@BobFY thx for the BOM audit it's very interesting info. Read Changing_Temperature_Data, is there anything else worth looking at?

I now see this concern goes back to 2010, WA and Joanne Nova. I have never heard/noticed this BOM issue before. I'm not convinced there is anything to it by what I have seen thus far. Lot's of questions, zero answers, possible theories, and that's it.

No evidence for any corruption of the data and definitely, no evidence of any intentional deception, manipulation or public service incompetence by anyone, and no whistle-blower in over 6 years.

btw you have an odd definition of slander Bob and seem to apply it very selectively. I can't imagine any of it is bothering Prof Cox.

I see JM has re-titled her article here as Speaking Truth to Power, and Correcting Brian Cox and posted it to her blog on the 19th. Can anyone tell me who this power is that she is supposedly speaking to? And what Prof Cox has to do with any of this?

PETER BOYER, Mercury: To Roberts, scientists who do not share his views are dogmatic ideologues suppressing truth and threatening freedom. [...] But the inquisitors of today are not to be found in the Brian Coxes of this world.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2016/08/speaking-truth-to-power/#comment-582127

Associating with Roberts/homogenization of the UAH satellite data
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2016/08/speaking-truth-to-power/#comment-582124

Steven Mosher - False allegations against GISS by JM
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2016/08/speaking-truth-to-power/#comment-582112

So why would anyone find JM credible/reliable on this matter when she doesn't seem to know the difference between Nasa/Giss and Noaa? Surely false allegations are a kind of 'slander' too.

Quoting Jennifer Marohasy: I don't believe that NASA and the IPCC are faking the data: I provide compelling evidence to show this.

That claim is self-evidently false.

Posted by SteeleRedux 22/08: (JM) Would you be so kind as to post a link to the two data sets for Rutherglen. One being the unhomogenised data and the other being the data submitted to ACORN-SAT, there is something I would like to show you.

I would like to see it too.

GrahamY suggests earlier: "Instruments were not moved."

And the hard evidence for this is what exactly? Where is it, please show it to me. I hope it isn't info from BOM, I heard they are unreliable and basically incompetent.

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

No, that's Marohasy's job, not mine. It's her issue to substantiate and prove. I reject your earlier characterization I am abusive, trolling, adhom etc.

I am very clear in my detailed response to JMs article here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPT2xYM2ViOVBwTU0 - please read it if you wish to understand my point of view and what it is based upon. Refs included. The other links I have posted here provide very good information for those unaware of such matters - worth considering in a balanced way and with an open-minded attitude, imo. Accept or reject is the readers prerogative. Sharing is caring - is my motto.

I accept in good faith, until proven otherwise, the reasonable claim that the BOM and GISS et al are operating at worlds best practice. Please feel free to prove otherwise.

The scale of the accusations thus far (if true) warrants a police fraud investigation imo not an auditor. If as is claimed that JM et al have the evidence already, then hand it over to the AFP/FBI. Marohashy can be their primary witness giving sworn evidence in court. I'm being serious here because these are very serious accusations being made against individuals at large Taxpayer funded Institutions here and overseas.

Quoting Jennifer Marohasy: "I don't believe that NASA and the IPCC are faking the data: I provide compelling evidence to show this."

My opinion about that is irrelevant because I am not privy to anything beyond what JM and a few others have said publicly. Should Marohasy have that kind of evidence then it should be getting reported on the front page of The Australian and in the NYT and not hidden on obscure blog forums with the evidence handed over to the proper authorities immediately.

So why hasn't it GrahamY, do you know?

Why hasn’t heat in algae plant matter been reported on page one of The Australia and NY Times when impossible discoveries of virtual rain forests of algae have been found under where sea ice, sea ice that is reported melting more and faster than normal?
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/10/world/phytoplankton-mega-bloom-eco-solutions/

Why has heat in ocean and lake algae and cause and effect not been reported in Australian major media, when it is known, (quote), “Arctic phytoplankton warms the ocean surface layer through direct biological heating,” (end quote)
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/19/5921

Why has discovery of virtual rainforests in oceans not been reported in AGW debate.
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/10/world/phytoplankton-mega-bloom-eco-solutions/

I wonder why I am the only one around here that is talking about how heat in algae and warming in oceans is occurring.

Why is the already devastated state of the world ocean environment and fish stocks not reported on front pages or even in back pages?

Does anyone know any other source stating chemistry of warmth in algae, such as chemistry I have stated here as JF Aus on OLO? JF Aus, Tuesday, 23 August 2016 9:09:06 AM. Here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18459&page=17

Who is actually allowing alternative protein production industry to be run down (e.g milk) and sought by foreign buyers, while the state of affordable protein supply and sustainability is not understood by Australian investors and property and business owners?
Why is news of substance apparently gagged, allowing foreign business to get ahead in Australian commercial and national export opportunities?

The Jennifer Marohasy view is of interest to me because of need to seek evidence why AGW measurements and assessment are not showing measurement and assessment of ocean surface heat generated by ocean algae that is so damaging.

My actual focus is on sensible solutions to algae killing seagrass food-web ecosystems, resulting in seafood protein deficiency under-nutrition that is worsening and killing more and more seafood dependent people off Australia’s shores (AND ELSEWHERE).

I think areas of oceans and waterways are warming worldwide and that is causing weather and change of climate, but I don’t see the whole globe warming at the same time.

Replying Peter King,
“…publish the data for peer review and allow actual scientists to evaluate your findings”

Alas, I have “allowed actual scientists” at the BoM to review the many discrepancies in their data per my spreadsheets a few years ago, but they declined the offer. Earlier, in several simple email exchanges they had admitted an algorithm error and also substandard quality in their formerly named “High Quality” site but perhaps the major scope of the spreadsheets was too hard.
* e.g. here’s one email reply; “2 Many thanks for the question - turns out there was a multiplication error in the code which has now been fixed.” Their time-series plots showed significantly different linear trends between annual, monthly, and daily data at Laverton. On checking today I see the modified site (“High Quality” removed from the title) seems to have resolved the problem by simply removing availability of trending from the monthly and daily time-series!

“I have read JM's submission and I well understand her submission”
“Your support of her preposterous theories is unsustainable but you probably know that.”

Any chance you could elaborate anything that is preposterous in it? (Without divorcing context of course)

“If you and she are able to demonstrate that there is no warming then good on you”

Where has she or me claimed there is no warming? The main focus in her A.G. submission was about the quality of the BoM data. Perhaps you are trying to change the subject again but yes the global data do show warming including RSS & UAH. Among the issues is how to separate human from natural causes. How to estimate CO2 sensitivity and explain the wide range of MODELLED values? Kevin Trenberth has estimated that by far the greatest heat loss from the surface is via evapotranspiration plus convection, not EMR. Meanwhile everyone is competing and hyperventilating on radiative effects while it’s in fashion.

“Until that time I repeat you know as well as Marohasy that you are just creating mischief”

Wow, you can even read my mind, I’m impressed!

Posted by SteeleRedux, Tuesday, 23 August Pg 19
Hi Steele, imo/ime it's counter productive to dig into the details and point out the obvious errors being made in fact and in the judgement about those facts. What that does is to help folks like Marohasy pick up the blatant errors they missed to either drop them or change their next version of the 'analysis' so it looks better.

Best to keep the obvious to one's self and share only with like minded people who are already on the right page and who are already thinking clearly. This way people like Nova, Marohasy, Roberts can keep spinning their wheels and wasting their time.

In the meantime, are you smarter than the combined brilliance and expertise of ~30,000 climate scientists and the top scientific bodies on this Earth?

Part one:

High School Level understanding of Scientists using super-computer models

http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/study/modeling.html

Climate Scientist Level understanding of Scientists using super-computer models

On the Potential for Abrupt Arctic Winter Sea Ice Loss
S. Bathiany
Department of Environmental Sciences, Wageningen University, Wageningen, Netherlands, and
Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, Germany
D. Notz, T. Mauritsen, G. Raedel, and V. Brovkin
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0466.1

"It is shown that in comprehensive climate models, such loss of Arctic winter sea ice area is faster than the preceding loss of summer sea ice area for the same rate of warming."
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0466.1

Another AGW climate sceptic denialist claim debunked by science.

Giant natural fluctuation models and anthropogenic warming
S. Lovejoy1,*, L. del Rio Amador1, R. Hébert1 andI. de Lima2
Version of Record online: 18 AUG 2016
DOI: 10.1002/2016GL070428
©2016. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.

Abstract
Explanations for the industrial epoch warming are polarized around the hypotheses of anthropogenic warming (AW) and giant natural fluctuations (GNFs). While climate sceptics have systematically attacked AW, up until now they have only invoked GNFs. [...] Helped by statistics, the GNF model can easily be scientifically rejected.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1002/2016GL070428/abstract

Is there any data showing water temperature beneath the melting sea ice where algae plant matter is located?

Most sea ice mass is underwater.

Or is someone claiming the increase in sea ice melt is only occurring at the surface, from the top down?

Is there any data showing sea ice melt from the bottom up?

Ignorance is no excuse.
You all here can see and read what I am writing, including questions of substance I am asking.
Yet the virtual silence is deafening, laughable.
Is this part of the homogenization process?