Malcolm Roberts mentioned Steven Goddard (Tony Heller) while talking of those charts. This was somewhere near the time that confused Cox was unable to find the missing 1998 El Nino on that dodgy chart he held up.
This video from Tony Heller starts with some local U.S. info but explains well how badly uninformed Cox is about that chart and it's origins. This video is a must see. It is a rock solid history presentation. Those who hold up charts like that will really look like ignorant idiots to anyone who has watched this through.
https://youtu.be/Gh-DNNIUjKU

Thomas O'Reilly, Sunday, 21 August 2016 11:19:34 PM

Re climate science complete or not:
Climate science has been presented and accepted as complete by governments that subsequently took action that negatively impacted national economies and the world economy.

Re off topic to JM’s article:
I submit ocean and lake algae is right on topic to JM’s article because discrepancies JM identifies and has had the courage to announce, fit into evidence of impact of algae plant matter on weather and climate that is not being seen by ‘rock star scientists’ or ABC news.
If evidence of ocean and lake algae plant matter can be understood there will be less confusion about higher sea level and change to climate.

Re not of interest:
Are you interested in impact of a rainforest on atmosphere and climate? Surely you are.
So what exactly justifies having no interest in plant matter in oceans that takes up CO2 and produces more than 50% of world oxygen?

Re why ask about gravity:
You ask JM for data and calculations to scientifically prove fact about climate issues for which she states she has empirical evidence, but you yourself Tom, have no data or calculations to scientifically prove how gravity is formed, yet gravity is known fact.

Re Precautionary Principle:
According to that principle, full scientific certainty is not required for JM to come forward with questions about correct AGW temperature measurements, e.g especially when sea surface temperature anomaly in CO2 related science is not an anomaly when studying nutrient and algae and associated heat movement by currents at the ocean surface.

Re preaching to converted:
Let’s hope you Tom and others can be converted to comprehend impact of all nutrient pollution point-sources and the total nutrient load presently feeding algae devastating world ocean ecosystems.

Re action on CO2 v/s on nutrient pollution and algae:
I agree with your first paragraph there.
As for fish stocks, I have empirical evidence of substance indicating unprecedented anthropogenic nutrient pollution proliferated algae is causing ocean food web nursery devastation resulting in fish depletion in general.
Are fish immune to starvation?
Continued………

Cont’d……….
Thomas,

However you say, “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 Noh Atlantic Cod.”

“Will impact”? No.
In reality it’s past tense. World fish depletion is already serious and general and has already impacted globally, continuing to impact, exponentially, increasingly, not due to overfishing or AGW/CC.

Years ago the destruction of wetlands in Holland to build Dykes had impact on North Sea fish population recovery. Even now land use is destroying ocean wetland and estuary seagrass food web nurseries.

Hungry animals do not breed successfully.
Governments have developed aquaculture policy without due consideration of food for wild fish or availability and cost of feed and cost of end product for people in need of affordable healthy protein.

Re impact of algae on weather and climate:
Absolutely I do not have that situation back to front. I think climate science has that situation back to front.
CO2 alone cannot cause massive algal blooms, other nutrient such as N&P must be available (together with sunlight and suitable conditions).

Marine science barely knows the basic biology of life in the oceans. However a professor has said to me that is incorrect, because marine science knows even less than that.

I think real goals and adequate resources are needed to help rectify that lack of knowledge and I base my opinion there on underwater ocean exploration and general research spanning over 50 years.

Show me how CO2 is causing pinpoints of cloud to form above algae and into cloud streets.
Look carefully into that other JM article link and comment of mine and response also from Siliggy.

Are there hundreds of reports and papers that include nutrient pollution proliferated algae?

I think real science holds the keys to the various solutions, some newly productive, economically stimulating.

I don’t think JM is undermining real science. She has found and has the courage and integrity to question discrepancies in AGW temperature measuring.

It is inevitable algae be included in AGW/CC modelling.

Marohasy has been going on about the temperature "anomalies" in Rutherglen and Amberley since 2014.

Her claims are BS as pointed out by the BOM when she first floated them...

"At Amberley, the bureau noticed a marked shift in the minimum temperatures it had been recording, which was also likely due to the station being moved.

Another site at Rutherglen had data adjusted to account for two intervals – 1966 and 1974 – when its thought the site was moved from close to buildings to low-flat ground."

She of course claims that there is no evidence of the sites being moved but the BOM has documentary evidence.

Dr Lisa Alexander, the chief investigator at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, explained that in Australia it was not uncommon for temperature stations to be moved, often away from urban environments.

She said that, for example, sites moved only a kilometre or so to more exposed areas such as airports would tend to record lower temperatures.

So the data was adjusted to allow for changes in the monitoring sites; no conspiracy and certainly does not invalidate the thousands of global sites of which these are just 2.

At least JM has been made wealthy for her work in denialism...pity the actual scientists doing the hard work are not similarly rewarded.

Luboš Motl, Czech theoretical physicist, puts down show business physicist Brian Cox:
"Brian Cox's incompetence
Like Sean Carroll, Brian Cox pretends to be a scientist but in reality, he is confused about some very rudimentary facts about modern physics and science in general.
It's not just the lunar phases or locality or the exclusion principle that he totally misunderstands (be sure that I haven't discussed every misconception of his that has made me very angry). He actually doesn't build on science; he builds on licking the rectums of the powerful and those who are brainwashed by currently fashionable political deviations. Cox is a kitsch for the least demanding audiences".
http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2014/09/brian-coxs-incompetence.html

So has Jennifer contacted the BOM to ask them about this? What have the BOM said in reply to these allegations? Anyone actually contacted them, or are we pushing our blogs and armchair climate hacking? ;-)