tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post3896710902924814820..comments2024-02-12T15:25:44.028+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Remember the weather at Rutherglen? BoM was right all along, of course!Souhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger80125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-42332343122906677732014-09-23T20:29:06.375+10:002014-09-23T20:29:06.375+10:00I think you mean "a junk Research Fellow"...I think you mean "a junk Research Fellow"<br /><br />AgAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-45924909586941441692014-09-22T07:02:18.240+10:002014-09-22T07:02:18.240+10:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Billy Bobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-3708973103150705882014-09-22T06:11:06.859+10:002014-09-22T06:11:06.859+10:00Scene: Some weather station in 1850 or so
Weather...<i>Scene: Some weather station in 1850 or so</i><br /><br /><b>Weather station monitor </b> "We didn't move the weather station today Sir"<br /><b>Chief meteorologist:</b> :"OK, good. Better file a report to that effect"<br /><b>Weather station monitor </b> "OK Sir, I will do that without delay"<br /><br /><i>Scene: Some weather station in 2014 or so</i><br /><br /><b>Chief meteorologist:</b> :"Has the weather station moved?"<br /><b>Weather station monitor </b> "No Sir, not as far as I know"<br /><b>Chief meteorologist:</b> :"Have you checked all the weather station not moved records?"<br /><b>Weather station monitor </b> "Yes Sir, and none of them record a move"<br /><b>Chief meteorologist:</b> :"Excellent. Excellent. So where haven't we moved from?"<br /><b>Weather station monitor </b> "Er, from where we weren't before Sir"<br /><b>Chief meteorologist:</b> :"Excellent. Excellent. Lucky we keep such good records of what didn't happen?"<br />Jammy Dodgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08360437479098314946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-48203055471105776772014-09-21T23:14:13.102+10:002014-09-21T23:14:13.102+10:00I suggest reading this
http://cawcr.gov.au/public...I suggest reading this<br /><br />http://cawcr.gov.au/publications/technicalreports/CTR_050.pdf<br /><br />which is detailed analysis of homogenised vs raw Australian temperature data.<br /><br />To the average denier, homogenised data is not to be trusted. Raw data is best. Those at the BOM have been subjugated to the warming religion, and any data that shows cooling must be subject to a Stalin like purge. (Well that's the impression I get from the cacophony of anti-science blogs.)<br /><br />Of course, the reality is quite different. It doesn't matter if you use raw or homogenised data, the warming trend is still there, much to the chagrin of the professional misinformer. Instead of publishing their own detailed analysis, they use the tried and tested technique used by defence lawyers. Introduce doubt. For instance in the O.J. Simpson trial, despite the damning evidence trail, the defence lawyers tried to introduce doubt first against the DNA evidence, that it was somehow contaminated, and later about the racial prejudices of the investigating officers.<br /><br />Of course we all know that the Australian climate trends are not determined by a single temperature recording station at Rutherglen, but what they are trying to do is to introduce doubt on the entire Australian homogenised dataset. The techniques used by the BOM are not secret, but have been journal published and peer-reviewed. But this is not enough. Nova, Marohasy and Watt's have been railing against homogenisation for years now, it's one of the many barrows they push, not because it's been peer-reviewed, but because it shows there has been a warming trend, consistent with AGW. <br /><br />This whole Rutherglen saga has been a storm in a teacup. What I've been waiting for is the 'real reason' for the warming trend, worthy of a Nobel prize.Davenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-15873413678831415112014-09-21T23:03:04.548+10:002014-09-21T23:03:04.548+10:00Awaiting moderation ......Awaiting moderation ......Kevin O'Neillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06692943768484857724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-67084707469061634492014-09-21T22:43:16.382+10:002014-09-21T22:43:16.382+10:00"He has an excellent grasp of climate science...<em>"He has an excellent grasp of climate science..."</em><br /><br />Thanks Sou, but I would say I only grasp some parts, and those are the easier parts ;-)<br /><br />On the other hand, <em>just doing that much</em> is sufficient to see how most of the faux scepticism is constructed and where it fails to pass scientific muster. 95% of evaluating denialist claims comes down to detecting dodgy logic (most people can learn to do this) and detecting obvious manipulations of "facts" such as cherry-picking or citing papers that have been superseded by subsequent research or claiming they support one argument when they say otherwise (also learnable skills). You can make this process even more effective by learning some of the easier parts of climate science which make you more efficient at spotting a lot of the dodgy logic or "facts".<br /><br />If they had a good case on their side - or even a much better constructed case - it would easily go beyond my scientific abilities and knowledge. The fact that it almost never does is a major giveaway.<br />Lotharssonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-24536530332785411232014-09-21T22:38:06.325+10:002014-09-21T22:38:06.325+10:00Part two:
2. Claiming that results can or cannot ...Part two:<br /><br />2. Claiming that results can or cannot be produced by a high quality reconstruction method is a scientific matter. The forum for <em>testing</em> scientific claims is not blogs and denialist newspapers and policy "think tanks" such as The Sydney Institute, it is the peer reviewed scientific literature, and untested scientific claims carry pretty much zero weight with anyone who cares about science. <br /><br />Marohasy shamelessly lays charges of a scientific nature outside of the scientific literature. Given that she is a published scientist in her own field and <em>knows</em> the appropriate forum, and that her CV indicates that she <em>is capable</em> of getting a peer reviewed paper published in the literature in fields where she has appropriate expertise, her avoidance makes it <em>very</em> difficult to conclude anything other than she either:<br /><br />a) already believes that her charges will fail under peer review (before and after publication), or<br />b) isn't trying to make a scientific case because her goals do not require convincing scientists, or<br />c) both of the above.<br /><br />There might be still other explanations, but none of them will avoid the implication that she doesn't particularly care about having her scientific claim tested by scientists or she would have made it happen. And any of those reasons is enough to merit great scepticism of her claims, as they indicate she is trying to use an untested scientific claim to bamboozle non-scientists who don't know that untested claims are basically worthless. One does not need to understand the ins and outs of the scientific process to realise that. <br /><br />3. If she had done her scientific homework and made a convincing case that the BoM results did not come from a high quality method, then establishing "fraud" is a whole 'nother challenge which Marohasy (AFAIK) hasn't even attempted. To establish fraud that you have to show good reason to believe that accidental error or incompetence or best effort under resource limitations or any number of other explanations do not explain the variation of results from high quality methods, and that only <em>deliberate intent</em> does. This requires a whole <b>bunch</b> more analysis or another entire layer of argument which she has not even attempted. And again, you don't have to understand the scientific process to see that. You simply have to note that she apparently <em>has not considered or rejected out of hand</em> plausible alternate explanations, let alone demonstrated that they are much less likely than "fraud!", and she has remained fixated on that explanation even after people have pointed out all the problems with her claim.<br /><br />Can you see yet how she's failed on all 3 points above? Do you see just how staggeringly far she is from establishing her claim of scientific fraud? Is it obvious even she doesn't think her claims are good enough to stand up to scrutiny by actual competent scientists in that area of science, an area in which she herself has not published any work?<br /><br />One useful rule of thumb for non-scientists assessing claims that go against a solid scientific consensus is this: if the person making such a claim has no published peer-reviewed work in the area that is still considered valid after other scientists had a look at it, then they have not demonstrated basic competence (see (a) above) in area, and there's almost zero chance their contrarianism is justified. Any contrarian who actually has a good case for their contrarianism can demonstrate competence.<br />Lotharssonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-28205487283728941712014-09-21T22:36:16.198+10:002014-09-21T22:36:16.198+10:00Comment in two parts:
See, there are three basic ...Comment in two parts:<br /><br />See, there are three basic problems with Marohasy's charge that the BOM is committing scientific fraud at the moment:<br /><br />1. Marohasy has clearly not done her <em>scientific</em> homework. If she had, she would be able to demonstrate some evidence about what the high quality climate-scale reconstructions <em>should</em> produce for any station whose reconstructed data she questions. Just alleging "well, it can't produce that" is a naked assertion free of any evidence that no-one should find convincing (but sadly they do) - especially when she implicitly invokes the fallacy that the raw data is valid for computing climate scale trends, as she does all over the place.<br /><br />To clarify, "what should be produced by high quality methods" is a broad concept here, as there are a bunch of different techniques and scientists argue fiercely about which ones are best for different purposes. However, they tend to converge (roughly speaking) on an agreement that <em>this</em> bunch of methods are high quality, and <em>that</em> bunch are not. If Marohasy wants to persuade anyone who is <em>actually</em> scientifically sceptical, then she needs to:<br /><br />a) First show she has basic competence in the field. Since she has precisely <b>zero</b> peer-reviewed papers demonstrating this (unless I missed some), this requires doing - and understanding! - a literature survey and then demonstrating that she has successfully done so in her argumentation (by summarising what the state of knowledge of the field is as far as it affects her claim).<br /><br />b) Then analyse what results the high quality techniques can produce. She can do this by demonstrating the results that arise when the set of high quality techniques are applied (e.g. by applying them, or referencing existing work that applies them and is not seriously challenged as being flawed) and/or mounting a scientifically convincing argument that characterises the set of results that high quality techniques produce in some way (e.g. one might be able to show by analysing the methods themselves that under certain kinds of conditions the results MUST all fall within some kind of envelope).<br /><br />Note that "high quality techniques" must include the application of the BoM's peer-reviewed published techniques, if only because she alleges the BoM is not following them.<br /><br />c) Then demonstrate that it is implausible that the results the BoM gets are produced by one of those high quality techniques. (You can't do this without either reproducing all of the techniques, or mounting that scientifically convincing argument I mentioned and ALSO showing that the BoM results fall outside of that characterisation.)<br /><br />There is no evidence I'm aware of that she has met any of these three prerequisites.<br />Lotharssonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-36741540330386864152014-09-21T22:34:15.240+10:002014-09-21T22:34:15.240+10:00"There are three likely outcomes if you make ...<em>"There are three likely outcomes if you make the offer in good faith..."</em><br /><br />This analysis ignores the well known benefit to contrarians who are arguing in bad faith to non-scientists of engaging with scientists representing the consensus in good faith. The contrarian goals are served by the engagement, because their bad faith does not require them to change their mind when the paucity of their argument is demonstrated, and it allows them to use all sorts of bad arguments and deceptive tactics to deceive the non-scientists. (Google "Gish Gallop" for one example.)<br /><br />And Marohasy gives a lot of indications of arguing in bad faith as indicated in many comments here. Speaking of which:<br /><br /><em>"...and Marohasy has to acknowledge that fact."</em><br /><br />Your optimism is touching, but she has already made a number of claims that evidence indicates "she has to acknowledge". Instead she has doubled down on those claims.<br />Lotharssonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-36747883919454924492014-09-21T22:33:36.282+10:002014-09-21T22:33:36.282+10:00"Get her facts, listen to her argument,...&qu...<em>"Get her facts, listen to her argument,..."</em><br /><br />She appears to have very little in the way of fact or plausible argument in her corner, and from what I've seen of her blog posts they show little sign of the kinds of skills one expects to see on display when mounting a convincing argument about scientific matters. Responding (above) to her last post was a bit of a challenge because it was partly incoherent and partly lacking in the kind of substance you'd expect to be behind such a claim.<br /><br />She's also had <em>years</em> to make this argument now, and she knows the right place to make it is in the peer-reviewed literature where pre-publication peer review at least weeds out most of the obviously poor arguments. Even after years she has not done that. It's time to admit that she is unlikely to ever be able to make this argument convincing to anyone who knows what they're talking about.<br />Lotharssonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-22736335174531451742014-09-21T22:31:09.234+10:002014-09-21T22:31:09.234+10:00"After all, just saying that BOM is right wil...<em>"After all, just saying that BOM is right will hardly be effective against a claim that BOM is wrong."</em><br /><br />You've put the cart before the horse. <br /><br />But putting that aside momentarily, <b>I totally agree with you</b>. It won't fly with the "sceptics" . But even if (as has been done) glaring holes in the argument that "the BOM is wrong" are pointed out, that doesn't fly either. That's because they're particularly good at rejecting robust conclusions from the full set of evidence when they don't like the conclusions, and they're impressively unsceptical when someone such as Marohasy makes a claim they like the sound of. Or as you put it, "the tribalism simply gets in the way". Hence getting it to fly with them is not my goal.<br /><br />Google "epistemic closure" and "Morton's Demon", and if you get that far "Dunning-Kruger Syndrome". <br /><br />But back to horses and carts. Just saying "the BOM is deliberately ignoring all scientific knowledge in this area and making numbers up" will also be completely ineffective with anyone who has an ounce of critical thinking capability in their body. So what to do? Is there any kind of process we could use to help weed out dodgy claims and retain the ones that have good support from the evidence? If so, what would that process look like, does it already exist and if so does it have a name? ;-) And would that process not think so much in terms of "wrong vs right", but rather "more or less supported when we consider all the evidence"?<br /><br />To be continued... Lotharssonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-25955425894885610412014-09-21T22:18:45.357+10:002014-09-21T22:18:45.357+10:00I don't see your comment Kevin. Was it on her ...I don't see your comment Kevin. Was it on her latest article?Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-32725787084016417642014-09-21T21:52:25.051+10:002014-09-21T21:52:25.051+10:00Submitted this over at JM's blog.
In a perfec...Submitted this over at JM's blog.<br /><br />In a perfect world homogenization would not be necessary. All stations would have been located several hundred years ago in ideal locations that, with crystal ball foresight, would remain essentially unchanged over the ensuing centuries so that future scientists would have pristine data to work with. Sadly, that is not the world we live in.<br /><br />Instead we are faced with numerous confounding factors - uneven distribution of stations, differences in Time of Observation, changes to local microclimate, different instrumentation, changes to instrumentation and station relocations come immediately to mind. As <a href="ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-williams2009.pdf" rel="nofollow">Menne (2009)</a> write: "<i>Unfortunately, changes to the circumstances behind a series of climate observations are practically inevitable at some point during the period of record. For this reason, testing for artificial discontinuities or ‘‘inhomogeneities’’ is an essential component of climate analysis.Often, the test results can then be used to adjust a series so that it more closely reflects only variations in weather and climate."</i><br /><br />Now, one could just take the raw data, ignore all the known errors, and produce a graph and call it a day. That would be the easy way out. Of course comparing one year to the next, especially as the distance in time grew larger, would be comparing apples to oranges. The result would be of little practical use to anyone. Those who rail against homogenization are asking us to accept seriously flawed comparisons as the best we can do.<br /><br />Science doesn't work that way. Sometimes one can take flawed data and make it better. Homogenization of scientific data has been around at least since the 1850s (Kreil). The various methods of homogenization used to produce temperature series have withstood peer review and numerous ad hoc studies. The peer reviewed literature is vast. Math works. Homogenization works.<br /><br />Does this mean the resulting homogenized data is perfect? Of course not. Expecting it to be perfect is unrealistic. And despite the fact that pseudoskeptic usually only cite stations where the homogenization lowers past temperature data, it doesn't work that way. many stations see past data increased as <a href="http://moyhu.blogspot.com/2014/08/adjustments-sometimes-warm-sometimes.html" rel="nofollow">Nick Stokes at Moyhu</a> has ably pointed out.<br /><br />Those who have complaints about homogenization ought to devise a better method and submit it for peer review. <br /><br /><br /><br />Kevin O'Neillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06692943768484857724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-59541321410858509402014-09-21T21:42:52.791+10:002014-09-21T21:42:52.791+10:00"And who the hell is Lotharsson?"
And w...<i>"And who the hell is Lotharsson?"</i><br /><br />And who the hell is Marohasey?Jammy Dodgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08360437479098314946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-1839815719172243622014-09-21T19:30:22.883+10:002014-09-21T19:30:22.883+10:00Marohasy is an experienced anti-environmentalist c...Marohasy is an experienced anti-environmentalist campaigner. And far from nuts,it's full out wedge tactics, and far from a search for any real truth. Regardless whether she's right of wrong she's made it all the way to the national newspaper. It's echoed across the denialosphere. I imagine she's most pleased.<br /><br />Any press is good press. As long as your name is up there. And it's slick marketing too . Note the unnecessary picture of high fashion Marohasy with red umbrella in the rain. So cute and so utterly irrelevant but great page 3 propaganda. <br /><br />And the rhetoric about corrupting raw data. Alas they're still there. We're discussing "an" analysis of those data. <br /><br />So we're all running around chasing her numbers, her sites, and site metadata. Another way to answer the issue is stop cherry picking individual stations and do another full national analysis without homogenisation?<br /><br />Move the goal posts and the argument along. Nick Stokes !Alexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-75766116736464789162014-09-21T12:10:58.077+10:002014-09-21T12:10:58.077+10:00Judith Curry mentioned Daniel Dennett’s book Intui...Judith Curry mentioned Daniel Dennett’s book <i>Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking.</i><br /><br />In a section on Rapoport’s Rules, Dennett lists some guidelines on how to compose a successful critical commentary:<br /><br />“1. You should attempt to re-express your target’s so clearly, vividly and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.”<br /><br />2. You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).<br /><br />3. You should mention anything you have learned from your target.<br /><br />4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.”<br /><br />Of course Dennett immediately follows this by saying, "Some targets don't deserve this respectful attention ..."<br /><br />When JM calls for someone to go to jail based on nothing more than she lacks the statistical knowledge to infer a station move, I think she probably loses the right to respectful attention.Kevin O'Neillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06692943768484857724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-39200489496146486472014-09-21T11:46:18.152+10:002014-09-21T11:46:18.152+10:00Yes, she's just "another utter nutter&quo...Yes, she's just "another utter nutter". Lazy, preferring conspiracy ideation to research.<br /><br />How much time has Jennifer devoted to working out why lots of locations have had the temperature data corrected downwards? None? What a surprise.<br /><br /><a href="http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/adjustments-sometimes-warm-sometimes.html" rel="nofollow">http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/adjustments-sometimes-warm-sometimes.html</a>Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-23853259050390720832014-09-21T11:41:27.035+10:002014-09-21T11:41:27.035+10:00I thought it would be interesting to look more clo...I thought it would be interesting to look more closely at JM's "paper" on the topic of temperature series. This was effectively her presentation to The Sydney Institute. <br /><br />Available at:<br />http://jennifermarohasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Changing_Temperature_Data.pdf<br /><br />Fairly extraordinary when you think that 3 PhDs were involved in its writing. A couple of weeks back I thought it would be fun to do a faux 'peer review' of the paper as if it had been submitted to a journal. It certainly becomes very much smaller if you take out the polemic.<br /><br />However, after an hour of redlining and comments, I came to my senses. What on earth was I doing wasting my time on this? <br /><br />But the paper does give a glimpse into where she's coming from. There is no attempt to understand homogenisation methodology - which she seems to assume is there simply to introduce warming trends. It is of course much more suitable for her 'argument' to take individual stations where homogenisation changes the trend upwards and say "hey - the raw data has been manipulated to up the trend." <br /><br />An example of the paper is in the following para regarding the Bourke temp record:<br />"There is even a peer-reviewed paper that justifies the scratching of the record set on January 3, 1909 in the new Stevenson screen installed in August 1908. But to explain how this very hot day was reduced to a clerical error in the peer-reviewed climate science literature would require more words than we have for this paper, because we would have to work through temperature records for a long list of ‘nearby’ stations."<br /><br />So - she can devote pages to polemic but not get hands dirty trying to really understand what BOM have done. Until she does, all she's left with is nit-picking about station moves and meta-data. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-23243711136950707942014-09-21T11:29:16.229+10:002014-09-21T11:29:16.229+10:00It doesn't matter who Lotharsson is. What matt...It doesn't matter who Lotharsson is. What matters is what he wrote. (He has an excellent grasp of climate science and has been around climate traps for many, many years.) Did you read it? Did you understand it?<br /><br />And there you go making up stuff again with your "Sou, your blog isn't science as you note". I didn't say my blog isn't science. Of course it is about science. What the heck do you think it's about?<br /><br />Your stubborn refusal to acknowledge that everything that needs to be said has already been said here and elsewhere, and your wanting to have some sort of further face off with a known disinformer who can't keep her story straight - is typical of deniers.<br /><br />There is no "case". Save your money. All you would "see" is a gish galloper (Jennifer) spouting conspiracy theories vs someone sticking to the facts. You'd be swayed not by what was said, but by whoever you regarded as the most entertaining. <br /><br />That's how Christopher Monckton works. He's a professional entertainer. I don't know what Jennifer's style is or whether she would appear more entertaining than I. It wouldn't be hard. My style tends to the dry, when public speaking.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-16303141206124237382014-09-21T11:19:47.447+10:002014-09-21T11:19:47.447+10:00Fair enough then. Bill, I have read all of the res...Fair enough then. Bill, I have read all of the responses above. My point is that it won't gain much traction because the tribalism simply gets in the way. And who the hell is Lotharsson? <br /><br />But a joint effort with a serious assessment of both sides would presumably come to a conclusion. That's way more effective than long winded posts on respective blogs. I don't particularly care whether anyone 'gets along'.<br /><br />Sou, your blog isn't science as you note. But neither is yours or Jennifer's or Jo Nova's inconsequential. Plenty of people read them. You argue for people like me to learn, but many of us don't have the time to dig more deeply. In this case, I can see both sides. I tend to side with BOM's version because they are the experts. But the counter argument is certainly out there and gaining traction with some.<br /><br />I'm suggesting a collaboration, not so you can all get along, but so the claims are subject to a serious consideration. If that consideration finds the sceptic argument to lack substance, then you have a huge win. <br /><br />Or, against all the odds, you find they have a case.<br /><br />I for one would almost pay real money to see how that kind of joint effort would turn out.<br /><br />I'm not suggesting peer reviewed science. I am suggesting that two notable bloggers with a sizable following collaborate on a matter that has actually had national media exposure. Billy Bobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-37441951273093163672014-09-21T10:22:15.283+10:002014-09-21T10:22:15.283+10:00This is what I say, Billy Bob.
First, foremost an...This is what I say, Billy Bob.<br /><br />First, foremost and last - I don't agree with everything that Richard Dawkins says, but this I do agree with.<br /><br /><a href="http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/119-why-i-won-39-t-debate-creationists" rel="nofollow">http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/119-why-i-won-39-t-debate-creationists</a><br /><br />Also, see my comments above. Jennifer has not got a leg to stand upon. The evidence points to a break in the records that anyone can see. (see <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/08/weather-in-rutherglen-with-wuwt.html" rel="nofollow">the chart in my previous article</a>). This is <a href="http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/rutherglen/rutherglen-station.shtml" rel="nofollow">confirmed by BoM</a>. The <a href="http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/rutherglen/rutherglen-station.shtml" rel="nofollow">historical documentation uncovered by BoM</a> strongly suggests a station move. Jennifer is the one who rejects the notion, unlike most people including most deniers, that a station move won't affect the actual temperature recorded. (Refer Anthony Watts' focus on weather station changes as part of his argument to reject global warming.) Jennifer hasn't provided any hard evidence to support her claim. One cannot argue when there is nothing to argue against, more than "but <a href="https://archive.today/Iuqst" rel="nofollow">someone should go to jail</a>". <br /><br />Finally, two inconsequential bloggers tussling over nothing at all means absolutely nothing to anyone. My time is more valuable. I prefer to spend it with people I have some respect for. In fact, I'd rather <a href="http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/g/georgebern137450.html" rel="nofollow">wrestle with a real pig</a>.<br /><br />Also, what Bill said.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-45109500285555256322014-09-21T10:00:41.882+10:002014-09-21T10:00:41.882+10:00You know, Billy-Bob, anybody can actually scroll u...You know, Billy-Bob, anybody can actually scroll up and read the OP and, say, Lotharsson's detailed responses above.<br /><br />Just because you don't bother to actually read anything before unleashing your opinion, doesn't mean everyone else is similarly disposed. (Yours is, of course, precisely the strategy that plays well with - *<i>cough</i>* - 'skeptics'.)<br /><br />Your attempt at 'can't we all just get along?' concern trolling is simply risible. After all, NASA is under no obligation to endlessly 'engage' with Moon-landing conspiracists...billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-56276120018336375742014-09-21T09:42:32.079+10:002014-09-21T09:42:32.079+10:00Sou, I mentioned over on the John Cook thread the ...<br /><br />Sou, I mentioned over on the John Cook thread the idea of a challenge. Here it is. You have argued very strongly against the claims by Marohasy, Nova and so on. Most of your arguments appear to be largely rubbishing them and simply shouting hurrah for BOM. However that kind of strategy might work in the echo chamber that is hotwhopper but I doubt will fly with the sceptics. After all, just saying that BOM is right will hardly be effective against a claim that BOM is wrong. Indeed, this current post simply refers to the BOM offering some circumstantial information that the site at Rutherglen has moved. There's little of real substance.<br /><br />Now, also over on the John cook thread you and others have speculated about how you'd go meeting a real denier like Marohasy or Watts.<br /><br />Soooo... how about we kill two birds with the one stone? What if you, Sou, engaged with Marohasy and seriously considered her claims regarding Rutherglen? I don't mean so that you can criticise her, make fun of her, or go all out to prove her wrong. I mean, treat it like a serious research matter. Establish a real human dialogue.<br /><br />Get her facts, listen to her argument, including those of the others she is working with, and see if you can work through to a satisfactory conclusion that you both agree to. I know you believe you shouldn't give the denier argument oxygen, but this is an opportunity to engage in a serious way that actually transcends the petty tribalism of the respective camps.<br /><br />There are three likely outcomes if you make the offer in good faith. <br /><br />1. One or both of you refuse due to the risk, or because you really can't work together.<br /><br />2. You show the world that the whole Rutherglen thing is a beatup by people with an axe to grind, and Marohasy has to acknowledge that fact. Now there's a coup.<br /><br />3. You find that Marohasy is right and that BOM's process is flawed. You admit this and show the world that you can be objective. <br /><br />What do you think?Billy Bobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-69945525964855395792014-09-20T09:00:24.492+10:002014-09-20T09:00:24.492+10:00Just to be charitable myself (even though you have...Just to be charitable myself (even though you haven't been - conspiracy theorist??? When did I ever suggest a conspiracy?) I'll thank Sou for actually going to the trouble of responding to my tongue in cheek request. <br /><br />I'll have a good look at this when I get a chance but my backwoods denier brain is heavily overloaded as it is. Plus, Mrs Bob is annoyed with me for spending so much time on the computer instead of watching with her Silk and Inspector Softly or whatever that silly show on the leftist ABC is that she insists on watching and thereby introducing marital disharmony to our hitherto blissful household.<br /><br />By the way, I did spend quite some time reading the BOM page last night and doing some detailed Google Earth studies - not because it's especially important but I wondered at the extent to which their largely circumstantial evidence held water. Of course, the simple answer is that I can't tell from what evidence is available, but if the question of a site move is so critical, I think on balance the evidence to hand from BOM is more significant than that offered by Jennifer.<br /><br />The best answer to that question would be some clear witness accounts or documented evidence of NO move.<br />Billy Bobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-50685557625516564082014-09-20T07:40:59.314+10:002014-09-20T07:40:59.314+10:00OK - "adjunct Research Fellow"OK - "adjunct Research Fellow"Alexnoreply@blogger.com