From the irrepressible scientist Dr Jennifer Marohasy who maintains her fight to show that Australia's Bureau of Meteorology (BOM)is incapable of telling the truth as they are so infected with ideology, as a consequence every bit of data is manipulated to make a fictitious reality that then fits the holy AGW commandments This is clearly an exercise in B/S baffles brains.









"Keeping You in the Loop
I'm currently overseas, in north western Spain. The local hero is a woman called Maria Pita who rallied the ordinary citizens of Corunna in 1589 with the battle cry, 'Whoever has honor, follow me!"

The Australian newspaper has just published two more articles drawing attention to, what I consider, the terrible deceit by the Bureau of Meteorology in its corruption of Australia's official temperature records (full text of these articles follows).

It is totally unacceptable that the Bureau can essentially rework temperature data until it accords with the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

I've just sent in a letter to The Australian newspaper. I encourage you to do the same. After that you could write to your local politician explaining the issue, and asking they read the actual report from the forum, and also the many submissions made by myself and colleagues. You can access these documents from the front page of my website (www.jennifermarohasy.com).

Thanks for caring,
Dr Jennifer Marohasy
Independent Scientist

Your letter could be along these lines...

Dear Editor/Politician

Following the release of the review of the Bureau of Meteorology's national temperature records, I agree with Jennifer Marohasy that "alarm bells" should be ringing for those who had previously believed the bureau's methods were transparent.

It is concerning that the expert panel still cannot explain the exaggerated warming in the official record for Rutherglen. It seems the only thing wrong with the original observed values is that they did not accord with global warming theory, and so they were homogenized.

I concur with Dr Marohasy, that to the extent possible, the Bureau should retain the actual recorded temperature values. If it has to manipulate the data, then strict rules should be adhered to. In particular, the Bureau must not homogenize temperature series, changing actual recorded values, unless there is a documented equipment change or site move creating a statistically significant discontinuity in the data.

The Bureau should start the official temperature record in 1880, not 1910, and not add hotter stations into later years.

Yours sincerely
Maria Pita/Your name

******************

Questions remain on BoM records, The Australian, June 20, 2015, Graham Lloyd

The results of an independent ¬review of the Bureau of Mete¬or¬ology's national temperature records should "ring alarm bells" for those who had believed the bureau's methods were transparent, says a key critic, Jennifer -Marohasy.

Dr Marohasy said the review panel, which recommended that better statistical methods and data handling be adopted, justified many of the concerns raised.

However, the failure to ¬address specific issues, such as the exaggerated warming trend at Rutherglen in ¬northeast Victoria after homogeni¬sation, had left ¬important questions unresolved, she said.

The review panel report said it had stayed strictly within its terms of reference.

Given the limited time available, the panel had focused on big-picture issues, chairman Ron Sandland said.

The panel was confident that "by addressing our recommend¬ations, most of the issues raised on the submissions would be ¬addressed", Dr Sandland said.

The panel is scheduled to meet again early in the next year.
Dr Sandland said that, overall, the panel had found the Australian Climate Observations Reference Network -- Surface Air Temperature was a "complex and well-maintained data set that has some scope for further improvements".

It had made five recommend¬ations that would boost transparency of the data set.

Although the panel reviewed 20 public submissions, Dr Marohasy said it had failed to address specific concerns.

"While the general tone of the report suggests everything is fine, many of the recommen¬dations (are) repeat requests made by myself and others over the last few years," Dr ¬Marohasy said.
"Indeed, while on the one hand the (bureau's technical ¬advisory) forum reports claims that the bureau is using world's best practice, on the other hand its many and specific recommend¬ations evidence the absence of most basic quality controls in the many adjustments made to the raw data in the development of the homogenised temperature series."

BoM said it welcomed the conclusion that homogenisation played an essential role in eliminating artificial non-clim¬ate ¬systematic errors in temperature observations, so that a meaningful and consistent set of records could be maintained over time.

*********

Bureau of Meteorology told to improve data handling, analysis, Graham Lloyd, The Australian, June 19, 2015

Better data handling and statistical methods and the use of pre-1910 temperature records would improve the Bureau of Meteorology's national temperature data set ACORN-SAT, an ¬independent review has found.

A technical advisory panel, brought forward following public concerns that the bureau's homogenisation process was exaggerating a warming trend, said it was "generally satisfied" with BoM's performance.

But it said there was "scope for improvements that can boost the transparency of the data set".

Scientists who queried BoM's management of the national temperature data said they had been vindicated by the report.
The review panel made five recommendations and said it was "not currently possible to determine whether the improvements recommended by the forum will result in an increased or decreased warming trend as reflected in the ACORN-SAT dataset".

The independent review panel was recommended by a peer review of the Australian Climate Observations Reference Network -- Surface Air Temperature, but it not acted upon until public concerns were raised.

BoM's technical advisory forum said ACORN-SAT was a complex and well-maintained data set. Public submissions about BoM's work "do not provide evidence or offer a justification for contesting the overall need for homogenisation and the scientific integrity of the bureau's climate records."

Nonetheless, the review report said it considered its recommendations for improving the bureau's communications, statistical methods and data handling, and further regional analysis based on the pre-1910 data, would address the most important concerns.

David Stockwell, who raised concerns, said he was "very pleased with the recommendations".

"They largely identify and address all of the concerns that I have had with the past BoM work," Dr Stockwell said. "When implemented, it should lead to considerable improvements.
"The panel recommended strongly that the BoM communicate the limitations and it agreed that errors in the data need to be corrected and homogenisation is necessary, as I do, although it must be communicated clearly that the ACORN result is a relative index of change and not an observational series."
The forum received 20 public submissions which questioned;
* The 1910 starting date (although some pre-1910 records are available) and its potential effect on reported climate trends;
* The treatment of claimed cyclical warming and cooling periods in the adjustment process and its effect on reported warming trends;
* The potential effects of site selection and the later inclusion of stations in warmer regions;
* The treatment of statistical uncertainty associated with both raw and homogenised data sets;
* The ability of individuals to replicate or verify the data set; and
* the justification for adjusting historic temperature records.
Bob Baldwin, the parliamentary secretary responsible for BoM, said the bureau would work to adopt the recommendations.
"We believe the forum's recommendations for improving the bureau's overall communications, statistical methods and data handling, and further regional analysis based on the pre-1910 data, will help address the main concerns surrounding the dataset," he said.
Mr Baldwin said the report was an important part of ensuring the bureau continued to provide world-class information on the climate trends affecting Australia.
The review panel said its recommendations predominately addressed two key aspects of ACORN-SAT.
They we to improve the clarity and accessibility of information provided, in particular explaining the uncertainty inherent to both raw and homogenised datasets; and refining some data-handling and statistical methods through appropriate statistical standardisation procedures, sensitivity analysis and alternative data filling approaches.
Ends.

Copyright (c) 2015 Jennifer Marohasy, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you subscribed to my newsletter via jennifermarohasy.com.

Our mailing address is:
Jennifer Marohasy
PO Box 692
Noosa Heads, Qld 4567
Australia"

On Saturday, June 20, 2015 at 12:16:33 PM UTC+1, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
From the irrepressible scientist Dr Jennifer Marohasy who maintains her fight to show that Australia's Bureau of Meteorology (BOM)is incapable of telling the truth as they are so infected with ideology, as a consequence every bit of data is manipulated to make a fictitious reality that then fits the holy AGW commandments This is clearly an exercise in B/S baffles brains..









"Keeping You in the Loop
I'm currently overseas, in north western Spain. The local hero is a woman called Maria Pita who rallied the ordinary citizens of Corunna in 1589 with the battle cry, 'Whoever has honor, follow me!"

The Australian newspaper has just published two more articles drawing attention to, what I consider, the terrible deceit by the Bureau of Meteorology in its corruption of Australia's official temperature records (full text of these articles follows).

It is totally unacceptable that the Bureau can essentially rework temperature data until it accords with the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

I've just sent in a letter to The Australian newspaper. I encourage you to do the same. After that you could write to your local politician explaining the issue, and asking they read the actual report from the forum, and also the many submissions made by myself and colleagues. You can access these documents from the front page of my website (www.jennifermarohasy.com).

Thanks for caring,
Dr Jennifer Marohasy
Independent Scientist

Your letter could be along these lines...

Dear Editor/Politician

Following the release of the review of the Bureau of Meteorology's national temperature records, I agree with Jennifer Marohasy that "alarm bells" should be ringing for those who had previously believed the bureau's methods were transparent.

It is concerning that the expert panel still cannot explain the exaggerated warming in the official record for Rutherglen. It seems the only thing wrong with the original observed values is that they did not accord with global warming theory, and so they were homogenized.

I concur with Dr Marohasy, that to the extent possible, the Bureau should retain the actual recorded temperature values. If it has to manipulate the data, then strict rules should be adhered to. In particular, the Bureau must not homogenize temperature series, changing actual recorded values, unless there is a documented equipment change or site move creating a statistically significant discontinuity in the data.

The Bureau should start the official temperature record in 1880, not 1910, and not add hotter stations into later years.

Yours sincerely
Maria Pita/Your name

******************

Questions remain on BoM records, The Australian, June 20, 2015, Graham Lloyd

The results of an independent ¬review of the Bureau of Mete¬or¬ology's national temperature records should "ring alarm bells" for those who had believed the bureau's methods were transparent, says a key critic, Jennifer -Marohasy.

Dr Marohasy said the review panel, which recommended that better statistical methods and data handling be adopted, justified many of the concerns raised.

However, the failure to ¬address specific issues, such as the exaggerated warming trend at Rutherglen in ¬northeast Victoria after homogeni¬sation, had left ¬important questions unresolved, she said.

The review panel report said it had stayed strictly within its terms of reference.

Given the limited time available, the panel had focused on big-picture issues, chairman Ron Sandland said.

The panel was confident that "by addressing our recommend¬ations, most of the issues raised on the submissions would be ¬addressed", Dr Sandland said.

The panel is scheduled to meet again early in the next year.
Dr Sandland said that, overall, the panel had found the Australian Climate Observations Reference Network -- Surface Air Temperature was a "complex and well-maintained data set that has some scope for further improvements".

It had made five recommend¬ations that would boost transparency of the data set.

Although the panel reviewed 20 public submissions, Dr Marohasy said it had failed to address specific concerns.

"While the general tone of the report suggests everything is fine, many of the recommen¬dations (are) repeat requests made by myself and others over the last few years," Dr ¬Marohasy said.
"Indeed, while on the one hand the (bureau's technical ¬advisory) forum reports claims that the bureau is using world's best practice, on the other hand its many and specific recommend¬ations evidence the absence of most basic quality controls in the many adjustments made to the raw data in the development of the homogenised temperature series."

BoM said it welcomed the conclusion that homogenisation played an essential role in eliminating artificial non-clim¬ate ¬systematic errors in temperature observations, so that a meaningful and consistent set of records could be maintained over time.

*********

Bureau of Meteorology told to improve data handling, analysis, Graham Lloyd, The Australian, June 19, 2015

Better data handling and statistical methods and the use of pre-1910 temperature records would improve the Bureau of Meteorology's national temperature data set ACORN-SAT, an ¬independent review has found.

A technical advisory panel, brought forward following public concerns that the bureau's homogenisation process was exaggerating a warming trend, said it was "generally satisfied" with BoM's performance.

But it said there was "scope for improvements that can boost the transparency of the data set".

Scientists who queried BoM's management of the national temperature data said they had been vindicated by the report.
The review panel made five recommendations and said it was "not currently possible to determine whether the improvements recommended by the forum will result in an increased or decreased warming trend as reflected in the ACORN-SAT dataset".

The independent review panel was recommended by a peer review of the Australian Climate Observations Reference Network -- Surface Air Temperature, but it not acted upon until public concerns were raised.

BoM's technical advisory forum said ACORN-SAT was a complex and well-maintained data set. Public submissions about BoM's work "do not provide evidence or offer a justification for contesting the overall need for homogenisation and the scientific integrity of the bureau's climate records."

Nonetheless, the review report said it considered its recommendations for improving the bureau's communications, statistical methods and data handling, and further regional analysis based on the pre-1910 data, would address the most important concerns.

David Stockwell, who raised concerns, said he was "very pleased with the recommendations".

"They largely identify and address all of the concerns that I have had with the past BoM work," Dr Stockwell said. "When implemented, it should lead to considerable improvements.
"The panel recommended strongly that the BoM communicate the limitations and it agreed that errors in the data need to be corrected and homogenisation is necessary, as I do, although it must be communicated clearly that the ACORN result is a relative index of change and not an observational series.."
The forum received 20 public submissions which questioned;
* The 1910 starting date (although some pre-1910 records are available) and its potential effect on reported climate trends;
* The treatment of claimed cyclical warming and cooling periods in the adjustment process and its effect on reported warming trends;
* The potential effects of site selection and the later inclusion of stations in warmer regions;
* The treatment of statistical uncertainty associated with both raw and homogenised data sets;
* The ability of individuals to replicate or verify the data set; and
* the justification for adjusting historic temperature records.
Bob Baldwin, the parliamentary secretary responsible for BoM, said the bureau would work to adopt the recommendations.
"We believe the forum's recommendations for improving the bureau's overall communications, statistical methods and data handling, and further regional analysis based on the pre-1910 data, will help address the main concerns surrounding the dataset," he said.
Mr Baldwin said the report was an important part of ensuring the bureau continued to provide world-class information on the climate trends affecting Australia.
The review panel said its recommendations predominately addressed two key aspects of ACORN-SAT.
They we to improve the clarity and accessibility of information provided, in particular explaining the uncertainty inherent to both raw and homogenised datasets; and refining some data-handling and statistical methods through appropriate statistical standardisation procedures, sensitivity analysis and alternative data filling approaches.
Ends.

Copyright (c) 2015 Jennifer Marohasy, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you subscribed to my newsletter via jennifermarohasy.com.

Our mailing address is:
Jennifer Marohasy
PO Box 692
Noosa Heads, Qld 4567
Australia"

And 99.9% of scientists think she's wrong. You choose to believe the 0.1% What a surprise.

Idiot.

Reading it properly suggests good practice to some extent. It appears
that a number of people including scientists have queried the validity
of the data and an independent panel of technical experts have said that
overall it is sound but some aspects of quality control and statistical
analysis could have been done to a higher standard.
"BoM's technical advisory forum said ACORN-SAT was a complex and
well-maintained data set. Public submissions about BoM's work "do not
provide evidence or offer a justification for contesting the overall
need for homogenisation and the scientific integrity of the bureau's
climate records."

It's hard to explain sometimes that Science isn't about right or wrong -
a stance you two have taken here.
You try to end up with the most representative set of data which
involves justifiably eliminating some which appears as outlying. (There
will be all sorts of mathematical ways of deciding this). It would
appear here that this has not been done wellin some areas and
improvements are to be made. That seems to be reasonably transparent
although there should have perhaps been more internal peer reviewing of
the quality control and statistical methods. Unfortunately some
organisations and scientists aren't as good as each other, as in all
walks of life, but it doesn't mean there is a conspiracy I'm afraid.
Dave

There's no 'right' and no wrong in science, as I've attested to on here any times.there is no proof, though deniers want there to be. The best you'll get is a consensus amongst scientists. In this case, the consensus is huge, at 99.9% in the latest literature survey. What does that suggest about CO2 being the major cause of global warming.

A good analogy is gravity. The theory of gravity is not proven and never will be. However, if I was stood under a falling piano, I'd be inclined to do my best to get out of the way. A denier, however would be still telling anyone in hearing distance that the theory is a bunch of crap. Right up to the end. 😀

"Dawlish" wrote in message
...

A good analogy is gravity.
=====================

No, that's a bad analogy. Gravity is a deeply familiar phenomenon - everyone
(on Earth) experiences it minute by minute and so anticipating the effects
of gravity is second nature.

The central problem of GW/AGW is that it's happening on on a timescale
that's imperceptible to the man on the Clapham omnibus. It's only the
decadal instrumental records that really reveal its steady progress and even
then the signal to noise is relatively poor.

Dawlish wrote:
There's no 'right' and no wrong in science, as I've attested to on
here any times.there is no proof, though deniers want there to be.
The best you'll get is a consensus amongst scientists. In this case,
the consensus is huge, at 99.9% in the latest literature survey. What
does that suggest about CO2 being the major cause of global warming.

A good analogy is gravity. The theory of gravity is not proven and
never will be. However, if I was stood under a falling piano, I'd be
inclined to do my best to get out of the way. A denier, however would
be still telling anyone in hearing distance that the theory is a
bunch of crap. Right up to the end. ??

In the instance of gravity, how much proof do you want??

We know how it works, we know what the equations are. We can
'slingshot' spaceprobes around planets in order to accelerate them.
And lo and behold the probes end up where we want them.

How could we do that if the theory wasn't 'proven'?
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl
Snow videos:
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3QvmL4UWBmHFMKWiwYm_gg

On Sunday, 21 June 2015 14:06:44 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
There's no 'right' and no wrong in science, as I've attested to on here any times.there is no proof, though deniers want there to be. The best you'll get is a consensus amongst scientists. In this case, the consensus is huge, at 99.9% in the latest literature survey. What does that suggest about CO2 being the major cause of global warming.

A good analogy is gravity. The theory of gravity is not proven and never will be. However, if I was stood under a falling piano, I'd be inclined to do my best to get out of the way. A denier, however would be still telling anyone in hearing distance that the theory is a bunch of crap. Right up to the end. 😀



You're analogy of gravity I pure tosh. I'll tell you why you idiot, we can see gravity working on the earth every day , very hour, every second but we have no evidence whatsoever of co2 heating the atmosphere, do we?

Please show this evidence to me and your follower.

On Sunday, June 21, 2015 at 3:02:13 PM UTC+1, Col wrote:
Dawlish wrote:
There's no 'right' and no wrong in science, as I've attested to on
here any times.there is no proof, though deniers want there to be.
The best you'll get is a consensus amongst scientists. In this case,
the consensus is huge, at 99.9% in the latest literature survey. What
does that suggest about CO2 being the major cause of global warming.

A good analogy is gravity. The theory of gravity is not proven and
never will be. However, if I was stood under a falling piano, I'd be
inclined to do my best to get out of the way. A denier, however would
be still telling anyone in hearing distance that the theory is a
bunch of crap. Right up to the end. ??

In the instance of gravity, how much proof do you want??

We know how it works, we know what the equations are. We can
'slingshot' spaceprobes around planets in order to accelerate them.
And lo and behold the probes end up where we want them.

How could we do that if the theory wasn't 'proven'?
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl
Snow videos:
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3QvmL4UWBmHFMKWiwYm_gg

We know global warming is occurring and 99.9% of all published material on the subject points to CO2 being the cause. How much more "proof do you want, Well actually, you can carry on asking for it until you are blue in the face, but you'll never get it.

Research proof in science. You'll see I'm absolutely correct. There is none. You just have very well established theories that *so far* have stood the test of time.

On Sunday, June 21, 2015 at 3:35:50 PM UTC+1, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Sunday, 21 June 2015 14:06:44 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
There's no 'right' and no wrong in science, as I've attested to on here any times.there is no proof, though deniers want there to be. The best you'll get is a consensus amongst scientists. In this case, the consensus is huge, at 99.9% in the latest literature survey. What does that suggest about CO2 being the major cause of global warming.

A good analogy is gravity. The theory of gravity is not proven and never will be. However, if I was stood under a falling piano, I'd be inclined to do my best to get out of the way. A denier, however would be still telling anyone in hearing distance that the theory is a bunch of crap. Right up to the end. 😀



You're analogy of gravity I pure tosh. I'll tell you why you idiot, we can see gravity working on the earth every day , very hour, every second but we have no evidence whatsoever of co2 heating the atmosphere, do we?

Please show this evidence to me and your follower.

99.9% of all published material on the subject points to exactly that evidence. 0.1% supports you and yours.

Your little corner of denial becomes smaller by the day. laughing

On Sunday, June 21, 2015 at 2:50:31 PM UTC+1, JohnD wrote:
"Dawlish" wrote in message
...

A good analogy is gravity.
=====================

No, that's a bad analogy. Gravity is a deeply familiar phenomenon - everyone
(on Earth) experiences it minute by minute and so anticipating the effects
of gravity is second nature.

The central problem of GW/AGW is that it's happening on on a timescale
that's imperceptible to the man on the Clapham omnibus. It's only the
decadal instrumental records that really reveal its steady progress and even
then the signal to noise is relatively poor.

To show up climate deniers, the analogy is just perfect. 😎😎

Enjoy the piano deniers.......