On 16th I asked:

"Where is that "refusal doc" by the Audit Office (ANAO) not to investigate the BOM I asked for?"
http://jennifermarohasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Request-Audit-BOM-Marohasy-Ver2.pdf

Marohasy says: "This requested (sic) was rejected without any consideration of the evidence."
To understand the 'meaning' please view that in the full context:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2016/06/audit-general-dismisses-need-for
[btw comments are closed]

Of course Marohasy's 'audit' request was rejected. And without any consideration of "her reasons".

Why? It is outside the legislated remit of the ANAO. It is outside the planned Audit program of the ANAO of the Department of the Environment and Energy that covers the BOM.

eg Specific characteristics and risks within the portfolio which influence the ANAO's allocation of financial audit resources and our annual selection of performance audit topics and other activities include the:
http://www.anao.gov.au/work-program/portfolio/environment-and-energy/portfolio-overview

The key areas of financial statements risk for the Department of the Environment and Energy relate to the:
http://www.anao.gov.au/work-program/portfolio/environment-and-energy/portfolio-financial-statements

Last specific BOM program Audit was in 2013-14
http://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/administration-improving-water-information-program

It appears the activities of the ANAO are directed by Legislation and the Minister in consultation with the ANAO Management, relative to available resources and priority settings.

Not by 'requests' from the public.

Yet, Marohasy put it this way: "This requested (sic) was rejected without any consideration of the evidence."

Yes. True. Well, sort of. The "context" matters most.

Is this kind of approach to only partially disclose some of the facts an example of "lying the truth"? eg http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001002771400078X
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/683272

'Lying the truth' means there is 'truth' in a statement, yet the "take away meaning" of most readers would be something completely different IF "all the actual facts" of the matter were known.

It's similar to the effect of asking 'leading questions' and 'rhetorical questions' that the questioner does not specifically tell their audience what the correct answer is - the audience is "led" to believe what the answer is - based on the overall rhetorical devices at play.

It's like "begging the question" or everyone assuming what the answer is without really stating it. This, like most logical fallacies, is an ever present tool in the conspiracy theorist kit-bag.
-

The investigations against ExxonMobil have gone Federal:

https://thinkprogress.org/sec-exxonknew-4bd7b1f68500#.vtn7kcywm

The first paragraphs from the article:

"The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is reportedly investigating Exxon on allegations that the company is not accounting for the longterm risks of climate change.
According to multiple reports, Exxon might not be accurately valuing its assets during the current spate of low oil prices or, in the longer term, in the face of climate change disruptions and decreased fossil fuel use.

It is illegal to misrepresent financial information, including asset values, to shareholders."

A further quote:

"The news comes nearly a year after Inside Climate News and the Los Angeles Times independently discovered that Exxon scientists were aware as far back as the 1970s that burning fossil fuels leads to climate change."

@Craig Nimms,
Hi Craig,
I feel that you are oversensitive concerning your understanding of Jennifer’s comment to you. I also notice you did not respond to my query; {Might your “my [Craig’s] proposed mitigation plan” not tolerate any consideration of naturally caused elements in global warming?}….an example of exaggeration followed. I have a thought that perhaps you have a covert ideology and an element of hostility towards her (it is very strong with some others here).

Wivenhoe Dam: Yes sorry I remember that wrongly but if the water was 5m high at Brisbane I imagine it was higher than that somewhere upstream sometime.

Desal plants: If your point is that the Climate Commission was not created until after the projects were initiated, my point was that its various members had initiated their campaigns long beforehand. They scared the pants off the Labour gov who decided we’d better fund these guys, and State govs, prodded along by the media, were obliged to panic.

You might be interested in this graphical history since the low level in 2009 in Melbourne’s water reserves: http://www.melbournewater.com.au/waterdata/waterstorages/pages/storages-over-the-years.aspx
I think that in a week or two, what with yet more rain forecast today, reserves will be very healthy indeed ahead of an anticipated (by some) biggish La Niña coming next year.
Many dams for the Murray/Goulburn are well over 90% full, (the massive Hume dam = 96.9%): http://www.g-mwater.com.au/water-resources/catchments/storage-level

PS,
For the prophets of doom here,

I'm sorry if you are distressed to hear that water reserves in Victoria have been splendidly good for a long time now

Google; 1970 climate change.
Global cooling was subject of the 1970's.

It appears Senator Malcolm Roberts is correct about CO2.
Less radiation = cooling, as does increase in cloud/precipitation and shade caused by increase in ocean and lake algae plant matter that I have been indicating.

Scientific explanation of the cause of Sea Surface Temperature measured warm areas of ocean that are presently an anomaly in AGW science, will I think explain the anthropogenic real cause of change in weather climate.

Bob,
It's wonderful that you want to play white knight to Jennifer's damsel in distress act, but honestly mate, this is 2016, surely she's a big enough girl to speak for herself? She seemed to have no trouble doing so earlier.

As for bearing her hostility, I don't even know the woman. I've done my best to be civil, but it seems to be casting pearls before swine.

I'm no wiser about your concerns wrt desalination schemes. What is your point in clear English, doing away with the insinuation and innuendo? Presumably you are exercised by the idea that there was some kind of boondoggle involved? I'm also unclear about the relevance of water storage levels, this is "a land of drought and flooding rains" after all. Are you suggesting that not taking precautions against a prolonged drought is a good idea?

Have you had a chance to use your skills as an engineer to work out some of those cost/benefit estimates yet? Until you do, the rest of the discussion is just so much erm... hot air.