@SteeleRedux,
The point I was making is that despite your mantras, Dr Marohasy discusses scientific issues and does not discuss politics as far as I’m aware.

Presumably you have contrary political opinions to her (erh sorry, you prefer, she has contrary political opinions to yours) and that you assert that whilst your own politics do not influence your climate change fixations, that Jennifer’s assumed politics do indeed influence her dedication to scientific research. You should really grit your teeth and see some expanded science on this thread over on her blog (including her added comment there, link above).

An immediate first action of the current Oz coalition gov. was to axe The Climate Commission presumably because of its many non-science-based false prophecies. Professor Tim Flannery for instance is famous for many whoppers like it ain’t gonna rain no more. Well for a start, I see that Melbourne’s water reserves have been excellent since 2009 and they are currently receiving another flood boost before a likely La Niña easing in 2017.

I’m now going to assume that you have similar political views to Professor Tim Flannery (who is an acknowledged expert on mammalian fossils BTW).

Bob Fernley-Jones,

Tim Flannery's "whoppers" are just a media creation – he never said "it ain't gonna rain no more". He said the rain might not come, but if you check the context he said it, you'll find he didn't mean the rain might not ever come; he meant the rain might not come before the dams were empty, so desalination infrastructure was needed to provide a secure water supply.

@Aidan,
Oh dear, have you been reading HotWhopper or SkepticalScience or Desmogblog or….with those rose coloured glasses again? You are correct though, he didn’t actually say; "it ain't gonna rain no more", (that was MY sarcastic paraphrasing) but he did say a great deal more and has effectively been “THE MEDIA”, if I think a little quieter of late.
Of course all the scare-talk of the now defunct Climate Commission had nothing to do with scaring various state governments into investing billions of dollars into desal plants? Or, the Wivenhoe Dam (which had been intended as a part-empty cistern to AVOID Brisbane flooding) being allowed to overfill prior to the floods? If I remember correctly it was said to have caused an extra 10m height in the Brisbane River when a massive release of water eventuated in order to prevent a bigger disaster.
I could go on but it would probably be a waste of time as far as you are concerned

Bob, the Brisbane flood height was under 5m in total at the City gauge. The releases from Wivenhoe added about a meter or so to the major peak IIRC. Their main impact was to raise the minimum water level (at low tide, in other words) during the flooding period, prolonging it and somewhat "flattening" the surge response of the system. I'm not having a go at you, you've probably misremembered something you didn't pay a great deal of attention to at the time. The height of the Bremer at Ipswich was over 19m, so perhaps that's what you recall? I spent the night of the flood peak watching anxiously as the creek running behind my business premises rose, then with huge relief watching it fall after reaching within about half a metre of overflowing, so I paid a LOT of attention to it. If I were religious I'd have thanked God for stopping the rain!

I do share your concern about those who make pronouncements designed to feather their own nests, but I'm not sure how that applies to the desalination schemes. Would you mind expanding on that?

The “utilitarian libertarian” and "generally an outlier" [aka lifelong devil's advocate?] Marohasy said: "For those who are interested in working out whether the net result of an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will be warming or cooling" come hither to my Blog.

I'd be interested in this "theory" when it has been published in a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal and hailed as true by scientists. Until then...

@Craig Minns: "If anyone should have sought clarification before spouting off abuse it's Jennifer. You'll note that instead of answering the questions she has chosen to take her bat and ball and go home in a huff. Says it all really."

She did this with her last 'article' about Cox and Roberts. It was like the killer rabbit scene in Holy Grail 'run away, run away'. :-)

@Bob Fernley-Jones: "Dr Marohasy discusses scientific issues...." Are you certain about that? I re-read this article by Nicol/Marohasy, and while it's a little 'sciency' I did not see any science there.

I saw complaints about Journalists with science, which is as easy shooting fish in a barrel. I see an old 2007 IPCC quote they deny is true with no evidence. I see a claim that climate scientists have the warming thing back to front - zero evidence, no references to any published research Papers.

Ending up back at journalists again with : "This was a point made perhaps too subtlety by Roberts, and clearly not understood by those reporting upon his maiden speech."

That's not science as I know it. I did not see a reply to any questions. Saw Zero Science. Maybe I missed it, feel free to point it out with a copy paste if you want. Perhaps we have differing opinions about what constitutes 'science'?

Flannery isn't a climate scientist. So what? Neither are you, Nicol, Marohasy or J.Abbot. Nor me but I'm not the one pushing a new theory either!
-

Ho Hum, you are all at it again.
Enormous amounts of time taken up on something that does not matter
who is right and who is wrong.
No matter which way it goes there will be a lot of red faces.
Oh dear, just had a horrible thought.
Maybe it will not get resolved at all because the use of fossil fuels
will fall to next to nothing.

Then you can all go on forever arguing about what might have happened !

AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH !