Part 5 of the series Australia’s Broken Temperature Record – All 224 Homogenised Temperature Series – Including the Bombing of Darwin

Reposted from Jennifer Marohasy’s Blog

March 31, 2022 By jennifer 

I can hardly be accused of cherry picking if I present all the temperature series – all four iterations of the homogenised ACORN-SAT temperature series charted with the raw historical series from the Australia Data Archive for Meteorology (ADAM).   ADAM is a little-known data set that contains the unhomogenised values: the temperature values as they were recorded.

The extent of their remodelling is mind boggling, including for Darwin, where in the most recent iteration temperatures in the historical record are artificially cooled including for the period of World War 2.

Darwin was bombed 64 times by the Japanese during World War 2. The first air raid destroyed the weather station at the post office and killed the postmaster, but Darwin also had a weather station at the airport that had been in operation almost a year.

The Australian War Memorial would never change important historical war records, yet the Australian Bureau of Meteorology has remodelled Darwin’s temperature record dropping down maximum temperatures during World War 2 by on average 1°C for 1941 and on average 0.5 °C for 1942.  The Bureau has done this by changing daily temperatures. For example, on 18th February 1942 – the day before the first air raid and the day of the last evacuation of civilians – the maximum temperature was recorded as 31.1 °C at the airport in the Australian Data Archive for Meteorology (ADAM).  But when I look in the official Australian Climate Observations Reference Network – Surface Air Temperature (ACORN-SAT) database the maximum temperature for that day has been cooled to 30.1 °C.   This revisionists approach to our climate history affects Australia’s war time record because weather and climate are critical to military strategy.

In March 2012, when Version 1 of ACORN-SAT was published, the Bureau was claiming in its catalogue that there was abnormal cooling of the Darwin temperature record before 1 January 1937 because of shading from trees. Somewhat peculiarly, this was then used as a justification for adjusting all the temperatures down before this date back to 1910, in effect further dramatically cooling the early record.  At that time, there were no changes to the daily temperatures during WW2.  The changes to the war record were made in 2018, in the development of ACORN-SAT version 2.0 and have been carried forward into the current version ACORN-SAT 2.2.

Just this month I’ve updated the interactive table at my website that shows the extent of the remodelling of the temperature record by plotting the annual maxima and minima series from each of the 112 homogenised ACORN-SAT sites (versions 1, 2.0, 2.1 and most recently 2.2) with the actual maxima and minima values from the Australian Data Archive for Meteorology (ADAM).   There are 224 charts with at least five temperature series in each chart (more when the raw/ADAM data includes post office as well as airport series etc.).   Click across and have a play:

There is a lot of work in those charts and this is the only place on the internet that you will find them!

The Darwin maximum temperature comparison is the feature image and does look a bit messy because initially temperatures were recorded at the post office (green series), and temperature were cooling following the cyclone in 1937.  The Bureau have completely remodelled this cooling out of the official record with the latest iteration that is ACORN-SAT version 2.2 (pink series) showing gradual warming from 1910 through until the present.   Considering the original series from the post office (014016 green) and then the airport (014015 blue) there is cooling and then warming.

It is the completely remodelled (pink series) not the original historic (green and then blue series) that are incorporated into the Annual Climate Statement to lament catastrophic human-caused global warming.

Homogenisation of the data is not the only factor that affects overall warming trends.  The Bureau truncates the historical record to begin in 1910.   Considering Darwin there is a perfectly good historical temperature record beginning in 1895 when temperatures were recorded using a mercury thermometer in a Stevenson Screen.  There is no reason to truncate or change this record, but the Bureau completely remodels it removing the hot early record (pre-1910) and then dropping down/cooling daily values from 1980 until a linear trend is created (pink series).

The maximum temperature series for Darwin airport based on the ADAM data.

*******

This is part 5 of the series ‘Australia’s Broken Temperature Record’. This blog post blew-out to 4,300 words in a draft that incorporated information about Darwin’s early war history and the story of the telegraphic office in Darwin that became the post office.   The much longer version will be published as part of book that I am writing about how to fix Australia’s broken temperature record.

4.8 30 votes
Article Rating
50 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 31, 2022 2:33 am

” ADAM is a little-known data set that contains the unhomogenised values”
Much better known is GHCN V4. Its unadjusted data is exactly the same (as is V3, V2).

“There is a lot of work in those charts and this is the only place on the internet that you will find them!”

WUWT has been beating the drum about Darwin’s adjustment ever since Willis’ Smoking gun at Darwin zero in 2009, which got debated in the Economist and elsewhere. Those were GHCN adjustments, but the circumstances that made them necessary – mainly station moves, were the same.

Michael Elliott
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 31, 2022 3:09 am

So why is this falsification of the data taking place.

Have the Greens taken the Met over ?

Michael VK5ELL

Reply to  Michael Elliott
March 31, 2022 10:21 pm

The temperature record for Darwin is not straightforward. It is therefore reasonable to adjust for the effect of station moves and changes on compiled or joined datasets. An adjusted dataset is not the same as one that is ‘remodeled’. Anyway, the bigger question is whether adjustments truly account for changes in the signal over time, and whether the process is objective and replicable. At the heart of the issue is whether metadata faithfully reports on factors likely to impact on observations (which is unlikely).

The challenge is to differentiate between site changes that made no difference, while at the same time identifying changes in data that were potentially due to unreported changes. For Darwin, I first looked at this problem in February 2017 and although not yet published at https://www.bomwatch.com.au/, I updated that research in August 2020. In the interim I found additional information (maps, plans and photographs (including aerials) documents etc.) to corroborate my analysis. For instance, I found photographs that showed the original Stevenson screen was at the Telegraph Office in 1890. Another, (undated) shows the relocated screen at the Post Office, shaded by a large tree.  A step-change in the data suggests the site moved in 1906.

A subsequent change in 1937 was due to a cyclone on 11 March that demolished the town and up-rooted most trees. Damage was extensive and widely reported in newspapers of the day, and of course the resulting change in temperature was not a climate-related trend. Simon Torok said that before 1941, the site moved (or data transitioned), probably to the Parap Aeradio office, which was operational in 1937. Construction of the new RAAF aerodrome adjacent to the Stuart Highway at Marrara, commonly known as ‘4-mile’ only commenced in 1939 and I don’t believe it was operational until 1941. After the cyclone and before it moved to Parap the screen must have been relocated somewhere else that was cooler, a garden or watered area perhaps (the step-change was negative ‑0.48oC). Simon Torok noted a ‘composite move’ in 1942, which is probably when data transitioned to the RAAF Aerado (or RAAF meteorological section) office at the 4-mile (todays current airport).   
The essential problem is that, as all these scraps of data have been joined together as time series, any purported ‘trend’ is highly likely to be spurious. As for the current (Stuart Highway) airport, quoting from my half-finished interim report (21 May 2018):
“The ACORN-SAT catalogue (Bureau of Meteorology 2012a) suggests the Stevenson screen only moved once since records commenced in February 1941. However, aerial photographs from 1944, 1945, 1948, 1950, 1952 and 1960 show the original WWII Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) Meteorological Section site (at about Latitude ‑12.4184o, Longitude 130.8724o) was 1.2 km west of the second (comparison) site (14040; Latitude ‑2.4227o Longitude 130.8844o), which moved 900 m east on 7 August 2001. The S2 and S3 sites are visible in a Google Earth Pro satellite image (31 August 2005). So, there is an undocumented move, possibly corresponding with installation of wind-finding WF44 and METOX radars (used for tracking radiosonde balloons) in September 1968 (Day 2007, p. 343; http://www.austehc.unimelb.edu.au /fam/0557.html)”. Remember also that the earliest homogenisation dataset (HQ) was produced by Torok and Nicholls in 1996. It will be interesting when I get to it, to track those adjustments through time.

My only advice is to resist using Excel to depict trend changes before thoroughly investigating attributes of the data and taking a deep-dive into metadata including corroborative evidence such as photographs, maps and plans (I purchased a plan of the RAAF aerodrome from the National Archives), aerials (I spent days shuffling through aerials in the National Library), documents etc.
It’s on my ‘do’ list to provide a Darwin update in a few months after I finish my current project.  

All the best,
 
Dr Bill Johnston

https://www.bomwatch.com.au/
 

Bob Irvine
Reply to  Bill Johnston
April 1, 2022 9:44 pm

Hi Bill,
I hope you get to see this comment as I am a bit late in posting.
Acorn uses Port Wyndham as there comparison station for the missing Darwin data after 1937, which I believe adds a spurious warming to the subsequent series.
There rules are,
use 5 years either side of an in-continuity,
Get correlation co-efficients for each month for this period between Port Wyndham and Darwin.
Take the median correlation co-efficient for the 12 months.

If that median CC is greater than 0.5 then comparison station can be used to bridge the in-continuity after 1937 in the Darwin record.

The normal standard is a CC of 0.6 but this was specifically reduced to 0.5 for Darwin because it only had 1 comparison station.

The summer and winter (DJF,JJA) monthly co-relation between Port Wyndham and Darwin was very strong.
The autumn and spring (MAM,SON) monthly co-relation was very weak sometimes negative.

The mean CC for the 12 months was only 0.4. This was unacceptable so they used the median CC which was 0.56 which became acceptable after the standard was reduced from the normal 0.6 to 0.5 specifically to include Darwin.
Darwin showed no warming either side of the in-continuity while Port Wyndham showed significant (possibly spurious) warming in the 1930s,40s,50s.

They then used the mean yearly temperatures (A no-no after using median to test for compatibility) of the two cities to transfer the possibly spurious warming in Port Wyndham to the Darwin data.

Bill, I’m happy to write this up for you if you have any interest.
WUWT have my private email.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  Bob Irvine
April 2, 2022 12:04 am

Bob Irvine,

Thank you for this interesting info.
I have long been a critic of the correlation coefficient versus separation method of justifying pairwise station comparisons. The BEST diagram indicates a coefficient of about 0.7 for the 450 km separation of Wyndham to Darwin. We used not to place much weight on 0.7 in the geoscience work we did. Geoff S

Bob Irvine
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
April 2, 2022 3:37 pm

Thanks Geoff,
The warming is quite obvious in the Port Wyndham graph and should have been noticed by the BOM.
The homogenization process completely broke down in this instance.
I believe that Darwin and Gove are the only stations used for an entire NASA GISS grid square. So their global temperature series would have been disproportionately affected by the dodgy Port Wyndham data.

Reply to  Bob Irvine
April 2, 2022 4:35 pm

Thanks Bob. I can be contacted at BomWatch so that is not an issue. Port Wyndham is one of 15 sites used to homogenise Darwin. I have not looked closely at second-tier sites (yet), but I have not found any that themselves are homogeneous. While I have not paid particular attention Darwin since 2020, I’m pretty sure that after the Cyclone, the screen was re-located either back to the Telegraph Office garden or somewhere else that was cooler. Also, that data for Parap Aeradio (Ross Smith Avenue at Parap was the original runway) was used to fill-in for a few years until RAAF Aeradio commenced at the 4-mile drome in 1941. Parap was eventually re-developed and the 4-mile became the current airport.
ACORN-SAT said they applied a Tmax adjustment in 1937 (vegetation), they should have said cyclone, but made no other prior adjustments. However, ACORN data actually start in 1910. Previously, HQ-Tmax adjustments had been made in 1937, 1938, 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942, then 1967 and 1982!, which is simply crazy. So, they abutted the datasets then adjusted them to line them up. I don’t know about Port Wyndham metadata at this time but when I get to it, I’ll have a good look. The other issue is that I find this deep-dive research quite interesting, which means it takes time.
All the best,
Bill Johnston
https://www.bomwatch.com.au/

Jennifer Marohasy
Reply to  Bob Irvine
April 2, 2022 8:39 pm

Thanks Bill. The idea with this post, and the interactive table that I link to, is to show the data from each of the temperature series as record and as adjusted. It is to acknowledge the extent of the changes by showing annual ACORN-SAT and ADAM values on on the same chart. That is the intention.
So, if you click across to the key link in the blog post you will see all 104 temperatures series used by the Bureau to calculate an average annual temperature for Australia and I’ve included both TMax and TMin. A big job in all of that! :-).
Regarding the best reconstruction for Darwin, I show a minimally homogenised reconstruction from 1895 on page 251 of my book Climate Change: The Facts 2020. You can find this same chart (with the temperature series for Richmond Q) as Chart 7/Chart 16.7 here: https://jennifermarohasy.com/2022/02/australias-broken-temperature-record-part-2/

Ron Long
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 31, 2022 3:12 am

Nick, a station move should not produce a data remodelling event, the move, which should produce a different temperature series, should be noted and the data left alone. Dr. Jennifer is presenting data showing the changing of data, with a bit of Ozzie being bombed history thrown in.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 31, 2022 3:20 am

Nick,
“Necessary”?
When there is a station move, how does one know if the prior temperatures should be adjusted up, or down? Or kept the same? Or the later temperatures adjusted up or down or nought? How do you know how many days, months or years it is “Necessary” to adjust?
Nearby station comparisons are a little hard for Darwin. Hardly any stations within Cooee. Those that might qualify for nearby have problems of quality.
So much depends on how far 2 comparison stations are separated and the validity of correlation coefficients with distance. Two straight lines have a perfect correlation, so variables other than weather can affect the customary correlation method.
We installed the station at Jabiru about 1971. It is 250 k by road from Darwin, a 2 hour drive now the stray buffalo have all been killed by greenies.
Jabiru had much higher humidity and rather higher max temperatures than Darwin. So different you can feel it easily. Further from the sea, different rain patterns. So how in heck can anyone justify correcting one such station from the other?
The whole homogenisation concept in Australia is based on flawed logic, to the extent that it should be regarded as academic misconduct.
Geoff S

Steve Richards
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
March 31, 2022 3:29 am

Geoff, I am shocked you have to ask such questions!!

Nick ‘knows’ just the right way to adjust the data. He just knows!

observa
Reply to  Steve Richards
March 31, 2022 4:02 am

Nick hangs out with those who ‘know’ just the right way to adjust the data too because they’re all in the know.

Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
March 31, 2022 4:59 am

Geoff,
“So how in heck can anyone justify correcting one such station 
from the other?”
This misunderstands how homogenisation works. You don’t imagine that Darwin should be the same as Jabiru. You look at Jabiru to see if it showed a similar drop to what Darwin showed when it moved to the airfield. If not, then you think (after getting similar results elsewhere) that the drop may have been artificial. The correction is simply to remove the drop – ie lower earlier readings to put them on the same footing as the later. You don’t somehow merge Darwin data with Jabiru.

Australia did not invent homogenisation. Nor indeed did climate scientists.

John MCCUTCHEON
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 31, 2022 6:00 am

Funny how it worked out that most of the data changes to “homogenise” the records found the Historical data records needed lowering.

Bob boder
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 31, 2022 6:38 am

Nick, it’s time. You know this is all nonsense it’s time you start admitting it to yourself. Look at the harm being caused all over there world by this fraud. It’s time to stop living in the fantasy and be part of the voices of reason.

Mike Smith
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 31, 2022 8:27 am

But when homgenisation creates, reverses or radically changes a trend, one should be highly suspicious.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 31, 2022 1:17 pm

There is only one reason to adjust past data without concrete evidence that the data is incorrect and that is to maintain an artificial set of numbers that can be considered a “long record“. The only reason for long records is not scientifically justified, it is only justified by mathematicians so that statistical treatments don’t end up with errors like Simpson’s Paradox.

Thermometers measure a microclimate that surrounds the instrument. They could be precise and accurate to 10 decimal points and they still only measure what the surroundings provide. Anything, and I emphasize, anything that changes that microclimate may cause different temperatures to be read. Does it mean the recorded temperatures are incorrect? Not hardly. Without evidence of a thermometer being out of calibration, it just means the microclimate has changed.

Evidence of a change in the microclimate is NOT a reason to modify all the previous scientific data that has been recorded. If the data is unfit for the purpose to which you want to use it, then declare it unfit for purpose and trash it. Do not modify it to suit your purpose, that is not scientific ancid borders on unethical.

The needs of statistical analysis simply can not justify creating new information to replace scientifically gathered data. If you can’t use, throw it away. Otherwise climate science will end up with the situation that is being uncovered. Most temperature adjustments of previous data is make them cooler while adjustments of more recent data is upward.

wadesworld
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 31, 2022 1:36 pm

The reading is what the reading is. If you find something is artificially inflating or deflating the reading, chop off all the data after the point you determine the readings became artificially altered. Then fix what is causing the artificial impact.

Loren C. Wilson
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 31, 2022 5:56 pm

Real scientists, if they think there was a change due to siting issues, etc. would investigate the two sites and determine if an adjustment was actually merited. Using data from a thermometer 150 miles away to guess whether the current site or previous site was more representative is witchcraft and lends itself to cherry-picking the data. Go back to the log books and see what changed. If there is no data to support an adjustment, then you can’t adjust it, even if you suspect that there is an issue. There are so many possible reasons why this thermometer is not going to be in lockstep with thermometers over a hundred miles away and in different environments.

LdB
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 31, 2022 8:47 pm

Nick not being a scientist fails to grasp you need to validate whether homogenisation is valid for a given situation. It appears he is naive and understands little of real science.

Jennifer Marohasy
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 2, 2022 8:42 pm

Nick Stokes, the biggest drop down in temperature came after the cyclone, not the bombing. The cyclone was in 1937, the bombing was in 1942. There was no station move after the 1937 cyclone.

Charles Higley(@higley7)
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
March 31, 2022 8:42 am

It’s simple. When there is a station move, the old station is run for a couple of more years as is the new station. Then, the records are compared. It makes sense to adjust the new station data metrics to match the old stations Otherwise, you open up the data to al kinds of fiddling and biased adjustments.

Patrick B
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 31, 2022 6:41 am

So shouldn’t the margin of error associated with the adjusted temperatures be larger? You have the original margin of error with the measurement and you have the additional margin of error created by someone’s estimate of what those temperatures should be.

michel
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 1, 2022 12:25 am

There is no case, ever, for changing the original instrument readings. Not from site moves, not from homogenization. There is absolutely no justification for changing temperatures recorded 100 years ago.

Kathleen Stock has laid out very clearly the mechanism involved in this. Its what happens when people have adopted a few ideas which are not subject to question, and then have to adjust everything else around them. You end up having to believe more and more absurdities.

In the present case, it must be warming, therefore the instrument readings which do not show that must be wrong.

Same thing happens with CO2 increases lagging temperature, the Hockey Stick and ‘short centered’ PCA, the RWP and MWP, the usefulness and possibility of moving electricity generation to wind and solar… the polar bears…. the Barrier Reef….

The whole thing becomes one absurdity after another.

Reply to  michel
April 1, 2022 3:12 am

“here is no case, ever, for changing the original instrument readings”

They aren’t changing the original readings. These are published as in the GHCN unadjusted data, or ADAM, or indeed the majority of the BoM’s data.

What they do is publish also data adjusted to be representative, not of what was found in a sequence of variably placed boxes, but of the regional climate. That is why they consult nearby readings to see if sudden changes were part of a wider event. 

In fact, posting adjusted daily readings, as ACORN does, is unusual. Usually it is the monthly averages that are adjusted. In fact ACORN’s adjustments are calculated on a longer timescale, and then just applied to the daily readings by formula. I’m not sure that that is very useful, but no bad result ensues.

Jennifer Marohasy
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 2, 2022 8:45 pm

Michel, If they are going to change the temperatures/homogenise they should at least show the original historical with the adjusted remodelled. which is what I do in the key link in this blog post, and I show both (ACORN and ADAM) for all 104 locations that are used to calculate an average annual overall temperature for Australia, https://jennifermarohasy.com/acorn-sat-v1-vs-v2/

michel
Reply to  Jennifer Marohasy
April 3, 2022 1:30 am

Jennifer, the scale of the alterations is very striking. It would help if you indicated what the dates of the different revised series are. If you were to add that to the legends it would probably help.

Once you admit that the past record is so unreliable that alterations of this size can be justified, you have to abandon the idea that we know previous temperatures reliably enough to allow any policy conclusions from the series, whether its the modified series or the original raw series.

Excellent piece of work. Alas, its just the entry point of the later craziness. First change the historical temperature record. Then feed the changed record into the spaghetti graphs. Then claim that we need to stop burning fossil fuel to recue CO2 emissions to stop temperatures rising.

At least, those of us living in the West, China and India can carry on for some unexplained reason.

And then start arguing that installing huge numbers of wind turbines (in the West of course) can replace coal and gas fired generation, that EVs can replace ICE, and that all this will reduce rising global temperatures.

That is, the rising temperatures shown in the altered historical temperates…. Because in the original readings there is inconveniently less of a rise….

michel
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 3, 2022 12:54 am

The difficulty is that the homogenized and adjusted data series are universally reported, with the backing of the climate science consensus, as the real temperature record.

The explanation that the real original data have not been deleted and can be found if you look hard enough doesn’t really meet the point.

What is being advocated and used as part of the really important thing, use in setting policy, is not the original observations.

This is a fundamental difficulty with the process, and it feeds into the difficulties with the attempts to use the spaghetti graphs as valid models to input to public policy decisions.

Geoff Sherrington
March 31, 2022 3:50 am

Confusing graphs?
Here is one for Darwin, before the days of ACORN-SAT homgenization. I compiled it about year 2008 from the sources then available.
About all that I can say is that the error involved in these past temperature estimates has to be inside a big envelope, say big enough to enclose (say) 95% of the readings. That is a realistic error estimate.
http://www.geoffstuff.com/spaghetti_darwin.jpg

Geoff S

fretslider
March 31, 2022 3:50 am

“The Bureau truncates the historical record to begin in 1910. “

Until recently so did the UK Met Office’s records for rain…

“The Met Office holds rainfall records going back to 1910.”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29419202

Clearly it was a magical year. Of course, there were records before that going back to 1862, but 1910 was what they went by as the start of their records. And now more records have been added.

“The UK now has a dense grid of rainfall readings stretching back to 1836. Previously, it was only to 1862.”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-60860397

1910 doesn’t get a mention now.

That nice Mr Rowlatt was on the radio this morning trying to sell us heat pumps….

R K
March 31, 2022 4:31 am

It is not just the temperature records that get changed or incorrectly reported. Their severe thunderstorm archives for the period 1970 to 1988 for Darwin shows no storms recorded at all. Imagine that, an 18 year period when there were severe thunderstorms every summer and no records of them what so ever and the BOM could give me no real reason why that was so. On many other occasions when I know from first hand experience there were severe thunderstorms at Brisbane, Sydney, Townsville and other places on certain dates, there have been no records kept.
Because the severe thunderstorms of the 1970s and 1980s have not been recorded in archives they have no data to compare with the rubbish forecasts they make today about EXTREME weather. They, as a group of meterologists are not even supposed to look outside at the weather – it is all forecast from inside a building off computer models. It is highly probable that if taken outside they could not estimate the height and types of various clouds as they have no first hand experience of the actual weather.

March 31, 2022 6:12 am

Good report. Homogenization is good for dairy products, not weather products. The globalists will do anything to make the data fit their illusionary theory … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hs-K_tadveI

Steve Case
Reply to  John Shewchuk
March 31, 2022 8:08 am

Great You Tube exposé too bad that in the four months since it was put up there have only been 1000 views. Lots of hard work for not much of an audience.

Reply to  Steve Case
March 31, 2022 8:24 am

Thanks for the kind comments. YouTube is not friendly towards facts, which is why I also post videos on NewTube, Rumble, BitChute, Odysee, GETTR, Parler, and GAB … and still waiting for Trump’s site to go live.

Tom Abbott
March 31, 2022 6:13 am

This temperature profile fraud is costing humanity Trillions of dollars in wasted spending on trying to regulate CO2.

The fraudulent adjusted temperature profile is the only “evidence” alarmists have to demonize CO2 and demand its regulation.

We are being scammed, people.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tom Abbott
Steve Case
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 31, 2022 8:20 am

We are being scammed, people.
________________________________

We are being systematically lied to about a lot of contemporary issues, not just environmentalism. The source of the lies is the nearly complete infiltration of several information disseminating institutions: News Media, Entertainment, and Education. We are entering a new age, and it’s not an Age of Enlightenment.

Dennis
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 31, 2022 6:54 pm

What makes this even worse is that certain UN Officials have publicly admitted that climate change is a cover for the globalist plans to get rid of capitalism (free enterprise for people who are not from the left side of politics) as the world has known it and prospered from.

Example Christiana Figureres October 2015 shortly before the UN IPCC Paris Conference began end of November 2015.

Felix
March 31, 2022 8:11 am

“This revisionists approach to our climate history affects Australia’s war time record because weather and climate are critical to military strategy.”

Don’t be daft. No one relies on weather forecasts for a one degree difference even on the same day, let alone on the scale necessary for strategy planning, and the difference of 30° vs 31° has zero affect on military tactics.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Felix
March 31, 2022 8:40 am

You missed the point.

Felix
Reply to  Gerald Machnee
March 31, 2022 9:33 am

Interesting that you can’t explain the missing point.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  Felix
March 31, 2022 8:52 am

“Oozing” sarc does not need a /s tag.

Felix
Reply to  DMacKenzie
March 31, 2022 9:35 am

If that was sarcasm, then so was my response. That you cannot tell the similarity shows how sarcastic both were.

aussiecol
Reply to  Felix
March 31, 2022 6:54 pm

It does when you have zeolites claiming that because there has been a 1 degree increase in global temperatures, declares a climate emergency and then it becomes a number one priority for the military, all because of made up figures by homogenisation. Then yes, it has all to do with military tactics.

DMacKenzie
March 31, 2022 9:02 am

Jenifer has made good findings…..however for most of us, whining about the temperature record does nothing to convince anyone to hyper down the crisis talk….but saying “warming of a degree since the Little Ice Age simply isn’t a crisis” seems to allow intelligent others to take part in the ensuing discussion and convince themselves that “concern” and “crisis” are not the same thing.

Last edited 1 month ago by DMacKenzie
Herbert
March 31, 2022 11:03 am

Jennifer,
To summarise, your view is that the increase in the temperature of Continental Australia in the last hundred years is some 0.7 degrees Celsius and that the BOM record is unreliable.
Against this the CSIRO State of the Climate 2021 report states that from
1910 to 2021 that increase is 1.44C +/- 0.24C.
Globally, AR6 is stating the temperature increase over the 1850-1900 baseline is 1.07C ( 0.8C- 1.3C).
That is some difference for Australia against the global figure.

Jennifer Marohasy
Reply to  Herbert
April 2, 2022 3:04 pm

Hi Herbert
I think it is important that the historical record for continental Australia be extended back before 1910, and then we see the really hot years from about 1896. I also think it is important that we acknowledge the cooling to about 1960 in many of the records especially from inland regions. The ACORN-SAT/remodelled official record used by both the BOM and CSIRO completely removes this.

Bob
March 31, 2022 2:10 pm

I’m telling you CAGW extremists can not be trusted but they are the ones informing the average Joe.

Dennis
Reply to  Bob
March 31, 2022 6:58 pm

That is becoming easier as the young mothers and fathers support the climate hoax propaganda, without realising that it is propaganda and political, taught to their children in schools.

Recently a thirties something lawyer and mother of two told me that the warming is a very worrying development, coal mining must be stopped, she can’t wait to buy an EV and among other comments she made that the closing down of coal fired power stations is not worth worrying about because there will be batteries to replace them.

Dennis
March 31, 2022 6:50 pm

Meanwhile, in the worst East Coast of Australia flooded areas, many now experiencing a return of the floodwaters as weather forecasts predict continuing heavy rainfall periods to continue for a couple of months, the BoM is being loudly criticised for not issuing warnings to communities to enable them to prepare for flooding.

It was 2013/14 financial year that Dr Jennifer Marohasy and colleagues advised the then recently elected Federal Government about the “errors and omissions” the BoM was producing, media releases not matching historical weather data records, etc.

The politics of climate hoax and Australian government politicians is a major factor, for example when Coalition PM Tony Abbott recommended to his Cabinet of Ministers that due diligence, an independent audit at the BoM be conducted, the motion was defeated by a narrow margin of votes.

observa
Reply to  Dennis
April 1, 2022 5:43 am

Climate hoax? Our without fear or favour media are far too savvy and diligent to fall for political hoaxes aren’t they?
Mainstream media helped ‘spread the lies’ of Steele dossier (msn.com)

%d bloggers like this: