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 Jeremy C
    February 20, 2011

    Canturi,

    Matey!

    >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.

    Given the track record of deniers then I think the onus is on deniers to explain themselves rather than demand organisations run around doing their bidding.

    Wouldn’t you agree that if a group of people, for ideological and ego led reasons, had spent the past couple of years lying outright and minipulating public discourse that it would be prudent to ignore what they say unless they can demonstrate clearly in the public that they are not lying.

    Thats what we are doing. These people have lied so consistently that it would be immoral to take them at their word as well as being fool hardy and a waste of time.

  2. #2 Vince Whirlwind
    February 20, 2011

    I frequently see letters to the editor from cranky pensioners who have mangled fact and lost sight of logic.
    Jack’s contribution above is a classic example:
    1/ Minister for Environment has a vested interest in carbon tax. His Dept. is full of environmental crusaders and ideologists.

    This collection of assertions displays complete ignorance of both politics as well as the Dept. of Environment.

    a. This portfolio is a poison chalice as a direct result of the climate change issue. The minister has a vested interest in NOT doing anything about it.

    b. Having done a lot of work in the Dept. myself, (as well as other government departments), I can categorically state that its typical employee can be characterised as a young, inexperienced, female recently graduated with a fairly low-level Arts degree, above-average presentation and mild liberal political views. I never saw anybody wearing sandals, no big bushy beards, no hippies, a very low proportion of mud-spattered 4WDs and no combi vans in the carpark and no discernable politics.

    So, Jack, I’ll attend to the rest of your catalog of opinions just as soon as you correct the errors already exposed in your very first point.

  3. #3 Jack
    February 20, 2011

    Jackerman @ 91 you (deliberately) failed to mention that before the latest adjustment to the minister’s portfolio BOM came under the National Climate Centre part of the Department of Environment and Heritage. You clearly have nothing relevant to say, your intention is simply to misdirect, so I do forgive you for not allocating time to reading the rest of my post.

    MpaleLeaf @ 96 – It is hardly a conspiracy theory when the department claims in their annual report year on year a strong, unquestioning belief in climate change caused largely by human CO2 emissions and the Government of the day, and the Minister of the day state a clear intention to introduce a price on carbon. It is simply a statement of fact that BOM have a vested interest in ‘proving’ the need. Such a vested interest would lead anyone within BOM to question anything which conflicts with that vested interest, but give anything which supports it a free pass. We have seen such things happen time and again in the scientific community. That is human nature. That is another reason why an independent audit of BOM is appropriate.

    Jeff Harvey @ 98, there have been many instances in the past when the vast majority of scientists have believed that empirical evidence was very strongly in support of a specific view and anyone who held a contrary view was considered a crank. Such attitudes and the peer pressure which goes with it have held back discoveries because scientists have not wanted to question the group think. (If you can’t think of any examples let me know and I’ll give you a few). The point is, “The vast majority of the scientific community”, doesn’t mean it’s correct. Also, my experience with the vast majority of scientific community is that most do not deal in climate science, so they simply assume that the IPCC and climate science literature has properly followed the scientific method and do not question it. The vast majority of peer reviewed papers on the subject start of with accepting the CO2, greenhouse gas theory and are simply looking at sources of CO2, or are looking at evidence that the globe is warming. There are still far too many variables in the climate system which we do not understand for climate scientists to know the explicit impact of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. It is a sad fact that some scientists have deliberately skewed the ‘evidence’, or the presentation of the ‘evidence’ to present an incorrectly favorable position regarding recent warming. (Mann’s Hockey Stick, Phil Jone’s truncated graph line hiding the decline are two famous examples).

    At various times the Climate departments of Russia, China and India have questioned the global temperature data presented in the IPCC reports as compiled by the CRU. When the CRU’s defence includes an admission that they have lost or deleted the data necessary to prove the accuracy of their records it isn’t surprising that questions on temperature records around the world are and have been raised. It hasn’t helped BOM’s credibility that they have not properly addressed the questions raised of them, or have given responses which have been found to be patently untrue.

    Under those circumstances, only those who want to have blind faith in BOM would not support an independent audit.

  4. #4 Chris O'Neill
    February 20, 2011

    Canturi:

    My point is simple – few commentators here have not checked out Stewart’s statements.

    You just don’t get it, do you? We’ve been through this before. Stewart brings up Darwin but it’s just the same old sam old.

  5. #5 Gaz
    February 20, 2011

    Flying Wingnut:

    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…”

    Actually, Flying, I’m confident in them because:

    (a) I’ve seen accusations of bias, fraud, etc, raised many times before before and they have invariably been shown to be utterly devoid of merit, and

    (b) I’m not a whacko loonie tin-foil-hatted paranoid conspiracy theorist nutcase.

  6. #6 chek
    February 20, 2011

    Jack @103 – the only sad fact around here Jack is that you seem to have swallowed every denialist talking point they’ve devised so far.

    Why not turn you’re so-called ‘sceptism’ towards the pre-packaged avalanche of drivel you’ve come to believe?

    If you’d like to show your true ‘sceptism’, how about itemising these BOM responses you describe as “found to be patently untrue”.

    Right here. Right now.

    Otherwise you’ll appear to be just another ill-educated denialist spouting the party line.

  7. #7 Jack
    February 20, 2011

    Vince Whirlwind @ 102
    Your approach is not novel. First you align me with “cranky pensioners who have mangled fact and lost sight of logic”. You then go on to counter a statement I didn’t make, as if I had made the statement, just so you can show how ridiculous the statement is: “I never saw anybody wearing sandals, no big bushy beards, no hippies, a very low proportion of mud-spattered 4WDs and no combi vans in the carpark and no discernable politics.”

    I couldn’t count the number of young, inexperienced people I have come across in various State and Federal Depts including Dept of Environment, Water Dept etc, who as you say have low level undergraduate degrees often in environmental science, who have little or no statistical analysis skills, yet they describe themselves as ‘Environmental Scientists’. There is no question that many roles within the Departments have been filled by graduates who see themselves as environmental crusaders and to deny that is naive. In any event, how do you think someone in the department who expressed doubts about AGW would be viewed?

    If you are serious, then simply explain why the important work of the BOM should not be audited just like any other Government body? It is not an unreasonable request.

  8. #8 AmandaS
    February 20, 2011

    Um – if every public servant in DSEWPaC (including BOM) and the DCCEE is corrupt/part of the CAGW machine/in thrall to the greenies as implied by Nova and her ilk – why would the public servants in ANAO be any different? Surely if the whole public service is part of the conspiracy, then there’s no escape and the ANAO will audit the BOM and (eerily!) find everything is just fine… I don’t know, maybe Nova is trying to prove that ANAO is part of the conspiracy, too? Because if you find that the instrumental measurements show warming then it can’t possibly be because the world is warming – it’s because you’re part of the conspiracy, too!

    I don’t know. I don’t think my brain is broken enough yet to deal with grand conspiracy theories about AGW because just writing the above paragraph made me burst out laughing at the absurdity of it all.

  9. #9 jakerman
    February 20, 2011

    Canturi writes:

    >*Heaven help us – caught between the sceptics and the greens. Yech.*

    Sure, from some who posts news stories via denial depot, and [blames us on this blog](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/the_war_on_the_bureau_of_meteo.php#comment-3339685) for [the actions of](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/the_war_on_the_bureau_of_meteo.php#comment-3341287) well funded denial campaigns you are so moderate, and so not a concern troll.

    Centuri asserts:

    >*John first person to say “concern troll” loses.*

    Bull dust, the first person who called you “concern troll” was on the button.

    So tell me Canturi, since you think you know my gender, what other tags do you blog under when your not assuming the tag Centuri?

  10. #10 jakerman
    February 20, 2011

    Jack wrtites:

    >*Jackerman @ 91 you (deliberately) failed to mention that before the latest adjustment to the minister’s portfolio BOM came under the National Climate Centre part of the Department of Environment and Heritage.*

    Correct, [I also](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/the_war_on_the_bureau_of_meteo.php#comment-3341461) deliberately failed to mention many other irrelevant nutter points that wackos think make a conspiracy.

  11. #11 Jack
    February 20, 2011

    Chek @ 105

    Clearly you haven’t read the papers submitted with the audit request. Why don’t you do that right here, right now, and you will read about BOM’s responses to which I refer. Sorry, I assumed that all those who felt competent enough to comment on the audit request would have actually read it.

    I am not sure what you consider a denialist, or what you think I am denying, but such accusations are humorous coming from someone who hasn’t read the material they are commenting on. Are you an ‘acceptist’?

    Look I’ll help you out. BOM originally claimed, in writing when questioned about their ‘adjustments’ to the historical temperature records of stations around Australia that some went up and some went down but the overall effect was negligible. Yet when the adjustments were checked, they were shown to have an overwhelming warming bias which BOM do not dispute now. They claim their methodology used is correct, but it has not been audited and there are many questions which have been raised about it which they have chosen not to answer.

  12. #12 jakerman
    February 20, 2011

    I second Checks’s call to Jack:

    >*If you’d like to show your true ‘sceptism’, how about itemising these BOM responses you describe as “found to be patently untrue”.*

    How about it Jack? If you do back your claims with description of these BOM responses you describe as “found to be patently untrue” then I’ll read them very carefully.

  13. #13 Jack
    February 20, 2011

    Jackerman @ 109

    You make no sense.

    You thought it was clever to point out that the current genesis of the department to which BOM belongs was only established in 2010 – so how could there be any vested interest? But when I point out that it was essentially the same department for many years before then, with some minor tweaking of responsibilities, you imply it is “irrelevant nutter points that wackos think make a conspiracy.”

    You come up with puerile retorts yet claim to be on the side of science not ideologically driven. Unfortunately no-one stands to learn anything worthwhile from the standard of debate here as you appear happy to wallow in your protected ignorance.

  14. #14 jakerman
    February 20, 2011

    >*Look I’ll help you out. BOM originally claimed, in writing when questioned about their ‘adjustments’ to the historical temperature records of stations around Australia that some went up and some went down but the overall effect was negligible.*

    >*Yet when the adjustments were checked, they were shown to have an overwhelming warming bias which BOM do not dispute now.*

    This does not show any error in the BOM statement, they are correct that some corrections go up, and some go down. And though there is a bias to to warming corrections this makes negligible effect overall.

    One reason for the warming bias in corrections in the change to a new type of temperature sensors that had a bias to cooler readings.

  15. #15 Jack
    February 20, 2011

    Jackerman @111 see 110

    Unfortunately I have a real job. I apologise if I don’t get a chance to respond to any more stupid insults and assumptions.

  16. #16 Jeremy C
    February 20, 2011

    Jack,

    You are assuming BoM doesn’t have any internal audit processes. You are also presuming they have a problem that conveniently fits with your smellie greenies infecting Australian public service personnel and management.

  17. #17 cohenite
    February 20, 2011

    I am not a divorce lawyer JC@100, although being divorced from a divorce lawyer and, therefore, the ex of a divorce lawyer can, I concede, cause confusion in lazy and pedantic minds.

    Speaking of lazy and pedantic minds, it is amusing that the methodology used by BoM in the adjustment, beg pardon, “homogeneity assessment” of those temperature records deemed unworthy should have been based on the singularly humourless revision of the original Torok and Nicholls approach by Della-Martin and Collins; the latter use all sorts of ominous terminology to discard the offending data such as “poor quality”, “poor exposure”; the words “suspect” and “suspected” are used to effect the tone of general failure and to justify the need for rectification of the inadequate data and the derisory efforts of those slackers who, in the unscientific past, let down so badly the team.

    It is a shame that the original Torok and Nicholls criteria, which referred approvingly to past errors in data recording due to thermometers being seized by dingoes, taken by crows and being smashed by angry wives, has been superseded.

    Despite all this hoop la and the usual stamping of feet from the hyper-educated the fact remains that the bulk of early temperature data has been adjusted, beg pardon, homogenised downwards. It is remarkable that the early temperature pioneers could so consistently overestimate temperatures; perhaps it was the sweat in their eyes.

  18. #18 AmandaS
    February 20, 2011

    Jack @110: If it’s any help, I read the papers with the audit report and they were awesomely funny. The ANAO should so definitely do audits based on articles in the Australian and some daffy blog science and conspiracy theories. Thanks for making me read them; at least I got a really amusing morning out of being home sick.

  19. #19 jakerman
    February 20, 2011

    >*You come up with puerile retorts*

    My retorts were of higher order sense then your suppositions.

    I notice one of my retorts was too hot for you to handle.

    >*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.*

    So how about you deal with my critique of your wacko conspiracy as as whole rather than avoiding the bits you find too hot?

  20. #20 jakerman
    February 20, 2011

    After spending all his free time promoting dumb conspiracy theories, Jack is [asked to support his claims](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/the_war_on_the_bureau_of_meteo.php#comment-3344842), you’ve got to smile has his reply:

    >*Unfortunately I have a real job. I apologise if I don’t get a chance to respond to any more stupid insults and assumptions.*

    Plenty of time for crazy accusations, no time for evidence.

  21. #21 chek
    February 20, 2011

    As is par for the course with denialists generally, firstly Jack deflects before going on to mumble some unspecific nonsense when challenged to produce [“responses which have been found to be patently untrue”](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/the_war_on_the_bureau_of_meteo.php#comment-3344594).
    Then conenite gumps in with a helping of vague unspecific innuendo.

    And you people think you deserve to be taken seriously and have others jump through hoops for you?

  22. #22 Jeremy C
    February 20, 2011

    Cox,

    My mistake for thinking your work is in divorce.

    >beg pardon, “homogeneity assessment” of those temperature records deemed unworthy should have been based on the singularly humourless revision of the original Torok and Nicholls approach by Della-Martin and Collins; the latter use all sorts of ominous terminology to discard the offending data such as “poor quality”, “poor exposure”; the words “suspect” and “suspected” are used to effect the tone of general failure and to justify the need for rectification of the inadequate data and the derisory efforts of those slackers who, in the unscientific past, let down so badly the team.

    How many times have you been told, going over all sciency such as throwing out refs above is not analysis and is not science. You know what always happens next, someone takes the trouble to check through what you have written and your basic errors are shown to you even quicker than your hero, Monckton, has his errors pointed out to him. Not adequate is it.

    However, it does seem you guys are determined to go after BoM but I guess you still strive for victory even in the light of multiple failures such as the attack on NIWA, Wegman leaking credibility faster than a zipper supplier to an AFL outfitters and Mann standing up to to Ken Cuccinelli of Virginia clumsy attempts to monster him. I don’t know what gives you guys the energy to keep with your ideogical crusade, is it just simply ego or you hoping that mud will stick over time or that you might land another motherload like climategate? Speaking of climategate you have a problem because if you try and push this stuff you’re aiming at BoM into the public domain then all we have to do is lean over and whisper into that broadsheet journalist’s ear, “Psst, remember how the denialists took you in over climategate”. You know how journalists react to be being reminded that someone made a fool of them.

  23. #23 John
    February 20, 2011

    >John first person to say “concern troll” loses.

    Except I’m the second. Also, I thought this wasn’t about winning or losing but about finding out the truth about the BoM data.

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

    No except for most people it isn’t their mission statement.

    Incidentally, what did you think about the results of the recent NZ audit?

  24. #24 rhwombat
    February 20, 2011

    Jeremy: the attentions of Cohenite, “Jack” and Canturi (…Geller?) on this topic just confirms that it is Australia’s turn to suffer the Koch Suckers. Having been smacked down in the US (Infohof, Mann, NOAA etc. etc.), the UK (“climategate”, Lawson, Monckton etc.), Canada (M&M, Tim Ball etc.) and NZ (see Gavin et al.), it is now our turn to be assailed by the denialist mafia. Mind you, some of the Koch money may dry up soon, in the wake of what’s happening in Wisconsin, so the propagandists are getting desperate. Good.

  25. #25 Vince Whirlwind
    February 20, 2011

    @Jack:
    “It is simply a statement of fact that BOM have a vested interest in ‘proving’ the need”

    This is not a True assertion, it is in fact a complete nonsense.

    The BoM collects data and presents it to the public. It does not make any statements of “unquestioning belief” in its annual report, it merely states the facts. Your implication that the BoM fabricates data in order to please politicians is as utterly risible as it is without evidence.

    If you want unquestioning beliefs and fabricated data, look no further than the purveyors of denialist source material: the Heartland Institute and the raft of denialist blogs by unqualified liars where you have got your talking points from.

  26. #26 jakerman
    February 20, 2011

    rhwombat, which Geller are you speculating?

  27. #27 John
    February 20, 2011

    Jack, your responses are too funny for words.

    >Such attitudes and the peer pressure which goes with it have held back discoveries because scientists have not wanted to question the group think. (If you can’t think of any examples let me know and I’ll give you a few).

    Please do! And maybe I’ll throw in some incidences where the consensus view was right and the only people who opposed it were ideologically driven conspiracy theorists.

    >The vast majority of peer reviewed papers on the subject start of with accepting the CO2, greenhouse gas theory and are simply looking at sources of CO2, or are looking at evidence that the globe is warming.

    So you dispute the “greenhouse gas theory” too? Most scientists also start with accepting that the sky is blue and the sun warms the planet as well, if you can believe their gullibility.

  28. #28 jakerman
    February 20, 2011

    Can we expect to see [this bill](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/02/19/the-champion/) from Liberal Top ticket senate pick in the future?

    HOUSE BILL NO. 549

    INTRODUCED BY J. READ

    A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED: “AN ACT STATING MONTANA’S POSITION ON GLOBAL WARMING; AND PROVIDING AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE.”

    BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:

    NEW SECTION. Section 1. Public policy concerning global warming.

    (1) The legislature finds that to ensure economic development in Montana and the appropriate management of Montana’s natural resources it is necessary to adopt a public policy regarding global warming.

    (2) The legislature finds:

    (a) global warming is beneficial to the welfare and business climate of Montana;

    (b) reasonable amounts of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere have no verifiable impacts on the environment; and

    (c) global warming is a natural occurrence and human activity has not accelerated it.*

  29. #29 Lotharsson
    February 20, 2011

    It is simply a statement of fact that BOM have a vested interest in ‘proving’ the need.

    Bollocks!, for reasons stated by others. For one thing, a basic familiarity with the scientific case would lead one to appreciate that the conclusion that there is global warming and anthropogenic influences play a signficant causal role would stand even if scientists entirely discarded the entire BOM dataset.

    (Never mind that some circular logic that was used to derive the conclusion that BOM has a vested interest.)

    The point is, “The vast majority of the scientific community”, doesn’t mean it’s correct.

    The corollary is that the fact that the vast minority of the time further research proves a consensus to be wrong does not mean that the current consensus is wrong, nor even likely to be wrong. This line of argument is irrelevant. If you think the consensus is wrong you have to show credible reasons why it should be reassessed.

    And for this particular scientific question, there’s a Nobel Prize or two – not to mention plenty of lucrative opportunities and massive kudos – on offer for anyone who can prove that GW is largely not anthropogenic so we can stop worrying about our GHG output.

    The vast majority of peer reviewed papers on the subject start of with accepting the CO2, greenhouse gas theory and are simply looking at sources of CO2, or are looking at evidence that the globe is warming.

    Logic fail. This is merely attempting to direct the argument away from the research that does demonstrate very strong evidence for “greenhouse gas theory”. Pointing out that other work assumes that “greenhouse gas theory” is largely accurate does not demonstrate that “greenhouse gas theory” is not accurate or may not be accurate, nor does it demonstrate that a strong consensus view is held by those actually working professionaly in that particular field.

    It is a sad fact that some scientists have deliberately skewed the ‘evidence’, or the presentation of the ‘evidence’ to present an incorrectly favorable position regarding recent warming. (Mann’s Hockey Stick, Phil Jone’s truncated graph line hiding the decline are two famous examples).

    When the CRU’s defence includes an admission that they have lost or deleted the data necessary to prove the accuracy of their records…

    Oh, dear deity! I’ve wasted my time responding to a gullible unskeptical person. You need to do some more research on some of the “facts” that you hold dear, which may not be as true as you think. And if you conclude that they aren’t justified, then you’ll need to do some work to figure out which beliefs you formed based on them are also unjustified…

  30. #30 Lotharsson
    February 20, 2011

    I’ve seen Canturi’s act before, right down to the transparent and piss-weak attempts to rule calling out apparent concern-trolling as out of bounds. The act ’twasn’t convincing the other hundred times someone performed it.

    They’re 100% certain its sceptic b/s.

    No, I’m only 99.999% certain, because I’ve seen that particular act time and time again as well. Not once has it proved to have any significant scientific impact on the AGW scientific consensus – and the vast majority of the time it proved to be largely or completely bulldust.

    In addition, almost every time it was pretty clearly intended to have a political impact that was not justified by the scientific impact – and that lack of scientific support seemed likely to be known to those making the charges at the time.

    Based on that historical pattern, I’m quite often quite happy to choose to wait until the ‘skeptics’ clear at least the basic scientific bars before I spend my precious time trying to discover how on earth they bollocksed up their scientific claims this time. Publishing a scientific paper would be a bloody good start – and might actually contribute to the science. Sometimes all it takes is waiting a couple of days before one of the more talented scientific bloggers takes a good look at their claims, which often leads them to dramatically fall apart.

    But yes, I know and proclaim that my initial probabilistic assessment might be wrong. Maybe this time will be the one where the claims turn out to have some substance? So wake me up when there’s actually something that stands up to (at least) some scrutiny – and try to understand that my attitude doesn’t mean I’m a blind believer in anything – but it is good for avoiding wasting massive amounts of time on denialist Gish Gallops, costing merely a very small risk that my initial assessment proving wrong :-)

  31. #31 Marion Delgado
    February 21, 2011

    Shorter Jack:

    Comment by Jack blocked

    Savings: 17,000%

  32. #32 rhwombat
    February 21, 2011

    J @125: Can’turi Gellar bend spoons?

  33. #33 jakerman
    February 21, 2011

    Boom boom!

    ;)

  34. #34 Canturi
    February 21, 2011

    How incredibly widdly weak is this. Gish Gallops. It is you Loathsome that is introducing extraneous issues.

    This is a very specific criticism about the Australian temperature record and its analysis. So predictable that the rusted-on believers here have pulled our the rhetorical Uzi. Let’s bring up every extraneous issue under the sun. Lay down some covering fire. Isn’t that what sceptics do? You’re worse.

    And again – no real experience with temperature except making herbal tea at the coven meetings.

  35. #35 jakerman
    February 21, 2011

    Empty words canturi, you must be able to do better than that.

  36. #36 jakerman
    February 21, 2011

    Senator’s Bernardi’s head is so hot it seems to have [cooked his brain](http://www.theage.com.au/national/abbott-rejects-mps-islam-remark-20110218-1azwi.html).

    Amid the informative read thought this quote war ironic:

    >*Senator Bernardi, one of the party’s most prominent rightwingers, said on radio that, in the past decade or two, there had been ”an increasing indulgence of people who are pursuing an ideology and a values system that is at complete odds with Western society and with Western culture”.*

  37. #37 zoot
    February 21, 2011

    And again – no real experience with temperature except making herbal tea at the coven meetings.

    And where, oh wise one, did you get your experience with climate data??

  38. #38 Lotharsson
    February 21, 2011

    > It is you Loathsome that is introducing extraneous issues. …except making herbal tea at the coven meetings.

    Sounds precisely like someone who used to post here under a different nym…does that ring bells for anyone? ;-)

  39. #39 zoot
    February 21, 2011

    Oh, and while I’m at it:

    My point is simple – few commentators here have not checked out Stewart’s statements.

    How true, how true.

    Canturi, you really must watch those double negatives, they’re slipperier than denialist arguments.

  40. #40 jakerman
    February 21, 2011

    Loth, yes Centuri certainly seems to have been here before under another guise.

    One might ask why the need to switch persona?

    Wanted to try your hand at deceptive concern trolling Centrui?

  41. #41 Lotharsson
    February 21, 2011

    One wonders when someone else will ponder whether the correspondence between a certain anagram of Canturi and his salty rhetorical style is merely coincidental… ;-) ;-)

  42. #42 chek
    February 21, 2011

    Coimcidentally I was just wondering how those fizzy seawater drinking experiments are going…

  43. #43 Dave R
    February 21, 2011

    >fizzy seawater drinking

    That also [rings a bell](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/andrew_bolt_column_flooded_wit.php#comment-3192984). I wonder if socks come in pairs?

  44. #44 Vince Whirlwind
    February 21, 2011

    @Curtain: “This is a very specific criticism about the Australian temperature record and its analysis.”

    No it isn’t.

    A specific criticism would take the form of a paper demonstrating data and method, written up and shared in the usual academic way.

    *This* is yet more fact-free smear by unqualified people who have no evidence for their insinuations.

  45. #45 Holly Stick
    February 21, 2011

    117 @cohenite “lazy and pedantic minds”:

    That is such a strange pairing. Someone who is pedantic can hardly be accused of having a lazy mind.

    You should learn to insult people properly: ‘lazy and sloppy minds’ would work much better.

    ‘Pedantic’ is a complimentary term because it does imply an ability to think coherently. It would be better to use ‘nitpicking’ for your insulting requirements, as in ‘What are the lazy and sloppy minds at WUWT nitpicking on this week?’

  46. #46 cohenite
    February 21, 2011

    Thank you Holly; whenever I want to be guided about insults Du Jour I know I can be set straight at Deltoid.

  47. #47 Canturi
    February 21, 2011

    Another set of filler comments. Abuse and appeal to authority/.You’s not getting any better are you. Science comments = zero point zero.

    Why even bother discussing anything guys – you will always always say the establishment is always 100% right. And so it’s all very sad – you’re simple the opposite side to the sceptics and maybe even more spiteful.

    In fact anyone here without a PhD and 10 years post-doc publishing experience should STFU. We don’t want to hear from anyone without specific expertise in meteorological climate data – you’re not entitled to an opinion – your standards dudes.

    Even more unless you have a PhD in making blog comments you should also STFU.

    Next time a researcher or research agency tries to engage you in one of their many climate communication or outreach extension programs tell them you can’t listen – you’re not qualified to know what they’re talking about – and let’s face it most people wouldn’t have a clue about atmospheric physics – especially arts grads and political “science” types – it’s all too hard. Unless of course you’re down at the collective in the echo chamber.

    BTW you can get Canturi at Myers.

  48. #48 Jeremy C
    February 21, 2011

    Canturi,

    Temper, temper.

    If you are unable to deal with honest reactions taking a can opener to your thinking then perhaps you should consider that you are letting your ego lead you mouth/typing.

  49. #49 Ken Fabos
    February 21, 2011

    So some people motivated by opposition to action on climate try to smear the keepers of climate data and demand a full audit. Other people who oppose action on climate get in on the action; anyone not agreeing with a completely useless, time and resource wasting audit of BoM is smeared in turn. For opposing ‘reasonable’ efforts to confirm the quality of BoM’s data! Which was never in genuine doubt? No, this is entirely about manufacturing doubt where none exists.

    When the hypothetical audit confirms the methodology used is sound and isn’t introducing biases that will be ignored and the auditors will be smeared in turn. Or smeared as well. The attacks on BoM by these people will not be stopped by an audit. On the contrary, a public and noisy audit would fuel their efforts.

    Canturi and others should not be suprised at the scorn and contempt their little game brings them. They can smear the life’s work of honest scientist and BoM staff with insinuations of dishonesty, bias and incompetence and get upset that they don’t get polite approval for their efforts. The whole sleazy campaign is beneath contempt and this little bit part and it’s minor players are well deserving of a bit of online scorn.

    BTW, All of BoM’s data is available to genuine researchers, including those who want to examine the methodology and practice of adjustment of temperature records to improve consistency and accuracy. If most of it isn’t already, I expect it will all end up online.

  50. #50 Jeremy C
    February 21, 2011

    Coxy mate,

    >Thank you Holly; whenever I want to be guided about insults Du Jour I know I can be set straight at Deltoid.

    Didn’t know you spent so much of your time avidly perusing contributors to Deltoid. Keep at it, it might lead you to changing your mind and adequate thinking.

  51. #51 Vince whirlwind
    February 21, 2011

    @Curtain:
    “Next time a researcher or research agency tries to engage you in one of their many climate communication or outreach extension programs tell them you can’t listen – you’re not qualified to know what they’re talking about ”

    You got that wrong.

    Nobody needs qualifications to listen to an expert’s opinion and assess their credibility by comparing it with other experts’ opinions.

    What you’ve done in fact is spout a very thinly disguised case of projection. What you were trying to say is “*You’re not qualified to gainsay them*”.

    Which you aren’t.

    And the complete absence – in amongst the smear and innuendo – of any evidence of the BoM being responsible for data fabrication allows any layperson to make a judgment on your credibility.

  52. #52 Vince whirlwind
    February 21, 2011

    @Jack:
    “There is no question that many roles within the Departments have been filled by graduates who see themselves as environmental crusaders and to deny that is naive.”

    Name them.

    I’ve met environmental crusaders – they look and smell feral and spend a lot of time chained up in trees.
    I’ve never seen any at SEWPAC.
    But you assert they are there, so you will be able to name a few for us.

  53. #53 jakerman
    February 21, 2011

    Canturi writes:
    >*How incredibly widdly weak is this. Gish Gallops. It is you Loathsome*

    >*And again – no real experience with temperature except making herbal tea at the coven meetings.*

    >*Why even bother discussing anything guys – you will always always say the establishment is always 100% right.*

    Canturi rebuts:

    >*Another set of filler comments. Abuse and appeal to authority/.You’s not getting any better are you.*

  54. #54 jakerman
    February 21, 2011

    Canturi:
    >*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”.*

    Martin M:
    >*If you think he has something, why not tell us what?*

    Canturi:

    >*…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.*

    LB:

    >*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.*

    Canturi:
    >*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.*

    Mike:
    >*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”.*

    Canturi:
    >*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.*

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

    Canturi is practicing the hands over the eyes argument tactic. As the issues he identifies are addressed(e.g. by LB) he calls people names and thinks that this makes him correct.
    Mike points of the fallacy of Canturi appealing to data analysts while Canturi demonstrates his own DK in data homogenization.

    Rather than go on I’ll point out at this point Canturi is ignoring the meta data analysis involved in past attempts by Watts and the NZ cranks that made the same attacks on the data only to result in vindication of the temperature record. Canturi is also ignoring Tim’s link at the top to a rebut of the these claims relating to Darwin Airport and IIRC discussion of the bias in data homogenization.

    Mike goes on make further [important points]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/the_war_on_the_bureau_of_meteo.php#comment-3339798). I later explain [a reason for]( jakerman) the warming bias in homogenization.

    But Canturi continues to resort to his empty claim:

    >*Another set of filler comments. Abuse and appeal to authority/.You’s not getting any better are you. Science comments = zero point zero.*

    Carry on Canturi.

  55. #55 Lotharsson
    February 21, 2011

    > …appeal to authority…

    Comprehension fail. Appeal to the body of evidence and those who are clearly shown to be capable to assess it.

    > …you will always always say the establishment is always 100% right…

    …says Canturi right after [I disagreed with that sentiment](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/the_war_on_the_bureau_of_meteo.php#comment-3345912).

    Not very good at assessing evidence, eh?

    And he wonders why we don’t merely accept any claims he makes at face value…

  56. #56 Chris O'Neill
    February 21, 2011

    Canturi:

    In fact anyone here without a PhD and 10 years post-doc publishing experience should STFU.

    So where have you been telling Ken Stewart and his crew to STFU? BTW, when are you going to take your own advice and STFU?

  57. #57 Vince whirlwind
    February 21, 2011

    I think the important part of Curtain’s

    In fact anyone here without a PhD and 10 years post-doc publishing experience should STFU

    is the bit that’s missing. Here is his statement corrected with the addition of the bit he left out:

    In fact anyone here without a PhD and 10 years post-doc publishing experience *in a relevant discipline* should STFU

    For example, people who have limited experience or knowledge of basic chemistry might want to follow the above advice the next time they feel the urge to indulge in vapid prattle about CO2.

  58. #58 Lotharsson
    February 22, 2011

    Speaking of the BOM and actual science, [BOM chief lashes Pell over climate stance](http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/bom-chief-lashes-pell-over-climate-stance-20110222-1b324.html)…

  59. #59 jakerman
    February 22, 2011

    Speaking of denialist tactics, checkout the tactics described in [this law suit](http://www.climatelaw.org/cases/country/us/kivalina/Kivalina%20Complaint.pdf) (from p47).

  60. #60 Vince whirlwind
    February 22, 2011

    Jakerman,
    presumably if that court case gets up, then similar court cases cuold be launched against Blot, Nova, and any other person who was part of the campaign of disinformation designed to assist those companies in emitting as much CO2 as possible for as long as possible?

    I wonder how deep Blot’s pockets are?

  61. #61 jakerman
    February 22, 2011

    I’m not sure if we’d need to find their dirty little memo’s showing they knew their campaign was anti-science. Perhaps just show that a reasonalble person whould know they were abusing their privilged megaphone position.

  62. #62 Canturi
    February 22, 2011

    t’s wndr th cmmnttrs hr r stll prttlng – bvsl nt qlfd clmtlgst n th hs. Bt t’s flttrng tht Jn pt ff gng t wrk (f sh hs jb) t wst hr tm ct nd pstng m thghts. sr thn hvng n f hr wn gss. Bt th nws td – n dt sms qt lkl. Mks y wndr f thr cld b smthng n t gvn th MS LT rdngs n strl r mdst. Crss yr fndrs gys. W’ll jst thrw tht n pyr wth clmt mdls nt rprdcng dcdl nflnc, nt bng bl t hndcst th th cntr , trshd, hckystck nd prls vdnc f wtr vpr fdbck. Bt hv t hnd t t y gys. Nstr thn Nv’s plc. Mch wrs. Vnc s gnn tk’m t crt. Ww …. thght ths ws wht th scptcs wr gng t d t y gys. Wht bnch. Y cn cntr-s ch thr. Bt wht d wld y xpct frm th dl hypr-dctd grns. Crtnl nt nythng n crss vldtn r thr nlyss.

  63. #63 Vince Whirlwind
    February 22, 2011

    Crutain,
    your faith-like belief in the “hockey stick was trashed” mantra is cute.

    Of course in the real world, anybody who has paid any attention to what the qualified climatologists have been doing (as opposed to reading the ignorant twaddle from unqualified bloggers) knows that all of them come up with hockey-stick-like reconstructions. The hockey stick has been refined and confirmed and validated as correct many, many times over.

    But what do you expect from the idle uneducable super-annuants? Certainly not the idea of examining the evidence *before* making grumpy assertions.

  64. #64 jakerman
    February 22, 2011

    Cantrui, glad I embarrassed you into exposing your self as a deceitful liar. [I knew it](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/the_war_on_the_bureau_of_meteo.php#comment-3344767) all along.

    As I said, enjoy short lived victory. We look forward to your next deceitful incantation complaining about the next trumped up denialist accusation.

    Enjoy being the type of person you are. Your deceit give me at least a warm feeling that come with being on the right side.

    ;)

  65. #65 Dave R
    February 22, 2011

    >We’ll just throw that on pyre with climate models not reproducing decadal influence, not being able to hindcast the 20th century , a trashed, hockeystick and parlous evidence of water vapour feedback.

    Can’t Uri remember which sock he’s using? [There’s an app for that](http://climateprogress.org/2011/02/20/denier-bots-live-why-are-online-comments-sections-over-run-by-the-anti-science-pro-pollution-crowd/).

  66. #66 P. Lewis
    February 22, 2011

    You know that feeling where you just think about a silly song or hear a snippet of a silly, stupid tune on the radio and it just sticks in your mind and you can’t stop humming it all day? It annoys you, and then everyone else around you.

    It’s called a songworm apparently. It’s particularly bad for those around you when you get stuck with something like the Tweets’ “The Birdie Song” :-(

    (Ha, that’ll get a few of you going!)

    This morning, I’m trapped at my desk humming You canturi love by D.Ross. (A blogworm?)

  67. #67 Lotharsson
    February 22, 2011

    > It’s called a songworm apparently.

    I’ve heard “earworm” as well.

  68. #68 Canturi
    February 22, 2011

    “Your deceit give me at least a warm feeling that come with being on the right side.” sez our hypereducated but superfluous Jakerman.

    The “right” side eh Jakers? Well tell you what – like in all things of left or right extremes, there’s a circle which joins up around the back – a place where the arseholes meet and the plates fuse – you’re actually about one inch away from the denialists in outlook.

    Attributes – you both think the other is corrupt, evil, blinkered and abusive. Why even bother debating – simply say “this is a peer reviewed establishment position – it will always be 100% right – all peer reviewed published science is always 100% right”. No discussion needed. Ever.

    Of course a science comment or two might be fun to relieve the tedium.

    But not from our idle jakerman we’ll get some dross like “that’s the culture wars Fox-speak media wars media thingy”

    What sort of nonsense is that Janet. Leave the house for a change.

  69. #69 Vince whirlwind
    February 22, 2011

    The peer review science *is* the debate, Cutrain.

    Jakerman is objecting to fabricated nonsense which is based not on science but on politics and the stubbornness of uneducable geriatrics.

  70. #70 jakerman
    February 22, 2011

    Canturi,

    Let me help you with you attempt to return to concern trolling. You might not have realized that after I got you to confirm your abusive deceit, that your concern trolling has not the same effect.

    What you lack is credibility. So your abuse becomes a laughable spectacle. As does your attempt to establish your preferred narrative.

    Not only did I pick you as [intentionally dishonest](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/the_war_on_the_bureau_of_meteo.php#comment-3353490) early on, but I also picked [your ‘hands over the eyes’ approach](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/the_war_on_the_bureau_of_meteo.php#comment-3351704) to argumentation.

    It feels good to be shown that I’m correct once in a while. Thanks Canturi. Thanks for spreading the good feeling.

  71. #71 chek
    February 22, 2011

    At least it’s now been established that the BOM attack is of primary interest to dingbats, meme spouting losers, dishonest sockpuppets and those even spurned by lawyers.

    I don’t expect anyone at BOM will miss so much as a nanosecond of sleep over this ‘assault’. Indeed, it’ll probably be the subject of much ongoing hilarity around the water cooler and coffee machine.

    Nuff said.

  72. #72 Lotharsson
    February 22, 2011

    > …simply say “this is a peer reviewed establishment position – it will always be 100% right – all peer reviewed published science is always 100% right”…

    [Liar, liar, pants on fire](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/the_war_on_the_bureau_of_meteo.php#comment-3345912). Or perhaps just rather poor at comprehension, especially when maintaining his preconceptions depends on incomprehension.

    > The peer review science is the debate, Cutrain.

    Indeed! Which is why Ken Stewart is encouraged to write up his research and attempt to get it published. Not because of the dearly held conspiracy theory that it’s a way to keep legitimate concerns out of the (scientific) debate, but because it’s the way to get them into it, if they actually have plausible merit. And if Stewart has found some issues, then we’d all like them fixed.

    But I suspect Canturi et al dare not acknowledge that the peer review science is the debate – because their aims, despite being covered in the cloth of scientific concern, are primarily political – or perhaps because they suspect/know that their “scientific” concerns (and cherished shibboleths such as “the hockey stick was demolished”) won’t and don’t stand up to that level of scrutiny. Perhaps even both.

    Or maybe it’s just because they ill comprehend the scientific process.

  73. #73 Canturi
    February 23, 2011

    Watch a bunch of true believers. If you actually seriously believe the hockey stick stands well you truly have swallowed the Kool Aid. At best we can say “we don’t know”. The evidence is weak. Has nothing to do with denialism or trolling – simply objective fact.

    And if you lot think that BoM will have done in their funding environment the level of work that Ken Stewart has – well you’re kidding yourself. None of you have every worked with climate data – if you had you would not be surprised.

    Of course this could be VERY easily answered. We are talking about the bloody reference network. There should be an FTP site with raw data, adjusted data, programs and assumptions/notes. There isn’t – WHY NOT? what we have is a few papers – some lightly reviewed in internal magazines like AMOS glossing over all the interesting detail that Ken Stewart has found. If it’s all so marvellous – BoM should be able to say – there’s our whole analysis – go knock yourself out. Why is he having trouble getting the detail?

    Not I have not said there is a conspiracy by BoM – but put your hands in my pocket on carbon – I have a right to ask whether about the details of the national climate record. Why isn’t it there now? Why are we even debating the issue?

    And no darlings – it is not all “in the papers”. Not a scientist among you is there? Just a bunch of greenie ideologues.

    Could very well be an audit and we will see won’t we ?

  74. #74 Lotharsson
    February 23, 2011

    > There isn’t – WHY NOT?

    Presumably for the same reason as there wasn’t in the past for other national meteorological services – there hasn’t been a pressing need for open access (if only because the researchers who needed the data could generally get it), nor funding for such a non-pressing need compared to other requirements…

    > …simply objective fact.

    Says true believer Canturi, falsely conflating “the hockey stick” with all the hockey-stick like reconstructions, right after calling people:

    > Watch a bunch of true believers.

    Project much, Canturi?

    > …but put your hands in my pocket on carbon – I have a right to ask whether about the details of the national climate record.

    That’s debatable – it’s a global problem with a strong global case. As I [said earlier](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/the_war_on_the_bureau_of_meteo.php#comment-3345881), in response to another of your unsupported assertions of “simple fact”:

    > For one thing, a basic familiarity with the scientific case would lead one to appreciate that the conclusion that there is global warming and anthropogenic influences play a signficant causal role would stand even if scientists entirely discarded the entire BOM dataset.

    The same goes for the hockey sticks. Throw away all the data that the pseudo-skeptics have concerns with…and the dent in the case for the scientific consensus is small enough that it’s difficult to see.

    Sure, ask for records or see if there are problems in the BOM records and methodology. But don’t be stupid or misleading enough to claim that any issues you think you might/have found are significant enough to affect the scientific case on AGW.

    Here’s a simple question about your thesis – how large a warming would the average station error need to be to seriously affect the scientific case on AGW? I take it you’ve done the maths on this so it should be something you can answer in two minutes, right? Feel free to round to whole degrees.

  75. #75 chek
    February 23, 2011

    Two things, Crutaini.

    Being a McIntyrist has nullified any basic logic you may once have had. Stevie may have claimed to have broken the hockey stick, but he didn’t nor any of the subsequent ones. But even though he couldn’t show he had, you prefer to believe he has.

    Then, to cap it all, at the Guardian debate in London last year, McIntyre said he accepted that AGW was real and would act on it were he in government. Yet you somehow believe he stands for the opposite, which may well be McIntyrism in its purest form.

    And at some point you may want to consider how your parochial little “audit” impacts the global surface temperature series and those pesky satellites.

    On the positive side it’s good that you keep busy and have an interest, although stamp collecting would be less of a burden on the taxpayer.

  76. #76 zoot
    February 23, 2011

    You’ve avoided my question Canturi darling. When have you ever worked with climate data?

  77. #77 Lotharsson
    February 23, 2011

    > Not a scientist among you is there?

    Sheesh, why didn’t you say that earlier? Since that’s apparently your standard for dismissing respondents to your questions…then it applies equally to the signed request that is the subject of this blog post.

    Canturi refutes Canturi.

  78. #78 jakerman
    February 23, 2011

    Canturi:

    >*Watch a bunch of true believers. If you actually seriously believe the hockey stick stands well you truly have swallowed the Kool Aid. At best we can say “we don’t know”. The evidence is weak. Has nothing to do with denialism or trolling – simply objective fact.*

    Canturi shows us he don’t know the difference between simple “objective fact” and his own unsupported assertion.

    He gives us more of the same with his unsupportable comparison of BOM with Ken Steward. But we already know Canturi had no cred.

    >*There should be an FTP site with raw data, adjusted data, programs and assumptions/notes. There isn’t – WHY NOT?*

    Because BOM haven’t been funded to make so much data (continually updated) available on line? Have you costed how much work that would be? Is this a socialist plot to increase our taxes? Or do you just want to increase the budged so you can then attack it for how big it is?

    Given the experience in USA and NZ, its low probability the data in flawed in any way that will have significance.

    And Canturi has poor judgement. How do I know? Because we know the Earth is warming due to AGW, we know the ice is melting, we know the biosphere is responding to these changes.

    We also have important [no-regrets policies](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/the_war_on_the_bureau_of_meteo.php#comment-3341287) that we need to implement. And prioritising and audit of the BOM makes little sense when we have no regrets policies that are being put off due to complaints about costs.

    Any conceivable error in the BOM calcuation of Australia’s temperature rise (no matter how unlikely) will still not change the ice melt, sea rise, biological response. And will have insignificant effect on the global temperature anomaly and benefit of no-regrets policies.

  79. #79 Wow
    February 23, 2011

    > Have you costed how much work that would be? Is this a socialist plot to increase our taxes? Or do you just want to increase the budged so you can then attack it for how big it is?

    Funny, isn’t it, how they complain this is all a way to get large research grants and then come up with an idea that would make the research grants BIGGER!

  80. #80 jakerman
    February 23, 2011

    >*Funny, isn’t it, how they complain this is all a way to get large research grants and then come up with an idea that would make the research grants BIGGER!*

    Their next play will be to say he the BOM should reallocate existing resources rather than increase their budget. I.e. take from existing resource used to measure the temperature and make properly homogenized comparisons.

  81. #81 Canturi
    February 23, 2011

    “Because BOM haven’t been funded to make so much data (continually updated) available on line?” You silly little person – they have. It’s called ADAM dearie. And have you looked at BoM’s site at all the interesting data you can get – you see J-girl there’s this thing called “the Internet” and scientists use what we call “computers” to manipulate “data”. So here we have it – from the mouths of hyper-educated illiterate – what appalling ignorance – get a job Janet ! Might go back over to Nova’s – at least they give you a run for your money.

  82. #82 jakerman
    February 23, 2011

    Canturi can’t tell the difference between funded enough to put a bit on line and funded enough to continually put everything on line.

    Make your effort better next time Canturi.

  83. #83 jakerman
    February 23, 2011

    I’d better be pedant prepared, since we can guess Centuri’s poor performance might leave her thinking pedantry is a tempting options

    For “everyting” in my last post read “all the raw data, all the adjusted data, all the related programs and all the assumptions/notes”.

  84. #84 Lotharsson
    February 23, 2011

    > “Because BOM haven’t been funded to make so much data (continually updated) available on line?” You silly little person – they have. It’s called ADAM dearie.

    Citation needed.

    I’m sure you’re able to substantiate your claim that ADAM funding is in part to make all the information available that you claim should be available, but is not, right? (And of course that there’s been enough time since funding came thought to actually deliver on the requirements.)

    Now, how about that [other trivial little question that you haven’t seen fit to answer yet](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/the_war_on_the_bureau_of_meteo.php#comment-3359359):

    > how large a warming would the average station error need to be to seriously affect the scientific case on AGW?

    Oh, and [this one too](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/the_war_on_the_bureau_of_meteo.php#comment-3359389):

    > You’ve avoided my question Canturi darling. When have you ever worked with climate data?

    For someone so sure you’re bringing the light of certainty to a bunch of Kool-Aid drinkers stumbling around in the dar, you sure have a hard time providing answers to basic questions that should be dead simple if your assertions are well-grounded.

  85. #85 John
    February 23, 2011

    It’s funny how the deniers are perfectly happy with the idea of more funding, just as long as they think it will prove their theory.

    We should open a book on how they will respond if the results of the audit, should it occur, don’t go their way.

    They will:

    1. Seize upon a small criticism and claim victory anyway.
    2. Squeal “whitewash!” and claim it’s proof of a scam
    3. Claim the Labor government intervened.
    4. Claim that the audit is wrong and they know better because they spent their lunch break Googling “global warming lies”
    5. Accept they are wrong and drop the idea (gag choice)

  86. #86 Jeremy C
    February 23, 2011

    You gotta hand it to Canturi. His ideological zeal is such that he keeps coming back and back even when his errors are pointed out or he gets asked the same questions again, which he wont answer. This shows even more committment than Coxy the lawyer from Newcastle with his sexy sciency bits. It almost makes me think that Canturi believe what he types.

  87. #87 Canturi
    February 23, 2011

    You guys are just flakes. You’re not very good are you? What utter jibbering – Loathsome asks “how large a warming would the average station error need to be to seriously affect the scientific case on AGW?” – who cares – as a typical ideologue you simple want to move the debate to somewhere else. Did I say I was arguing against the whole case for AGW.I’m not arguing BoM are corrupt either. This thread is about the Australian reference climate network and its derivation – do you ninnies even know what the reference network is. Doesn’t look like it from the waffle.

    It’s a very relevant data set for us Aussies. Perhaps one might like to use it in actual planning decisions for agriculture, water resources – what’s that? ! – a practical application other than saving the world and a climate tax – well I know that’s beyond you drips.

    Look at J-girl frothing on at 7:31 – how clueless – we’re not talking about universe here girlie. It’s a relatively small set of stations. Think about for about 10 seconds – for each station you have a raw data stream, an adjusted stream, some observations from research on the meta-data and mathematical processes to perform the manipulation of data. And you would have had to do it once to do the analysis. i.e. it’s already been done once at least !!

    You don’t even have an idea do you. … unable to focus on an issue “The Fox-media right-wing denialist culture wars thingy doover” is about it isn’t it? Another greenie wanker. Spare us.

    Ken Stewart has probably analysed a few more stations by now.

  88. #88 Dave R
    February 23, 2011

    Cat urine:
    >Did I say I was arguing against the whole case for AGW.

    You’ve already [spewed enough denialist talking points](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/the_war_on_the_bureau_of_meteo.php#comment-3353460) to make that quite clear.

  89. #89 luminous beauty
    February 23, 2011

    Canturi(Curtin)

    >It’s a very relevant data set for us Aussies. Perhaps one might like to use it in actual planning decisions for agriculture, water resources – what’s that?

    What’s your complaint? You want it? You can get it. Just like Stewart or any other Aussie.

    [The Australian community may access the data in ADAM by
    contacting any Bureau information office, and some data and
    products are already available through the Bureau’s web site. Greater access to ADAM through the Internet can be expected
    in the future.](http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/cdo/images/about/ADAM.pdf)

  90. #90 Lotharsson
    February 23, 2011

    Not content with [transcending mere logic](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/the_war_on_the_bureau_of_meteo.php#comment-3359395), Canturi has now ascended beyond the petty constraints of facts!

    > …as a typical ideologue you simple want to move the debate to somewhere else…

    His intellect refuses to be bound by such trivialities! And what a gift to the world his daring brings?! How could we otherwise have survived without the breathtakingly novel perspectives it offers? Who could go on living without the delight and wonder of the view that [statements such as](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/the_war_on_the_bureau_of_meteo.php#comment-3357565)

    > …Ken Stewart is encouraged to write up his research and attempt to get it published. Not because … it’s a way to keep legitimate concerns out of the (scientific) debate, but because it’s the way to get them into it

    really indicate that the author is “a typical ideologue who simply wants to move the debate somewhere else”?

    We await with bated breath the next great pearl of interpretive wisdom that us mere mortals could never in a million years perceive on our own!

    Seriously now:

    > Did I say I was arguing against the whole case for AGW.

    You may or may not have said it, and you may or may not go there in the future, but at least some of your fellow travellers most certainly are. And arguing that national temperature records are deliberately and fraudulently biased has been a repeated element of their strategy (which has failed on the evidence elsewhere, but has been great as propaganda to influence the less scientifically aware sections of the public).

    If you don’t understand this dynamic (whilst calling me a typical ideologue) then your ideologue identification skills are in need of serious sharpening – and you should refrain from casting aspersions along on those lines until you become a lot more perceptive.

  91. #91 jakerman
    February 23, 2011

    Canturi writes:

    >*Loathsome asks “how large a warming would the average station error need to be to seriously affect the scientific case on AGW?” – who cares – as a typical ideologue you simple want to move the debate to somewhere else.*

    Perhaps Canturi is responding to this:

    >*Watch a bunch of true believers. If you actually seriously believe the hockey stick stands well you truly have swallowed the Kool Aid. At best we can say “we don’t know”. The evidence is weak. Has nothing to do with denialism or trolling – simply objective fact.*

    Or perhaps Canturi what picking up on Canturi’s erroneous calims [about water vapour positive feedback](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/the_war_on_the_bureau_of_meteo.php#comment-3353460)?

    Rearding the raw unadjusted data and note on all the adjustments, and programs. This is low priority stuff to put on the web (for reasons I’ve and others have discussed). Any errors in the homogenisation are of scale that will be extreamly, extreamly unlikely to make a significant differece to actual planning decisions for agriculture or water resources.

  92. #92 Geoff Sherrington
    February 23, 2011

    If Willis was lying about darwin, I’ll throw my lot in with him.

    Here is a garpph I constructed by downloading public data from websites and BoM products. It was about 2 years ago and it might have been changed since then. My only “bias” was to throw in a very few missing values by guesswork to make the calculating shorter.

    This is the public record.

    How was Willis lying?

    Have you ever done this exercise yourself? It might take a PhD to give it the seal of authority.

    http://www.geoffstuff.com/spaghetti%20Darwin.jpg

    Now, pay attention to the jump at about 1940 when the site was shifted 7 km or so from the Met office in towm to the airport. Some adjusters try to remove this jump because it looks like an artefact of the site change. But there was a later, 7-year comparison of the 2 sites, showing
    http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii14/sherro_2008/DARWINOVERLAPTmax.jpg
    http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii14/sherro_2008/Darwinoverlap.jpg

    That is, the later overlap comparison showed very little difference in the means. The first logical inference is that there was a real temperature change in 1939-42.

    So, again, where was Willis caught lying?

  93. #93 Geoff Sherrington
    February 23, 2011

    Re the audit of the BoM Australian temperature series (which one, for a start? There are many and they disagree with each other).

    If you had a background in business, you would be used to the concept of an audit as a matter of prudence. When large sums of money are proposed to be spent on a project arising from a data string essentially compiled by a single body, it is simply prudent to have an overview.

    Probably, it is more frequent than infrequent to do this. Of itself, it says nothing of the morals, ethics, noble corrouption causes etc that people are hurling around.

    No emotion, no fuss, just a straight application of a wise precaution.

    Why to you object to that?

  94. #94 Vince whirlwind
    February 23, 2011

    I can see why Cnutari has abandoned academia to wallow in this denialist nonsense.

    He *could* read to some actual published papers that explain the current state of BoM’s records:

    – Torok and Nicholls (1996); a high-quality homogenisation for reliably monitoring climate trends and variability at annual and decadal timescales.

    – Nicholls et al (1996); describing the 1 degree drop associated with new screening at measuring stations.

    – Peterson et al. (1998); “…a suite of quality control tests are justified and documented …”

    – Della-Marta & Collins (2003); updating the temperature record to take into account improvements in methods.

    But, in contrast to all this sober, professional work, we have Curtain’s considered reponse:

    “Another greenie wanker. Spare us.”. etc…

    Curtin, if you have a problem with the current state of the literature, and if you have the expertise to improve on it, you will publish specific criticisms of the above papers.

    If you have nothing to contribute, you will run a PR campaign falsely impugning others’ professionalism and integrity.

    Ultimately, it’s your reputation that suffers, because what you’re doing is completely transparent.

  95. #95 jakerman
    February 23, 2011

    Geoff, You have not established the Bom do not already have audit protocols.

    >*No emotion, no fuss, just a straight application of a wise precaution.Why to you object to that?*

    I object to it as a priority over [no regrets mitigation](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/the_war_on_the_bureau_of_meteo.php#comment-3341287).

    *No emotion, no fuss, just a straight application of a wise precaution.* Lets apply that to what we already know about AGW. And even the largest errors concievable int he BoM record will have negligable impact on the global anomaly.

    I object to the misleading claims made about the temperature record by Watts and the nutters in NZ. Nova et al have copied the NZ nutters despite the NZ temperature record being vindicated.

  96. #96 Geoff Sherrington
    February 23, 2011

    A few hours ago I also posted a comprehensive view of Darwin temperatures.

    It is not visible.

    Did I make a mistake in transmitting it, or has it been snipped?

    If it has been snipped, I guess it must hurt someone. eh Tim? I have been known to work with Willis.

  97. #97 jakerman
    February 23, 2011

    >*I have been known to work with Willis.*

    A [telling admission](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis_eschenbach_caught_lying.php).

  98. #98 Jeremy C
    February 23, 2011

    So GeoFf,

    Are you sure BoM doesn’t have audit processes in place, e.g. from managerial audits to public ones such as peer review publishing?

    What is it with you guys……. does one go on smoko (Canturi) and another one takes over (Geoff)?

  99. #99 Chris O'Neill
    February 23, 2011

    GS:

    If Willis was lying about darwin, I’ll throw my lot in with him.

    What an amazing admission. Deciding to join someone on the condition that they’re lying.

  100. #100 jakerman
    February 23, 2011

    >*So, again, where was Willis caught lying?*

    [Here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis_eschenbach_caught_lying.php).

    and making false statments like this:

    >*Those, dear friends, are the clumsy fingerprints of someone messing with the data Egyptian style … they are indisputable evidence that the “homogenized” data has been changed to fit someone’s preconceptions about whether the earth is warming.*

Current ye@r *