Dear Jennifer,

You claim repeatedly that Rutherglen station had not moved and quote the BOM as saying there has been “no documented site moves during the site's history”.

This is what they say;

“No document has been located which states explicitly that the observation site moved. However, there are a number of documents from 1958 or earlier which make references to the site which are not consistent with it being in its current location, indicating that the site moved on one or more occasions at some point between 1958 and 1975. There are also additional documents which indicate a strong likelihood of a move or other changes.”

Which is entirely consistant on their side.

They expand further;

Quote

A number of documents present information about the pre-1958 site which is inconsistent with the current location. The major relevant items are:
A 1939 station inspection report (Figure 4) which refers to the site as 'Station flat but country falls slightly to north'. This does not match the current site, which is on flat ground for several hundred metres around, with a slope rising steeply approximately 500 metres to the north.

A 1953 document (Figure 5) which refers to a hill of over 700 feet (213 metres) approximately 300 yards (270 metres) to the south of the site. No hill exists for several kilometres south of the current site. The possibility that the '300 yards to south' is a reference to the station buildings, not the observing site, can be ruled out as the hill on the Rutherglen property—whose height closely matches this description—is to the west, not the south, of the buildings. (The coordinates listed are not useful in accurately determining the site location as they are given only to the nearest minute, and would therefore only specify the location to about the nearest kilometre).

Cont..

Cont..

A site sketch from a November 1958 inspection report (Figure 6). This shows a woolshed 18 feet high approximately 150 feet (45 metres) west of the screen, and shows no indication of any road to the west of the screen, neither of which match the current site. (The possibility cannot, however, be ruled out from the available information that the woolshed might have been removed after 1958, or the road might have been built between 1958 and 1975).

A reference in the November 1958 inspection report (Figure 7b) to the site being '1/4 mile from office' (400 metres). This differs considerably from the present site which is 700 metres from the office.

End quote.

Are you disputing these documents?

With this next piece being so well written, I don't think I have to say anything more.

"Now the great thing about conspiracy theories is that, for believers, attempts to correct the record just serve to reinforce the conspiracy."

Check.

"Lloyd wrote there was now an “escalating row” over the “competence and integrity” of the BoM despite the fact that Marohasy has not published her claims in a peer reviewed journal (the two papers mentioned in Lloyd’s story actually relate to rainfall prediction, not temperature)."

Check.

"Unusually, the bureau’s full response to one set of questions from Graham Lloyd has found its way onto at least one climate sceptic blog."
http://joannenova.com.au/sources/bom/australian-bom-responds-to-graham-lloyd-the-australian/

Check.

Bourke, Amberley, and Rutherglen all explained!
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2014/aug/27/climate-sceptics-see-a-conspiracy-in-australias-record-breaking-heat

Check.

Author of non-peer-reviewed accusations sponsored by contrarian interests.

Check.

I mustn't have positioned my tinfoil hat right... this all sounds pretty convincing, and it ain't pretty for JM.

Steele Redux, thanks for your contribution showing the BOM could not run a chook raffle. So we are supposed to trust these idiots are we? Typical, they are full of themselves and got double funding with this bulldust. Enquiry? No halve their budget and the ABC budget at the same time. That will reduce our budget shortfall.

Dear jbowyer,

There are hundreds of dedicated and hardworking Australians employed by the BOM. Just because your ideology on global warming makes it imperative that you try to slander their efforts and their integrity doesn't mean I should regard your pontifications as having even the slightest modicum of merit.

If you have evidence you would like to place before us go right ahead otherwise permit us to dismiss your offering as a contribution to a warming planet.

@ Thomas O'Reilly, Tuesday, 23 August 2016 12:58:23 AM

I think many scientists would expect a bravery award if they spoke out to prove the globe is not warming overall and that only some areas are warming sometimes. Imagine if an astute scientist spoke out and said yes the climate is changing due to human activity but not due to CO2 emissions.

Yes, indeed there is urgency involved. It’s not just about solutions and dead zones and dead coral and destroyed seagrass food web nurseries, but also seafood dependent people experiencing seafood protein deficiency malnutrition need urgent assistance. It’s not starvation. It’s shrinking in stature, stunting, NCD, increase in maternal mortality and early death. Free milk powder should be provided in real Aid. That would also assist dairy farmers in these tough times. However I think scientific journal editors are too frightened to publish other than CO2 emissions material, though evidence indicates it inevitable they will publish.

AIMS scientists are politically gagged. The GBRMP area is limited by jurisdiction, not by ecosystems. For example the Fraser Island ecosystem immediately south of the GBR is not included in GBR waters due to the GBRMP southern boundary. That means the northerly flow of alongshore current waters driven by prevailing SE winds is not seen by the GBRMPA as transporting east coast city and town nutrient loads into GBR waters.

6,000 hours diving is like the Pro 5000 dive card I hold, however diving virtually just on coral reefs is quite different to diving in food web nursery ecosystems and on coral.

I have been asking experts for many years, that’s where key knowledge has come from.

It’s too late to preserve the GBR in digital form.
Just some of us were lucky to see it the way it was.

And what do you think about that chemistry in algae?

f.y.i.
https will not be a live link on OLO because the OLO system dopes not recognize the s.
So delete the s and the URL will be active on OLO.
I wonder who is adding the s these days, and why?