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 Chris O'Neill
    February 23, 2011

    Cat urine

    Yes that’s a good one made possible by his latest corruption. I like Dim Cretin of course.

  2. #2 Lotharsson
    February 24, 2011

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

    It may have been automatically diverted to the human moderation queue for whatever reasons the software does that. Multiple outside links will usually do it, and IIRC some keyword matches as well.

    If it comes out later it will end up in chronological order (i.e. earlier in the thread) and people may miss it, so most people post a new comment with a link to the earlier one just to let people know.

  3. #3 Canturi
    February 24, 2011

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

    quips J-girl – well some of us have a job Janet … we don’t spend all day at home or down at the collective.

    And Vince zephyr has been up all night with Google Scholar. Well if you had read the said papers you’ll note Peterson is about the GHCN. Sigh … How predictably silly… and do try to cite properly eh – if you want to plays scientist.

    Anyway Vince yes you’d better give us a summary (after you’ve actually read them. Doesn’t answer Ken Stewart’s questions does it?

    The BIG appeal to authority bluff.

  4. #4 zoot
    February 24, 2011

    You still haven’t answered my question Canturi darling. When have you ever worked with climate data?

  5. #5 jakerman
    February 24, 2011

    Canturi demonstrates she cant even read the name at the bottom of a post.

    ;)

  6. #6 Canturi
    February 24, 2011

    More importantly Zooty tooty – have you ever done a day’s work.

  7. #7 Lotharsson
    February 24, 2011

    > More importantly Zooty tooty – have you ever done a day’s work.

    I’ll take that as a “no, I haven’t worked with climate data”.

  8. #8 John
    February 24, 2011

    But Canturi is an expert on climate because he reads blogs that agree with his politics.

  9. #9 zoot
    February 24, 2011

    Uric ant @206:
    I’ll take that as a “No, I’ve never worked with climate data”.

  10. #10 Jeremy C
    February 24, 2011

    Canturi,

    With all your expertise you and your clleagues have not answered my question about whether there audit processes already existing and what their form is. Can you confirm or deny if they exist and set out what your information is?

    Are you denying that peer review is a form of auditing and that BoM personnel have been undergoing this form of auditing constantly during their employment with BoM?

    If you don’t know then why not?

  11. #11 Lotharsson
    February 24, 2011

    Meanwhile, yet another investigation into “ClimateGate” [finds no wrongdoing or manipulation by scientists](http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/145913-report-on-climategate-clears-government-scientists-of-wrongdoing)…

    I’ll be away for a while, so no posting from me…

  12. #12 Canturi
    February 25, 2011

    Jeremy @210 – “peer review” as a form of auditing – only partially on some methods and a spotty attempt over years – it’s not the full story. The point is that an analysis has been done at least once to produce a reference network – we’re not talking thousands of stations – why isn’t a full set of documentation and a data archive on the process available? If it was it would simply be tabled and we would not be discussing the matter.

    Zooty toots @ 209 – yes I have, but hey when do you get to ask the questions.

  13. #13 Jeremy C
    February 25, 2011

    Canturi, Canturi, Canturi,

    “sigh”

    >peer review” as a form of auditing – only partially on some methods and a spotty attempt over years – it’s not the full story.

    Sigh. An assertion with so much wiggle room my brother could get his Mack through, sideways.

    >why isn’t a full set of documentation and a data archive on the process available? If it was it would simply be tabled and we would not be discussing the matter.

    Its not available, can you show me evidence for this or is it just someone else’s assertion that you are following? Could it be its just not available to you or you don’t know where to find it?

    Now if you do get hold of it what work are you going to do on it and can we audit your work in case you can’t get it ‘published. Dinna forget Canturi my lovely that deniers are notorius for claiming that data is being denied to them, then when it is pointed out to them where they can find it they go quiet and we don’t see any subsequent ‘analysis’. Its all just a really smart piece of propaganda to make it look like people whom you are against are up to no good and nuttin more.

    And you still haven’t answered the questions as to whether BoM has internal audit processes.

  14. #14 Canturi
    February 25, 2011

    Ken Stewart has asked for all this and it has not been forthcoming. See his web site.

    This guy has started small and kept digging on more and more sites. He’s now being used by the sceptics politically of course.

    BoM can have internal audit processes or reviews as many science institutions do. But they can’t dig on everything. Ever been through one Jeremy? Having worked on climate data I can assure you the devil is very much in the metadata and analysis details. You can have a cabinet full of ISO 9xxxx documentation and still do crap science.

    But this is all just cover defense stuff – BoM should just put up all the information. Saying “go away you’re not published” just helps the sceptics case.

    Very simple position for BoM here – put up an FTP site with raw data, processed data, analysis methods, references and notes. Ain’t that hard. As taxpayers we deserve it. And that has nothing to do with denialism, scepticism, being on wrong sides, being devious – it’s just simple transparency and full disclosure.

    Phil Jones would not have been in his position if he had done the same. And it will probably take a 3rd analysis with everything available to put the global issue to bed. So let’s get on with it !

    Indeed if you’re all confident and BoM are confident – BRING IT ON ! Then we can put shit on Cohenite for years when it comes up trumps.

    My entire point – when we in the pro-AGW camp start being resistant to genuine requests like this – it inevitably diminishes our case. I have too much personal investment (not money) in the climate agenda to see opportunity for change on a serious issue to be squandered by poor governance and due diligence.

    Also very worried about Gillard’s crash through approach on a carbon tax. Crash through or crash and burn ! She might be lucky – she might not – stuff it up and it will be a decade before anyone has another go.

  15. #15 Jeremy C
    February 25, 2011

    Erm canturi,

    >Phil Jones would not have been in his position if he had done the same.

    The FOIs to CRU were deliberate harassment. See earlier threads on this site for evidence

    We have not been told if the CRU emails stolen by person(s) unknown (why won’t they come out in public if they were exposing lies, the police will accept that) were released without context i.e. did the thieves hold some emails back that supported Phil Jones et al. A whole lot of people hate climate scientists for ideological reasons so Phil Jones never had a chance. Compare Phil Jones visual explanation of the ‘hide the decline’ to Dr Paul Nurse on Dr Nurse’s documentary on ‘climate sceptics’ which showed why ‘hide the deline wasn’t’ to Dellingpole’s response to Dr Nurse in the same documentary and since then Dellingpole snarls out Nurse’s name in print on his telegraph blog…… In other words Canturi, it wasn’t any mistakes by Jones, he was monstered by a whole succession of people who hate climate scientists, infact if you have worked professionally on climate data then I am sure you will have felt the same love from the deniers, time and time again.

    I just think you are trying it on darlin and the concern troll language you’re exhibiting is just the denier language of love.

    Keep trying but remember you can’t get rid of the science.

    Cue….”but jeremy, thats what I’m on about, transparency, honesty….insert any word that fits…… from scientists so that we ….can all just get along….Don’t you want honesty, trasnparency….. so we can all just get along”

    Canturi, your transparent honesty is so overpowering I am having to reach for my ventlin inhaler.

  16. #16 Dave R
    February 25, 2011

    >we in the pro-AGW camp

    Give it a rest. We weren’t born yesterday.

    >genuine requests like this

    It is not a genuine request. It’s another lame attempt to bolster the same old conspiracy theories, just as it was in the US and NZ.

  17. #17 Canturi
    February 26, 2011

    Jeremy – do go on. BoM has NO excuse for this information being available.None ! What are you afraid of? Your rapid knee-jerk defense to a perceived “threat” is also telling. Do you guys ever have a question or do you swallow everything you’re told.

  18. #18 John
    February 26, 2011

    Canturi says:

    >My entire point – when we in the pro-AGW camp start being resistant to genuine requests like this – it inevitably diminishes our case. I have too much personal investment (not money) in the climate agenda to see opportunity for change on a serious issue to be squandered by poor governance and due diligence.

    Wikipedia says:

    >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.

    You’re full of shit Cantauri. A genuine person wouldn’t be wasting everybody’s time on pointless diversions like auditing the BoM.

    A genuine person wouldn’t be posting shit like 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.

    *Riiiiiiight*.

  19. #19 zoot
    February 26, 2011

    Maybe Canturi will enlighten us as to the meaning of the words “objective” and “fact” in his/her universe?

    Not holding my breath.

  20. #20 Jeremy C
    February 26, 2011

    So Canturi,

    >Jeremy – do go on. BoM has NO excuse for this information being available.None ! What are you afraid of? Your rapid knee-jerk defense to a perceived “threat” is also telling. Do you guys ever have a question or do you swallow everything you’re told.

    You are unable to answer questions. I can see why you are a denier.

  21. #21 Canturi
    February 26, 2011

    What a bunch of greenies goons. No experience and no jobs. Pissing their pants that BoM might be audited. How amazing. A veritable mirror image of the septic sceptic Nova and Bolt universe. I guess positive and negative drongo particles do indeed exist. It is surprising how utterly ratshit you lot are scientifically – simply quoting from hymn sheets, corralling the discussion or appeals to authority. Not a single science argument on this whole tedious thread. Which was my point to demonstrate.

  22. #22 Chris O'Neill
    February 26, 2011

    Which hockey stick is “the” hockey stick, Dim Cretin?

  23. #23 jakerman
    February 26, 2011

    Canturi writes:

    >*What a bunch of greenies goons. No experience and no jobs. Pissing their pants that BoM might be audited.*

    Canturi makes stuff up and attacks a strawman rather than address [our complaint](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/the_war_on_the_bureau_of_meteo.php#c3385623). Typical denier.

  24. #24 Canturi
    February 26, 2011

    Fancy G-girl being here on the weekend – shouldn’t you be out partying with the other unemployed greens?

  25. #25 John
    February 26, 2011

    Canturi – where is your experience?

    Oh, wait. You have none.

  26. #26 Bernard J.
    February 27, 2011

    Ha.

    So Concerntrolli is actually no “concern”, just a trolli.

    On ya trolly, mate…

  27. #27 Stu N
    February 27, 2011

    >Indeed if you’re all confident and BoM are confident – BRING IT ON ! Then we can put shit on Cohenite for years when it comes up trumps.

    Well I haven’t been following this thread, but I will say that we need no more ammunition against Cohenite. We have ample stocks.

  28. #28 Poptech
    October 18, 2013

    You may find this interesting,

    Who is Willis Eschenbach?

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/10/who-is-willis-eschenbach.html

    As of 2012 Mr. Eschenbach has been employed as a House Carpenter.

    He is not a “computer modeler”, he is not an “engineer” and he is certainly not a “scientist” (despite all ridiculous claims to the contrary).

    “A final question, one asked on Judith Curry’s blog a year ago by a real scientist, Willis Eschenbach…”

Current ye@r *