We're really going to trust Jennifer after the LAST debacle? Basically, she just makes me laugh. She's out there with the "Moon Landing was faked" crowd.

"Another site at Rutherglen had data adjusted to account for two intervals – 1966 and 1974 – when its thought the site was moved from close to buildings to low-flat ground.

Marohasy wants heads to roll [rolls eyes] because she claims that the Rutherglen site was never moved and so there was no need to homogenise the data.

However, the bureau has documentary evidence showing that sometime before the 1970s the weather station was not in the place where it is now.

The bureau had initially spotted a break or jump in the data that pointed to a likely move at Rutherglen.

Perhaps all of these movements of temperature stations was a conspiracy in itself, cooked up in the 1950s?"
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2014/aug/27/climate-sceptics-see-a-conspiracy-in-australias-record-breaking-heat

Hi Jennifer,
Like a dog with a bone.

If you wish to disprove the climate change science, just review the climate change enhancement of hundreds of extreme events world wide - noting that the great majority of such events refect increasing atmospheric and ocean warmth.

And not many record events associated with cooler than normal temperatures.

And explain how hundreds of research organisations world wide have come to very similar conclusions about global warming. And, if you, like the majority of denialists, claim a global conspiracy, ....... Just a laugh, really.

Your lengthy time on this topic is, as it always has been, a huge waste of effort. Even the support you used to get on this site has withered away.

Is it a touch of IPA neoliberalism driving chaotic thought processes?

@Shadow Minister, real intelligence trumps gullibility and stupidity.

@Janama, prove your unfounded claim about where "Rutherglen" weather station has or hasn't been located, and when. You have none. Marohasy has none either. All she has are questions, innuendo and sophistry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophism#Modern_usage

@JBowyer, who cares what you think besides yourself? Intelligent knowledgeable people do not.

@Janama: "the world temperature is made up of thousands of Rutherglens"

No, it's from tens upon tens of thousands in fact. Marohasy has Rutherglen = 0.00001% of all weather stations. You call that "evidence"?

Only a gullible fool would believe Marohasy by ignoring the other thousands in Australia, the tens of thousands overseas, the ocean temps, satellite records, melting sea ice, the GBR impacts, the accumulated science of 30,000+ more than Marohasy can find to agree with her.

Educate yourself about the Real SCIENCE.

7 years people have been waiting for something of substance to come Marohasy and Abbot. Huge claims, non-stop promises, and zero results. Abbot should have stuck with using that software for his stock market investments instead of living off 'the charity' of other denialists.

@Jennifer says: "Its always dangerous to assume."

Then stop doing that Jennifer. Or you may get more 'burnt' than the Rutherglen region did on Black Friday 1939!

@Jennifer says: "..shows an overall warming trend consistent with global warming theory."

How inconvenient for your ideology but convenient for your attention-seeking behaviour Jennifer. When are you going to show your 'empirical evidence' peer-reviewed (WIT doesn't rate) that what you 'claim' has happened at Rutherglen and Darwin is replicated across all 122 sites being used, and the 1000+ others, and in all other nations on earth?

Do the work first Jennifer, then Put Up or Shut Up with your non-stop defamatory accusations of fraud against thousands of people across the world including decades of BOM staff.

You've been promising Victoria/Lighthouse data, where is it? You've been promising rainfall predictive output for ~5 years, where is it?

No reputable climate scientist recognizes you or Abbot as 'peers'.

More info?
http://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPbXkzb1RlVGJaZFU

http://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPT2xYM2ViOVBwTU0

http://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPd2prNmVhU3B3bEE

The promised ANAO FOIA request is underway :-)
-

Thomas,

The comment "real intelligence trumps gullibility and stupidity" looks like a crass attempt to disparage anyone that disagrees with you, and time has shown usually solidifies opposition.

The homogenisation of the data, whilst for all the right reasons is essentially presenting manipulated data, and if the adjustments need to be as high as 5°C then you have an Achilles heel in your credibility and are basically painting a huge target on your back.

It's known that the station at Rutherglen was moved, but if the data differs so drastically, then data should be split into separate measurements say Rutherglen A and B, or a similar smaller measuring point could be added to the old site as a comparison.

Hi Shadow minister,
I’m so glad you’re concerned about the data being manipulated. When a station is moved or trees grow over a vital point, cooling an area or a city moves closer, creating a local urban heat island effect, the data has been artificially manipulated.

The BOM is trying to correct these manipulations. Jennifer makes it sound like a nefarious crime, but that’s just her problem. She’s been answered prior to this, and I don’t know why OLO is prepared to appear so foolish by recycling her myths.

Max,

Manipulation is human adjustment of the data. It is more valid to keep the area constant i.e. in a park, or trim the trees rather than modify the data which will always raise the possibility of the subjectivity of the person applying the correction.

When the "adjustment" increases the measured temperature of a station by 5 degrees because it has moved a short distance, the manipulation has reached a level where the data is questionable and should be excluded.