This is my favorite part: BOM disagreed with Marohasey and told the Australian that the agency ?used world?s best practice and a peer reviewed process to modify the physical temperature records that had been recorded at weather stations across the country.?
The process used by the BOM is called ?homogenization? which corrects for anomalies in the raw temperature data. The agency said it was ?very unlikely? that ?data homogenisation impacted on the empirical outlooks.?
If the physical data disagrees with the models, obviously the physical data must be wrong, right? :-/
I like this one a lot, also (http://news.yahoo.com/hundreds-methane-plumes-erupting-along-east-coast-170504645.html). Methane is much stronger greenhouse gas. Turns out there is a lot more of it bubbling up through the oceans than scientist have previously thought. And, the money quote - “Even though the methane may not escape to the atmosphere, the gas still adds to the ocean’s overall carbon budget ? which is still a wildly uncertain number.</font id=“size4”>”;
The oceans are obviously a HUGE component of our climate. If there is ‘WILD’ uncertainty in our understanding of how carbon moves in and out of the oceans, then there is no mathematical way to eliminate that same uncertainty from the climate models that are build on top of our understanding of the oceans.