Part two:

The question is who to believe, trust and value?

People might believe that despite the genius, IQ, rigorous checks involved that Scientists are too stupid / corrupt to check if the data they have been given by providers like BOM has been properly vetted - above all scientifically valid.

Scientists know how much booking time on a super-computer costs their Universities. They value their own time and are also putting their whole career on the line every time they put their name to a Paper.

There are other people who believe that the data they are relying upon has been Faked! They believe they are smarter than the collective wisdom of 30K climate related scientists.

See some more excellent work by the best scientists in their field providing in 2014 the scientific 'proof' for the hypothesis of AGW without resorting to GCMs:

Scaling fluctuation analysis and statistical hypothesis testing of anthropogenic warming
S. Lovejoy First Online: 06 April 2014
DOI: 10.1007/s00382-014-2128-2

Abstract
Although current global warming may have a large anthropogenic component, its quantification relies primarily on complex General Circulation Models (GCM’s) assumptions and codes; it is desirable to complement this with empirically based methodologies. [...] We statistically formulate the hypothesis of warming through natural variability by using centennial scale probabilities of natural fluctuations estimated using scaling, fluctuation analysis on multiproxy data. We take into account two nonclassical statistical features—long range statistical dependencies and “fat tailed” probability distributions.

Even in the most unfavourable cases, we may reject the natural variability hypothesis at confidence levels >99 %.

Intro:
Well before the advent of General Circulation Models (GCM’s), (Arrhenius 1896), proposed that greenhouse gases could cause global warming and he even made a surprisingly modern quantitative prediction. [...] But there is yet another reason for seeking non-GCM approaches: the most convincing demonstration of anthropogenic warming has not yet been made—the statistical comparison of the observed warming during the industrial epoch against the null hypothesis for natural variability.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-014-2128-2/fulltext.html

Galileo published the pre-existing Consensus of the Wise Men of that era - Marohasy is not a Galileo!

Does anybody have a link to data proving 30,000 scientists agree AGW is caused by CO2 emissions?

Or is the 30K another misleading figure?

I like algae. It might one day feed the world, if some of the TED talks I have watched bear out.

Right now it might help fix aquaculture.
* traditional aquaculture trawls the oceans for by-catch to munch up and feed to captive fish, which is not sustainable for the oceans.
* this system replaces ocean feedstock with microorganisms grown in nearby tanks
* Or it can be grown in the prawn farm’s own prawn ponds in the 6 month off season
* half the world’s seafood is farmed, so if we eventually replace unsustainble by-catch feedstocks with sustainably grown feedstock pellets from algae, the oceans may get a chance to recover
* it increases marginal prawn farms to profitable prawn farms because the prawns grow 40% larger and are healthier
* increased health gains mean more prawns can be grown in closer proximity
* more prawns in each pond increases production & profits,=
* spin off’s not listed on the show but that I am considering are possible increases in our understanding of micro-plankton or algae growth for feedstocks for other industries.

http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2014/s3984247.htm

But hey, you want to hate on algae, be my guest and go and submit your claims to CSIRO and NASA etc. Just don't expect us to applaud until we see your name in the peer-reviewed literature and see you on TV accepting the Nobel prize for physics proving all our climate woes are NOT derived from the measurable, demonstrable, basic physics of increased CO2 (as measured by a Fourier Device, which with the Radiative Forcing Equation works out to be about 4 Hiroshima bombs per second), but are in fact from THE GODZILLA ALGAE MONSTER!

Global warming is part of a depopulation agenda.
http://www.npr.org/documents/2016/jun/population_engineering.pdf

Global warming may end up depopulating the world as a side-effect, but it has no agenda. It's the laws of physics: CO2's Radiation Forcing multiplied by the extra amount we've added to the atmosphere = an extra 4 Hiroshima bombs per second.

Does the ocean have an 'agenda' when it drowns someone dropped overboard? Does metal have an 'agenda' when it kills someone twisting into it at 150kph in a car crash? No. They're just obeying the laws of physics.

Dear Thomas,

You wrote;

“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.”

Possibly but I think it is important that people are made aware of claims that are not supported by the data. I think I know where she went wrong which is why I asked for the data sets for Rutherglen she is using since they may be different to the ones I obtained.

We will see when her '61-page expose' emerges.

All good fun.