Try this

http://theconversation.com/no-the-bureau-of-meteorology-is-not-fiddling-its-weather-data-31009

Tony,

I asked for data not a warm and fuzzy explanation in a left wing blog.

The point that Jennifer was making is that there were sites that have not moved nor changed their equipment whose data has been altered. The article you linked does not explain this.

It's a conspiracy, maaaan.
Of the guv-ern-ment, maaaaaan!

Then they'll try and take our guns, and then where will we be, maaaaaan?

Dear Shadow,
Many, many months ago the issue of Rutherglen was fully addresses. All of Jennifer's views totally rebutted. There is no value in repeating all that was said. If you are unable to chase through URLs in the referenced paper, there is nothing I can do to help you. The Conversation is published by a consortia of Universities. Originated in Australia, it now has publishing groups in th US and other countries. I gather that by calling such a group left wing, you are avidly anti science, and incapable of reviewing any data that could be provided.

By the way, you can access it yourself at the Bureau site.

It is pleasing to note that Jennifer has lost her university cloak and has returned to home, at the IPA, where anti science is the preferred religion.

You may have noticed a substantial downward trend in the number of denialists remaining. Which is a little sad, as the long lived ones, like Jennifer keep on repeating the same myths. Jenn had many supporters in the earlier discussions on Rutherglen. But exceptionally few supporters for this current fictional piece.

I like to think it was her University that removed her cosy spot, but I don't know. It may be that her sponsor was getting little return for money spent.

Dear Shadow, Jennifer, the IPA and others,

believe in the almighty role the free market plays in all of our lives. They follow the tenants first articulated by the Marshall Institute in the US.

If there is any science which, if accepted by Govt, requires additional govt regulation, then try to trash that science. But, not through knowledge of the science, but by trashing the reputation of scientists. Via this approach, the Marshall Institute manage to delay for decades the formal acceptance of the link between smoking and cancer. And probably thousands of premature deaths caused.

That modus operandi seems to me to be Jennifer's marching orders. Trash the Bureaus scientists without attempting to understand the science. As with the cancer smoking matters, such climate change denialists will not be looked upon kindly by history. Jennifer's actions possibly pivotal in leading Abbott astray.

Thank goodness Turnbull is intelligent (fingers crossed)

These recent exchanges show why the whole AGW thing is has very negative
effects on the country.
The point is it does not matter whether AGW is true or not !
It will not make the slightest difference.

THE FUEL IS NOT THERE AT ANY COST TO CAUSE AGW !