Tony,

Firstly, I haven't been arguing against climate change which if you had actually read my posts you would have realized.

Secondly temperature is temperature, and the scales are completely interchangeable between Fahrenheit, Celsius or even Kelvin, and the change between the scales is not homogenization, which if you had even the vaguest inkling of science you would know.

It is typical, the most ignorant are the most vocal and abusive. It is a waste of my time stooping to your level.

OK Shadow,
You obviously want to go deeper than that very simple example of homogenisation.

Try your knowledge on this 100 page plus article.
What in it do you believe is not correct process? Which of the many reasons for homogenisation do you not support? And, on what science do base your opinions?

http://cawcr.gov.au/publications/technicalreports/CTR_049.pdf

The only way I can sense your attitude towards AGW is your attack on BOM - your activity is that of a denialist. Perhaps there might be a better word - do know of one?

Perhaps we can use the phrase "stealth denislist", coined by the Royal Society for the Arts in the UK. Stealth Denialists are those who profess to understand / agree with AGW science, but do nothing about it.

Temperature is not temperature! Length of a mercury column might be used as a proxy for temperature. Bimetallic devices, infrared sensors and many more. They all attempt to measure the average kinetic energy of molecules in the air, for example.

Seeing as you do believe in AGW, what average global temp increase are we headed for? And what are the impacts if we all do nothing to prevent that increase? What action should the world take?

Have fun

I guess we need to come to a conclusion that nature is committing fraud. Glaciers are retreating with only a few extending; the surface ice on Greenland is melting, with the melt water being taken into moulins by rivers; Barrow in Alaska was hit by 11-13 foot waves weeks ago as there was no protection from sea ice; some pingos have exploded; and permafrost is thawing. A heightened temperature is usually associated with these eventualities.

Temperature of sea water off Maria Island is being monitored by UTAS, they're measurements must be wrong as they showing an increase in water temperature. Fish that normally reside in waters much further North have apparently become disorientated as they have been found off the East Coast of Tasmania for a number of years. Tasmania's fire season has just begun months in advance of usual. Nature is committing fraud as these kind of happenings only occur with heightened temperature.

Having been involved in outdoor activities for forty five+ years which creates the need to keep tabs on weather forecasts before going out, I'm very happy with BoMs accuracy.

The point of my comment is to say that you do not need a thermometer to show that the climate is changing.
Those who are skeptical or deny climate change use every device possible to imply man created climate change is not happening.

Hi Ant,
not to mention seasons changing, and various bugs hatching before the leaves they rely on have sprouted for them to eat, and all manner of things are out of whack.

Yep, something's up, and this has been known for a while.

As Physics Today says:

"Not that climate change itself had been ignored; even the general public paid attention to that. By the late 1930’s it was common knowledge that the world had been warming up. Grandfathers were saying that the younger generation had it easy: none of those early frosts and daunting blizzards of bygone times. And in fact, as one magazine put it in 1951, “The old-timers are right-winters arent’ what they were.” The evidence was largely anecdotal. Rivers failed to freeze over as formerly, glaciers retreated, and fish were found north of their former haunts. But detailed analysis of temperature statistics also seemed undeniably to show a rise…

Nobody was worried…

…By the early 1960’s much had changed. Many scientists had become seriously concerned that warming might be no mere phase of a modest natural cycle but the onset of an accelerating climb, unprecedented and foreboding."
Spencer Weart
Physics Today 1997
http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/seagrant/ClimateChangeWhiteboard/Resources/Uncertainty/climatech/weart97PR.pdf

Catastrophic climate change was becoming mainstream science, as this Bell Telephone company Science Hour show from 1958 demonstrates.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-AXBbuDxRY

On 6 October 2015 at 10:42:26 PM (Canberra time), the resident population of Australia is projected to be:

23,892,208 - and these figures have now gone up based upon:

1. The estimated resident population at 31 March 2015 and assumes growth since then of:

One birth every 1 minute and 46 seconds, one death every 3 minutes and 23 seconds, a net gain of one international migration every 2 minutes and 37 seconds, leading to an overall total population increase of one person every 1 minute and 32 seconds.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs%40.nsf/94713ad445ff1425ca25682000192af2/1647509ef7e25faaca2568a900154b63?OpenDocument

All of these people, along with the existing population in Australia and worldwide are having a very serious environmental impact, and countries like Australia, have a very high ecological footprint.

Many are now expressing concern that there is too much focus on climate change/or whatever term a person uses (alone) and not enough focus on environmental problems across the board - that is made worse by an increasing population - and yes the majority will not change their "buy, use and throw away" lifestyle in financially well off countries like Australia.

With rubbish and waste I recently bought recycled pegs - some didn't even last a week and I threw them in the rubbish bin, Australia across the board is using too much water from the River Murray, rare bird species are dying due to taking in small toxic pieces of plastic off Australia's coastline and then there are impacts of urban sprawl on farmland, deforestation and permanent land damage caused by mining.

Tony,

I wonder what deep personal insecurity drives you to try and label negatively anyone that is not in lock step with your opinions? First you call me anti science until you realise that I am probably the only one on the site with any science background. Next we have "stealth denialist" coined by collection of scientific ignoramuses. I have openly stated that I understand the concepts behind AGW and that this is largely due to the activities of mankind. However, only an idiot would believe that climate science is exact, that effects and consequences of CO2 emissions are fully understood, and that there is only one way to tackle the problem.

As for the harmogenization of information, I have clearly stated that I understand the principles and need for it, however, I also understand that the manipulation of raw data is something that if not done carefully has the potential to strip any analysis/results of credibility. With this in mind, and given the political sensitivity and prominence of the issue in the media, the process of harmogenization needs to be handled with openness and full disclosure, as only a few poorly done harmogenizations will give critics all the ammunition they need to trash the outcomes.

Rutherglen appears to be a prime example of just this, and no one with any scientific background would be in any doubt as the seriousness of this.