Jennifer’s telling of the truth about the fraud –backing BOM has attracted comments from the dishonest and the ignorant, who are enraged by the truth.

The fraud supporting assertions of the BOM have been obvious for a long time, and particularly since global warming stopped 17 years ago. They are desperate for a warming trend, so announce “hottest year on record” with monotonous regularity, every year. Jennifer says their assertions are based on faith or ignorance, but they are based on ignorance or dishonesty.
We need a Royal Commission to ascertain how the fraud-backers have infiltrated previously reputable bodies like BOM from which they assert lies about temperature and climate. Be grateful for Jennifer’s input and contemptuous of the dishonest input of fraud supporters like Gerry, David K, G’Day Bruce, John Ryan and Roses

"I have always been of the opinion that anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted in large ones either."

Do you want to revisit this statement Jennifer?

Perhaps after going through this article again? http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=15632

I am aware that you and your climate denialist budies, who for the most part have no expertise in the area, have been feeding Graham Lloyd information in an attempt to discredit the BOM. Personally, given Lloyd's continuing ability to get the science wrong, even when working from the paper itself http://revkin.tumblr.com/post/93207116242/mit-ocean-scientist-clarifies-findings-on-small I would have gone for someone else. But this whole exercise has been a monument to cherry picking, something that seems to be common to climate denial arguments.

But the reality is that the BOM is not widely manipulating the figures. There are good reasons for record homogenisation when you want to use the data for looking at changes over time http://theconversation.com/no-the-bureau-of-meteorology-is-not-fiddling-its-weather-data-31009 and if you don't understand what they are, perhaps it is better not to call foul.

Reading the comments it appears that one of the main points is the use of Homogenisation as a valid statistical tool. The assertion being that it IS valid and there is nothing 'wrong' with its use; hence the Article is baseless.

In my reading of the Article, it questions the extent and justification of the Homogenisation (and the selective use of data); hence those comments present Straw-man arguments and serve to muddy the waters.

Regardless of your political view, science must represent humanity's best attempt at modelling reality. This process must not be tarnished by politics. I expect all reasonable people would agree.

If BoM and CSIRO cannot undertake their primary missions without a political agenda then they require a systemic overhaul. (I include CSIRO here because as I see it BoM and CSIRO are 'joined at the hip' in regards Climate Science, for example, their joint publication of various 'State of the Climate' reports.)

It is a sorry thing to read the ad hominem (?ad feminam) comment of DavidK.

Jennifer's approach is scientifically sound. I have not examined all the details, but I can say that the idea of "data homogenization" is fundamentally unsound. It may be that there are faults in some table of data that need correction on the basis of other data or metadata. But "homogenization" is a no-no. My best source for this is the masterwork 'Probability Theory: the Logic of Science', E.T. Jaynes, 2003, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK, ISBN 0-521-59271-2, which explains why.

Roses, the explanation of BOM’s homogenisation, to which you give a link, has flaws, being as dishonest as the original homogenisation. Go here for clarification:
http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/

The conclusion is:
“ It is clear that the changes to the temperatures at Rutherglen do not “homogenise” them. They make the differences from the neighbours greater, and change a cooling trend into a warming one.
This is not unique to Rutherglen- adjustments warm the temperature trends at 66 of the 104 Australian sites, and warm the national mean temperature trend by around 47%.”

DavidK

Jennifer didn't say that practice of homogenisation is indefensible, so you started with a misrepresentation, and then covered it with ad hom, and then when called on that, you reply to me with further ad hom, and just assume that you're right without ever showing reason.

All the warmists are arguing here is that the facts don't matter.

The point is, this constant slather of fallacies that we get every time we engage them, is all the warmists have got.

We have repeatedly asked the warmists on here to answer questions that will prove their case and disprove the objections to it, and *every single time*, they just go quiet and slink off.

So spare us your fog-horn of ideology, DavidK. Will you undertake to answer the questions that no warmist dares to answer? What will you give us if you can't and just slink off like the rest of them? Why should anyone be bothered with your proven dishonesty? Do you accept my challenge?