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.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
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
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.
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.
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?
@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.
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...
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.
Please write to the Auditor General pointing out these issues.
These right wing hit squads make me puke.
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.
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'?
Anyway, I wonder Joanne Nova is merely jealous of climate scientists' sex lives. :-B
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.
Fred Knell you are full of it, I wont waste my time on you but I'll provide some reading for interested lukers, (Fred don't educated your self by reading below, or you might make yourself dangerous):
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/07/31/papers-on-biological-indica…
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/11/08/papers-on-glacier-melting/
http://hot-topic.co.nz/a-christmas-cracker-for-the-cranks/
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, itâs obvious NIWA canât 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.
>*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.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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."?
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!
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.
Sorry for OT post, just came across [this](http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/02/15/hunton_williams_…) . It mentions the Koch funding against climate change.
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 ! :-)
Tim:
the likely outcame {outcome}
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_farm…) 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.
"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.
Septic Lank said:
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.
[Septic Tank said: "Rumour is...."](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/the_war_on_the_bureau_of_meteo…)
Now be sure to make that 2 seconds worth of oxygen last as long as you can, Septic.
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 â and her compatriots â 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!
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.
#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-d…
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2011/02/17/hunton-williams-left-finge…
So it's worth wondering about a "climategate" connection.
I see Cory Bernardi is in the press again - cheap racists attacks on mulsims (backed up by Bolt of course).
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?
@26:
From [here](http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2027420/japan-steps-renewables-sup…)
@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.
>*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.
@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.....
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.
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".
If you think he has something, why not tell us what?
Simply that there are many adjustments to data. And those adjustments don't seem well based, documented and are in one direction only.
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...
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.
>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.
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
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.
> Fred Knell ... disappeared
He's at the bottom of the borehole, as of minutes ago.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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".
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.
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?
Canturi@51:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 !
Pierce, did you get your Ph.D at the same second rate establishment as chronic liar and denier Girma O? Sounds like it.
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…).
How about you educate yourself on the science instead of trying to smear the messenger.
Livewire Harold Pierce Jr:
Pure and simple global warming denialism.
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?
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.
>"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.
Canturi:
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.
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-vo…
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.
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.
Tell me Canturi, why would the BoM deliberately be manipulating data to show warming? What benefits could it have for them?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Canturi @66:
You're welcome! Have a nice day.
...unless of course you are one of these two HPJs:
by PIERCE, HAROLD DWIGHT, JR. Ph.D., University of California, Irvine, 1973, 116 pages; AAT 7413851
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.
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
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.
[On no](http://i55.tinypic.com/sq2f0h.jpg), another one.
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.
Canturi, whoah boy. Easy.
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.
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."
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.
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-…
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.
>*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.
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 ...
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?
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.
Canturi: writes
>â*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 youâll find it dis information like that from climate depot, Glen Beck Fox news, Murdoch papers. Koch funded front groups, fossil funded âthinkâ 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.
Itâs 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 donât 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, weâve been through this before with Darwin Airport data. Oh I forgot you are a concern troll, you donât 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? Wouldnât 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).
Weâve 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?
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…
and that's not even mentioning MSFT sock puppets during antitrust legislation, GIYUSbots, etc. etc.
Marion, one thing I'm thinking about is whether it's possible to programmatically detect HBGary's sockpuppets.
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.
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.
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.
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.
.
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..."
.
.
.
>"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.
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.
@Jack,
"He and his department have a clearly stated vested interest in the introduction of a price on carbon."
Bloody ignorant conspiracy theorists.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Canturi:
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.
Flying Wingnut:
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.
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.
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.
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…) for [the actions of](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/the_war_on_the_bureau_of_meteo…) 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?
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…) deliberately failed to mention many other irrelevant nutter points that wackos think make a conspiracy.
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.
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.
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.
>*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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>*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?
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…), 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.
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…).
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?
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.
>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?
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.
@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.
rhwombat, which Geller are you speculating?
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.
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: âAN ACT STATING MONTANAâS POSITION ON GLOBAL WARMING; AND PROVIDING AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE.â
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 Montanaâs 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.*
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 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.
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.
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...
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.
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 :-)
Shorter Jack:
Savings: 17,000%
J @125: Can'turi Gellar bend spoons?
Boom boom!
;)
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.
Empty words canturi, you must be able to do better than that.
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-20110…).
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''.*
And where, oh wise one, did you get your experience with climate data??
> 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? ;-)
Oh, and while I'm at it:
How true, how true.
Canturi, you really must watch those double negatives, they're slipperier than denialist arguments.
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?
One wonders when someone else will ponder whether the correspondence between a certain anagram of Canturi and his salty rhetorical style is merely coincidental... ;-) ;-)
Coimcidentally I was just wondering how those fizzy seawater drinking experiments are going...
>fizzy seawater drinking
That also [rings a bell](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/andrew_bolt_column_flooded_wit…). I wonder if socks come in pairs?
@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.
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?'
Thank you Holly; whenever I want to be guided about insults Du Jour I know I can be set straight at Deltoid.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
@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.
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.*
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:
>*â¦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 Timâs 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…). 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.
> ...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…).
Not very good at assessing evidence, eh?
And he wonders why we don't merely accept any claims he makes at face value...
Canturi:
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?
I think the important part of Curtain's
is the bit that's missing. Here is his statement corrected with the addition of the bit he left out:
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.
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-…)...
Speaking of denialist tactics, checkout the tactics described in [this law suit](http://www.climatelaw.org/cases/country/us/kivalina/Kivalina%20Complain…) (from p47).
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?
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.
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.
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.
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…) 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.
;)
>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-c…).
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?)
> It's called a songworm apparently.
I've heard "earworm" as well.
"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.
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.
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…) 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…) to argumentation.
It feels good to be shown that I'm correct once in a while. Thanks Canturi. Thanks for spreading the good feeling.
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.
> ...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…). 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.
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 ?
> 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…), 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.
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.
You've avoided my question Canturi darling. When have you ever worked with climate data?
> 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.
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…) 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 Australiaâs 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.
> 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!
>*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.
"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.
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.
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".
> "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…):
> 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…):
> 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.
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)
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.
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.
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…) to make that quite clear.
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)
Not content with [transcending mere logic](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/the_war_on_the_bureau_of_meteo…), 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…)
> ...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.
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…)?
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.
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.j…
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?
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?
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.
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…).
*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.
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.
>*I have been known to work with Willis.*
A [telling admission](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis_eschenbach_caught_lying…).
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)?
GS:
What an amazing admission. Deciding to join someone on the condition that they're lying.
>*So, again, where was Willis caught lying?*
[Here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis_eschenbach_caught_lying…).
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 âhomogenizedâ data has been changed to fit someoneâs preconceptions about whether the earth is warming.*
Yes that's a good one made possible by his latest corruption. I like Dim Cretin of course.
> 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.
"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.
You still haven't answered my question Canturi darling. When have you ever worked with climate data?
Canturi demonstrates she cant even read the name at the bottom of a post.
;)
More importantly Zooty tooty - have you ever done a day's work.
> 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".
But Canturi is an expert on climate because he reads blogs that agree with his politics.
Uric ant @206:
I'll take that as a "No, I've never worked with climate data".
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?
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-climatega…)...
I'll be away for a while, so no posting from me...
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
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*.
Maybe Canturi will enlighten us as to the meaning of the words "objective" and "fact" in his/her universe?
Not holding my breath.
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.
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.
Which hockey stick is "the" hockey stick, Dim Cretin?
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…). Typical denier.
Fancy G-girl being here on the weekend - shouldn't you be out partying with the other unemployed greens?
Canturi - where is your experience?
Oh, wait. You have none.
Ha.
So Concerntrolli is actually no "concern", just a trolli.
On ya trolly, mate...
>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.
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..."