Review and Audit of Bureau of Meteorology needed

Maurice Newman, writing for the Australian, calls for a probe into the Bureau of Mythology er Meteorology.

He starts by mentioning that the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson blamed London's "pre-Christmas transport chaos on the Met Office" and noted that Piers Corbyn of Weather Action did much better than the Met Office.

Mr Newman moves on to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology and notes that 
"The head of climate monitoring and prediction ser­vices at the Bureau of Meteorology boasted about a policy that “snows” sceptics."
This was from the ClimateGate II emails. (From Andrew Bolt - Link)

cc: “Shoni Dawkins”  
date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 08:28:03 +100 ??? 
from: “David Jones”  
subject: RE: African stations used in HadCRU global data set 
to: “Phil Jones”

Thanks Phil for the input and paper. I will get back to you with comments next week. 
Fortunately in Australia our sceptics are rather scientifically incompetent. It is also 
easier for us in that we have a policy of providing any complainer with every single 
station observation when they question our data (this usually snows them) 
and the 
Australian data is in pretty good order anyway. 
Truth be know, climate change here is now running so rampant that we don’t need 
meteorological data to see it. Almost everyone of our cities is on the verge of running out 
of water and our largest irrigation system (the Murray Darling Basin is on the verge of 
collapse - across NSW farmer have received a 0% allocation of water for the coming summer
and in Victoria they currently have 5% allocations - numbers that will just about see the 
death of our fruit, citrus, vine and dairy industries if we don’t get good spring rain). 
The odd things is that even when we see average rainfall our runoffs are far below average, 
which seems to be a direct result of warmer temperatures. Recent polls show that 
Australians now rate climate change as a greater threat than world terrorism. 

How did this man keep his job? Hasn't he been shown to be either scientifically incompetent or wilfully negligent?

Doctoring data or throwing inquirers off the track to deliver an outcome is unscientific and unacceptable at any time. Yet in climate science there seems to be a culture of toleration. In 2009 John Theon, retired chief of NASA’s Climate Processes Research Program, testified to a US Senate inquiry that “scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results”.  
Fast forward to today. This newspaper’s environment editor, Graham Lloyd, published information that raises questions about the quality of Australia’s temperature records.(see links via Jennifer Marohasy -HERE) In a series of articles, Lloyd published details about the Bureau of Meteorology’s data “homogenisation”, the practice that involves the mixing, matching and deletion of temperature records and that seemed to create its own discontinuities. The bureau claims to observe world best practice. Perhaps. But homogenisation practices globally are under challenge, so conformity provides little comfort. If temperature manipulation can happen somewhere, why not elsewhere
Mr Newman explains that the BoM employs 1700 people and costs more than $300Million a year.
The memory of Climategate and its casual approach to celsius conversion, lingers. It should explain why homogenisation consistently turns cooling trends to warming and why pre-1910 records were dropped and, with them, the extreme heatwaves of the Federation drought. 
The record is error-ridden. Even to an amateur, the latest information dump prompts more questions than answers. The concerns about Rutherglen raised by Lloyd as to why a 0.35C cooling became a 1.73C warming still have no satisfactory explanation. No supporting documentary evidence, algorithms or methodology have been produced, leaving the unfortunate impression that temperature records were falsified.
Mr Newman closes with
Nothing short of a thorough government-funded review and audit, conducted by independent professionals, will do.


  1. Ha! Why would anyone think that this would work. Kinda like the media "fact checkers". They are just as biased as the media who's facts they are supposed to be checking. Fact is that if the media were working correctly there would be no need or market for "fact checkers" and the same goes for government Meteorological/Climate organizations. If you can't fix the basic problem then no amount of layers of "fact checkers" is going to help.

  2. To paraphrase an old quote
    If you torture the figures for long enough, they will 'fess up to anything.


Post a Comment

All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!