@Leo Lane, oh really, how nice.

"you produce a lot of words, but no substance."

False. Read it!

"You attack an honest and competent scientist, like Jennifer Moahasy"

False. I did not. I criticized and challenged her Article and her Opinions/Beliefs.

"while being a supporter, yourself, of the climate fraud"

Prove it is a 'Fraud'.

"for which there is no supporting science."

False. Ignoring it is not proof.

"You have given no reference to science which shows any measurable human effect on climate."

False. If you not like my references, then start here: http://scholar.google.com.au

"If you can refer us to any such science, then please do so."

Already have done so, as have others. It is not a secret. You are not my problem.

"If not then you have no basis for support of the assertion that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate."

False. Your opinions are clearly at variance. I do not care what you believe think or say.

"Because you have no science to support your position, you have no science to refute Jennifer Morahasy...."

False. I do. I have.

".. so you employ the fraud-backers approach of a baseless, and dishonest attack on her."

False. I am not a Liar nor support "fraud-backers". You?

"You have no science to support your position"

False.

"whatever you have put forward has been based on the false and baseless assumption that any global warming is human caused"

False - the Fallacy of Circular Reasoning.

Improve your critical thinking skills, maybe start here: http://esgs.free.fr/uk/logic.htm

" 'Contrariwise', continued Tweedledee, 'If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.' "
— Lewis Carroll, Through The Looking Glass, Ch. IV.

Believe whatever you want to believe but do not ever imagine that I have to lift a finger to convince you or prove a single thing to you.

It's also not a good strategy to make false allegations against me without any proof.

Nice chat. Thanks.

Thomas O’Reilly, where is the science to show that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate?
You support the fraudulent assertion that climate is governed by human emissions of CO2, and now assert that you are not a fraud-backer.
You also assert that you can think straight, while clearly demonstrating the opposte with your addled post

Here we go again, wasting more time on global warming.
It does not matter if the world is warming or not.

However, why will no one explain why it is necessary to change the
"paperwork" for Rutherglen when no one disputes the repeatability
of the measurements at that site ?
If any of you had been knowledgeable on measurement accuracy you
would know that the main calibration standard is the repeatability of
the measuring device.
If it is repeatable, it does not matter what it measures, that can be
ascertained and adjusted for. But that is a once off change applied to
ALL measurements, not to particular dates.
As the repeatability is not in question then those that change the
records are fiddling the figures and should be sacked forthwith.

This informative article of Jennifer’s has attracted the fraud supporters, who, having no science to oppose her impeccable presentation, resort to insults and lies.
Aiden, who never has any science to back his idiotic fraudulent assertions, resorted to insulting her, no doubt encouraged by the example of the ignorant O’Reilly, another supporter of the climate fraud.
Of course NASA manipulated the temperature record. Just one example:The hottest period in th U.S. was the 1939s, but after Hansen used his position at NASA to tamper with the temperature record, it was cooler, which gave the fraud promoters an upward trend in temperature from then to the present.
We are fortunate to have someone of Jennifer’s qualifications and skills to expose the miscreant BOM.

1939s should be 1930s
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/08/nasa-massively-tampering-with-the-us-temperature-record-2740118.html

Leo, considering your track record of considering all the science that contradicts your conclusions doesn't exist, it's hardly surprising that you're now saying I don't have any science.

Tell me, do you yet acknowledge that your claims that global warming has stopped were based on old blog posts that were contradicted by more recent data?

I suggest you reread what I wrote: what you took to be "insulting her" is an honest opinion of her position, based on the facts. I briefly explained to her why I had reached that opinion, and challenged her to prove me wrong and write an honest article about it.

As for the 1930s, an explanation of why adjusted temperature data was used can be found at http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jun/25/steve-doocy/foxs-doocy-nasa-fudged-data-make-case-global-warmi/