War on BoM: deniers request formal audit of Oz Bureau of Metroogy data

Looks like the war is heating up.

Announced on Jo Nova’s site today:

A team of skeptical scientists, citizens, and an Australian Senator have lodged a formal request with the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) to have the BOM and CSIRO audited.

The BOM claim their adjustments are “neutral” yet Ken Stewart showed that the trend in the raw figures for our whole continent has been adjusted up by 40%. The stakes are high. Australians could have to pay something in the order of $870 million dollars thanks to the Kyoto protocol, and the first four years of the Emissions Trading Scheme was expected to cost Australian industry (and hence Australian shareholders and consumers) nearly $50 billion dollars.

Given the stakes, the Australian people deserve to know they are getting transparent, high quality data from the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM). The small cost of the audit is nothing in comparison with the money at stake for all Australians. We need the full explanations of why individual stations have been adjusted repeatedly and non-randomly, and why adjustments were made decades after the measurements were taken. We need an audit of surface stations. (Are Australian stations as badly manipulated and poorly sited as the US stations? Who knows?)

However, if it is anything like the New Zealand experience it is bound to create egg on the faces of the deniers.

And so the long, tedious war on science continues.

I’ll post more updates etc.

Spread the word, the War on BoM has begun.

 

About these ads

35 thoughts on “War on BoM: deniers request formal audit of Oz Bureau of Metroogy data

  1. john byatt says:

    jefft…… now its long term memory loss

    The subject was hockeyschtick, is your mind drifting off the subject -

    McIntyre & McKitrick’s Hockey Stick – Climate …

    as i said your just to damn thick to even consider a challenge

    • JeffT says:

      John Byatt,
      I really trooly lurv the thread title:
      ” – Oz Bureau of Metroogy data”
      as a distraction, it must have been entered Byatt.

      You state above in (06:47:28)
      “The subject was hockeyschtick,” just so glad you are following my nomenclature for Mann’s notorius graphs, in particular the word “schtick” derived from some Yiddish slang “a comic theme or gimmick”
      Keep using it, it’s very aptly used in the description of Michael E. Mann’s “hockeyschtick”.

      “The subject was hockeyschtick, is your mind drifting off the subject -
      McIntyre & McKitrick’s Hockey Stick – Climate ”

      It isn’t McIntyre & McKitrick’s Hockey Stick – Climate …
      but due to their curiosity, then vigilance re MBH98, it was eventually removed from documentation of the IPCC, and has had many “reviews” since.

      So while you spent your energy bagging lil’ old me, you have again made some serious omissions in your “thought” processes.

      And it was a good link John Byatt :-
      Smerdon

      http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~jsmerdon/papers/2010b_jclim_smerdonetal.pdf

      Looks like Smerdon found discrepancies in Mann’s applications:-
      Extract ) Erroneously processed output from (these) two simulations.
      Geographical orientation of Community Climate System Model (CCSM) used by Mann (2005) incorrect, Mann (2007)a and Mann (2007)b incorrect.
      - Pseudoproxy experiments based on incorrect fields are either invalidated or require reinterpretation.

      Read the Abstract and Introduction.

      So Mann did peddle incorrect data, – surprise, surprise.
      – Anything that fits.
      J.

  2. john byatt says:

    lokks like McShane & Wyner did a cut and paste !

    The funny thing is that this paper actually replicates Mann et al. 2008 without even noticing it…
    To partake in this dirty little secret, see their Figure 14 on page 30: the blue curve is wiggle-identical and practically a photocopy of Mann’s corresponding EIV NH land curve. As it should be. The higher (green) curve they canonize and which is shown above is the result of an error: they calibrate their proxies against hemispherical mean temperature, which is a poor measure of forced variability. The instrumental PC1 which the blue curve is based on, is a much better measure; its EOF contains the polar amplification effect. What it means is that high-latitude proxies, in order to be made representative for global temperatures, should be downweighted. The green curve fails to do this. Thus, high latitudes are overrepresented in this reconstruction, which is why the “shaft” is at such an angle, due to the Earth axis’s changing tilt effect on the latitudinal temperature dependence described in Kaufman et al. 2009.
    The authors have no way of detecting such an error as their RMSE goodness-of-fit seems to be also based around the hemispherical average…
    Posted by: Martin Vermeer

    • Also from Smerdon (2010)

      “They provide neither the principal scientific evidence supporting
      climate-proxy connections, nor the most compelling, and the inference by
      MW10 that their own findings demonstrate a widespread failure in the pre-
      dictive capacity of climate proxies is at odds with most other independent
      lines of proxy research.”

  3. john byatt says:

    McShane & Wyner (2010) [Full]

    Rougier (2010) [Full], Smerdon (2010) [Full], Davis & Liu (2010) [Full], Schmidt et al. (2010) [Full], Tingley (2010) [Full], Rajaratnam & Craigmile (2010) [Full], Haran & Urban (2010) [Full], Berliner (2010) [Full], Wahl & Ammann (2010) [Full], Nychka & Li (2010) [Full], Kaplan (2010) [Full], Deltoid (see also comment section), Rabett Run, Climate Progress, The Policy Lass.

    which effin rebuttal would you like first goose

    • JeffT says:

      Jeez, John Byatt B3/B4 has shown his talents at the keyboard again,

      No actual thought though, just more cut and paste from :-

      http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/anti-agw-papers-debunked/

      Thanks turkey-neck, that’s another one of your resources, you’ve supplied me for my reference. Is that one of your “thousands of papers” you have boasted about ”

      Now to debunk, or at least find why they are there.
      J. Rougier -
      looks like Rougier was wheeled in after the failure of the Copenhagen debacle. Let’s make the numbers look good, can’t have Mann’s multi-part fabrication look questionable. MMCC might fall on it’s derriere.
      But the do, as seen here from your reference to:-
      Smerdon – Link-

      http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~jsmerdon/papers/2010b_jclim_smerdonetal.pdf

      Looks like Smerdon found discrepancies in Mann’s applications:-
      Extract ) Erroneously processed output from (these) two simulations.
      Geographical orientation of Community Climate System Model (CCSM) used by Mann (2005) incorrect, Mann (2007)a and Mann (2007)b incorrect.
      - Pseudoproxy experiments based on incorrect fields are either invalidated or require reinterpretation.
      Read the Abstract and Introduction.

      I will admit I’m at a disadvantage with statistics, but this is fun.
      J.

  4. JeffT says:

    Yes it does look like a spaghetti donkey, now you have directed my attention to it.
    Thank you.

    Now read the McShane and Wyner paper.

    J.

    • That’s the problem with deniers of this nature – they know enough to keep wind of any one paper that might question a single element of climate science and extrapolate that out to ludicrous proportions, but not enough to realise that this is simply paper hurling which has nothing to do with real science.
      Eg. “ACC is crap – this paper says so!” is a lot different to an explanation.
      My favourite reply thus far to that paper is Smerdon (2010) who explains that, “the preliminary results that I have outlined suggest that the MW10 hypothesis test is subject to Type II errors and thus is not suitable for evaluating the reliability of proxy archives as temperature predictors.”

  5. john byatt says:

    Jefft

    The more recent “adjusted” hockeyschticks are spaghetti graphs, with data hidden amongst a confusion of coloured graph lines.
    J.

    try to look at the red graph line at the end of the spaghetti donkey , that is the current temperature

  6. JeffT says:

    Yes Moths,
    “thinking for themselves or-
    ” faithfully accept whatever rubbish they’re fed.” like MM’s hockeyschticks, from MBH98 onward.

    (MBH98 hockeyschtick is still being bandied about in Al Gore’s science fiction movie A.I.T. )

    How many tries did it take to get the MWP data, and the LIA data included in the later versions ? And it’s only token values.
    The more recent “adjusted” hockeyschticks are spaghetti graphs, with data hidden amongst a confusion of coloured graph lines.
    J.

    • Right… Give me credible scientific deconstruction as to why the “hockey stick is broken” instead of typical denial bs that only has connections to thought-free zones, such as Watts, Nova and grey lit like The Hockey Stick Illusion”.

      It’s much easier to simply label Al Gore’s work Sci-fi than take the time to demonstrate where the flaws actually are, but more importantly, it is simply a distraction from the fact that there is little genuine scientific criticism of Mann’s work. You don’t have a scientific basis for your criticism, but disguise the fact in bombastic bravado. Don’t waste my time.

      This recent graph hardly seems to be hiding data to confuse.

      A number of temperature reconstructions from Mann et al. (2008)

      As John said, we could collect a whole heap of different data, all showing the same trend.

    • john byatt says:

      You are so dumb Porkie

      : McIntyre and McKitrick
      19 Feb 2010 … McIntyre, McKitrick and, more often, the acronym M&M or MM to refer to the pair, are the subject of many discussions in the e-mails released .

      • JeffT says:

        John Byatt B3/B4
        What do you want Turkey Neck-
        M.E.M ?
        The subject was hockeyschtick, is your mind drifting off the subject -
        AGAIN ?
        M&M is the normal acronym for McIntyre and McKitrick.
        It may also refer to M&M chocolates, but only out of context.

        Try for some real statistical science re the hockey schtick.
        McShane and Wyner 2010 – submitted.

        http://www.e-publications.org/ims/submission/index.php/AOAS/user/submissionFile/6695?confirm=63ebfddf

        Now tell us you have read it and absorbed it, or that Really Scary Climate have debunked it.

        Now why don’t you be a good fella and go delete some e-mails.
        J.

      • john byatt says:

        jeff i have been thumping you idiots for two years, learnt a bit in that time

  7. Ian says:

    I missed the part where deniers got eggs on their faces before. I’m also a bit curious as to why wanting to see how you make adjustments is somehow wrong? If someone is feeding us adjusted data than wouldn’t we want to know how the adjustments are being made? Or should we just blindly accept the adjusted temperature data? AGW true believers would still be citing the hockey stick graph if someone hadn’t questioned it.

    Proud denier.

    • What’s wrong with the so-called hockey stick graph?

    • john byatt says:

      wonder which hockey stick graph that he is referring to with ten now available from corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores.

      they are all in agreement ,

      you can find out about how adjustments are made without claiming a conspiracy to doctor data,

      it is nothing more than trying to create ongoing drama to confuse and it is aided by many usefull idiots here in Australia.

  8. klem says:

    Lol! Good come-back Johnny. Sweet.

  9. klem says:

    I can’t wait for the deniers to get egg on their faces over this. Oh wait, I’m a deniers. Sorry I forgot.

  10. john byatt says:

    As COX he claims that the temperature variation is due to TSI, backing Miskolczi
    As cohenite he claims that temperature variation is due to ENSO, backing McLean

  11. john byatt says:

    One of the signatories uses the pseudo… Cohenite,, of the forums

    Anthony Cox

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/ahh_mclean_youve_done_it_again.php

  12. Watching the Deniers says:

    I think we have the potential to “crowd source” this document, and pull it apart.

    Let me come back to people.

    • john byatt says:

      Great Wtd background etc would be appreciated and and great source to give links to

      did you all know that Cox stated ” its the sun stupid”

      hehe

      • Watching the Deniers says:

        Give me a day or two… lets say my professional life is *busy*

        But hey, anyone else got links post in here :)

  13. EoR says:

    Well, I’m not one for conspiracy theories, but…

    Have you checked the email links Ms Nova provides in her copy of the first page of her diatribe? The email for Corey Bernardi is given as Jo Nova. Is this an admission she’s a shill for the Liberal Party?

    Chris Gilliam is apparently a pseudonym for Ken’s Kingdom.

    Ken Stewart and David Stockwell appear to be the same person.

    None of the email addresses are well-formed. It appears Ms Nova can’t even get simple details like an email link to work properly. And people think she’s a climate prophet.

    • john byatt says:

      EoR can you elaborate a bit more this sounds like stuff that needs to be known,

      • EoR says:

        From the provided link to Jo Nova’s article promoting her spurious audit demand, she has a copy of the first page with email links which are all malformed. Personally, I think it’s just evidence of her incompetence dealing with simple technology (let alone complicated climate science).

        Those with nefarious purposes, of course, could spread this through the interwebs as evidence of how Jo Nova is part of some coordinated conspiracy…

  14. Idiots… Of course there must be an error – the data collected by BOM reveals the same trends as the rest of the data sets around the world! Conspiracy!!

    “…hence Australian shareholders and consumers”
    Telling…

    “Are Australian stations as badly manipulated and poorly sited as the US stations?”
    Yeah, because NOAA haven’t put Anthony Watts BS to bed or anything.

    I love the pleading tone towards the end – like she cares how good the data is; just as long as it matches her conclusions it’s all good. I’m so sick of this witch hunt!

  15. john byatt says:

    By tonight this will be all over the blogs as BOM to be audited

    {comments will be , ‘i knew that they were fiddling the data, this proves it”}

    they don”t care about the egg on face just the headline ‘BOM data may be hoax”

    the NZ mob are claiming justification anyway, its all about creating confusion

    by keeping their rubbish in the news

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 772 other followers

%d bloggers like this: