@JF Aus, I have no idea why you're addressing this issue with me?

Re: "...just how incomplete the (climate) science actually is."
There is no climate scientist who has ever suggested CS was "complete". I don't get your point when it's already obvious. CS is the most complex/recent sciences there is today.

Re: "ocean algae may be off topic really highlights lack of knowledge about weather and climate." Not really, only means off-topic to JMs article.

I looked and can only say I already answered you 'not of interest'.

Re "...can you provide raw data/calculation proving how gravity is formed etc." Irrelevant. Why ask me?

Re "Precautionary Principle, scientific certainty, prevent further damage to the environment."

You're preaching to the converted @JF Aus.

Re "action on CO2 emissions, nutrient pollution and algae."

Two totally separate issues imho, albeit also related/connected. Two cause and effect scenarios. Two or more solutions need to be addressed sensibly based the PP and what's possible/realistic.

I agree with your submission. Imo fish stocks to be first major food supply shock that will impact globally due to AGW/CC plus runoff & overfishing all at once, going the way of the NthAtl Cod.

RE "..impact of algae on weather and climate"
I think you have that back to front. AGW is one cause, massive algal blooms the effect. Simplistic of course, check with a marine scientist/body.

FYI http://scholar.lmgtfy.com/?q=marine+algae+%22climate+change%22

eg
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0043135411004386
http://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1476-069X-7-S2-S4
https://www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/climate-change-and-harmful-algal-blooms
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/climatehabs.pdf
http://sims.org.au/research/current-projects/climate-change-impacts-on-calcifying-marine-algae/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/massive-toxic-algae-blooms-may-prove-a-sign-of-climate-change-to-come/

There are hundreds of such reports and papers. These matters are being researched with climate change. Issue is ongoing funding scientific research CSIRO etc and acceptabnce of the current science.

These are political issues. Write the Prime Minister? Write to Tax Exempt organisations like the IPA to stop their anti-science political lobbying? Maybe ask JM to stop undermining the scientific research that's being done by BOM/GISS 30,000+ climate scientists globally?

I think it's way too late already. Time will tell.

Well I for one am glad that Jennifer has finally nailed her colours to the mast and finally acknowledged for whom she really works.

The professional jealousy of more successful scientists is a bit unbecoming though.

A few words about "Free" enterprise, business certainty, sound business practice, business innovation, research & development, business financing, new technology and the role of Government acting on behalf of the Common-Wealth of all the People, for the People and by the People.

aka "Regulating Fossil Fuels and GHG emissions out of existence in the US Electricity Market by 2050"

See: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPdlpES3NpVTVZS1E

An example of the possibilities. Energy accounts for ~10% of global GDP since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. If I was James Packer or Rupert Murdoch the last place I'd be investing my money, experience, reputation and human resources is in gambling and the media.

Upstate New York 1905

"Oh Tom, what on Earth are you doing?"

"I'm going to plow the hay fields Ma of course."

"But why? We haven't sold last years crop yet Tom!"

"Aw get a grip Ma. Those new fangled horseless carriages will never catch on. Judas priest, the chickens can't even lay eggs with them around."

"Oh OK then Tom. If you think that's true, then what can I say? Have a good day."

---

UNFCCC Chairperson Christiana Figueres:

“Impossible is not a fact, it is an attitude.”

Wow, there appears to be a little bit of hostility spreading into this thread. I like the quote below and think it is perhaps time to introduce it:

According to programmer Alberto Brandolini, “The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshi-t is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.”

I think both sides need to consider this!

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.
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 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! Amazing!

So we add "imposter" to the list of aadjectives that describe you Thomas O'Reilly? We regularly have people who comment on climate change and other scientific threads and claim expertise they don't have. Appears you reckon you're an academic. But an academic wouldn't have recourse to ad hom as his, or her, only tool of rebuttal.

And they would have higher quality book marks on their browser on these issues.

You have yet to show why the data at the two stations Jennifer analyses should have been adjusted. Until you do that all your abuse and claims count for nothing.

It shows how tenuous the alarmist case is that people like you feel you need to bury threads like this in sprays of spuriously relevant links so anyone who is not already across the issues will have difficulty getting there.

Pretending to qualifications you don't have is just part of the game, isn't it?

Jennifer has shown that nothing happened with these two sites that required homogenisation, but they were homogenised. You can deny it all you like, but until you can contradict that evidence, then her analysis stands.