Yeah Thomas O'Reilly, we don't need any more link spam. You have posted so many times on this thread and you have yet to address yourself to Marohasy's primary issue which is with the adjustments on two datasets that cannot be justified on any scientific basis. Instruments were not moved. No UHI either. Nothing happened to require any sort of adjustment.

It's obvious there is no rebuttal to Marohasy's specific claims when the "consensus" sends Troll-bots like you along equipped with a link generator to renewable industry astro-turf operation desmog blog.

Max G, I don't think your KR, is a reliable source. The claim that you can infer temperature 1000 kms away boils down to I can infer temperature in Cairns from Brisbane, or in Sydney. Expressed like that everyone knows it is nonsense.

The fact is there is no reason to use anything but raw data. The dataset is so large that moves ought to cancel each other out on the up and the down side. Some of the new stations will be hotter, and some will be cooler. The chances that they wouldn't are infinitesimally small. Yet the homogenisation always appears to increase temperature. The homogenisation algorithms are obviouslly wrong. Jennifer just provides you two specific examples.

Perhaps you can show us some sites where homogenisation has lowered temperature?

It's the homogenisers who are making the image less clear.

@ Thomas O'Reilly, Sunday, 21 August 2016 8:00:51 PM

Not knowing or caring about algae plant matter in climate science forms empirical evidence just how incomplete the science actually is. And to think ocean algae may be off topic really highlights lack of knowledge about weather and climate.

I suggest look into the following link where my first comment there is on page 4, at JF Aus.
I have included significant satellite photo data/evidence and El Nino graph data.
Jennifer Marohasy’s reply follows a few posts later but it is my comment/s that I ask you to assess. Perhaps you could then know and care and reply to the questions I have asked you (and anyone else).
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18111&page=4

As for need to produce peer reviewed raw data/calculation, can you provide raw data/calculation proving how gravity is formed and how it holds you on this planet right now?
I suggest accept the Precautionary Principle. Full scientific certainty is no longer essential to take action to prevent further damage to the environment.
Be sure, action on CO2 emissions is not reducing nutrient pollution and proliferation of algae.

I submit evidence of substance indicates beyond reasonable doubt that nutrient pollution and algae require critically urgent management to reduce and perhaps reverse worsening damage presently being caused to ocean ecosystems and quality of water and atmosphere on this planet.

Why is there no science and major media news about the state of the world ocean environment and for example, links between algae plant matter and El Nino, and impact of algae on weather and climate?

@GrahamY

RE: "You have posted so many times...adjustments on two datasets..."
That's patently untrue. The 'empirical evidence' is there, I addressed it.

RE: "Nothing happened to require any sort of adjustment."
That's your opinion. Not sure what that has to do with me.

RE: "It's obvious there is no rebuttal ......astro-turf operation desmog blog"

Very colourful writing and a vivid imagination. Of course it too is patently not true. I know that for certain and you do not. So your opinion/beliefs don't really matter do they?

RE: "link generator" I'm curious. Have you ever heard of Favourites/Bookmarks and a really good memory? The links I provided could really be helpful. You'll never ever know if you never ever go. :-)

Anyway, seeing you're interested in my opinions so much I could get into more detail about the end:
"Much of climate science, in particular, is now underpinned with a postmodernist epistemology – it is simply suspicious of reason and has an acute sensitivity to the role of ideology in asserting and maintaining particular power-structures including through the homogenisation of historical temperature data."

btw *postmodernist epistemology* is a highfalutin phrase straight out of the ivory towers of academia isn't it?

But I am more curious to discover how a noun, a thing (ie climate science) could become suspicious of anything, let alone reason, suffer from sensitivity or be cognizant of homogenisation in anything.

You mentioned "obvious" in your reply to me. Well Graham, isn't it obvious to you that that sentence makes absolutely no logical sense whatsoever? Meaningless 'par excellance' imho.

I'd expect better than that from my PhD students, let alone post-grads, wouldn't you? And yet JBowyer has a go at me about "english"? Oh boy. I'll put it all down to "confirmation bias", it's the kindest thing I can think of for now.

I'm still trying to work out what a Rock star-scientist/astro-physicist on Q&A has to do with BOM or Nasa/Giss or JM.

I'm still trying to locate exactly what it is he was supposed to be confused about "more than global temperatures." I must be slow or...

Not sure if one should pay any notice of the writer when they are an associate of ideologically driven IPA (possibly compromising?), supporting an ideologically driven politician's quite odd or at best 'layman's' non-science views, demonising another scientist Cox or the messenger, and if not cherry picking having a micro focus on a dataset, while ignoring wider evidence (classic creationist and/or neo con media tactics to help try discredit any 'expert' and create uncertainty in peoples' minds).

As a PhD. biologist, the writer's article would not have passed muster in an academic science environment, and with some form or history in causes close to the heart of fossil fuels industry, i.e. neo cons and IPA, we should all be sceptical of those who propose do nothing approaches to climate change and its causes (e.g. curtailing fossil fuel energy use).

A start, and would no doubt be vehemently opposed by the IPA etc., would be the (re)introduction of explicit teaching of critical thinking and media analysis for high school years, along with strong environmental focus in e.g. General Studies as Vic HSC late '70s was. The former was in General English syllabus and the latter had replaced Religion late '70s, but think Howard reintroduced back nationally by '90s e.g. christian chaplains of more US influence etc.). Otherwise, as the like of Kevin Andrews proposed, preference is for rote learning, following orders and believing anything, especially authority and religion....

O'Relly "Liberal" as in lots of em! Savvy?
You and the other numpties can lead us all by example. Shut down all electricity supply to yourselves and all your little green mates. The saving should be enough to help Australia get over the carbon line (See where I am comming from? confusion, blah blah blah) then you can really make a difference. As opposed to liberal (Lots of) insults and being a sarcastic fellow.

Further, a reason many do not watch Q&A (copied from BBC's Question Time) is that it's about entertainment and precludes balanced discussion and analysis; lots of grandstanding.

Q&A and ABC have fallen into lock step over the demand to be 'fair and balanced' aka Fox News between a scientist and crackpot, which leads to legitimising all sorts of lay peoples' claims and conspiracy thoeries; while avoiding weighted evidence and analysis.

It's not unlike lining up an expert health scientist to deal with a lay person claiming expertise about dangers of vaccination, and the latter appearing and being taken more seriously, when they should not be.

This adheres to the concept of 'engineering media' by political/business establishment in USA whereby those with predominatly neo con, flat earth and religious views managed to not only defang inconvenient facts or science in mainstream media (in deference to religion especially), but to misinform electorates and preclude ability of individuals to think for themselves, e.g. on Iraq WMD, Brexit, gay marriage, 'immigration', etc., and being refined further by Putin, Erdogan, Orban etc., the latter using for agitprop surely being a warning signal

Like 'dog whistling' it's modern political tactics and strategy described by the LNP's US influenced polssters (like IPA, fossil fuels co's etc. lobbies), it's about bypassing the head and going the heart for peoples' desires, wants, needs, fears etc..

Does not say much for modern and educated Australian elites who want to believe or at least propagate the same.