Max Green,

I gather from your rather confusing post of '20 August 2016 12:22:28 PM' (a bunch of words desperately trying to find a sentence) that you'd like me to return to the CLexit thread so as to continue your education. No problem, I'll see you over there.

Replying to Thomas O'Reilly,
You continue to evade the fact that GISS have DISAPPEARED the “Super El Nino” of 1997/8 etcetera. Even Kevin Trenberth described it as real recently, link above! It’s still bigger than 2015/16 in both RSS and UAH, and July 2016 is significantly cooler than July 1998 in both global time-series; anomalies C follow:

July1998: RSS 0.61 UAH 0.51
July2016: RSS 0.47 UAH 0.39
2016 cooler than 1998 by: RSS 0.14C UAH 0.12C (cooler than nineteen years ago)

It’s entertaining that you don’t think that these remotely sensed data are measurements but that they are inferred, presumably to assert that it is unreliable. It sounds like something straight out of “Skeptical Science” or “Real Climate”. Please submit your paper for peer review to rebut 35 years of R & D from two independent sources that closely agree in their outcomes.

And yet, your preferred Oracles are happy to manipulate fundamental parameters used in their climate change beliefs that are also remotely sensed via satellite. Stuff like cloud and global albedo, EMR frequency spectra departing earth, solar insolation and whatnot. And of course, Gavin Schmidt is a keen supporter of hockey-sticks that are inferred from tree rings. (Well not all the way because they graft on very different temperature data (!) in modern times, thus avoiding that inconvenient “Divergence Problem”.

KR at Skeptical Science has a great analogy for Marohasy's ‘attack’ on homogenisation. Over to KR:

“Station moves occur, as do equipment changes, both of which change the absolute temperatures recorded at the station affected and thus bias anomalies. Homogenization looks at nearby stations that do not experience simultaneous changes to detect and measure how the temperature anomaly offsets have changed for the modified station, and corrections are applied accordingly. Hansen and Lebedeff 1987 demonstrated strong correlations in observed temperature anomalies over distances over 1000km, meaning that nearby station anomalies are very reliable indicators for identifying individual station changes.

As I've said before, It could be argued (and has by people like Marohasy) that it’s better to look at raw temperature data than data with these various adjustments for known biases. It could also be argued that it’s worth not cleaning the dust and oil off the lenses of your telescope when looking at the stars. I consider these statements roughly equivalent, and would have to disagree.

Ignoring known and correctable biases to search out some subset of raw data that seems to support your thesis IMO indicates either (a) deliberate distortion or (more charitably) (b) a huge misunderstanding of science and statistics accompanied by confirmation bias. Either way, such claims are simply not meaningful.”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=110&p=7#106243

Replying to Leo Lane,
Re Tombee “It’s worth adding that Spencer is a creationist. Strange but true”

Tombee went silent on my enquiry regardless of whether it was true or not, as to relevance to his skill as a scientist (an awarded one).

Oh well, if Spencer’s sin is “worth adding” let’s add more detail to Cox’s colourful past:

http://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/prof-brian-coxs-ketamine-shame.222217/.

The physicist released a statement following coverage of the ketamine shame and has publicly defended his position “as a psychadelic journenyman, a psychonaut exploring the very fabric of the universe through drug exploration” and said that the Royal Society were all “off their nuts, that’s how science works”.
Online comment #1: I don't care he's lovely.

Google search for; “prof brian cox” + ketamine; gave 172 hits and there’s also this extract under +activist:

http://www.avclub.com/article/professor-brian-cox-59892

“I work at university, and I am involved in the political process. I lobby really hard for funding and support for scientific and engineering programs, because I feel that those are the ways that we will progress as a civilization and as a country. That’s what I share with Sagan’s view, that you can be an activist—a scientific activist—and you should be able to do that on television and with books.”

I remember Sagan as a popular sensationalizer of science who was inconsistent in his various scientific opinions and activism. In my view it is revealing and exquisite that Cox models himself on Sagan.

Also see this interesting UK analysis with 660+ comments on Cox’s performance on Q&A entitled: ‘Prof Brian Cox: Gorgeous Lips; Lovely Smile; Crap Scientist’

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/08/18/prof-brian-cox-gorgeous-lips-lovely-smile-crap-scientist/

Robert’s references to ‘The Feynman Principle’ went way over the heads of at least 97% of those present, and Cox did not blink an eyelid. Cox’s lauded status in Particle Physics couldn’t be further removed from the Earth Sciences and e.g. the ABC’s Media Watch should investigate Cox’s background. They were keen enough to denigrate distinguished ecologist Jim Steele recently for having an ornithological interest and therefore unqualified to comment on coral bleaching! WOT?

@Thomas O'Reilly, Saturday, 20 August 2016 4:25:57 PM

Thomas O’Reilly, in relation to comment on this thread you indicate you are aware of much more about AGW and climate science. How much more? And you say you did not come down in the last shower. Accordingly I have a few questions

Are you aware whether or not ocean algae is causing some precipitation forming cloud and changing weather?

Has formation of cloud above algae inundated waters been measured and assessed in AGW and IPCC and Kyoto associated science? If not why not?

Has the unprecedented anthropogenic total nutrient load and associated point sources on this planet been measured and assessed in AGW linked science? If not, why not?

Is albedo and temperature associated with algae inundated waters included in meteorological science?

Is there justifiable reason for climate science not to include impact of algae in oceans and lakes?

Responses in Reverse

JF Aus: Don't know/care. If I/readers should do tell. Off-topic?

Bob Fernley-Jones1: National Enquirer denigration/Off-topic?

Bob Fernley-Jones2: Yes ignoring. Off-topic? I await your & JMs peer-reviewed papers that prove AGW/CC is a fraud/conspiracy/false. You'll win the Nobel Prize for Science!

mhaze, Leo Lane: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OeUINoYWsg

Jennifer: Your speech/article does not contain 'empirical evidence' get it peer-reviewed incl. raw data/calculations. Wise to ignore people who 'make stuff made up', prove it = evidence/data/math.

Max Green: James Hansen on Nuclear http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/08/unforced-variations-aug-2016/comment-page-4/#comment-659055 and http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/08/unforced-variations-aug-2016/comment-page-5/#comment-659150 and http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/08/unforced-variations-aug-2016/comment-page-5/#comment-659247

JBowyer: Correlation Greens/ABC vs validity/proof of AGW/CC Science = Nil

Max Green: pg10 nuclear I agree

JBowyer: What's a 'liberal insult'? Leyonhjelm can help you with feelings. Please stop embarrassing your english teacher :-)

Bob Fernley-Jones3: I feel your frustrations. I decide what I do/say. Enjoy your retirement. I admire your dedication to the cause, the time/effort invested. Kudos to you for caring / trying.

Bob Fernley-Jones4: disappeared 1997/8 El Nino Off-topic? Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt factory. Not interested, sorry.

Thanks so much for all the 'positive' attention. JMs silence is noted. Will return with a more detailed analysis commentary of her article here and the so-called "paper" about BOM et al another time.

Many 'scientists/academics' have their "papers" rejected for hundreds of different reasons and are asked to have revisions made. Such events happening are not proof nor amount to even a slight hint of a conspiracy against the paper's author/s nor the content.
https://theconversation.com/the-galileo-gambit-and-other-stories-the-three-main-tactics-of-climate-denial-63719

Helpful Tips About Life Climate Science Commentators

Guide To Critical Thinking
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OedkyxEqtA

Guide to recognize and avoid Logical Fallacies on any subject
http://esgs.free.fr/uk/logic.htm

6 Dumbest Ideas Politicians have about Science
https://youtu.be/IBIET-uEbXA

Being an Atheist doesn't necessarily mean you're Rational
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhQdYvz0VwQ

How can understanding 21st Century Cognitive Science help anyone?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=232&v=S_CWBjyIERY

How Brains Think: The Embodiment Hypothesis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuUnMCq-ARQ

Choose your friends, do not let your 'friends' choose you!

On Wealth Climate Science Energy and Empathy
http://www.declineoftheempire.com/2012/01/wealth-and-energy-consumption-are-inseparable.html
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/57x7n454
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business-jan-june13-makingsense_06-21/
~50% of Global CO2e emmissions comes from only ~10% of the population Kevin Anderson March 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVJ8lMIm9-c&feature=youtu.be&t=36m53s

Any other questions/comments?