Thanks for positive comments, info, feedback.

re: "Thomas you really treat this like a religion."

That's an opinion! You're welcome to it. Fact is I know myself much better than anyone here. I know for a fact that I do not treat AGW/CC nor my opinions/beliefs/ideas about it as a religion.

Don't believe me? I honestly don't care, have zero interest in proving it either. Wouldn't change your mind anyway.

My AGW/CC views are based on evidence scientific rigor I have checked over ~20yrs. Plus my senses observing nature and how much it has changed since I was a child. My observations and those of climate scientists match 100%. Co-incidence?

Accusing someone else of making a religion out of AGW/CC is pure sophistry. A cheap, button pushing, half clever, but fallacious argument.

Quoting myself:
"I have never supported an ETS, Carbon Tax, Direct Action, nor Fee & Dividend strategies. Nor Bob Brown blaming the Big Polluters" - "I support safe GenIII+ GenIV Nuclear Energy as a science based strategy"

Given Lawyers are generally in the top 2% of IQ on the planet to earn their degrees you'd think they would be smarter than playing word games, especially when it comes to important issues as AGW/CC science (be it true, half true or false).

Graduating high school my results were in the top 6% of the state and my core subjects were science and maths not woodwork.

In my 20s the Corporation I then worked for put me through a battery of external Tests. They reported my IQ/EQ across multiple dynamics (literacy, numeric, spatial, mechanics etc) as all in the top 6% with half being the top 2-3%. I got the promotion!

The 80s I was an Executive running a Company Division with over 1,000 mngt/staff with an annual turnover of $240 Million in today's money. Before tax profit was ~28% of sales, that were 300% higher than budgeted and Profit 600% higher than original Budgets. That Division saved the ass of the Parent Company's Board and Shareholders (10K staff) as it doubled the Dividend across two financial years.

TBC

Con't
I worked in Personnel, Management & Marketing incl. some large multinational Corporations. Some direct involvement with Oil/Resource companies co-ventures, with extra knowledge from friends and associates in that field.

I have attended many Board meetings who partly relied upon my professional opinion and advice. I know how things work at that level from direct experience.

When in Oz James Peabody III with his "charms" attempted to use me for his own corp self-interest. I got what I wanted by using him instead and I saved my Company $1 mln via another supplier who was ripping us off in the process. I mentioned before I didn't just come down in the last shower, meaning I am no fool, but neither am I a climate scientist. I do not have to be to recognize truth or bull-dust when I see it.

A couple of words stand out in the References I was given when departing a company; reliability, honesty and integrity. No, I do not have tickets on myself nor flies, but you can see where they have been. :-)

I have also extensively studied history, religion, politics, economics, marketing and psychology or what some call 'human nature.'

So if people here wish to have an intellectual battle over AGW/CC, Business & Politics the least you could do is come armed. :-)

To me being respectful and genuine is a bonus. I have low expectations and can play too, it is social media after all.

Having a sense of humor means being able to laugh at—or at least see the humor in—life’s absurdities. Humour doesn’t mean the ability to be the target of verbal abuse / sarcasm without getting upset as if there’s nothing wrong in what was said and/or how or why it was said. Marohasy should edit her article accordingly, or call in the AFP/FBI if she has any evidence. GrahamY should reconsider his position.

I recommend my prior comments Refs for due consideration. I have no expectation my 'opinions' will change the world or the IPA rhetoric.

People's beliefs are their responsibility, not mine.

Try this: http://goo.gl/JjrMdk -

Hi Thomas,

"Having a sense of humor means being able to laugh at—or at least see the humor in—life’s absurdities. Humour doesn’t mean the ability to be the target of verbal abuse / sarcasm without getting upset as if there’s nothing wrong in what was said and/or how or why it was said. Marohasy should edit her article accordingly, or call in the AFP/FBI if she has any evidence. GrahamY should reconsider his position."

You said it! This is the stuff of extreme conspiracy theories, and IF she has evidence, ICAC, AFP, maybe even Oprah and Dr Phil need to know about it. But no. There's nothing here but smoke and mirrors, and what better way to preach to the choir than bring up a 2 year old and outdated and already debunked paper than regurgitating it here? ;-)

Insights with Ref links: MikeR To Marohasy http://jennifermarohasy.com/2016/08/speaking-truth-to-power/#comment-582124

MikeR to Bob
"Yes, there have been numerous cases where the orthodoxy has been overthrown and a paradigm shift has occurred."
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2016/08/speaking-truth-to-power/#comment-582136

and To quote Bob-H-J
“1998 Super El Nino” ... has also been disappeared by GISS’.

This has been noted on many occasions, such as at WUWT & CarbonBrief
(Bob you should read more widely) that El-Nino and La Nina affect the Troposphere temperatures much more strongly (and correspondingly satellite data) compared to the surface based temperature records such as GISS.
...these larger departures allow many more opportunities for cherry picking."
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2016/08/speaking-truth-to-power/#comment-582141

The Devil, as they say, is in the Details!

Marohasy's own documents (posted/prepared by Bob) to prove her rightness also show where she is wrong and misses the 'details.' eg When did Rutherglen switch to automated instrumentation? Everyone who has posted here should already know that OR you never really read them properly.

Marohasy relies upon the BOM as "proof" Rutherglen's site never changed, was moved. The very same BOM she asserts is basically incompetent and/or untrustworthy.

You can't have it both ways at the same time. Not scientific nor logical. If Rutherglen was moved Marohasy's entire edifice 'for fraud' collapses and/or her own incompetence is exposed.

BOM docs says it was moved/changed and BOM docs says it wasn't. Both cannot be true. Marohasy "cherry-picks" that it wasn't, serves her beliefs and purposes better.

Begging-the-Question isn't scientific, it's a fallacy. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence = Science:101 - but it is Rule #1 for 9/11 Truthers and every other Conspiracy Theory on this Planet.

Awaiting publication of the rejection letter from the Auditor-General, or I will do my own FOIA request.

Awaiting the Abbot Marohasy publications in legitimate peer-reviewed Science Journals and proofs of their superior "weather forecasting" software using artificial neural networks ... 4 years and counting.

Awaiting Marohasy's new analysis of the historical temperature data for Victoria and Lighthouses supposedly due later this year? She's been on about this 'data' for over 7 years now I think. Where is it? -

I can still go down to the beach that I played on when I was 3 or 4 years old.
And I can go into the small rock crevices that are ONLY exposed at low tide just exactly the same as I did 40 years ago.

It's all still in EXACTLY the same place.
The sea comes up the beach at high tide the same as it always did and goes out to the same level it always did.

Now, I'm willing to bet my life that with the pace of technology today that in another 40 years we will have an almost total reliance on renewables in this country and none of these arguments will even matter.

I can hardly see the sea level changing much during this transition.
It's still going to be be more or less exactly where it is now.

We can't control what other countries do we can only do whats best for us.

We're a big country and we've only got 25 million people, heaps of room.
No-ones getting around wearing breathing apparatuses.

With this in mind all we can do is figure out the best plan to take us where we need to be.
Climate Change or no Climate Change, makes no difference.
50 years time burning fossil fuels will be long outdated technology anyway.

Build the future, don't whine about it. Embrace the changes and adapt.

If 1 climate scientist planted one tree every 10 minutes
That would be 6 trees an hour or 48 trees a day or 240 trees a week or 12,000 trees a year.
30,000 scientists could effectively plant 360 million trees a year or a million trees a day...

You people deserve the Joseph Menglar award for being locked in a small room with their thoughts for too long and then pushing their chosen profession and ideology so far that you become a danger to the rest of society.

Go do something useful and plant a tree.

//I'll opt out as I would with any nutty belief system.//

Liar.

//If 1 climate scientist planted one tree every 10 minutes//

It wouldn't make any difference. They're being felled at a much greater rate than that.

Also, of the course of it's entire life-cycle, the effective net reduction in CO2 from a tree is zero. While they're growing, they are effectively carbon sinks. Once they stop growing they're basically carbon neutral; when they die and decompose they release all that carbon back to the atmosphere. The trick is to let them grow, then cut them down and process the timber in a way that stops it decomposing.

I recommend personal libraries: books are great carbon sinks and wooden bookshelves don't hurt either. In your case, AC, I would recommend quite a few shelves full of introductory science textbooks, and that you actually attempt to read and understand some of them.