Prompete, at the beginning of the thread gives Jennifer Marohasy as a reference suggesting that "fraud" is taking place in the Bureau of Meteorogy. To begin with, Ms Marohasy operates a blog, a blog carries an individual's views that have not necessarily been tested. We all know that newspapers get things wrong; many blogs are no different.

Blogs in science have some status when they refer to science that has been completed and readily accepted. I tried to illustrate the point with nonsense about molecules and "atoms". Who is going to dispute what scientists come up with through the use of electron microscopes in observing atoms that other scientists can replicate the same data. To spell it out further, it was a metaphor for what is happening at present.

Climate scientists to illustrate their point, often provide animations using actual data. An example is showing the loss of sheet ice in the Arctic over several years. Other scientists using the same data can create the same animation, using data from satellites.
Nothing to do with computer models that endeavour to show what trends are going to occur in the future; but using data from the past.

Wrong conclusions can arise when not using the full data:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlY2_-8RAS0

@ SteeleRedux, Sunday, 23 March 2014 10:46:24 PM
Damn! And here I was thinking he was referring to me.
But I do agree with your advice about putting a dollar in his cup and continuing on our way. It (the dollar) might help him service his bilge pumps.

imajulianutter wrote: “All these issues have been covered I depth on previous threads. Ask Witless.
Key to many of them was information, current and referenced, provided by Cohenite.”

This would of course be the same cohenite that proved themselves unable to add up? http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16086#279616

The same cohenite that is unable to read a graph http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16086#279460

The same cohenite that fails to understand simple mathematical operations http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15064#260250

The same cohenite that reproduces an obviously fraudulent graph from Anthony Watts http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14784

The same cohenite that doesn’t know the difference between journals that are peer-reviewed and those that are not http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14179

The same cohenite who understands nothing of statistics and nothing of the scientific publication process http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14089#243927

Well, I am pleased you go for quality in the information you use.

Haudell

the climate is changing. The data indicates cooling, not warming. Waiting to see the extent and height of your backflip. Guaranteed it will be outstanding. No not you you haven't yet reached the heights of witlessness as the one and only Witless.

Witless,

do I have to remind you of your unwitting admission of your own witlessness? How could you forget such stupidity? I guess you'll just have to suck it up or change your nick name, since your modus is now continually up for exposure ... and once again reinforced in this thread.

Luciferase

Ah no... I simply credited Cohenite for supplying information current and referenced, which even you acknowledge as research. Read it again. You will see the authority was the referenced information and not the realist and informative cohenite.

If you would check you will see scientists are now considering actual data that challenges all the articles of faith you terrorists so doggedly hang onto. Hence my questions ... which none of you here have fully addressed with or without deception.

Look I understand how you fellows have difficulty with simple comprehension but really trying to verbal me in such a purile manner is really very silly.

Steele, I hope that you will appreciate the treatment you have received on this site. You complain about the use of the terms “crooks” and “liars”, but we are dealing with a cynical and substantial fraud, and its origin and support, you have to realise, emanate from crooks and liars, and, after inception, from the ignorant and dishonest.

There is a benevolent attitude towards you here, because no one has called you a crook or a liar. Having observed the ridiculous games you play, and your stubborn refusal to put forward any attempt to justify your fraud backing, you have been given the status of witless, which differentiates you from liars and crooks, whose behaviour, in fraud backing, has so much in common with your own.

You have contributed little to the discussion, but you are at least an object lesson in one type of mentality which supports fraud. You have given us the template of how a witless fraud backer operates.

Ant, Jennifer Marohasy sets out facts. Why don’t you try it, instead of shooting from the hip and being totally wrong. You appear to know nothing about her column. Click on the link below and learn

http://www.mythandthemurray.org/no-increase-in-hot-days-at-bathurst-or-the-misguided-politics-of-attributing-bushfires-to-global-warming/

Mrohasy is an accomplished scientist and very transparent in her presentation. Let us know what you think when you have an idea of your topic. Your post demonstrates that you had no idea when you wrote it