Dr Bill Johnston
Former weather observer and NSW Department of Natural Resources research scientist.
| Under the guise of data homogenization, Bureau of Meteorology scientist Blair Trewin changes data to agree with models. Groomed by the BoM, CSIRO and high-ranking university professors to believe the world is warming, Australian’s are being misled by data-wranglers, climate-modelers and institutions they should be able to trust. Read on … |
Commencing with a methods case-study of Parafield airport near Adelaide, South Australia, the latest series of www.bomwatch.com.au reports investigate how senior scientists within Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology (BoM), most recently Blair Trewin, massage Australian temperature data to produce trends that that are unrelated to the climate.
The ACORN-SAT project (Australian Climate Observations Reference Network – Surface Air Temperature) subtlety produces homogenised datasets that essentially support climate models. For their part, modelers convince kiddies, the woke and vulnerable that within their lifetimes the climate will warm catastrophically. Like Joseph Goebbels famously said (in German): “If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself”. It is unsurprising that many in the climate industry have become stricken victims of their own fantasies.
It is thoroughly scary that following in Goebbels footsteps, professors, psychologists and indoctrinators at the climate change hub at Monash University (https://www.monash.edu/mcccrh) apply similar methods to relentlessly brain-wash vulnerable Australians into holding irrational guilts and fears about climate, equity, justice, privilege and most other social norms.
Claims in peer reviewed journals by, for example, Sophie Lewis (Australian National University), Andrew King (University of Melbourne), Daniel Mitchell (the University of Bristol, UK), and Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick (University of NSW), fail the test of objective science.
Looking back, it is amazing that the paper by Lewis and King clumsily entitled “Dramatically increased rate of observed hot record breaking in recent Australian temperatures” based in part on ACORN-SAT, was published in the questionably-prestigious Geophysical Research Letters (doi:10.1002/2015GL065793) in 2015.
Ignoring that during the 2001-2009 drought temperatures were high because rainfall was low, they used “sensitivity experiments with a dynamical seasonal predication system”, whatever that is, to somehow wrangle that background warming “contributed to ~15% of the record temperature anomaly”. Because no Australian temperature datasets show unequivocal warming and they ignored the drought, their peer-reviewed and published findings were nonsense.
There are many similar examples of garbage-in-garbage-out science that should never have seen daylight. King’s linking Paris limits to warming and inequality is another a classic work of hyperbolic nonsense https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL078430), and so too is Perkins-Kirkpatrick et al.’s irrational 2022 tome “On the attribution of the impacts of extreme weather events to anthropogenic climate change” (https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac44c8).
Our mission at BomWatch is not just to expose junk-science like Lewis and King (2015), but also to show how fact-checkers may undertake independent analyses of their own.
At Marble Bar, allegedly the warmest place in Australia, maximum temperature (Tmax) is the same in 2022 as it was when the postmaster started taking measurements on the back verandah of the original stone post office in 1908. While recent data has been warmed by instrument changes and scalping top-soil around the site, rigorous, replicable BomWatch protocols found no change in data attributable to the climate.
At Meekatharra, adjustment for a Tmax changepoint that made no difference to the data in 1934, ignoring that the Aeradio site was watered, and not adjusting for the transition to the dryland site near the meteorological office in about 1974, created trends in homogenised data that had nothing to do with the climate. Exposing the fallacy of biased reference series, data for the total of 18 sites used to homogenise Meekatharra data were not homogeneous.
As there is no change in the climate at Meekatharra, or of the 18 comparator sites; and that faulty data were used to adjust faults in ACORN-SAT, the project is deeply flawed, unscientific and should be abandoned.
At Carnarvon, an aerial photograph showed that maximum temperatures observed in the post office yard were cooled by watering. The site behind the aerodrome Aeradio office was also watered, probably to ground the earth-mat beneath the communication array. Moving to the dryland site at the met-office in about 1975 and on-going changes after 2010 accounted for all the warming trend in Tmax data.
Furthermore, as homogenised Tmax data for Carnarvon embed step-changes related to site changes, ACORN-SAT failed its primary objective, which is to adjust for site and instrument changes so extremes and means are homogeneous.
Climate-science is headed down the gurgler
Although GetUp!, extinction rebellion, Australian Youth for Climate Coalition and the Climate Council had not been invented yet, Joseph Goebbels was an activist in their sense of the word. Rewriting history by changing data, burning the climate books, organising media and rebellious youth and using recurring natural events to give “the masses … a thrill of horror” is straight from his Nazi playbook.
However, climate-porn of the kind being served with the willing support of data wranglers like Blair Trewin, modelers like Sophie Lewis, Andrew King, Daniel Mitchell and Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick, and David Holmes and followers at the Monash Climate Change Hub, is as repugnant in 2022/23 as it was in Europe during the dark years from 1933 to 1945.
Even Goebbels realised there “will come a day, when all the lies will collapse under their own weight, and truth will again triumph”. Shining light in dark-corners, BomWatch reports show Australia’s climate has not warmed in over a century. With many more studies to publish, a collective moment of disgrace may be closer than data-wranglers, modelers, political hacks and communicators at the Monash Climate Change Hub may care to imagine.
Dr Bill Johnston
15 January 2023
Acknowledgement
Joseph Goebbels famous quotes are from https://www.azquotes.com/author/5626-Joseph_Goebbels.
It’s making the rabbits grow long tails for heat dissipation.
Bill
Naming and shaming almost begging to be placed in front of a judge. I am willing to make a small contribution to court costs should they eventuate.
A fine idea, R.Will. Such heroes DESERVE our support!
While litigation is never fun, what a GRAND OPPORTUNITY to define “climate porn” (thus, exposing the filth which styles itself “science “)
and
to expose the peddlers of this junk.
Note: they are in a very weak position, i.e., they cannot deny their data-twisting, those results stand alone, undeniable; and they cannot claim that your accusation is libel, for that would be to admit that twisting data was a bad thing —
further, any assertion that you have mischaracterized their work only OPENS THE DOOR to admitting into evidence all the proof you have that their work is, indeed, abominable.
I will GLADLY contribute MUCH (much, to me, I mean) to fund your legal expenses.
Thanks RickWill and Janice,
It is quite legitimate to review the work of other scientists and present it within a story framework.
Although originally in German, the Goebbels quotes appear to be genuine. I have reviewed the papers I mention, which have all been published or are in the public domain. I have also carefully researched the Bureau of Meteorology’s homogenization methods. It is clear that the highly-cited “world-leading experts” who undertook peer review did not investigate any datasets from the bottom-up (i.e., from metadata, through to the finished ACORN-SAT product. They certainly did not publish anything like a technical report. Nor has anyone else undertaken a deep-dive into any of the Bureau’s metadata or datasets.
I have well-founded reservations that using ACORN-SAT to benchmark models is outrageous, especially given that ACORN-SAT was specifically invented to benchmark models. One only has to look at their comments and self-promotion pieces in the main stream media and on the one-way The Conversation to conclude that many have fallen under their own spell. It’s a pity really, given that they may be really nice people.
To be clear, I have no personal gripe with any individuals, my gripe is with their fake-claims. It is also worth looking critically at the woke being done by David Holmes et al. at Monash University. Look at who they are, their backgrounds and qualifications and outputs (including the gender imbalance!)
It is only by calling them out for their unsupported science, their assertions and bending of the truth, and as I discovered, the similarities with Goebbels Nazi propaganda machine, how he went about it, who he targeted and what he said, that Australia’s well-greased climate industrial complex can be seen in context.
All the best,
Bill Johnston
The ECS / CAGW forecasts are for 200 to 400 years in the future.
How can you prove them wrong without waiting 200 to 400 years?
1. Winning a libel case against the data twisters would not require proving their projections are errors.
2. If they asserted such an argument, defense would simply respond: “You cannot libel someone regarding their unprovable speculation.”
None now forecast beyond 2100 because they recognise extrapolating their nonsense yields widely silly results.
I was advised of the horizon limit by one of the climate model prognosticators of the the Australia ACCESS model when I challenged them on ocean surface temperature getting to 40C – a physical impossibility.
However their forecasts are already wildly wrong and the different models vary by more the 2C of the average global temperature – the difference between models is what is supposed to make Earth hell.
This is the model comparison for average temperature.
This is the CSIRO CMIP3 forecast against measured for recent period.
The current models are automatically tuned to the nominated historical temperature at the time of run so looking at the earlier predictions for the present time really highlights how wrong they were.
No modeller will admit their predictions were wrong because it would bring into question the validity of all climate models and they will never admit they are wrong.
Homogenising past temperature to reduce the variation makes the tuning easier because fewer variables are required to get a good polynomial fit but there are still thousands of tuning parameters so not hard to match the homeginsed past temperature at a global level but they still fail terribly at regional level.
To the right of the comments, the ENSO meter shows that the La Nina is ongoing, yet the BOM is claiming that it is finishing this year. Does anyone have any idea what’s going on?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/enso/
I have been attempting to forecast the temperature in the Nino34 region based on solar intensity variation over the region.
I have achieved the best results limiting the forecast to the Southern side of the region. I have increased the influence of the lunar nutation on the solar forcing as that gives better alignment with the big peaks of 1998 and 2016. So the moon may have some direct impact. There is a strong signal around 18 years in the SOI and the Nino34 temperature. Both Saturn and Jupiter orbits are identifiable.
The region will be warming now in the annual cycle but I doubt it will reach its potential this year or shift to El Nino because the equatorial current is still predominantly westward:
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2022/01/14/2300Z/ocean/surface/currents/orthographic=-152.41,-7.22,399/loc=-153.993,-0.161
EXCELLENT, as always, Bill Johnston.
You and Sherrington, et al. are valiant warriors for data-driven, bona fide, science. There are still a few heroes out there, fighting on the front lines for “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness:”
you men are among them.
Thank you.
Thank you, Janice.
Positive feedback is much appreciated.
Geoff S
I don’t do + or – ratings, but I can say “ditto” (and a +)
Bill Johnston, Geoff Sherrington and Rafe Champion are the best writers I’ve discovered for REAL Australian climate science.
Not enough people are fighting the climate change baloney wars. ‘The enemy is governments and media — not an easy battle.
Quote:”If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself”
It doesn’t especially have to be a lie, but anyway, that quote is the perfect definition of Magical Thinking.
It happens in anybody and everybody that is (the ‘long enough‘ bit) chronically chemically depressed.
All drug users are vulnerable to its effects.
Even supposed stimulants e.g. Coffee, nicotine, cocaine have their down sides.
By definition: What goes up, must come down
Carbohydrate (sugar based) food is a drug
We are in an immense amount of trouble > the monsters created inside the heads of magical thinkers are vastly & infinitely worse than anything climate ## is ever going to throw at you.
As was seen in the regime that created Goebbels
## Apart from Total Desertification.
But climate doesn’t make deserts, people do. Magical Thinking does. The production of sugar does and sugar creates magical thinking.
(Junk Science also, same things really)
Nice positive feedback eh
“Nice positive feedback eh”
If it were true, it might be.
Climate change uses a special type of lie:
Wild guess predictions of the future climate, made by people with no ability to predict the future climate.
If the UN’s World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and IPCC claim to rely on the “best science” to produce their reports, how come they include the BoM’s non-compliant, 1-second-duration temps readings?
Dear Mr.
The story about the BoM’s temperature probes is not that straightforward. It is true that Max and Min values for a particular day are 1-second readings; however, as explained in this paper: https://www.publish.csiro.au/es/pdf/ES19032 each 1-second reading is logged at the end of a discrete 1-minute sampling cycle. I know it sounds like splitting-hairs, but the Bureau argues that because the time-constant of the instrument (the response time to a particular signal-pulse) is longer than 59 seconds, it is in fact a dampened value and that as-such it makes no difference.
In the study, which you can access, they did collect all 1-Hz values – a sample for every second. They concluded that each 1-second measurement was NOT an instantaneous value and therefore that the Bureau’s measurement protocols were within the WMO’s sampling requirements.
While an update on a previous study (https://www.publish.csiro.au/es/pdf/ES19010), neither papers discuss ‘spikes’ and out-of-range data resulting from the conditions under which temperature is observed, which in my view is the elephant in the room.
(I worked with automatic weather stations in the early 1980s and I used them at a range of field sites in the 1990s. Spikes are a concern and the way they are handled either in situ by the instrument, or those using the data, can affect tails of data distributions.
Cheers,
Bill Johnston
Thank you Bill.
Asked and answered, which is really all any interested person can expect.
Cheers.
Bill,
Unfortunately it is not just temperature that the BOM don’t get right – it is their reporting and forecasting of all aspects of weather. There are no records of any storms in their severe weather archives for the Northern Territory for 1970 to 1988 which is fraudulent nonsense as I flew into those aerodromes with TAA/Australian Airlines during those years and encountered many.
The three cyclones up the Queensland Coast, Yasi, Ita and Marcia were never Cat.5 but Cat 3 as measured by the central pressure and wind speeds recorded, but have gone into their books as Cat.5 Many other dates for weather with severe storms have not been recorded.
Temperatures around aerodromes particularly in summer will always be affected by aircraft engine exhausts ( above 600 C) and the heat rising off the runways and taxi ways. Winds are recorded wrongly too. On the 17th December 2015 a thunderstorm moved in from the S.E.off the coast of Sydney over the Kurnell refinery and over a five minute period the wind varied in both direction and speed from 10.33 AM to 10.37AM and yet their anemometer recorded a constant gust of 213 kilometres per hour. You would never get a gust stay the same for five minutes from different directions with actual winds from 59 to 83 k.p.h. yet it has gone in the record books.
Most people would not know of the total debacle at Adelaide on the18th of June 2013 when they couldn’t forecast fog 20 minutes ahead and closed the aerodrome forcing two B737s only 80 miles away, to divert to Mildura, itself starting to close with fog, the last aircraft landing blind never seeing the runway with 15 minutes of fuel left. People should have been sacked over that.
The Australian BOM staff are now told not to even look outside at the weather so it would all be done off models and charts. One could be sure other Met. Bureaus around the world might have similar records of wrong and unrealistic reporting..
Thanks R.K.
Australia’s Aeradio network was set up by AWA in 1939. The network was the outcome of an international agreement reached as a result of meetings in England, to develop an air-traffic navigation and safety network for commercial aviation, basically between the ‘Dominions’ and Britain. While passenger travel was very expensive prior to the introduction of the Boeing 707 in the late 1950’s, carriage of mail was as essential service.
Australia’s Aeradio network consisted of radio operators, met-observers and forecasters located in small fibro-offices at aerodromes about 300 km apart along Australia’s main commercial air corridors, from southern Tasmania to stepping-off points at Carnarvon, Windham and Darwin, where flights would go on to Cocos Is. Asia and Papua to be picked-up by their networks.
Bound to a daily routine, and operating under uncomfortable and often isolated conditions, the met-blokes were pretty busy, even at places like Halls Creek and Oodnadatta, which only had a few planes drop-in or pass-by each week. It was not until 1946 that Aerado was split into ‘Flight Services’ that managed air traffic, and meteorology, which became part of the Bureau of Meteorology.
So technically, while they certified and trained the Aerado met-blokes, the Bureau did not operate meteorological offices at airports until after 1946, at some places they did not construct separate facilities until the 1960s. Most of those offices are now closed and empty, some like at Coffs Harbour and Carnarvon have been demolished and others are no doubt on the block. As you probably know, Flight Services/air traffic control has also been centralized to just several capital city locations.
The point I’m making is that automating everything, the lack of local people, and the parachuting of unqualified and inexperienced drones/idiots into highly paid positions near the top of the tree, to meet diversity or gender-equity targets for example, will invariably lead to mistakes, and problems.
For instance, commercial aviation across the US shut-down for a day recently because the ‘Secretary’ in the White House, with a gender/racial fetish decided NOTAM (Notice to Airmen) was gender-biased, but forgot to re-program all the computers they depend-on, or inform aircrew (or something) that that they had been re-named!
Crazies like that are now in-charge of Government (think Chris Bowen, and in NSW, Matt Kean), almost every area of what used to be the Public Service, and in Boardrooms across Australia. So, relax, watch Australia continue to unravel, watch value being stripped from Australia’s leading companies, and enjoy your flight.
Cheers,
Bill Johnston
Bill,
I remember those Flight Service offices well and they were staffed by people that knew the weather and aviation. Even into the late 1970s we used to give Aireps along designated air routes of the actual weather, temperature, winds etc.but that all went by the early 1980s.
The Met office and ATC even used to arrange for trainees to travel on the flight deck back then so they could see what happened in the real world. I believe the BOM now has only two offices in Melbourne and Brisbane.
Cheers Dick
Always wrong wild guesses of the future climate ARE NOT SCIENCE, even when made by scientists with Ph.D.s
I hope I’m not violating any rules by posting this message from Topher Field. Those of you in Australia should be familiar with Topher and his documentary film “Battleground Melbourne.” This is his latest short video interview It is with Senator Malcolm Roberts.
Carbon Tax is back with a vengeance in Australia
Don’t miss my Quick Chat with Australian Senator Malcolm Roberts about the return of the Carbon Tax and the impact we can expect it to have on our economy and our competitiveness overseas!
https://youtu.be/qKCs0vi2XNg
You’ll be seeing a LOT more videos like this one this year as I ramp up my activities and aim to get on the front-foot in 2023! I’ve already recorded the next 2 interviews which will be released this week, with more on the way!
If you’d like to support me as I grow, then please head to
http://www.subscribestar.com/topherfield
and become a monthly supporter!
Alternatively you can support me AND drink Great Coffee Made Easy by joining the growing number of people who drink BREW Coffee, check it out at
http://www.brewaustralia.com
And as always, Stay Free.
Topher Field.
I would be pleased to do an interview with you about our work.
You can contact me at scientist@bomwatch.com.au.
Yours sincerely,
Bill Johnston
“It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” ― Mark Twain
Thanks TEWS_Pilot
Have you heard that “Only chicken-littles run away to roost”.
I’m not even Mark Twain, but it fits the mold of scientists who won’t defend claims they publish in the surreal world of peer-review when criticized by another scientist anchored in the real world. Cowards protecting their funding-sources or tenure, for example. After all, as Mortein blow-fly and cockroach spray says “When you are on a good thing, stick to it“.
Those mentioned in this piece are welcome to join the conversation here at WUWT or at http://www.bomwatch.com.au. However, don’t stay-up waiting for them.
Cheers,
Bill Johnston
Dr Roy Spencer compared the 1979 – 2019 UAH satellite trend for Australia with the BoM surface trend: ‘“satellite-based” trend is lowered to +0.15 C/decade, compared to the observed Tsfc trend of +0.21 C/decade. I will leave it to the reader to decide whether this is a significant difference or not’.
The basis of the pre-satellite era Australian surface data, as I understand it, derives from Simon Torok’s 1996 thesis: ” … a data set has been prepared for Australia by adjusting raw mean annual temperature data for inhomogeneities associated with station relocations, changes in exposure, and other problems”.
Sitting on a plane at Brisbane Airport waiting to Take off in a line of other planes, I observed outside the plane window the BOM weather station. I thought thats nice but maybe a little to close to the concrete runway for comfort and get an accurate reading.
It got worse, we taxied foward and turned to the right, OK I thought engine exhaust would be blowing back to where the BOM weather station is.
Out of the corner of my window I could just see the fence of the weather station.
That cured me of any belief I had about global warming.
If other BOM or other met other stations have done the same, because the airport is a good open field for weather and temperature readings we are all subject to a fraud.
Joanne Nova has documented several of the outrageous sitings for weather stations. Here are a couple.
Maitland SA: Another expert thermometer site — and with incinerator “forcing”
Some days in Maitland are hotter than others.
…and another one…
The town of Cloncurry in northwest Queensland holds the record for the highest temperature in the shade recorded in Australia, at 53.1 °C (127.5 °F) on 16 January 1889….sorry, their publicly available records start in 1910, so these records don’t appear in the charts.
In fact, the all-time hottest temperature ever measured on Earth came on July 10, 1913, when Death Valley hit a sizzling 134 degrees F (56.7 degrees C).
Many weather stations in Australia were relocated to airports when regional post offices closed down because the local temperature was important to aircraft.
Much “global” warming occurring in Australia is caused by aircraft engine exhaust.
Peak summer solar intensity over Australia has dropped almost 1W/m^2 in the last 100 years. So solar forcing is declining.
Engine exhausts, low thermal inertia instrumentation, urban heat and homogenisation are the key drivers of any temperature changes across Australia. All are causing temperature records to increase from what they would otherwise be.
However the BoM has its work cut out to keep a warming trend because the summer solar intensity is declining in the Southern Hemisphere and all their warming tricks are already beyond absurd. The prognosticators employed by the BoM will be wondering why CO2 is not working the way it is in the northern hemisphere. It will never dawn on these climate clowns that CO2 actually does nothing.
“Climate Clowns” – An obvious yet brilliant description. It will make a fine addition to my collection!
if any artists are reading this- please do us a favor and draw a climate clown- until then, we can get by with a photo of Greta Thunberg or Mickey Mann
Imagine Al Gore
From Hubbarc, Lin, 2006, Reexamination of instrument change effects in the U.S. HistoricalClimatology Network
“It is clear that future attempts to remove bias should tackle this adjustment station by station. Our study demonstrates that some MMTS stations require an adjustment of more than one degree Celsius for either warming or cooling biases. These biases
are not solely caused by the change in instrumentation but may reflect some important unknown or undocumented changes such as undocumented station relocations and siting microclimate changes (e.g., buildings, site obstacles,
and traffic roads).”
The whole “homgenization” methodology is questionable because of station-by-station differences in microclimate. Individual station readings are affected by numerous factors, e.g. elevation, pressure, geography, terrain, wind, humidity, etc.
This means that adjusting the temperature data is not only a losing proposition but is actually perpetrating a fraud. It is introducing personal opinion as science.
From the article: “hyperbolic nonsense”
That’s a good description for all the human-caused climate change scaremongering.
The Data Tamperers are the Real Problem. Their lies hold up the human-caused climate change scam. Without their temperature lies, there would be no scary scenarios connected to CO2 since the truth is it is no warmer today than it was in the recent past even though much more CO2 is in the atmosphere today. Logic would tell us that CO2 has had little effect over the years. Temperature lies tell a different story. That’s the problem. Not CO2.
Some of them even have the audacity to push for this fraud on WUWT.
It IS warmer than in 1975 by all temperature data compilations.
The predictions of climate doom are barely related to the post-1975 warming — predictions are for much faster warming than in the past, and the predictions have been wrong since 1979, so far.
The Psychology of Totalitarianism has permeated the Climate Alarmist community.
I am against homogenization and pasteurization. I am also for reducing national average temperature data collection costs by 99%, by wild guessing the average, rather than using adjusted, readjusted, j homogenized, pasteurized and infilled numbers.
No one lives in the average Australia temperature, so no one needs to know that “number”, even if it was accurate. Historical local temperature numbers are more than enough, but I’m not even sure what purpose they serve. A weather forecast for the next three days is useful. Does it really matter what the local temperature was in 1895?
Well done to Dr Bill for your dogged chase of this scientific fraud. Changing temperature data is wrong, just plain wrong.
I work in the mining industry and data are the heart and soul of mining. Arguably the most important data are drilling data that are used to eventually determine the amount of metal contained in an ore deposit. There are various drilling techniques available and some can be subject to problems, especially if the area being drilled has significant quantities of groundwater. In this case there is the potential for the groundwater to cause contamination in the drillhole. Its up to the skill and professionalism of the geologist to determine if the groundwater, or other problem, has caused contamination. It the geologist determines that it is likely that significant contamination has occurred then the results from a contaminated hole will be discarded from the drilling database. Under no circumstances will the geologist or the company who owns the project attempt to adjust the results of a contaminated drillhole. The data are discarded, end of story.
The Australian mining industry is governed by the JORC Code when it comes to drilling, sampling and estimating mineral resources. Other mining countries have similar codes. These codes protect the integrity of the data and subsequent mineral resource estimations, and at the same time protect the shareholders in mining companies. Of course there will be unscrupulous geologists and companies out there, there are always some rotten eggs. But the great majority are honest, professional and comply with the various codes. Highly paid consultants will almost always be employed to scrutinise the data, the drilling techniques, etc and the subsequent estimates of the mineral resources, if not do the actual estimations themselves. So there is a check on the process.
Under NO circumstances would a legitimate, professional geologist, company or consultant allow data to be changed. The data has to be accepted or discarded.
The JORC Code places stringent technical requirements on a geologist, project and a company. This is how the private sector works. Why aren’t the same levels of technical rigor applied to government entities? The BOM is an utter disgrace and its fiddling of temperature data is an absolute scandal. But these things can be done by government entities because they are not under any legal requirement to act professionally.
All of these unprofessional BOM sycophant, so-called scientists will one day be held to account. They will be determined to have cheated and will be stripped of their “professional” status and ridiculed by the real scientific community.