output of computer models.
Computer models a very difficult to verify, especially when they fail
to predict the past well.
The current IPCC inputs of fossil fuels are incorrect and too high.

World Peak coal is expected around 2025. It will become increasingly more
expensive and of lower quality, hence tonnages will go up for no energy gain.

We need to use the existing fossil fuel sources to manufacture the
alternative energy systems that will replace fossil fuel energy systems.
As the world economy contracts so will the amount of fossil fuels burnt.
Catch22, with alternative energy systems it will become increasingly
more difficult to repair and manufacture alternative energy systems.

This is the way it is and you can see the changes in the last seven years.

warmair; the BOM has a gridding system, which Chris Gilham and other researchers are looking at, that is area-averaged, whereby the entire Australian continent is divided into grid cells of 0.25 x 0.25 degrees latitude and longitude, at least in the ACORN dataset, to achieve average temperatures based on complicated variants such as land area proportions, meridional convergence and a distance weighted interpolation over multiple cells.

It sounds complicated because it is. The adjustments are needed because most weather stations in the 1800s and early 1900s were established in populated areas but there was a dearth of isolated inland thermometers and temperatures to build a true national average or historic comparison.

So,the BOM is doing 2 things; it is superseding its ACORN network which is based on individual sites to produce a larger grid pattern; why? And by doing so does the averaging bias warmer sites? Are cooler sites excluded?

The 2nd thing BOM is doing is discarding previous records of particular site stemperatures and wider spread heatwaves.

I repeat; a simple averaging of the ACORN sites produces an average continent maximum temperature less than the BOM produced with its gridding system.

It sounds like crap to me but then I'm no expert and you apparently are, so justify it.

Perhaps if one were to contact BoM, one could find out the answers to one's questions.

But no, one relies on a 'nice guy' to perpetuate the BoM conspiracy.

qanda I contacted the BOM in 1989 I wanted average relative humidity and temperatures for SE Melbourne. The man was very helpful and provided all the data in writing. I made some remark and he said despite what people think temperatures have been remarkable stable for the last hundred years.
I am sure this is the last gasp for the fraudsters who are planning to tax or put a charge on the air we breathe. What really gets me is that this, like the millenium bug, will be forgotten as soon as the money flow is stopped. No accounting for Flannery or Karoly in their waterside mansions either.