There’s quite a row developing after a scathing article in the Australian, some news clips follow. h/t to Dr. Benny Peiser at The GWPF
![875141-a5eda3f6-2a03-11e4-80fd-d0db9517e116[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/875141-a5eda3f6-2a03-11e4-80fd-d0db9517e1161.jpg)
The [Australian] Bureau of Meteorology has been accused of manipulating historic temperature records to fit a predetermined view of global warming. Researcher Jennifer Marohasy claims the adjusted records resemble “propaganda” rather than science. Dr Marohasy has analysed the raw data from dozens of locations across Australia and matched it against the new data used by BOM showing that temperatures were progressively warming. In many cases, Dr Marohasy said, temperature trends had changed from slight cooling to dramatic warming over 100 years. –Graham Lloyd, The Australian, 23 August 2014
The escalating row goes to heart of the climate change debate — in particular, whether computer models are better than real data and whether temperature records are being manipulated in a bid to make each year hotter than the last. Marohasy’s research has put her in dispute with BoM over a paper she published with John Abbot at Central Queensland University in the journal Atmospheric Research concerning the best data to use for rainfall forecasting. BoM challenged the findings of the Marohasy-Abbot paper, but the international journal rejected the BoM rebuttal, which had been prepared by some of the bureau’s top scientists. This has led to an escalating dispute over the way in which Australia’s historical temperature records are “improved” through homogenisation, which is proving more difficult to resolve. –Graham Lloyd, The Australian, 23 August 2014
When I first sent Graham Lloyd some examples of the remodeling of the temperature series I think he may have been somewhat skeptical. I know he on-forwarded this information to the Bureau for comment, including three charts showing the homogenization of the minimum temperature series for Amberley. Mr Lloyd is the Environment Editor for The Australian newspaper and he may have been concerned I got the numbers wrong. He sought comment and clarification from the Bureau. I understand that by way of response to Mr Lloyd, the Bureau has not disputed these calculations. What the Bureau has done, however, is try and justify the changes. In particular, for Amberley the Bureau is claiming to Mr Lloyd that there is very little available documentation for Amberley before 1990 and that information before this time may be “classified”: as in top secret. —Jennifer Marohasy, 23 August 2014
Congratulations to The Australian again for taking the hard road and reporting controversial, hot, documented problems, that few in the Australian media dare to investigate.
How accurate are our national climate datasets when some adjustments turn entire long stable records from cooling trends to warming ones (or visa versa)? Do the headlines of “hottest ever record” (reported to a tenth of a degree) mean much if thermometer data sometimes needs to be dramatically changed 60 years after being recorded?
One of the most extreme examples is a thermometer station in Amberley, Queensland where a cooling trend in minima of 1C per century has been homogenized and become a warming trend of 2.5C per century. This is a station at an airforce base that has no recorded move since 1941, nor had a change in instrumentation. It is a well-maintained site near a perimeter fence, yet the homogenisation process produces a remarkable transformation of the original records, and rather begs the question of how accurately we know Australian trends at all when the thermometers are seemingly so bad at recording the real temperature of an area. Ken Stewart was the first to notice this anomaly and many others when he compared the raw data to the new, adjusted ACORN data set. Jennifer Marohasy picked it up, and investigated it and 30 or so other stations. In Rutherglen in Victoria, a cooling trend of -0.35C became a warming trend of +1.73C. She raised her concerns (repeatedly) with Minister Greg Hunt.
Now the Australian Bureau of Meteorology has been forced to try to explain the large adjustments. Australians may finally gain a better understanding of what “record” temperatures mean, and the certainty ascribed to national trends. There is both a feature and a news piece today in The Weekend Australian. – Jo Nova The heat is on. Bureau of Meteorology ‘altering climate figures’ — The Australian
Once more we see Australia leading the way in debunking the swindle. Genuine thanks to you guys for being the first to say with conviction the Emperor has no clothes. I hold Australians in high regard anyway and this just cements it. Cheers from a Brit!
Its the corrupted FN WMO behind this adjustment fakery world wide!
temperature trends had changed from slight cooling to dramatic warming over 100 years….
It’s perfectly acceptable….thermometers were not accurate back then, people reading them were idiots, the readings were taken at the wrong time of the day, and they are having to make allowances for the heat hiding in the deep oceans……
…but assuming they are right…..it proves that no one noticed the 2.5 degree increase
I think i d i o t s, is a banned word!…………LOL
If anyone cares to remember I did that analysis some four years ago. Back when the raw data could still be had over the web. Data has gone. I never thought that BoM would be so crooked as to cook data and then delete the real stuff. The images are still here.
http://www.addinall.net/climate/ausclimate/100yrural/
Cheers.
They are deleting the original pre-1910 data. Likewise Mann won’t give his raw data to researchers. ‘He who controls the present controls the past’.–Orwell
I like the comment on that site, that CAGW actually stands for: Criminally Adjusted Global Warming. It succinctly sums up this incredible scam.
Ralph
I like the comment on that site, that CAGW actually stands for: Cr!m!nally Adjusted Global Warming. It succinctly sums up this incredible scam.
Ralph
” I hold Australians in high regard anyway and this just cements it. Cheers from a Brit!”
Andy: for extra points it should say “Cheers from a POM” When is the next Ashes?
This is germane to the brief discussion I had with Leif. He asks to be pointed to a temperature record data set used for research purposes that is valid and reliable. My response was that there were none to my knowledge. Not even HenryP’s reconstruction can be used since he too engages in nontransparent practices (either through ignorance or willfulness related to duplicating his research) such as refusing to release the station names connected to the data he uses.
According to Einstein it should be enough to show one inconsistency to question or debunk a method/theory. Apparantly that is not sufficient in climate science.
I would like to see an independent review of these homogenizations, because it is disturbing that they somehow allways increases the trend.
Have anybody anywhere seen some examples of areas where the homogenization has resulted in a lower trend? I would really like to see someone like MacIntyre analyze the methods.
….who tha’ hell woulda thunk it
“If the permit is approved, then this “solar” plant will produce about 35 percent of its electricity from fossil fuels.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/08/23/liberals-darling-2-2-billion-solar-plant-suddenly-needs-more-of-the-one-thing-you-would-never-expect/
Thai Rogue says:
August 23, 2014 at 9:49 am
”…………..When is the next Ashes?”
From Bárðarbunga in the next week or so!
Are there any raw temperature data which has not been fiddled with?
Why are climate scientists not in court for their actions?
David Schofield says:
August 23, 2014 at 10:05 am
“From Bárðarbunga in the next week or so!”
Well that should cool the expectations. Bring back Geoff! He’d thrive.
This may be the time to invest in companies that make stronger replacement fan motors that have burnout protection. Governments will probably have a run on them, so as to deal with the global warming fallout.
My respect to Jennifer Marohasy for picking up on the issue and carrying it forward in the Australian MSM . . .
GISS’ Gavin Schmidt is probably closely watching these MSM discussions of serious issues with the Australian Met Office surface temp time series dataset. GISS may be next on the MSM hot seat about the GISS datasets.
John
Surely a simple validation test can be run. Take a trusted station perhaps an automated station that reports hourly and is known to be absolutely correct for a long period. Then in the database remove that station and run the ‘homogenization’ software, If that homogenization generates a value that is outside the ‘tenth of a degree’ reported accuracy of the whole system then the homogenization algorithm has failed validation and should be discarded.
This should be a standard validation test with the homogenization runs with known accurate stations removed from the set and regenerated by homogenization. Any failures and the homogenization must be disregarded
If this simple validation testing is not done then one has to question the veracity of everything output by the groups involved. I doubt that any of these ‘climate science’ software tools have passed any kind of formal testing and are developed without a formal QMS. Hence ‘harry readme’ files.
This is why unvalidated systems without formally accredited QMS should never be allowed to provide output that is used to set policy,
I’m trying to imagine applying “homogenization” to other fields. Like… racial census data.
“I’m sorry, Mr. K. K. K. Hoodhead. Our data shows that you’re now 5% blacker than when you were born in the ’60s. Models indicate that you’ll qualify for NAACP membership by 2030.”
I suspect raw data “correction” and models would suddenly get a lot more attention.
Find some old people who have lived in the same place for 60 yrs and ask them if the weather has changed. Get people who hate TV, don’t read newspapers and have never been to college. They exist.
I want to know why they have waited until now to review the data. The raw data and all the statistical techniques haven’t changed over the years. I guess reworking the data is easier to explain away than reworking the models because reworking the models is an admission they don’t really know what is going on, despite all the claims of settled science.
Well the BOM did an “independent” audit of the New Zealand official temperature records and found?Not a smidgen of corruption?
But there is no longer an official temperature record for NZ.
The Court Case over these records went into la la land very quickly.
Criminally Adjusted Global Warming.. I like.
CAGW created by, promoted by and now protected by our bureaucrats.
The uncivil service, makes me so proud to pay taxes.
Now I know why in 2010 it was reported that Australia had just experienced the HOTTEST DECADE EVAAAAAH!
He asks to be pointed to a temperature record data set used for research purposes that is valid and reliable.
Well, Pamela, when we publish, we’ll have a set of 80 “clean” U.S. stations (out of over 1200) that contain what I refer to as the “true signal” from well sited USHCN station raw data (the other raw data has poor siting, moves, and TOBS trend changes, etc.). A slight (and perhaps legitimate) upward trend bump for MMTS conversion and there’s your story. (Perhaps one day it will actually be used “for research purposes”.)
Who is “We”, whats the name of the study, where can i get info. Like the idea…simple, logical.
“reported to a tenth of a degree”.
Where is the margin of error in all of this? To issue temperatures to a tenth of degree strikes me as rooted more in hubris than objective science — especially when the data has been fiddled with. Are they really meaning to suggest that their adjustments are accurate to within a 10th of a degree?
GISS data shows Jennifer Marohasy is correct.
The raw GHCN V2 data shows a flat/cooling trend, whilst the latest GHCN V3 data has converted this to a sharp warming trend.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/08/23/temperature-tampering-at-amberley/
“BallBounces says:
August 23, 2014 at 12:04 pm
“reported to a tenth of a degree”.
Where is the margin of error in all of this? To issue temperatures to a tenth of degree strikes me as rooted more in hubris than objective science — especially when the data has been fiddled with. Are they really meaning to suggest that their adjustments are accurate to within a 10th of a degree?”
I’ve read pro-cultist papers that claim to be accurate to a thousandth. Its very very common for them to claim to a hundredth and standard practice to claim to a tenth. In fact I can’t ever recalling reading a pro-doom paper that didn’t have claims of at least tenth on it. Yes its insane and clearly false on its face… but its always peered reviewed… hehe
Is it not strange, that all “corrections” (or shall we better say “manipulations”) by IPCC comrades of historical temperature trends make them always warmer? Normally one should expect that measurement errors have to be in both directions, or should even go more likely the other way round, since aging station boxes tend to get warmer by loosing albedo due to getting gradually more dirty as time went by.
Well now we know why they all “feel” so bad down in Aussie land.
Gotta watch em…
To all those that have in their possession the original temperature data, either in print or electronic, save and protect it! This includes such information as diaries of explorers from 100 years ago that traversed the then ice-free Artic passage, etc. Before long all web temperature records will have been “adjusted” and it will be as if the original data never existed. Otherwise the generations following behind us will never be aware this outrage ever took place, they will just accept the revised data as THE data.
Re Australian temp. corruption: Here’s an oldie but goodie, from Willis:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/
And its follow-up:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/20/darwin-zero-before-and-after/
Waiting for Mosher to say ‘ one country’.
I think I’m going to create a drug that cures cancer. Manipulation of raw temperature data is allowed in the eyes of the believers so I’m sure they believe manipulation of cancer drug data is also okay.
Looks like the Aussies are going to lead the charge in this whole sorry mess. Well done. It can’t be dismantled quick enough.
Paul Homewood says:
August 23, 2014 at 12:46 pm (Edit)
GISS data shows Jennifer Marohasy is correct.
The raw GHCN V2 data shows a flat/cooling trend, whilst the latest GHCN V3 data has converted this to a sharp warming trend.
What’s the station number? Metadata needs to be checked. Was there a move or a TOBS flip sometime in 1980? That’s where your step change is showing up. And am I starting to sound like Mosh?
I have been amused by recent headlines claiming that Australia is in the grip of a heatwave accompanied by maps showing nightmarish black areas over….’the Simpson Desert’.
The Aussie Green Warmists will stop at nothing now as they go howling into oblivion.
I love that sound.
I hope we will witness a lawsuit regarding manipulation of data with the purpose to defraud the government for research grants and people sent to jail. This would send a clear message to the fraudsters that the easy money are now long gone and hard time is to be served by those who do similar things. That would clean up the science.
Like counting ballots, temperature adjustments need scrutineers to preserve integrity.
Over 30 years there has been a corrupt culture that has swept throughout the Australian community.
Today, we are finding that almost all public institutions have been tainted.
This corruption goes right to the very top of our society, with only a very few individuals spared.
The political system is corrupt, the judiciary is corrupt, and the government departments are corrupt.
In fact, there is a wide network of webs of corruption that all feed from one another, all protecting themselves from public scrutiny.
To get to the core of the corruption, one needs to see the personal connections between the Australian Labor Party (Socialist), the Trade Union movement, and the Australian Broadcasting Commission. The individuals are all related, married, sleeping with one another, or just very close maaaats.
The Bureau of Metrology and the CSIRO feed from the teat of those above.
One only has to follow the personal links that have been exposed in the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, which is ongoing, to see how this level of corruption is maintained, without any respect for the law.
In fact, you would wonder if there are any laws. The culture is, “I’ll do and say whatever it takes to improve my personal wealth and power.”. And to Hell with the Law and Authority.
Any Australian that does not know what is going on, ought to follow “Michael Smith News”, and the Royal Commission, streaming on line every day.
Of course the Australian temperature record has been fiddled with by the BOM and the CSIRO, and the politicians don’t want to know !
I am an optimist, but I doubt if we will ever unravel this mess we have allowed to be created.
Australia, the lucky country, fast asleep !
The feet of clay are crumbling, the breadth and depth of the faked data FOR PERSONAL gain are being revealed, Time to bring in the cops and nail these lying leftardbastards hides to the dunny wall!
Chris from Hervey Bay. The Australian BOM feeds from the teat of the Australian Labour Party and the Trade Union Movement? Come off it. And please tell the Americans on here how many NSW Liberal Party (right wing) MPs have just been exposed for illegal political donations at corruption proceedings. SO when you say the political system is corrupt, maybe you should be looking closer to home.
The problem is, if you complain to a Warmist that the data has been fudged, you’ll just be blamed for ‘conspiracy’ theories and dismissed as a crank. We’re going to need some kind of ‘official’ imprimatur to raise the claim to the level where even the mainstream Alarmist media can’t ignore it.
/Mr Lynn
I thought the goal of homogenization was to remove step jumps, but the red plot is no smoother than the blue and in fact, as EvanMJones points out, it has a step offset in 1980.
Jennifer Marohasy and Joanne Nova are heroines in the Australian struggle against CAGW (Criminally Adjusted Global Warming).
Rutherglen and Amberley were chosen by me as first examples for Graham Lloyd (the journalist) because there is no site change for the entire history of the record… but large adjustments never-the-less. The Bureau is now saying there must have been a site change at both place, there is just no supporting meta-data… the dog ate the meta-data!
It seems data homogenization (not carbon sensitivity) is responsible for most if not all of our CAGW. That needs to be stopped and we better slap a tax on it! Perhaps we can create a new and lucrative market in averaging credits?
As an ex-aviator I had a lot of respect once for the Bureau of Meteorology, certainly up until the John Zillman era when there was still a wealth of practical meteorologists who had the benefit of value setting world experiences forged by WW2.
But theses days I wonder whether they have all come straight out of university holding a degree in arts and science and environmental management and a mindset formed by the coffee halls of Latrobe, the ANU and Monash armed with the latest computer software that can model anything into the future except who is going to win the Melbourne Cup.
Regardless, Jennifer Marohasy has taken on a monumental David and Goliath task that will not only pit her against the BOM but also their powerful allies such as the CSIRO, the Age, the Sydney Morning Herald, the ABC and a host of alarmists websites that will attempt to pull her to pieces.
You only have to look at the BOM’s latest State of the Climate 2014 to get a gist of the culture that runs through the place:
.
And this:
You are left with no doubt whatsoever in which climate change ring the BOM hat lies and if you are looking for any objectivity, that has also gone missing into the ocean deep because you will not find one mention of a pause or freeze in global temperatures.
If you are a collector of data I would suggest you file this BOM “state of the climate” report. Because if it proves to be entirely wrong the BOM is going to have more egg on its face than Tim Flannery cooking omelettes.
I recall a couple of years ago stating on this site that 2012 was an important year for the BOM and its predictions because if the red line started to go down on their Annual Mean Temperature Anomaly graph for Australia, a sign curve was definitely emerging. But it did not; it dramatically went up backing a BOM linear prediction.
Strange how this does not bear any resemblance to global anomalies in Bob Tisdale’s recent post or even its own
Perhaps Jennifer is on to something?
Once again we are shown evidence that the historical warming trend indicates more of cozenage and less of catastrophe.
This isn’t much different from 2009 when the govt revised the USHCN raw data into “better” raw data without telling anyone. http://www.rockyhigh66.org/stuff/USHCN_revisions.htm
After they got caught they put a version 2 label on it. I guess that makes it okay. I don’t know where you’d find the real raw data, though.
Interesting that the more ‘pliable’ the population, the further the climate adjusters are prepared to go. Australia and New Zealand are two countries where the same thing happened. Egregiously altered temperature records that eventually led to a backlash. New Zealand had theirs a couple of years ago and the New Zealand climate mechanics had to backtrack and basically say that the temperature record was not really fit for purpose – use at your own risk. The BMO of Oz I’m sure had something to do with NZ’s temperature keepers – it wouldn’t do for a country across the strait to be cooling and Oz warming. But altering it by 3C or so upwards!! Man they had to feel confident that the ozzies were easily snowed. There has been more resistance and battling going on in the US and thumbs on the scale had to be made a fair amount lighter.
Anybody know what the number of climate scientists on the public tab per 100,000 population is in these countries. I know that more papers have been rushed out of little Oz than most other countries in the last 7-10 years. It would be an interesting statistic. Also, If Oz has added 3 C on to their temp record over the past half century, and Europeans probably a degree (Austria had cooling temps for decades that they covered up in order to help jibe with their EU neighbors … Link?), with the US just keeping the faith at about 0.5 C, that sure will account for the global warming of the past century.
Moshe and all the rest: If the earth is warming inexorably and worryingly, no adjustments are needed at all. 100 thermometers around the world of acceptable locations would be enough to warn us. It is the same with sea level. Why measure it in millimetres and fractions thereof if we are going to be hit with 3-4 metres by 2100? Yes, the end is nigh! The end of the foolishness. The silence of the once jaunty team is itself a climate record that is easy to understand.
I’ll believe in global warming only when climatologists can predict the past with reasonable accuracy.
The BOM used to do the weather, now it does politics.
Haha . . yes, I’ve always been amused at the false equivalence warmist argument comparing cancer cures and climate.
Many years ago here in Oz, we had a case involving Dr. William McBride. He was a well respected, almost legendary and liked professional who carried out some research on thalidomide, If I recall.
He even attended to my wife with a relatively simple and effective pregnancy fix issue.
Anyway, he fudged the data on that research, and even though his conclusion turned out to be correct, he was unceremoniously struck off.
Climate scientists™ won’t be struck off because they are allowed to make mistakes, doncha know.
There is a vast difference between medical science accountability and Climate science™ accountability.
Anthony Zeeman says:
August 23, 2014 at 7:09 pm
“I’ll believe in global warming only when climatologists can predict the past with reasonable accuracy.”
I will make it easy for them just back date the ice-core CO2 record some 8-10 Centuries and there it is! Do I get a grant for that?
Yes, The BoM were called in to ‘validate’ the New Zealand official position if I recall.
I hadn’t thought of this before, but wouldn’t Australia and New Zealand potentially make up a large proportion of southern hemisphere land temperature record?
I’m not sure how much data comes out of Africa or the South American continent, but there isn’t very much land in the southern hemisphere.
Yup we had the same prob in NZ http://www.climaterealists.org.nz/node/435
The department NIWA (National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research) was hard to pin down though and the debate featured poorly in the press.
This appears to be endemic world wide.
So who wants AGW to succeed more than anything and has the cash to buy the right people and organisations? The UN of course! who operate at central governmental levels and the UN sponsored organisation, ICLEI who operate at the local government level.
More at http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
Cheers
Roger
jennifermarohasy says:
August 23, 2014 at 5:14 pm
===========================================
Perhaps, it was a dingo. They are known to eat almost anything!
As has been mentioned by others earlier, it’s all about a step change in about 1980, a change of about 2 degree. Prior to then, and subsequently, the temperature tracks are virtually identical.
What it, the step change appears to indicate that there was an instrument change at that time and either the old instruments were reading 2 degree high, or the new instruments are reading 2 degree low.
Either way I can’t accept that the instruments can be so wrong. They should be calibrated prior to installation. What “homogenisation” seems to suggest is that they are calibrated after installation against instruments installed at other sites remote from the location.
How do they know which ones should be adjusted?
The idea that it might be the blind leading the blind comes to mind.
Thanks be to Jennifer Marohasy and Joanne Nova as well as the Australian Newspaper and not forgetting Andrew Bolt. Corruption is omni-present. Wherever you want to look. But truth will prevail because the people are sick of the power people lining their pockets for the sake of the ‘good of the people.’
Mark Addinall says:
August 23, 2014 at 9:42 am
If anyone cares to remember I did that analysis some four years ago. Back when the raw data could still be had over the web. Data has gone. I never thought that BoM would be so crooked as to cook data and then delete the real stuff. The images are still here.
http://www.addinall.net/climate/ausclimate/100yrural/
Mark, I’ve checked some of the sites you’ve documented in your paper. Take Southern Cross for example. The chart you document is still available on the BoM site. See:
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_display_type=dataGraph&p_stn_num=012074&p_nccObsCode=36&p_month=13
I’m checking the rest. However, the site is very hard to negotiate and data seems to be inconsistently presented across locations.
Thought you’d like to know.
Mark Addinall says:
August 23, 2014 at 9:42 am
If anyone cares to remember I did that analysis some four years ago. Back when the raw data could still be had over the web. Data has gone. I never thought that BoM would be so crooked as to cook data and then delete the real stuff. The images are still here.
http://www.addinall.net/climate/ausclimate/100yrural/
Cheers.
===========
YUP I noticed when I had sent links with charts and thought I had saved the pages,
seems Id saved page links only..and when I went back to look..?
theyd been tidied/ filed /hidden..and what was there had been formatted in a non available to the avg pc user program of some kind. excuse when I ueried it was they didnt have the space to keep the data as was online ffs!
that was? 2009!!!
They are not the only ones at it, they ALL do. Bunch of fraudsters.
<– clears throat…
Ahem. Remember…this is all about moving money. It's important to remember that from time to time, as we become increasingly astonished that politicians can't seem to see the facts that are staring them in the face.
Facts that interfere with the ability to move and control money will be denied to the bitter end, and perhaps beyond 🙂
Jim
How did the Alarmist community come up with the word “Homogenizing” to describe their torture of the raw data that does not support their grants? One can only imagine the conference room in East Anglia where these dishonest folks cooked up the idea.
ozspeaksup says:
August 24, 2014 at 3:12 am
YUP I noticed when I had sent links with charts and thought I had saved the pages,
seems Id saved page links only..and when I went back to look..?
theyd been tidied/ filed /hidden..and what was there had been formatted in a non available to the avg pc user program of some kind. excuse when I ueried it was they didnt have the space to keep the data as was online ffs!
that was? 2009!!!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I don’t understand what you are saying.
The charts in Mark Addinall’s analysis are still available on the BoM site. And they still look the same as those copied by Mark in his paper.
Yep. They’re harder to find perhaps, but they are still there.
jennifermarohasy says:
August 23, 2014 at 5:14 pm
Rutherglen and Amberley were chosen by me as first examples for Graham Lloyd (the journalist) because there is no site change for the entire history of the record… but large adjustments never-the-less. The Bureau is now saying there must have been a site change at both place, there is just no supporting meta-data… the dog ate the meta-data!
******************************************************************************************
Why is it that adjustments are allowed without data to back them up. No meta-data, no adjustments we’ll use the raw data thanks.
I’ll bet you haven’t realised that the speed of light is actually 195,000 miles per sec because it was adjusted two years ago. No, as it happens the meta-data explaining that adjustment has disappeared, but honest it’s really true.
NO META-DATA, NO ADJUSTMENTS.
All research that has used adjusted data without the reason for those adjustments being available and validated is invalid – no arguments. We’re talking science here not opinion.
SteveT
Spatial data homogenization, so-called, comes across as a dubious technique at best.
Any valid interpolation method should reproduce the actual measured data at the specfic sites where it was acquired.
Actually I think the scamsters have been nailed in Australia this is really HUGE mark the date and the story. Prosecutions could follow.
REASON Australian government now an official anti-warming (AGW) scam organization LOL
Just how ‘lucky’ can you get all necessary adjustment put past temperatures up form what they actual measured at, which by further luck help support the views of those doing the ‘adjustments’
But I wish stop using airports has a guide to temperature in a wider area , as they often and for good reason , poorly represent that area. The do the job they where designed to , provide information for use in flight movements in and out of the airport . There used for other things not because their ‘good’ but because they exist .
Quid custodiet ipsos custodies?
This comes as no surprise. It was driven by the need to please Australia’s Rudd/Gillard Labor governments that insisted dangerous human-caused global warming was a fact, and that an emissions trading scheme was necessary, and when that failed to happen, a carbon tax was necessary.
The BoM has been fudging the data, just as New Zealand’s NIWA was caught out doing the same, as exposed by the ‘Kiwigate’ scandal, for which the scientist responsible for the data fudging was sacked and the adjusted temperature data disowned by the New Zealand government.
The BoM seems to think it knows better the temperatures of the past, than the actual people who recorded the temperature data going back decades. BoM decided the past was cooler than the actual temperature data reflected. After all, BoM needed to show a warming temperature trend. So what better way to do it when warming is not evident in the real world observational data … create the warming trend.
If cavalier adjustments of data to fit a contrived narrative were made in finance or a host of other fields, the perpetrators would be put in jail by the authorities. In “climate science,” however, it’s the authorities themselves who are perpetrating the fraud.