Australian Met Bureau caught fuddging ??

[vtsnowedin]

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Lond ... al-Warming

The Australian Bureau of Meteorology has been caught red-handed manipulating temperature data to show "global warming" where none actually exists.

At Amberley, Queensland, for example, the data at a weather station showing 1 degree Celsius cooling per century was "homogenized" (adjusted) by the Bureau so that it instead showed a 2.5 degrees warming per century.

At Rutherglen, Victoria, a cooling trend of -0.35 degrees C per century was magically transformed at the stroke of an Australian meteorologist's pen into a warming trend of 1.73 degrees C per century.

Last year, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology made headlines in the liberal media by claiming that 2013 was Australia's hottest year on record. This prompted Australia's alarmist-in-chief Tim Flannery - an English literature graduate who later went on to earn his scientific credentials with a PhD in palaeontology, digging up ancient kangaroo bones - to observe that global warming in Australia was "like climate change on steroids."

But we now know, thanks to research by Australian scientist Jennifer Marohasy, that the hysteria this story generated was based on fabrications and lies.

Though the Bureau of Meteorology has insisted its data adjustments are "robust", it has been unable to come up with a credible explanation as to why it translated real-world data showing a cooling trend into homogenized data showing a warming trend.

I not sure of the original source but I expect its one of the usual deniers.

[UndercoverElephant]

Yep. A "news" story with no source given, and highly questionable content. Safe as houses.

[UndercoverElephant]

This is the source

http://jennifermarohasy.com/about/

Jennifer Marohasy is an Australian biologist and libertarian who holds unpopular opinions on a range of important environmental issues.

Right, so she's a "libertarian" (a "scientist" known for her political views? Or somebody with a political agenda claiming to be a scientist?)

And she's claiming to be a "biologist", not a climate scientist.

Dr Marohasy applies her formal training in the scientific method to better understand contentious environmental issues:
1. She notes what is being said publicly.
2. She looks to see whether public pronouncements are supported by the available evidence.
3. She looks for correlations, being careful to always distinguish between out-put from computer models as opposed to observational data.
4. She seeks advice from experts who supported the ‘consensus’ on AGW as well as ‘sceptics’.
5. She tries to understand the physical processes that might explain real world observations.

But she doesn't follow the normal peer-review process like a real scientist.

This is bullshit.

[vtsnowedin]

The pear review process always works and leads directly to the truth?

[PS_RalphW]

More often than not. A recent article in nature was withdrawn, after its results were questioned, and the lead scientist was so ashamed he killed himself. Scientists (most of them) really do care about being right, or at least not wrong.

[UndercoverElephant]

The giveaway that this is bullshit is here:

4. She seeks advice from experts who supported the ‘consensus’ on AGW as well as ‘sceptics’.

That's a bit like saying "she seeks advice from experts who supported the 'consensus' on big bang theory, as well as 'skeptics'.

It is framed in such away as to suggest there is no real consensus on "AGW" (why else put "consensus" in quotes?). Also, note the use of the past tense - like those experts no longer support any consensus, because it doesn't exist anymore! At the same time, she is as admitting, tacitly, that her main source of advice is the "skeptics". And these "skeptical experts", as anybody with half a brain already knows, aren't scientists. The number of actual climate scientists who are skeptical of AGW is so small as to be irrelevant. So why does she primarily seek advice on climate science from people who aren't climate scientists? Well, because she's a "libertarian", of course!

What a pile of crap.

[biffvernon]

What do you expect from Australia? In the news today:

The Abbott Government has just approved Australia’s LARGEST coal mine, two weeks after abolishing the country’s first climate laws. They just don’t get climate change. The coal from Adani’s Carmichael mine would be equivalent to almost one quarter of Australia’s total emissions – a climate disaster! This mega mine would also destroy 20,000 ha of native bushland, use 12 billion litres of Queensland’s groundwater per year and threaten the endangered black-throated finch with extinction. No vision, no heart, definitely no science.

[vtsnowedin]

She is having quite a bit of fun with it. Here is an "Update" posted by one of her collaborators.
http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2014/0 ... ck-update/

[Catweazle]

Is there some reason why these skeptics are showing graphs of "Tmin Anomalies" rather than average temperature ?

It's early, I'm sleepy, perhaps I'm missing something statistically important.

[Catweazle]

Anyone ?

[vtsnowedin]

Anyone ?

Sorry weezy I haven't figured out their methodology. They could just as well show Tmin and Tmax plus the the mean but I'd be more interested in someone posting the whole data set to see if she has a point or is just raking muck.
"Trust but verify!"