Quite cute Q&A, the point I was making was as you well know, is that without an official “vehicle” to deliver validated science to the politicians, there is no possibility of moving this issues to actionable conclusions.

As far as the BOM link is concerned it is just another scientific link, so what?

When you say, “nothing to do with the IPCC by the way.” Wrong, it has everything to do with the IPCC and only the IPCC, because it is the only official, internationally recognized body for the delivery of science to politicians.

You can’t have a BOM link conference or a NASA link conference.

The IPCC, through its compromised people and processes, assisted by outrageous NGO statements, is in “self destruct mode”, no politician can recover from continued support for them, the IPCC is a poisoned chalice and must be replaced. Then we might be able to move forward again.

You can trade “links” all you like but proselytizing will no longer generate converts to the cause. It may be entertaining for you, but utterly futile.

Hasbeen - you referring to the changes to Darwin temps that occurred when the site moved and got an immediate and obvious 2degree drop related to the new location (and not matched by nearby stations that didn't move)? The intellectual dishonesty in attempting to portray temperature adjustments that are done for good reason - and can be shown to have been done to ensure accurate representation of temperature trends - is typical of climate denialists. Selecting only a station that's adjustments might, as long as people don't enquire closely, look like something it isn't. Typical denialism - ignore a world full stations getting adjustments up and down, ignoring that there's no overall trend of adjustment favouring warming over cooling, just implying and accusing and hoping no-one looks a bit closer.
Anyone wanting to look a bit closer at the Darwin adjustment accusations that Hasbeen has been parroting try http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis_eschenbach_caught_lying.php

examinator
You haven't given any reason for policy action, any reason to think that the advantages would outweigh the disadvantages to any relevant group of people, and have also evaded the critical question: who is "we"?