@ JBowyer "warned about the Scientists research costs. ... for nothing more than enriching their authors."
Koch brothers et al make more money that all the 30K climate scientists combined. The 21stC version of the Mil.Ind.Complex is the Neocons and FF Energy.

Research shows ~50% of global CO2e emissions are generated from the top 10% Income earners = Neocons etc.

2012 U.S. produced 17.9% world's coal-fired electricity vs U.S. Pop. only 4.3% home of the MIC and the 1%, educate yourself better.

"It's a Club, and you ain't in it!" George Carlin RIP

Ocean Heat Content vs Darwin Rutherglen data
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/

Stefan Rahmstorf - A physicist and oceanographer by training, Stefan Rahmstorf has moved from early work in general relativity theory to working on climate issues.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/stefan-rahmstorf/

Versus

Conspiracy Theorist, Blogger, Unemployed Scientist Jennifer Marohasy whose only claim to fame expertise is Climate Science Denier & Part time writer for a NeoCon Think Tank / Rent-Seeker that thrives on the Government's teat and Australian Taxpayers through it's Not-For-Profit Tax Free Status.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=576

Now try and plug those facts into your MS-Excel spreadsheet Bob and see what pops out! :-)

Our planet is heating the empirical evidence 2016-08-16

"I should dearly love to be convinced that climate was not changing, or if it were, it were not due to human emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. That would make things just so much easier, all round. So what would make me change my mind?

[...] there is no way to convince Malcolm Roberts that the ... data has not been manipulated to achieve a predetermined outcome. So he simply is not going to accept those data as being empirical.

[...] relevant data does not just include the records taken by meteorological authorities. It also includes the the record preserved beneath our feet in the temperature logs from many thousands of boreholes across all inhabited continents. In fact Malcolm can go out an re-measure them himself, if he needs convincing they are “empirical”.
http://theconversation.com/our-planet-is-heating-the-empirical-evidence-63990

Representative Graph Data Just Look: http://goo.gl/PC4nY = Empirical Evidence Undeniable Proof - No Thermometers or BOM required

Dear GrahamY,

I'm sorry but I missed this.

You wrote;

“Yet the homogenisation always appears to increase temperature. The homogenisation algorithms are obviouslly wrong.”

No it doesn't.

You then asked;

“Perhaps you can show us some sites where homogenisation has lowered temperature?”

That is easy. Try Orbost;

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/documents/station-adjustment-summary-Orbost.pdf

@ Thomas O'Reilly, Thursday, 25 August 2016 12:44:45 PM

Empirical data, that's a new one. Google those words. On this date there is only one site, http://study.com/academy/lesson/empirical-data-definition-example.html

Yes science has measured heat and gas from forests and grass and cud and bore holes etcetera but chemistry of algae plant matter in oceans and lakes that likely totals more than all photosynthetic plant matter on land on this planet was not measured and assessed in AGW IPCC and Kyoto associated science. True or false?

Climate science keeps pointing at heat because of El Nino but the science does not provide even empirical evidence of what is actually causing the heat in El Nino. Why is that so?

Meteorological temperature empirical data does appear to be being manipulated including on this site, because temperature directly associated with ocean algae plant matter is not even being mentioned in comment by learned people on this site right here and now, despite empirical evidence I have presented on page 17 of this OLO thread.

On what justifiable grounds can all plant matter in oceans and seas and lakes and waterways of this planet be ignored in AGW or climate discussion and science?

ShortURL not spam: the Tynong AGOS borehole temperature record is responding to a long-term heating cycle of 0.3-1.3°C over the last century at the 95% confidence level.
https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/134201/width754/image-20160815-13007-1kxmnmg.png

Let's talk Politics and Reason shall we?

Whereas everything about Climate Science AGW is not 100% perfect, whereas earlier errors in papers/comments have been revised to be more accurate, it is incontrovertible undeniably true. AGW/CC is not an 'opinion' it's an obvious fact.

The fact is all GCMs are "wrong" per Gavin Schmidt of Nasa/Giss. They still are based on science, maths and are very useful. No IPCC Report/Paper has ever said GCMs are perfect. All analyses and projections were qualified.

Fact is today's observations/measuring of global climate shows that almost all prior expectations have been underestimated in speed, changes, and effects.

This is proven and understandable if only people would look at the holistic body of knowledge.

Your choice is to either trust the illogical claims and theories of the Blogosphere, a handful of 'scientist outliers' or trust the genuine experts in the field who produced the Peer-Reviewed 'empirical evidence'.

Science builds upon itself, the methodology has proven to be the best for hundreds of years.

The 'collective consensus' is based upon evidence, scientific rigor and not vacuous opinions/beliefs or Fraud.

I support a global regime of enforceable Regulation and Laws based on the empirical science to tackle the causes/consequences of AGW/CC equitably.

The rationale being no different than a 40 klm zone at schools. People are typically often too stupid, irresponsible and driven by self-interest therefore seat-belt and Food Safety Laws.

I have never supported an ETS, Carbon Tax, Direct Action, nor Fee & Dividend strategies.

Nor Bob Brown blaming "Big Polluters" as if they were solely responsible. Energy is a collective need, we all accepted fossil fuels and it's consequences.

I support safe GenIII+ GenIV Nuclear Energy as a science based strategy, along with Renewable energy options with Government support eg Sewerage and Natural Gas in the 1960s!

I support large Electricity users to deploy their own energy systems on site.

Regulation and Business can help fix it https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPdlpES3NpVTVZS1E

An interesting comment from a Meteorologist; quite skeptical of anthropogenic climate change initially, he has since changed his mind.
Deniers suggest temperature gets tampered with; Meteorologists would soon pick that up. The environment displays temperature increasing without the need to use a thermometer.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/24/opinions/chad-myers-climate-change-weather/

Ant - Wow! I am totally sold now! Hey what about you ask Flannery or Karoly to sell me their waterfront properties very cheaply? I mean if they are all going to be under water soon then they are worthless right?
So can you call them for me Ant and suggest a large discount say 90% on what they paid. Good luck with that.
I am only joking Ant do not call either of them because they will think you are taking the mickey out of them.