Jon J, contrary to your claims, Anthony Watts' blog is not a clearing house of all kinds of data. It is a clearing house of fake, manipulated, cherry picked and spurious data only.

As an example, I like this particular effort http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/noaa_upper_ocean_heat_content.png where Anthony Watts places a bent trend line in an effort to claim there had been no change in ocean heat. This is the sort of thing that Watts presents and it should be dismissed for the dross it is.

Ant
I am an ocean going sailor. My life depends on reading and predicting, often at long range, the weather. I studied not only meteorology but also the lives of the worlds greatert navigators and gained an understanding of the conditions they all faced.

Would you credit me with having an intimate understaning of weather and climate? If not why not?

Mostly my predictions of weather have been far more accurate and reliable than forecasts from the expert scientists at the bom. If I'd always relied on their science I would have often faced massive perils at sea. My reading, logic and experience tells me man made climate warming is a crock of s..t supported by experts who haven't one iota of the knowledge of the real and historic world conditions or limited to the experience of land locked firefighters.

I nearly chocked Peter, when you stated that the Australian presents objective investigative reporting. The Australian is nothing more than a public relations broadsheet for the LNP. There is a close relationship between Murdoch and IPA as well.
Many years ago it was probably a fair statement about the Australian proving investigative journalism. At present, enews papers are providing better informed articles, papers such as Crikey. Newspapers generally are being bypassed as better information can be found elsewhere.

The Conversation provides some excellent articles as well.
It was an important comment about how scientists will not say for 100% that something is happening, using gravity as an example. But climate scientists say that the evidence is as strong as the theory of gravity. New views come up in Geology as well with reverse continental drift which does not take away from the original theory.

Climate scientists are saying that anthropogenic climate change is causing huge aberrations in weather; they say that individual weather patterns cannot be seen to be evidence of climate change. Water vapour is a greenhouse gas; scientists tell us that the warm atmosphere picks up more moisture; under certain circumstances a deluge occurs.

Glaciologists are informing us about how permafrost is melting. Its a trend begun over a number of years. The proof is shallow lakes forming in permafrost areas, and shrubbery beginning to grow where it had been impeded by permafrost in the past.

The argument keeps cropping up about climate scientists committing fraud; can you name one who has committed fraud, Peter? Climategate and Mann are often mentioned, no charges have stuck yet.

Jon J, I’m afraid that Watt’s has no professional science qualifications.
Watts made an allegation that temperature measurement was poorly managed in the US. The sites Watts complained about were assessed and found to be giving reliable information. It’s been written about in Wikipedia and elsewhere.

In June this year Watts had communication in relation to the extent of sea ice in the Arctic area. Watts was pushing the view that extent is important, would not consider volume. A very clear indication of not allowing for information that goes against what he says, lack of objectivity. It so happens that sea ice is quite thin; ice thinning has been a process going on for some time. There is some variability in thickness and melt rate on a seasonal basis.

http://greatwhitecon.info/blog/

The author of the site belongs to another site where on a daily basis, weather is discussed showing weather maps, the state of ice is discussed, temperature is discussed, data from many buoys dispersed around the Arctic is discussed and data from satellites is published on a daily basis during the melt season

Imajulianutter
I have been a glider pilot for some 45 years. I rely heavily on the Bom to predict:-

Possible dangerous conditions
The wind speed and direction at various heights
The height of the thermals
The strength of the thermals
The start and finish time of thermals
The best locations
The cloud base (usually very accurate)
The temperature at various heights
The best days for record breaking flights

I am amazed by how far climate science has come in the last 50 years.

In my early days I used to take people out fishing on lakes in the west of Ireland. I can tell you relying on folklore for weather forecasts lead me to experiencing some very hairy conditions. 40 knot winds in a 17ft open wooden boat with 3 people on board and 102cc outboard motor is not a lot of fun.

imajulianutter, I have been involved in outdoor activities all my life. I rely on a barometre and forecasts from a number of sources. I haven't been caught out yet.

Climate change is about reviewing what has actually happened over a long time frame using measured data over decades. Trend lines are created which then give an indication of whether current data is still showing climate change. Data from many sources is used. We only get acquainted with a small amount of data available to climate scientists.
You say you know better than climate scientists; imajulianutter, you must have a bucket full of PhDs. As stated earlier scientists from different disciplines find data that compliments what climate scientists are coming up with.