Thanks Dr Bill... seems you've momentarily silenced the climate faithful with some scientific home truths. I feel a severe whirlwind of denier bashing is gathering.

"It is simply not logical to create trends from data that are non-trending. Nor is it acceptable for people to claim trends are real when they are clearly not." Reminds me of GIGO; garbage in garbage out

If there hasn't been any significant global warming since 1998, as admitted in the latest IPCC report on climate change... is it possible that rather than a 12 -15 year anomaly as the IPCC suggests, we might deduce the warming was the anomaly? I'm not saying the climate hasn't changed, only that so called global warming and especially man-made global warming are very questionable, regardless of how many 1000 climate scientist defend it.

Well , here are a few facts, that simply can't be denied!
The formerly permanently frozen Alaskan tundra is melting, releasing formerly frozen methane, in millions of tons, and from hundreds of new lakes, created by new melt water! [And one unit of methane is worth at least 21 units of Co2, as a greenhouse gas!]
In living memory, sea ice never used to disappear entirely from adjacent areas, but it does now every [progressively longer] summer, with consequent additional erosion.
The oceans are becoming more acidic, and warmer in some areas, by as much as a recorded comparative 2C!
And ice is melting at a faster rate than predicted by the warming theorists, none more evident than on the Tibetan plateau; where Glacial melt water, waters two thirds of the world's population! [For now!]
Or around Antarctica, where waters as warm as a reported entirely unpredictable 4C, are melting Antarctic ice at an unprecedented rate!
And with that melt, threatening to raise oceans levels almost overnight, by around 3 metres, if an ocean sized body of fresh water down there, only held back by a comparatively thin ice wall, is released!
And when not if it does, I challenge Jennifer and the whole crew of denialists to invest in some coastal property; [if they haven't already?]
And or, go and stand on our seashores and say, It's not real, it's not really happening, it's just a figment of warmists over active imaginations!
And no I'm not really drowning it's just glub, glub glub, Hellup gurgle choke!
Rhrosty.

Rhrosty you do realise don't you, that the current area covered by ice in the arctic is a record for the satellite era, the only measurement to difficult to spin, but you can bet the grant dependent warmists are trying.

So Rhrosty are you just quoting from the new testament of climate cleansing verse 135, or have you checked the data for yourself?

Have you checked historical newspapers for instance, against the "facts" you so firmly extol? Do you think ice is expected never to melt?; has never melted?

Do you know about the dynamics of methane? Where it comes from; where it goes to?

For another ACORN-SAT site, take Bridgetown Post Office in WA.

Did you know, there were undocumented influential infrastructure changes almost within touching-distance of its Stephenson Screen?

That rainfall (mm/year), combined with an abrupt and persistent downshift of 105mm/year from 1966, accounted for about 50% of the variation in observed minimum ACORN temperature?

Unsurprisingly; that data quality was inconsistent?

That up to 1944, data were of high quality. However, from 1945 to 1966, they were observed mainly in whole-degrees Fahrenheit; and that consistent rounding up or down can't be ruled out.

That after metrication in 1972; from 1973 to 1979; and 1996 to 2009; more than 40% of daily Celsius observations (vs. an expectation of 20%) were whole and half-degrees?

Instead of blabbering-on, you could have worked that out for yourself.

Don't you know that at no time during the Celsius-era were decimal fractions at Bridgetown distributed as expected. Data generally; and especially "records" and "extremes" are biased by such obvious data-faults.

Don't you think that's important?

Bridgetown's data is as it is. Polish as you might; call it homogenisation or peer-review; not even our Bureau-wizards can turn a sow's ear into a silky-smooth trend.

Allowing for externalities there is no trend in Bridgetown's data.

There are many other ACORN examples; in-fact just about all of them, just waiting for you to discover!

ACORN is an over-sold crock!

I took the trouble to check it for myself.

Why don't you?

Cheers,

Dr. Bill

DavidK

Okay, I admit I was wrong in saying this: "Jennifer didn't say that practice of homogenisation is indefensible".

But let's go further than that - very much in your favour - and suppose that all the homogenisation of data you could possibly want is conceded, in fact everything in the entire field of climatology is conceded. What could be fairer than that.

Okay. So what?

Can you see that that, of itself, won't prove anything about whether the resulting ecology will be worse rather than better or indifferent; nor that the benefits of any government policy will outweigh the downsides

I have no idea what you are talking about DavidK; not a clue.

In any sphere of endeavor; for anything you can possibly think of; the average of corrupted data is corruption.

As a retired scientist; I'm intensely amazed that any peer would project a corrupted world-view on the basis of faulty or contestable base-data. You are welcome to debate with me on that.

It is beyond ethics to base or market government policy on some warped-view, or manufactured hypotheses about to our climate history.

You are invited to get hold of all the ACORN data and show me where I am wrong. I'm willing to bear that brunt.

Cheers,

Dr. Bill