The war on the Bureau of Meteorology

When Willis Eschenbach was caught lying about temperature trends in Darwin, I pointed out that the Australian Bureau of Meteorology trends agreed with those from the NOAA and asked:

I suppose the next argument is that the NOAA and the BOM are conspiring together to falsify the temperature record.

And something like that has happened, of course. Joanne Nova writes:

A team of skeptical scientists, citizens, and an Australian Senator have lodged a formal request with the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) to have the BOM and CSIRO audited.

Now, the likely outcame of this will be similar to what happened in New Zealand, but in the mean time they can use their request to manufacture doubt.

The list of names signing the request is interesting:

Senator Cory Bernardi, Joanne Nova, Andrew Barnham, Anthony Cox, James Doogue, Chris Gillham, Ken Stewart, Dr David Stockwell

Although styling themselves as a team containing “skeptical scientists”, only one of them even has a PhD.

Comments

  1. #1 anthony
    February 18, 2011

    Bernardi is a senator and as they usually win in terms of where they’re placed on the Senate ticket, they’re a pretty strong expression of where the party is ideologically. He’s about as close as we have to a fully fledged wingnut. It’s a sad time for the Liberal Party

  2. #2 Mike
    February 18, 2011

    Oh my god. That list of names reads like a day-release roll for the loony farm.

    Ummm, let me guess. The chain of events will go something like this:

    1. The audit will commence under much fanfare from sceptics.
    2. The audit will find nothing wrong in the temperature data.
    3. The audit will find that the requisition order for the coffee machine in the CSIRO tea-room was not filled out correctly by a climate scientist.
    4. Sceptics will, with much hooplah and fuss, proclaim that “See! We told you all along that the BoM and CSIRO are dodgy organisations, and that their data is proven to be untrustworthy!”

    I await with resignation at the uncovering of this gaping hole in climate science and its methodology.

  3. #3 Moth
    February 18, 2011

    Unfortunately, for Nova’s fans, all they need is this unreasonable doubt to produce a new wave of trolls / “citizen scientists” telling everyone else how they’re fallen for the “AGW faith”… it’s all getting quite monotonous.

  4. #4 Ed Darrell
    February 18, 2011

    It’s time to audit Joanne Nova. Why won’t she submit her stuff for peer review, for audit and, if errors are found, correction?

    What is Joanne Nova hiding?

  5. #5 JamesA
    February 18, 2011

    @Mike: Based of previous experience, I would venture there are other possible chains of events:

    3. Someone will point out a minute procedural flaw, such as not interviewing the chief scientist’s pet cat.
    4. The deniers will claim the audit is a sham and a whitewash and demand another.

    or…

    3. Some bright spark manages to quote-mine half a sentence in the report that would imply some sort of contradiction to something Al Gore once said (providing the reader doesn’t understand statistics).
    4. Based on that, certain newspapers run headlines stating the complete opposite of the findings and claim victory.

    Note I didn’t include a 1 or a 2 in any of those. Nothing will change those and the deniers know it.

  6. #6 JamesA
    February 18, 2011

    Sorry, those numbers should have been 3s and 4s, not 1s and 2s. My final point would have made much more sense then. I really should use the preview button more…

  7. #7 Sou
    February 18, 2011

    Australia has loonies, but is a far cry from being run by loonies like the lawmakers in South Dakota who passed a law that says that climate change could be caused by astrology.

    We have had extremist A-G’s like the ex-South Australian A-G, but none quite so extreme as the crackpot in Virginia who wants to scour all the emails sent to and from the University of Virginia to see if he can find a phrase to misquote a phrase that ‘proves’ AGW is all a fraud.

    Cory proves there are extremist cranks elected to the Australian parliament. We have other home grown examples, but their crackpot ideas are rarely if ever acted upon.

    Nova is a crank in more than climate science. I understand she’s a ‘gold bug’ and promotes several odd conspiracy theories. Most people would never have heard of her.

    I don’t think The Climate Sceptics party managed to get anyone elected. Again, most people would never have heard of it.

    Does anyone know what constitutes a ‘formal request to the Australian National Audit Office’? Is a 60 page request any more formal than a one page letter or email?

    I suppose if the ANAO decided to act on the ‘formal request’, anyone else can make their views known on whether disrupting collection of weather data and climate research is the most appropriate use of taxpayer funds, particularly given the recent repetitive record precipitation and flooding of much of Australia, following a decade of record high temperatures and probably a greater number of serious bushfires than we’ve had in total in the previous 100 years.

    http://www.anao.gov.au/contact.cfm

    In any case, shutting down BoM and the CSIRO won’t make global warming disappear. (It would make it worse if it delayed mitigation). And in terms of adaptation, we won’t get as good advance warning of what to prepare for.

  8. #8 ianash
    February 18, 2011

    Please write to the Auditor General pointing out these issues.

    These right wing hit squads make me puke.

  9. #9 Fred Knell
    February 18, 2011

    TL said: “I pointed out that the Australian Bureau of Meteorology trends agreed with those from the NOAA”. Of course they do, as NOAA gets its data from BoM. By all means rubbish Senator Cory Bernardi, Joanne Nova, Andrew Barnham, Anthony Cox, James Doogue, Chris Gillham, Ken Stewart, Dr David Stockwell, but only after you have perused the data in their supporting paper. Until then mere armwaving like eveything here so far is just that. There is in fact a case to answer, just answer it.

  10. #10 frank -- Decoding SwiftHack
    February 18, 2011

    Fred Knell:

    > There is in fact a case to answer, just answer it.

    Lame excuse. Why should anyone waste time answering your so-called “case”, when you know full well that you’ll simply ignore the answer?

    What will it take for you to admit, ‘hmm, I see, it’s quite possible that Joanne Nova is full of dung’?

  11. #11 frank -- Decoding SwiftHack
    February 18, 2011

    Anyway, I wonder Joanne Nova is merely jealous of climate scientists’ sex lives. :-B

  12. #12 TrueSceptic
    February 18, 2011

    This is absurd. Isn’t it about time the skeptards were told just go away and stop wasting public money and everyone’s time?

    And when their “evidence” is shown to be false, legal action should ensue.

  13. #14 jakerman
    February 18, 2011

    Here is what the Moron Nova is copying: http://joannenova.com.au/2010/10/new-zealand-niwa/

    Here is Nova’s killer quote:
    >*Reading between the lines, it’s obvious NIWA can’t explain or defend the adjustments.*

    After that complete beatup- and vindication of the NIWA temperature record, Nova and Co want us to go through the same exercise. She really like the short term buzz, and care nought for wasting money that we should be spending of reducing the warming rather than attacking the messenger.

  14. #15 jakerman
    February 18, 2011

    >*She really like the short term buzz, and care nought for wasting money that we should be spending of reducing the warming rather than attacking the messenger.*

    Oh yeah, and then there will be the next concocted reason, and then the next why we cant afford to mitigate climate change.

  15. #16 Jeremy C
    February 18, 2011

    I guess one use of these sort of projects by various deniers is to keep the faithful fired up and their whole thing alive.

    Perhaps they are hoping for another ‘climategate’ which was a brilliant and inexpensive coup (how much would it have cost to do….a hundred bucks?) aided and abetted by many (but not all) broadsheet journalists more interested in having an ‘exciting’ story’ to discuss than digging for evidence. And this is just another push that they hope will go the climategate distance i.e. they’ll keep trying one idea after another hoping to get another big hit while small hits will do.

    Meanwhile some poor bugger in the Attorney General’s department has to trawl through 64 pages of guff – again another smart thing by the deniers, lots of pages obscure whats going on. You gotta hand it to the deniers, they are smart, dedicated nay fanatical, driven nay slaves to ideology, can twist things so tying up scientists unused to this sort of thing and they have targets while they are very good at not being targets except for people like Monkers. These aspects make them very dangerous

    A guy deep in the sustainability network once told me that the deniers were ‘finished’…..that was about four months before ‘climategate’.

    The deniers won’t stop, their egos won’t let them.

  16. #17 MapleLeaf
    February 18, 2011

    If the result of the audit is not what they claim, then the complainants in this case should foot the cost, as it is clearly vexatious, not to mention pure harassment, and a fishing expedition

    Anyone care to parse out the lower tropospheric RSS temps and compare those with the surface temperature record over Oz? Same should be done using the reanalysis data. And you know what? I bet my house that they will be in excellent agreement for the period of overlap.

  17. #18 Mike
    February 18, 2011

    @9, oh don’t worry Fred. The data will get perused.

    Perhaps even more surprisingly for you, it will get perused by people who actually have a long-term education in the relevant scientific field, rather than people who got their climate science education over the internet.

    But let’s be honest Fred. You and I both know this is nothing more than a fishing expedition, right? You guys don’t have any meaningful contribution to add. You just desperately want to find fault with what is already out there.

  18. #19 Sou
    February 18, 2011

    Meanwhile, in the USA, Republicans are wanting to shut down the EPA, turn off NASA climate satellites and generally cease climate research and environmental regulation and monitoring. I think like Nova and her crazy crew, the GOP is of the view that if we don’t understand what is happening and why, it won’t happen.

  19. #20 Strider
    February 18, 2011

    Is there a possibility that logic could prevail and someone say “We know what you’re trying to do and we’re *not* going to waste the taxpayers’ money and our time.”?

  20. #21 Jeremy C
    February 18, 2011

    Strider,

    >Is there a possibility that logic could prevail and someone say “We know what you’re trying to do and we’re not going to waste the taxpayers’ money and our time.”?

    I’ve got a solution that should satisfy everyone on this funding thing. We find something that belongs to us taxpayers, something that isn’t of much use, sell it and that will fund this malarkey. I have the perfect thing! Barnaby Joyce’s taxpayer paid for 4WD. If we sell that it should cover the costs of this audit……. Oh…….sorry……I think there might be a problem with this suggestion..Whoops!

  21. #22 Vince Whirlwind
    February 18, 2011

    Joanne Codling cracks me up:
    ” We need the full explanations of why individual stations have been adjusted repeatedly and non-randomly, and why adjustments were made decades after the measurements were taken.”

    “non-randomly”?????

    How dare they make NON-RANDOM adjustments to the readings?!?!??!

    She really is a complete moron.

  22. #23 jerryg
    February 18, 2011

    Sorry for OT post, just came across [this](http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/02/15/hunton_williams_wikileaks_chamber/) . It mentions the Koch funding against climate change.

  23. #24 Billy Bob Hall
    February 18, 2011

    The audit sounds like a good idea to me. But then you already knew that.
    Oh, I like the title ‘Citizen Scientist’ too, although it has Stalinist undertones, but I like it nonetheless.
    Have a nice day ya’ll ! :-)

  24. #25 Fran Barlow
    February 18, 2011

    Tim:

    the likely outcame {outcome}

  25. #26 MikeH
    February 18, 2011

    Slightly off topic but Bernardi’s fellow climate crank and Senator S Fielding has organised a “Federal Senate Inquiry into The Social and Economic Impact of Rural Wind Farms”. The word was obviously sent out in advance to the denialosphere as the initial public submissions were flooded by cranks. The public submissions are listed [here](http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/clac_ctte/impact_rural_wind_farms/submissions.htm) including one titled “A cost-effectiveness metric for climate mitigation policies” from Monckton. Not all submissions (including over 1000 from members of the Hepburn Community Wind Park Co-operative) have been posted to date.

  26. #27 Sceptic Lank
    February 18, 2011

    “PENNY Sackett has resigned as Australia’s chief scientist”
    Rumour is that she has changed her convictions on AGW and is now against the labour-Green government’s purile attempts to tax CO2 as a remedy for a non-problem.

  27. #28 Fran Barlow
    February 18, 2011

    Septic Lank said:

    Rumour is that …

    Correction: The malicious and misanthropic rumour you’d like to spread is …

    That’s all your lot have: malicious and misanthropic rumours spread by utter charlatans.

  28. #29 chek
    February 18, 2011

    [Septic Tank said: "Rumour is...."](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/the_war_on_the_bureau_of_meteo.php#comment-3331952)

    Now be sure to make that 2 seconds worth of oxygen last as long as you can, Septic.

  29. #30 Mike Pope
    February 18, 2011

    If ANAO had any sense it would ignore Joanne Nova or, better still, invite applicants seeking a special audit of BOM to undertake to pay the full cost of that audit. Surely she – and her compatriots – do not expect Australian taxpayers to foot the bill for showing their aberrations to be unsupported.

    I wonder why their application is not supported by Sen. Nick Minchin? Minchin once famously described AGW as an abomination and the result of an international conspiracy to establish socialist world government. Quite reminded me of that other fruitcake, Lord Monckton in full flight!

  30. #31 Fran Barlow
    February 18, 2011

    They should be compelled to lodge a deposit not less than the foreshadowed cost of the audit, to be held in escrow by ANAO. If the audit raises no serious matter pertinent to public policy then the proposers should be liable for all costs incurred and the deposit forfeit.

  31. #32 Holly Stick
    February 18, 2011

    #23 jerryg the law firm Hunton & Williams which does do work for Koch Industries and Bank of America among others (it’s a big firm), appears to be tied to a dirty tricks campaign on a union and activist groups:
    http://www.seiu.org/2011/02/us-chamber-of-commerce-law-firm-linked-to-dirty-tr.php

    http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2011/02/17/hunton-williams-left-fingerprints-at-seiu/

    So it’s worth wondering about a “climategate” connection.

  32. #33 ianash
    February 18, 2011

    I see Cory Bernardi is in the press again – cheap racists attacks on mulsims (backed up by Bolt of course).

  33. #34 Ken Fabos
    February 18, 2011

    This kind of c**p just keeps on coming quicker than we can flush. Not to mention the flush resistant floaters of denial and doubt like Plimer and Pielke, Monckton and McIntyre.

    And all the while real commitment to action on emissions is delayed that bit longer. Will we see keeping up with the repair bills from climate related damage exceeding all spending on prevention as a permanent political expedient?

  34. #35 zoot
    February 18, 2011

    @26:

    …after the country’s chief scientist, Penny Sackett, resigned halfway through her five-year appointment amidst reports of disagreements with the government over its failure to act quickly enough to tackle greenhouse gas emissions.

    From [here](http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2027420/japan-steps-renewables-support)

  35. #36 Ken Fabos
    February 19, 2011

    @23 & @31 – and those who made the most of CRU’s emails being made public are realising that their own contain material far more damaging. Not that it will have a big impact while the mainstream media avoids its civic role of informing in favour of placation of powerful interests. No doubt that the new journalistic paradigm that wikileaks is pioneering scares the hell out those with stuff to hide. Even if they can nail Assange, this is a method of outing bad behaviour that will not end with his demise.

  36. #37 jakerman
    February 19, 2011

    >*How dare they make NON-RANDOM adjustments to the readings?!?!??!*

    I laughed went I read it last night, and I laughed again tonight.

    Thank you Vince.

  37. #38 Mike
    February 19, 2011

    @22. LOL. All denialists would know that she is onto something here – the data has been non-randomly adjusted by scientists, and that stinks of conspiracy.

    I think it would be fun to take important scientific datasets and randomly adjust them to see what we come up with!

    If only Douglas Adams were alive today, he could collect AGW “sceptic” quotes like this and make a hilarious book out of them, I’m sure.

    AGW sceptics complain a lot that we call them names like “dumb”, “moronic”, and so on. But you know, if the shoe fits…..

  38. #39 jakerman
    February 19, 2011

    Lank, meet an informed rumor:

    >*Penny Sackett, resigned halfway through her five-year appointment amidst reports of disagreements with the government over its failure to act quickly enough to tackle greenhouse gas emissions.*

    No sweat though Lank, you cred couldn’t fall any lower.

    Thanks Zoot.

  39. #40 Canturi
    February 19, 2011

    So a very political set of comments to date. Of course the call for “an audit” is good political theatre.

    But nobody think that in Ken Stewart’s detailed analyses of complaint that he might have something? Or is that too heretical? Anyone checked themselves or are we just all “confident”.

  40. #41 MartinM
    February 19, 2011

    If you think he has something, why not tell us what?

  41. #42 Canturi
    February 19, 2011

    Simply that there are many adjustments to data. And those adjustments don’t seem well based, documented and are in one direction only.

  42. #43 chek
    February 19, 2011

    Canturi said: “And those adjustments don’t seem well based to untrained, unscientific cranks and a divorce lawyer.

    There, fixed that for you, Cant.

    Incidentally, are the aforementioned cranks, lunatics and a divorce lawyer more likely to save the world from some fiendish international conspiracy by professional scientists, or merely reveal themselves to be clueless cranks, lunatics and a divorce lawyer?

    Be honest now…

  43. #44 Canturi
    February 19, 2011

    Well cheky that’s my point isn’t it? Instead of a scientific comment you get the infantile abuse that this thread contains. Getting worse than Nova’s bitchfest. No grand extrapolation to global conspiracy is required, but what we have in the comments is the philosophy of ideologues who have never ever worked with Australian climate data – it’s bad stuff – some sites move a few kms (to the airport), UHI, are discontinuous, are sometimes poorly managed. If you had actually worked with real climate data you’d be worried. Anyway next time you’d like to comment, put your Mum on.

  44. #45 luminous beauty
    February 19, 2011

    >but what we have in the comments is the philosophy of ideologues who have never ever worked with Australian climate data – it’s bad stuff – some sites move a few kms (to the airport), UHI, are discontinuous, are sometimes poorly managed.

    Well, duh. These are the very bases of the adjustments those who do work, professionally, on _weather_ data (it isn’t useful climate data until the adjustments are done) that you seem to think aren’t justified.

    You are projecting your own lack of expertise on those who do have expertise. You aren’t reasoning critically, you are rationalizing from a predetermined mindset. Common tactics of those who are in denial.

  45. #46 frank -- Decoding SwiftHack
    February 19, 2011

    Canturi:

    Again, what evidence will it take for you to agree that there might actually be nothing nefarious going on with the temperature data, and that Joanne Nova might actually be full of dung?

    (Funny… after Fred Knell was trolling about how there’s “a case to answer”, I asked Fred Knell a similar question, and he disappeared.)

    frank

  46. #47 caerbannog
    February 19, 2011

    During last year’s winter holiday break, I had more than the usual amount of vacation time to burn off. That, coupled with the unusual stretch of rainy weather here in So. California, meant that I had some spare time to perform my own basic “audit” of NASA’s global temperature results.

    But instead of nitpicking NASA’s work, I decided to try coding up my own global-temperature anomaly calculation software. I got a basic, crude application up and running in just a weekend’s time. The app computed simple “dumb averages” (no gridding or anything fancy like that) of the GHCN station anomalies. My “dumb average results pretty closely resembled NASA’s “Northern Latitudes” temperature index. Given that the GHCN stations tend to be concentrated in the temperate northern latitudes, this should come as no surprise. With my simple crude app, I was able to confirm that the raw and “adjusted” GHCN station data generated very similar global-average results. I really wasn’t very hard, and took me just a bit more than a weekend of “rainy-day” spare time do to this.

    Then a couple of weeks ago, I ended up having to go in for some emergency surgery (from which I’ve been recovering nicely). The post-op recovery “down time” gave me the opportunity to add some goodies to my software.

    I added simple gridding/geospatial weighting capabilities to my software (surprisingly easy with Standard Template Library goodies), plus the ability to compare rural vs. urban station and dropped vs “non-dropped” station results. (“Dropped” stations, of course, refers to those stations that Watts/D’Aleo accused NOAA of deliberately dropping from the temperature record back in the 1990′s, supposedly to fudge the global temperature record). I also added the ability to generate ensembles of results computed from randomly chosen GHCN station subsets. I found that I could throw away 90 percent (or more) of the stations at random and still get results quite consistent with what I get from processing all of the stations.

    I was able to do all this during my post-surgery recovery period (whilst popping the occasional pain-pill from time to time).

    So, what did I find? Well, when I processed GHCN data, my simple gridding procedure yielded results remarkably similar to NASA’s “Meteorological Stations” index. Plot of my results vs. NASA’s can be seen here: http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/1028/ghcnrawmyresultsnasares.jpg (GHCN raw data, 5-year moving average)

    And here’s what I got when I compared raw vs. adjusted data: http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/470/ghcnrawvsadjustedpublis.jpg (11-year moving average from here on)

    And what about urban vs. rural stations (GHCN raw data)? Well, here are my results for that comparison: http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/5176/ghcnrawruralvsurbanpubl.jpg

    And finally, what about the Watts/D’Aleo claim that NOAA’s “dropping” all those stations back in the 1990′s skewed the global-temperature results? Well, here’s a plot of global temperature anomalies for “all stations” vs. “dropped stations excluded” (again, GHCN raw data): http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/4706/ghcnrawnodroppedvsallpu.jpg

    The adjusted data did produce a modestly greater post-1970 warming trend than did the raw data, but both data sets still show very significant warming.

    Urban vs. Rural: The differences are quite minimal, even for the GHCN raw data — so it’s quite clear that the UHI claims are quite overblown.

    As for “all stations” vs “dropped stations excluded”? Once again, the differences were minimal, showing that the whole “dropped stations” issue is really a complete non-issue.

    I did this in my spare time in two phases over just a couple of weeks (the first phase, handicapped by beer; the second phase, handicapped by pain meds).

    The result of my “audit”? NASA — passes with flying colors. Watts/D’Aleo — epic FAIL.

  47. #48 Hank Roberts
    February 19, 2011

    > Fred Knell … disappeared
    He’s at the bottom of the borehole, as of minutes ago.

  48. #49 Harold Pierce Jr
    February 19, 2011

    ATTN: Deltoid Dingo Dogs!

    Go to:

    http://www.wolframalpha.com

    In the info entry box enter “weather Darwin Australia”. Click on the red box with the equal sign.

    The computer returns weather data for the current day.

    In the weather history and forecast section click on the drop down menu and then click on “All”

    The computer displays weather data and plots from about ca 1940 and the OLS trend data. For Darwin the trend is 0.00076 deg C per year. At this rate it would take 1,300 years for mean temperature to increase by 1 deg C.

    Note that temp is reported to the nearest deg C and the site of the weather station is given.

    If no data can found the computer display general info on weather and climate.

    This site can be used as an quick independent check on data from NOAA, BoM, GISS, etc and on who is and who is not lying.

  49. #50 caerbannog
    February 19, 2011


    In the info entry box enter “weather Darwin Australia”. Click on the red box with the equal sign.

    Well, some folks may consider Darwin, Australia to be the center of the universe. But hopefully very few would confuse it with the whole planet. I mean, the “global” in “global warming” really does mean something (even if that meaning is lost on folks like Mr. Pierce).

  50. #51 Ken Fabos
    February 19, 2011

    caerbannog @46 – that sounds way too scientific to be trusted. And ” a modestly greater post-1970 warming trend than did the raw data” is a clear admission that it’s been cooling since 1970. Sounds like a lose-lose on temperature data caerbannog.

  51. #52 Canturi
    February 19, 2011

    Luminous You Beauty – now to be renamed “Come in Spinner” sez “These are the very bases of the adjustments those who do work, professionally, on weather data (it isn’t useful climate data until the adjustments are done) ”

    Now this would have to go down as the one of the great drongo comments of all time. (well I think you mean basis or perhaps you do mean hexadecimal – but anyway …) – obviously you’ve never worked with climate data either. The only reason adjustments are made is to try to compensate for station moves or UHI. It’s dreadful business – alchemy – would be better if you had a well maintained thermometer at a well maintained site that had not moved for 100 years that was well out of town. But reading the thermometer every day is pretty boring so we often don’t. It’s pretty blood basic.

    So don’t worry about our rabid Jo Nova – she’s just exploiting the window – Ken Stewart has done the maths – http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/ and he’s been banging away for months. And he directly engaged BoM. He’s right into the detail not superficialities like you lot.

    So don’t get all tense and worked up our our sceptic mafia. Is this guy right our not.

    And if you haven’t gotten some climate data out of ADAM and had a bit of look yourself (or worse have never heard of ADAM) – maybe you haven’t a clue ! And you will have stopped thinking like most sceptics and like them just raving.

  52. #53 Mike
    February 19, 2011

    Harold’s comment is yet another regurgitation of flawed sceptical thinking, lazy research and total misunderstanding. The usual pseudo-sceptical stuff.

    I was going to explain why, but you know this will make the 1000th time so far this year and we’re not even into March yet. So I just can’t be bothered.

    Canturi, you complain that “…what we have in the comments is the philosophy of ideologues who have never ever worked with Australian climate data – it’s bad stuff”.

    Yet the sceptics won’t even concede that those who have worked with Australian climate data have homogenised the datasets appropriately, and that the data reflects reality. Even when the BoM explains on their website how the high-quality site data works, and in the scientific papers, how they are homogenised.

    The sceptical position can be neatly summed up as:

    “We don’t trust the climate data prepared by anyone, even those who are experts in the field, unless it shows that global warming isn’t happening. Then we trust it implicitly, even if it has been assessed by someone whose only climate qualifications are that they run an internet blog”.

  53. #54 chek
    February 19, 2011

    Re: kenskingdom. “The top referring sites in 2010 were wattsupwiththat.com, joannenova.com.au, blogs.news.com.au, landshape.org, and climategate.com”.

    Thanks for the confirmation we’re dealing with cranks and crank egos, Cant.

  54. #55 Mike
    February 19, 2011

    Canturi:

    “Instead of a scientific comment you get the infantile abuse that this thread contains.”

    Canturi (a few hours later, responding to Luminous Beauty):

    “Now this would have to go down as the one of the great drongo comments of all time.”

    Care for a slice of hypocrisy, anyone?

  55. #56 Gaz
    February 19, 2011

    Canturi@51:

    Luminous You Beauty – now to be renamed “Come in Spinner” sez “These are the very bases of the adjustments those who do work, professionally, on weather data (it isn’t useful climate data until the adjustments are done)”

    Now this would have to go down as the one of the great drongo comments of all time. (well I think you mean basis or perhaps you do mean hexadecimal – but anyway..

    Canturi, “bases” is the plural of “basis”. The use of the word “are” should have been a clue.

    Duh.

    Much fanfare and crowing, complete with sneering insults, about what turns out to have been a non-existent error, which would have been trivial even it existed..

    Denialism in microcosm.

  56. #57 Dave R
    February 19, 2011

    Canturi:
    >Is this guy right our not.

    If he wants to find out he should submit his analysis to a relevant peer-reviewed journal.

    If he doesn’t, one can only conclude that like Watts, he knows very well that he’s not right and is only interested in feeding conspiracy stories to anyone gullible enough to swallow them.

  57. #58 Harold Pierce Jr
    February 19, 2011

    ATTN: Deltoid Dingo Dogs Caerbannog and Mike

    Why don’t you dingo dogs get pencils and paper, use wolframalpha to get temp data for many the cities in Oz, record the data, compute the trends for various regions of the country and compare the results to BoM data? But you all won’t do this because you all are lazy and dumb and ain’t go no curiosity.

    Global warming? What global warming? The late great John Daly analyzed temp data from permenently-sited remote weather stations with long records and good record-keeping protocols and found no evidence for global warming.

    Go check Alice Springs with WA.

    BTW, Toronto is the center of the universe.

    BTW It is Dr Pierce not Mr Pierce.

  58. #59 Vince Whirlwind
    February 19, 2011

    Harold,
    if you have some information that adds in some way to the sum of our knowledge about climate, you will no doubt write up an academic paper explaining your data and your methods and have it published somewhere relevant.

    Until you’ve done that, your assertions are nothing but hot air.

    Oh, and the fact you call the kook John Daly “great” gives us some clue as to your credibility.

  59. #60 Canturi
    February 19, 2011

    All the usual denial and cognitive dissonance. Now Ken Stewart should be easy to dismiss? So why hasn’t he been?

    What we have is the appeal to “leave it to the professionals”, “get published” and so on. The equivalent of “la la la la we don’t want to discuss”

    Reality is that he has run amok. BoM don’t have their processes documented in detail. Adjustments have value judgements galore. There’s also a saying “good enough for government work”. You’ll find more issues in data and assumptions behind the Greenhouse Office’s FULLCAM inventory model. Another example. Of course the irony here is that David Evans (Jo’s hubby) had a hand in developing it. LOL.

    And you clowns don’t know – all you’re doing is responding with the usual appeal to authority. Stewart has made some very detailed analyses. Not a SINGLE rebuttal here. Not one. Shame on you – and you’re supposed to be the good guys !

    I think it’s very disturbing that this issue has been building for over a year and hasn’t been hit for six out of the arena. Being a warmist – I’m pissed off ! I expect better of our national record. I expect it to be robust.

    Climate data are horrid stuff. These old weather systems were never designed for detailed climate change analyses. Often not measured on weekends. We should not be surprised there are issues.

    Has a single rusted-on believer here EVER had to get some climate data from BoM and analyse it. Come on step up – tell us your experience !

  60. #61 Ian Forrester
    February 19, 2011

    Pierce, did you get your Ph.D at the same second rate establishment as chronic liar and denier Girma O? Sounds like it.

  61. #62 jakerman
    February 19, 2011

    Harold,

    Your petty friends tried the same caper, in the US and failed, then tried again in NZ and failed [vindicating the temperature record](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/the_war_on_the_bureau_of_meteo.php#comment-3327110).

    How about you educate yourself on the science instead of trying to smear the messenger.

  62. #63 Chris O'Neill
    February 19, 2011

    Livewire Harold Pierce Jr:

    What global warming?

    Pure and simple global warming denialism.

  63. #64 Canturi
    February 19, 2011

    It’s actually very simple for to put this to bed. BoM’s FTP site – with raw data, adjusted data, station histories, programs and adjustment rationale. Procedure for excluding other stations and notes. Should be there now on-line. As a taxpayer don’t you think it should be?

  64. #65 caerbannog
    February 19, 2011


    Go check Alice Springs with WA.

    BTW, Toronto is the center of the universe.

    BTW It is Dr Pierce not Mr Pierce.

    Hey Pierce, I find your rantings oddly comforting in a certain way — they reassure me that not all the loons in the world live in my hemisphere.

  65. #66 Dave R
    February 19, 2011

    >”leave it to the professionals”, “get published” and so on. The equivalent of “la la la la we don’t want to discuss”

    We are not under any obligation to waste our time disproving the fantasies of every crackpot who comes along. Anyone who thinks they have anything important to say and wants to show that they are not just yet another one of the anti-science lunatics, needs to publish in a relevant peer reviewed journal. The fact that those promoting these claims refuse to submit them to scientific scrutiny shows that they know full well that they are worthless.

  66. #67 Chris O'Neill
    February 19, 2011

    Canturi:

    Anyone checked themselves or are we just all “confident”.

    They were confident when the boy cried “wolf” for the third time that he was lying. Canturi is merely pointing out that Ken Stewart is crying “wolf” for the third time and like the boy who cried “wolf”, this time he is telling the truth.

  67. #68 Canturi
    February 19, 2011

    So there we have – no real data analysts. Just spruikers. And rusted on believers.

    And I hold you goons responsible for your attitudes which has just allowed this to happen.

    http://www.climatedepot.com/r/9853/Another-victory-for-science-House-votes-244179-to-kill-US-funding-of-UN-IPCC-It-no-longer-wishes-to-have-the-IPCC-prepare-its-comprehensive-international-climate-science-assessments

    This is the result of your fetid elitism. Thanks for helping guys.

    Now go and have a big whinge and sook. It’s YOUR fault.

  68. #69 Jeremy C
    February 19, 2011

    Canturi

    >It’s actually very simple for to put this to bed. BoM’s FTP site – with raw data, adjusted data, station histories, programs and adjustment rationale. Procedure for excluding other stations and notes. Should be there now on-line. As a taxpayer don’t you think it should be?

    Thats fine matey…….nice sounding reasonable language…..coo, who could deny such truthful sounding reasonableness However, the track record of deniers on this sort of thing is to make a moral-high-horse-sounding demand and then when it is a) pointed out to you that it already exists or b) it is carried out nothing more is heard from you guys, no analysis, no discussion. You just move onto the next bit of propaganda. This is just an excuse to win points in the ideologically motivated struggle against science by those who tell you what to think.

  69. #70 John
    February 19, 2011

    Tell me Canturi, why would the BoM deliberately be manipulating data to show warming? What benefits could it have for them?

  70. #71 Jeremy C
    February 19, 2011

    Canturi @ 66,

    Ohhhhhh that is such a funny hilarious comment.

    You are imputing to us et al super powers affecting the judgement and decisions of a particular group in US politics.

    Matey, I would love to have such a super power. Just think I would sit down all those deniers and show them how their ideology and selfish egos ‘collective’ are damaging science and so damaging society and leading to damage of the biosphere. Then the result of this super power would them all recanting in the public square.

    Not.

  71. #72 Jeremy C
    February 19, 2011

    Canturi,

    I’m curious.

    When did your ‘concerns’ about BoM start? Can you give us a month, a year, something not vague? How did these concerns arise e.g. through a publication, conversations with people who have a track record in BoM’s work in this area, your own work in this area?

    Why do you believe the voices that say BoM is doing something wrong in this area? What questions did you put to the voices in return? Have you taken these concerns directly to BoM?

    I’m genuinely curious.

  72. #73 Mike
    February 19, 2011

    I’m confused, Canturi. Aside from being somewhat of a hypocrite as discussed @54 above, you’re a pissed off warmist? Or are you a “sceptic”? (Hey, just pointing out that lambasting others for slinging petty insults, then letting the odd one loose youself, could be seen as a bit disingenuous.)

    But hey, I’m all for resolving discrepencies if they use the exact same dataset but come up with different adjusted results, even if this makes no difference whatsoever to the probability of AGW. Once again though, one has to wonder what Ken Stewart is trying to achieve. I ask this, because his blog is littered with language which fully complies with the “big fat greenie conspiracy” side of things which you so often hear espoused on certain blogs.

    And to be honest, I’ve read through many comments on Ken’s blog (including his own), and while alleging false biases introduced by the BoM, he introduces a few of his own. For example, Ken talks loudly of a “warming bias” without any evidence whatsoever that the adjustments are actually improper. He even, for example, looks at individual site adjustments with comments:

    Bairnsdale: “cooled, thankfully”
    Melbourne: “cooling, but is it enough?”

    ….and so on.

    Seriously, are these the words of an unbiased assessor? Seriously, Canturi? The bizarre thing here is that Ken seems to think that if a cooling adjustment is made, that adjustment is by default correct. Yet if a warming adjustment is made, that is by default suspicious.

    Ken goes on to mock the BoM prediction of approximately how much warming will occur up to 2030, stating that it will require accelerating warming above that shown by the historical record, but in the “business as usual” case, this is exactly what is predicted will happen by climate scientists around the world.

    Ken concludes that the homogenised data does not provide an accurate record, yet provided no conclusive evidence of such. Just a bunch of assertions and assumptions.

    Ken goes onto to ask, just before calling for an investigation, that “if AGW is so certain, why the need to exaggerate?”. Once again Ken jumps to a conclusion based on his own assertions and insinuations, with no conclusive evidence at this point in time. Does it sound like he is unbiased? Nope. Not to me anyway.

    Perhaps the adjustments to the BoM data are indeed too excessive. Perhaps the GISS adjustments are spot on. Either way, I doubt very much that this will change the evidence towards AGW, and I don’t blame anyone for being a little suspicious that this is merely yet another fishing expedition which will not alter the scientific facts in any significant way.

    But sure, let his analysis be rigorously checked by real (ie, not blog) scientists.

  73. #74 Fran Barlow
    February 19, 2011

    Canturi said:

    And I hold you goons responsible for your attitudes which has just allowed this to happen. … This is the result of your fetid elitism. Thanks for helping guys. {link to Repugs blocking IPCC funding} Now go and have a big whinge and sook. It’s YOUR fault.

    Classic ewxample of concern trolling. You’d like to cheer the Repugs, (what serious person self-refers as a warmist?)
    but instead you troll concern.

    This is simply the pollution-as-usual culture war agenda

  74. #75 Bernard J.
    February 20, 2011

    BTW It is Dr Pierce not Mr Pierce.

    Hmmm…

    A couple of years ago you were a chemistry technician, and my recollection was that you were retired. You certainly didn’t ever cotton on to why repeated applications of t-tests were statistically nonsensical.

    Do elaborate on your PhD. What is the focus of your research, and where might we find a copy of your thesis/dissertation?

    Forgive me if I believe that your claim is fraudulent.

  75. #76 zoot
    February 20, 2011

    Canturi @66:

    Thanks for helping guys.

    You’re welcome! Have a nice day.

  76. #77 Bernard J.
    February 20, 2011

    …unless of course you are one of these two HPJs:

    1. PART I: SYNTHESES OF BICYCLO(3.3.1)NONAN-3-ONE. PART II: INTRAMOLECULAR CHEMISTRY OF 9-CARBENABICYCLO(3.3.1)NON-2-ENE, A FOILED METHYLENE

      by PIERCE, HAROLD DWIGHT, JR. Ph.D., University of California, Irvine, 1973, 116 pages; AAT 7413851

    2. UTILIZATION OF CORN WITH HIGHER OIL AND PROTEIN CONTENT BY STEERS

      by PIERCE, HAROLD HUNTER, JR. Ph.D., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1956, 87 pages; AAT 0016418

    If you are one of these, then your tertiary education is sadly – grievously – lacking, given that your statistical knowledge would see a first-year undergraduate in general science fail.

  77. #78 robt
    February 20, 2011

    Name calling is the refuge of those who have no argument.
    I have 2 questions, and please excuse my ignorance as I don’t have a PHD in climate science. The BoM’s chart on mean temp anomaly shows 0.1C/decade rise whereas the HADCRUT SH chart shows 0.07C/decade rise. Unless South Africa and South America are getting colder, why is this so? If the level of CO2 is the same in both hemispheres, why is the temp rise lower in the SH?
    Thanks

  78. #79 Canturi
    February 20, 2011

    Fran “This is simply the pollution-as-usual culture war agenda” what sort of inside greenie goon speak is this? – try English and stop framing. First person to say concern troll loses Franny. Troll here = anyone who disagrees with your pre-determined values.

    When did this start – asks Jeremy – about 5:38:06 13 June 2007 I think it was. It started when Ken Stewart started publishing -check his blog. Initially I thought he was just another whinger but he kept going with more and more sites. BoM have now stone-walled him – just go away and publish he was told. Read his blog posts especially analyses and ask “is wrong on all of them”.

    “Why would BoM “DELIBERATELY” John (they’re soooo evil) manipulate the data” asks John – – well John who says its deliberate – you have “good enough for govt work” – do you think govt is that good all the time?” – if so why isn’t the pre-1957 daily records all data punched and not on paper – it’s called budgets, time frames, milestones, compromises, limited staff. You also have “group think” on a pre-determined outcome. Don’t need conspiracy theory.

    On the other hand you may fantasise they’re all leftie greenie enviro public servants on the govt payroll – did that help?

    And looks like nobody here has ever analysed any met data from BoM – how predictable.

    Mike -let’s not get into GISS yet – what GISS have been given may not even be correct.

  79. #80 Bernard J.
    February 20, 2011

    [On no](http://i55.tinypic.com/sq2f0h.jpg), another one.

    If the level of CO2 is the same in both hemispheres, why is the temp rise lower in the SH?

    Erm, because the hemispheres are not the same in other respects. Look at relative land mass distributions especially at the poles. Look also at ocean circulations, and…

    …aw heck, do your own learning.

  80. #81 Mike
    February 20, 2011

    Canturi, whoah boy. Easy.

    And looks like nobody here has ever analysed any met data from BoM – how predictable.

    So-freaking-what? Seriously. So what? I’ve never analysed data from particle accelerators around the world, but I’m confident that the numerous people who have studied nuclear physics for 30 years have a vague idea what they’re doing and that I don’t need to allege that the mass of the neutron has been fudged.

    I thought he was just another whinger but he kept going with more and more sites.

    And he analyses each site in the exact same way making the same assumptions – that the adjustments applied by the BoM are wrong. Oh, sorry, only if they show warming. The cooling trends, as pointed out above, he is quite “thankful” for. That doesn’t even arouse your suspicions in the slightest?

    C’mon Canturi. Are you honestly asking everyone to believe that it’s a rigorous scientific process to say “Well your results must be wrong. I have no idea why. But they’re wrong. Well, except the ones which show cooling. I have no idea why, but I suspect they’re right.”

    …what GISS have been given may not even be correct.

    Oh come off it. On what basis? It’s made clear way back in [Hansen](http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Hansen_etal.pdf) that GISS uses GHCN datasets without homogeniety adjustments (ie raw data), and Ken Stewart does not argue that the raw data has been “fudged”. Oh but hang on, he does imply that Hansen is a liar, so I guess we must disregard his paper, mustn’t we?

    Furthermore;

    Virtually all of Ken’s analysis is based on absolute temperature measurements, not anomalies. GISS is pretty clear about why they don’t do this. Ken mostly ignores this, though does briefly dabble in anomalies later. Once again, we don’t know how he actually calculated them, but he reckons he is right and everyone else is wrong.

    I’m totally perplexed over what Ken Stewart is rambling on about with regard to UHI effect. There are several papers on UHI effect, and the method of adjusting for this has been improved over the years. Ken doesn’t appear to read any of them, and doesn’t even show his workings so that anyone can check his application of UHI corrections is correct, while alleging that the GISS and BoM application of UHI is wrong!

    Ken goes on to make a big deal about UHI anyway, all the while ignoring scientific papers like [Peterson](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/wmo/ccl/rural-urban.pdf) and others which have covered it in great detail.

    My list of problems with the way he does things goes on and I don’t want this post to run into a ridiculous length.

  81. #82 cohenite
    February 20, 2011

    Mike’s comments about Ken Stewart’s work need clarifying; Mike says that we don’t know how Ken calculated his data [it is unclear whether Mike is referring to anomalies or the raw data]; I would think it is pretty plain what Ken is doing from even a simple perusal of this:

    http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2010/05/12/the-australian-temperature-record-part-1-queensland/

    As to the anomalies; this is a red herring; the primary issue is the comparison between the raw and the adjusted raw data. Ken’s approach to that is also plain.

    As to UHI, Mike has linked to the 2002 Peterson paper which finds no UHI effect; that is news! And news which is contradicted by many other papers; and of course BoM corrects for UHI; how it corrects we are not sure; but if it is like its NZ equivalent, NIWA, it corrects the UHI effect on raw data by increasing the temperature of the UHI affected data. Wondrous indeed.

  82. #83 jakerman
    February 20, 2011

    >*If the level of CO2 is the same in both hemispheres, why is the temp rise lower in the SH? Thanks*

    SH has a much larger fraction of ocean, and it takes more energy to heat water than land.

  83. #84 Canturi
    February 20, 2011

    Don’t blow a foofer valve Mike

    Now as for GISS – we could have a long debate about GISS – others (Nick Stokes) have checked the ruse arguments and I’m happy enough with the basic analysis. But it does come down to the numbers. You see Mike there are gaps in the Aussie data feed – data gets updated. Sometimes data doesn’t make it through. Sometimes updates are missed. GISS data from Aussie may be wrong and sometimes is. Do big numbers help and does it even out – probably. Hope so. Is it a big problem – dunno.

    But back on BoM and Kenny Stewart – I reckon he’s shown enough issues now to be a worry. Franny will call me a concern troll but I wish it was not so. I hope the sceptics get done like dinners in an audit – but you guys are too non-critical. You’ve swallowed the Kool Aid. There are UHI effects everywhere – country towns, moves to airports. Does it balance out – dunno?

    K Stewart thinks not.

    And if you’d checked some met data yourself you might be a bit more worried.

    And we should be able to answer this quickly and piss K Stewart off – but we can’t. So Cohenite thinks he’s on a winner. Hope it blows up in his face (well rhetorically of course – cream pie perhaps) but it may not …

    I have respect for anyone who bothers to go through the pain of getting the bloody data and graphing it, looking up the metadata and doing the site research. It’s hard yards. And that’s what K Stewart has done.

    But anyway you guys are all relaxed and comfortable so I’m sure it will all be OK. What was the phrase “This is simply the pollution-as-usual culture war agenda” meme thingo …

  84. #85 Mike
    February 20, 2011

    “…the primary issue is the comparison between the raw and the adjusted raw data. Ken’s approach to that is also plain.”

    What utter nonsense, cohenite.

    Ken’s approach is anything but plain. Every single comparison he does can be summed up with the conclusion “I don’t understand how they came up with the adjustments, but they seem excessive to me”. The approach is anything but plain. Ken doesn’t explain (not even once, cohenite) exactly what his workings were to make the adjustments either.

    Of course, if it were a climate scientist not showing his exact workings step by step, you’d be up in arms. But because it’s Ken, we’ll not worry about it, eh? We’ll just take him at his word that he “did it exactly how the GISS describe it”.

    You didn’t even read the Peterson paper, did you? It doesn’t find there is “no UHI effect”. It found “no statistically significant impact of urbanisation in annual temperatures”. Also, if you’d read it, you would’ve got a reasonable education on other temperature biases on pages 2947 to 2951.

    Great link though. On that page we see that the BoM actually supplied Ken with a detailed list of 15 reasons between 1897 and 1997 for the corrections to temperatures measured at the Roma site. Ken’s lame response? “Sorry, I’m not convinced”.

    Nope. There you have it. You can explain to Ken exactly what the adjustments were for. Doesn’t matter. He’s still not convinced. Well then, we should all just go home, eh?

  85. #86 Mike
    February 20, 2011

    Here’s an edited version of your post, Canturi.

    “Might…..maybe…..probably…..dunno……dunno……might be……”

    Yep. No doubt you’re really onto something solid there.

    Anyway, having read through all of Ken’s stuff, I’m left with the overwhelming impression he believes he is correct no matter what anyone else says. However his arguments on each and every station all come down to the same thing (unless they show cooling, which is an apparently acceptable adjustment). “The homogenisation is too much in favour of warming, and this is wrong, but I don’t really know why”.

    Whether real scientists want to entertain him remains to be seen I guess.

  86. #87 jakerman
    February 20, 2011

    Canturi: writes

    >“*stop framing*

    But only after Canturi frames with:

    >*And I hold you goons responsible for your attitudes which has just allowed this to happen. [Links to Climate Depot where discerning soles look for credible news]
    >*This is the result of your fetid elitism. Thanks for helping guys. Now go and have a big whinge and sook. It’s YOUR fault.*

    Actully Canturi you’ll find it dis information like that from climate depot, Glen Beck Fox news, Murdoch papers. Koch funded front groups, fossil funded “think” thanks, Watts up with that UHI nutters, the anti homogenisation Kooks NZ climate nutters and Nova nutters, and massive political advertising there the responsibility lies.

    It’s a consistent tactic sow a little doubt and then claim white wash when the record hold true. Or like Watts keep promising to publish his results always in Friedman-units of time.

    Canturi writes
    >*I hope the sceptics get done like dinners in an audit*

    I think more likely you don’t care that they will be done like dinners as its little tactical victory to get anything in the media to cast doubt on AGW. The accusation will get more sensationalised then the prosaic outcome.

    >*And if you’d checked some met data yourself you might be a bit more worried.*

    Do some more research Canturi, we’ve been through this before with Darwin Airport data. Oh I forgot you are a concern troll, you don’t actually care about that stuff.

    So given that a moderate carbon price is a no-regrets policy (cleans up Mercury etc, reduced respiratory disease, increases resilience to peak oil, small rise in sustainable energy sources and will have negligible impact on the economy), why spend money on this audit now? Wouldn’t this audit only make sense when we are debating deep biting restructuring? Even the Greens are only aksing for at low carbon price (less than $40/t C last time I looked).

    We’ve got better thing to do with our money than this PR gotcha tactic, or would you suggest a tax rise to pay for these pet audits? How about in the Biotech study data that is kept from public scrutiny?

  87. #88 Marion Delgado
    February 20, 2011

    Most of the short-term or one-off commenters on the whole internets by now are bots or sock puppets.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/16/945768/-The-HB-Gary-Email-That-Should-Concern-Us-All

    and that’s not even mentioning MSFT sock puppets during antitrust legislation, GIYUSbots, etc. etc.

  88. #89 frank -- Decoding SwiftHack
    February 20, 2011

    Marion, one thing I’m thinking about is whether it’s possible to programmatically detect HBGary’s sockpuppets.

  89. #90 jakerman
    February 20, 2011

    Checkout that UHI in [rural Australia](http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/ho/20100315a.pdf).

    Then checkout the huge jump in record number of hot days in in the 2000 decade due to government funding cuts.

    Then checkout the largest fall in number of record cold days occuring from the 1960s to 1980s. That was when government departments were much better.

  90. #91 Jack
    February 20, 2011

    This is the first time I have wondered on to this site and I have to admit to being amused by the apparently uninformed vitriol which dominates the comments. Here are just a few points most contributors appear to be blissfully unaware of:

    1. Someone asked why would BOM want to deliberately adjust the temperature record in favour of warming? I am not saying that they have, but I do know the BOM comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, currently Tony Bourke. He and his department have a clearly stated vested interest in the introduction of a price on carbon. His department grows and those within it gain greater kudos and job security only if the whole anthropogenic global warming theory is proven correct. The department is full of ‘environmental crusaders’ and ideologists. I’d say there is quite possibly a ‘warming bias’ within BOM because of this, even if it is simply to readily accept without too much scrutiny anything which endorses AGW.

    2. Many commentators write as if the NIWA 7SS temperature series was fully endorsed by the BOM review. What BOM did was a review of the methodology of adjustments of individual temperature stations within the 7SS. The review specifically excluded a review of the raw data and actual adjustments. In fact NIWA advised in late 2009 that the original data and workings were no longer available. For this reason, and their own admission in court that the original 7SS temperature series was not meant to be taken as an ‘official’ NZ temperature record, NIWA abandoned the original 7SS temperature series and introduced a revamped one. The revamped 7SS came out with roughly the same warming over the century, but most of that occurred in the first half, with a lower rate of warming in the second half of the century. The BOM review which stated it did not do an analysis of the data or metadata in relation to the revamped 7SS, also did not assess whether it was appropriate to use those 7 stations as a proxy for the temperature of the entire country.

    3. Many writers seem to think it is absurd to request an audit of BOM. In fact it is absurd to not audit BOM. Every other government body which provides important data to government policy makers is independently audited. Why should BOM be any different. The only reason they haven’t been audited historically is because the temperature record had only been of passing interest. In recent years, because of the concerns about climate change it is now of vital national interest and it is appropriate that the data and adjustments be audited, so that Australians can be confident in them.

    4. Many write about the high cost and waste of time and resources which an audit would entail. That is not used as an argument against auditing say tax payers, and nor should it. And in a similar way to tax payer audits, an audit of BOM should not involve checking every data set, simply a representative number of each data set. The cost would therefore not be prohibitive in relation to the importance of the BOM temperature records.

    5. Some of you have questioned the motives of those involved in putting the request together and some even questioned why their questions were not raised directly with BOM. Well if you read the papers attached to the request, the questions were raised with BOM and given inadequate or no response, or in some cases a response which has been shown to be untrue, (such as the suggestion that the adjustments were both up and down and roughly cancelled each other out so didn’t really change the record).

    6. I found it amusing that questions have been raised about the scientific credentials of the team who prepared the audit request yet the credentials of Tim Lambert is a ‘computer scientist’ and others here who state an absolute belief in AGW have failed to list any relevant credentials. In any event, it doesn’t take a PhD to work out 2+2 does not equal 5!

    7. Someone wrote that Ken provided no evidence of bias by the BOM. That person cannot have read the submission. I don’t know if the evidence is correct, but it is clearly shown.

    8. Finally I’d point out that despite the personal attacks on the team who signed the submission, there was no evidence given to support the accusations and name calling. I also note that none of the commentators at this site specifically addressed the details raised in the submission.

    I suggest that if people want to make valid comments about the submission, they should actually address the contents.

  91. #92 jakerman
    February 20, 2011

    Jack writes:

    >*Someone asked why would BOM want to deliberately adjust the temperature record in favour of warming? I am not saying that they have, but I do know the BOM comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, currently Tony Bourke. He and his department have a clearly stated vested interest in the introduction of a price on carbon. His department grows and those within it gain greater kudos and job security only if the whole anthropogenic global warming theory is proven correct.*

    Mmm, that Ministry was created in 2010. Burke was good the way he made global warming a concern before that wasn’t.

    I like Labor’s cunning plan of fixing the temperature record so that they could get thrown out of majority government for failing to act on carbon mitigation.

    Clever. Forgive me for failing to allocate precious time on reading the rest of you post.

  92. #93 Canturi
    February 20, 2011

    Well looks like Jakerman hasn’t ever worked with real data either. Just another post-modernist greenie dutifully believing everything she’s told. Heaven help us – caught between the sceptics and the greens. Yech.

  93. #94 Flying Binghi
    February 20, 2011

    .

    The common sense approach…

    Via Jack, #90; “…Every other government body which provides important data to government policy makers is independently audited. Why should BOM be any different. The only reason they haven’t been audited historically is because the temperature record had only been of passing interest. In recent years, because of the concerns about climate change it is now of vital national interest and it is appropriate that the data and adjustments be audited, so that Australians can be confident in them…”

    .

    .

    .

  94. #95 John
    February 20, 2011

    >”Why would BoM “DELIBERATELY” John (they’re soooo evil) manipulate the data” asks John – - well John who says its deliberate – you have “good enough for govt work” – do you think govt is that good all the time?” – if so why isn’t the pre-1957 daily records all data punched and not on paper – it’s called budgets, time frames, milestones, compromises, limited staff. You also have “group think” on a pre-determined outcome. Don’t need conspiracy theory.

    Shorter Canturi: I’m not saying the US did 9/11, but it was a controlled demolition and not Osama! Why won’t the government tell us the truth!

    A quick check of Stewart’s “about” page reveals he has a deep suspicion of governments and almost like he is driven by politics and not by science.

    Either that or the BoM have accidentally adjusted data upwards 100% of the time for no reason whatsoever.

  95. #96 John
    February 20, 2011

    Wikipedia defines a “concern troll” as

    >A concern troll is a false flag pseudonym created by a user whose actual point of view is opposed to the one that the user claims to hold. The concern troll posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group’s actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed “concerns”. The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt within the group.

    In other words Canturi pretends to be all concerned about the BoM data, but his weak attacks on the supposed “greenies” suggests, like Stewart, he is driven by political motives.

    Also the comment at #90 is a great satire. Nice work Jack. Tony Burke is the puppetmaster.

  96. #97 MpaleLeaf
    February 20, 2011

    @Jack,

    “He and his department have a clearly stated vested interest in the introduction of a price on carbon.”

    Bloody ignorant conspiracy theorists.

  97. #98 Canturi
    February 20, 2011

    John first person to say “concern troll” loses.

    “A quick check of Stewart’s “about” page reveals he has a deep suspicion of governments and almost like he is driven by politics and not by science.” says John

    What’s THAT – a citizen with deep suspicion of govt – unheard of !!! Well I never.

    well maybe he does have some issues – but perhaps the inhabitants here do too – isn’t the more important question – is he wrong? His analyses are laid out.

    My point is simple – few commentators here have not checked out Stewart’s statements. They’re 100% certain its sceptic b/s. And the quaint naivety of those who have never seen a column of met data or done a climate change trend analysis.

    Cross your fingers if there’s an audit.

  98. #99 Jeff Harvey
    February 20, 2011

    Jack opines, “I found it amusing that questions have been raised about the scientific credentials of the team who prepared the audit request yet the credentials of Tim Lambert is a ‘computer scientist’ and others here who state an absolute belief in AGW have failed to list any relevant credentials”.

    The vast majority of the scientific community – myself included – think the empirical evidence for AGW is very strong. Its not absolute, but it is strong. Attempts to downplay warming are based on a libertarian far-right political agenda that has nix to do with science. I think that Tim was correct to question the scientific credentials of those calling for an audit. May I suggest we audit the political agendas of the audit-callers in return? Or is this irrelevant? I certainly don’t think so. The whole thing to audit the BOM is IMO agenda driven, and to hell with science. The denialati have long veiled their political agendas in scientific clothing. The fact that people like Jack appear to give them the benefit of the doubt shows you where he is coming from, too.

  99. #100 Jeremy C
    February 20, 2011

    Canturi,

    Just curious. Are you saying there are no existing processes for auditing BoM’s measurement and statistical work and group academic output (e.g. peer review when BoM members publsih papers using BoM data)?

    If your answer is yes, then how and when did you or Ken Stewart or these audit pushers Cox (the divorce lawyer) et al go through and check these audit processes. If you haven’t looked for these things then perhaps you, Ken Stewrat etc should do so. You might find that Ken Stewart is wasting his time.

    Just curious, because the sceptics are so strong on checking things that they wouldn’t have let this go by would they Canturi.