Cobber

I don't believe that NASA and the IPCC are faking the data: I provide compelling evidence to show this. Indeed, they, and the Bureau of Meteorology here in Australia, are extensively remodelling original temperature series so that they fit the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

In the case of both Amberley and Rutherglen cooling trends have been changed to warming trends without any reasonable justification.

You need to study the empirical evidence as I've presented it for both of these locations in the actual article that precedes this thread.

NASA , hmmmm, How a 15 cent O ring now costs 4000,000 dollars ,,, How many salaries of Impeccable corruptibility and Rock Stars can we have ,,,, Got to love Government .. Lousy job as God , And they can Change the climate?

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

Rubbish. You do not provide any evidence let alone "compelling".

JM:
"Indeed, they, and the Bureau of Meteorology here in Australia, are extensively remodelling original temperature series so that they fit the theory of anthropogenic global warming."

Rubbish. That's a lie. You have zero evidence because it's not true. Anthropogenic global warming is not a "theory" it is a fact. The evidence is overwhelming, incontrovertible, and undeniable.

By JM:
"In the case of both Amberley and Rutherglen cooling trends have been changed to warming trends without any reasonable justification."

Rubbish. That's a lie. You have zero evidence. None.

By JM:
"You need to study the empirical evidence as I've presented it for both of these locations in the actual article that precedes this thread."

Rubbish. That's another lie. Using the words "empirical evidence" does not make it so. There is no credible evidence to study that supports such a claim. None. The evidence is provided by ~30,000 'climate scientists' in the field presented in ~10,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers in the last couple of decades with hard data & evidence plus the laws of physics/chemistry going back 100yrs.

Jennifer you are publicly accusing thousands of people across the world of FRAUD without a shred of evidence. That's an egregious defamation! Stop it.

You are not qualified to Judge the work of those scientists and Universities. OR, present a paper for peer-review that proves you know better than those 30,000 climate scientists you're claiming are "liars and frauds" and/or stupid and part of a grand conspiracy - take them to court if you're game. You can't and you won't. The only thing you have is your rhetoric and clever sophistry.

Refs:
" A sophism is a specious argument for displaying ingenuity in reasoning or for deceiving someone. A sophist is a person who reasons with clever but fallacious and deceptive arguments."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophism#Modern_usage

On Fallacies http://esgs.free.fr/uk/logic.htm

http://www.spring.org.uk/2012/06/the-dunning-kruger-effect-why-the-incompetent-dont-know-theyre-incompetent.php

You gotta admire Mr O' who can use his entire 350 word allocation to effectively say, you're wrong because I think you're wrong and that proves you're lying. Not even a passing reference to any facts or even a suggestion that facts might matter. Kudos.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Personally I try to avoid using words like 'fake' or 'falsified' as regards the adjusted terrestrial temperature data(well except when talking about MBH98 or Karl2015) because those words carry all sorts of connotations. As McElhinney/McAleer said, they aren't evil, just wrong.

When someone charged with maintaining the data looks at, say, Rutherglen, given that they 'know' in their bones that temperatures have increased world-wide over the century, they don't see an anomaly but instead an error which requires attention. So they run the data through their approved algorithms and, presto, it now concurs with what they'd expect the data to show. So this confirms, to them, that (1) GW is occurring and (2) that their algorithms are right since they achieved the right answer. So they can be safely employed on the next anomaly. Confirmation bias.

What is needed is that those adjustments be vetted by outsiders who aren't vested in the outcome, although after what happened to poor Mr Wegman such a creature might be hard to enlist. This is why it was so despicable that Greg Hunt ran interference for the BOM when there was a push for such a vetting of the data. He can NEVER be forgiven for that.

Hopefully there will come a time when Malcolm Roberts will be able to parlay his needed vote on some legislation or other into a commitment to do a thorough independent check into the BOM homogenisation process. Hopefully...

Replying in part to Cobber the hound,

You declared: “…Brain asked the Senator if he believed that NASA landed a man on the moon after the Senator made the suggestion that NASA has faked the temperature data…”

Putting aside your poor paraphrasing, what you overlook is that Brian Cox was spluttering and arm waving a total irrelevance. The mystery graph that Cox brandished, (it seems to be an obsolete GissTemp graph?) was created in a division of NASA known by acronym GISS. Its creators had absolutely nothing to do with landing a man on the moon.
ZERO!

You should compare the two sources of satellite data I advised above to Tombee which strongly contradict the GISS graph at 18 August 2016 11:59:31 AM

Perhaps you could explain why they are so drastically different?

Perhaps, rather than denigrate Dr. Marohasy, “Cobber the hound” might like to check a few salient facts himself. The link below is Weatherzone’s climate history page, the statistics are supplied directly to Weatherzone from the BoM.

http://www.weatherzone.com.au/climate/stationdrill.jsp

It was prominently claimed in local media that the month of May, 2016, and again now the month of July 2016 were the hottest individual months on record. Go to the link above and click on any of the towns, cities available, in fact you can check any town in Australia for its climate history, you will not find one that verifies this outlandish claim.