JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Another toothless review of the BOM?

In last week’s news we find — by golly — that the BOM are going to “rush” to set up an oversight panel that they were told to set up back in 2011 or 2012. Hey, it was going to take three years to set up the panel, but now they’re doing it in two! That’s what I call “action”.

So the BOM knows it’s in trouble, and they shift to Stage 2.  They’ve avoided the skeptical questions, the FOIA’s, and the request for explanations for as long as they possibly could. But now the mainstream media is involved, something has to change — because nothing is worse than playing out the questions and answers in an uncontrolled way in public. To pack away those contentious points, what better method than by appointing a committee, review panel, or some kind of “independent” assessment? The right committee can produce toothless recommendations, vague praise, and a weak slap on the wrist and it can take years to do it.

Thus and verily do Ministers sometimes palm off problems, and responsibility. All decision-making power seemingly goes to the “review” (unless it somehow produces an undesirable result). Should the review churn out the conclusion the Minister wanted, he or she can fob off hard questions by dutifully claiming to be “following expert advice”. So public debate stalls superficially at the he-said, they-said stage — unless the media actually asks hard questions.

So whether or not a review is useful depends largely on who runs it, and their motivation for doing it.

Senator Birmingham appointed to oversee BOM review

So how motivated is Birmingham to get a real answer? Allegedly, he was one of the “keenest” for an ETS in 2009. In May 2013 he again made it clear he thinks we need global action for CO2 reduction:

“Senator Milne is right: the challenge of climate change remains one of how you get a global solution; how you get global action; how you get emissions down from those who are far bigger emitters than Australia…. Should we try to reduce carbon emissions? Absolutely. … We should be seeking, of course, to reduce their emissions” — Senator Birmingham

Birmingham may have little incentive to do a real review that shows up his former less-than-skeptical attitude. But if Cory Bernardi or Dennis Jensen were put in charge, no one would be asking whether the review was serious.

I’ve seen an email about this review saying that the BOM will be vetting nominations: (Dated Sept 23rd) Public nominations are not being called for, however any nomination will be passed on the Director of the Bureau of Meteorology for consideration. Nominations must be received within the next fortnight and all nominations must be verified by the person concerned and include academic resume and relevant reviewed scientific publications to ascertain credentials. 

In other words, a whitewash. If the BOM was so sure it was doing world class, impeccable research, it would be demanding independent replication of its work to clear its name and assure Australians of the high standards. All methods fully published, testable, and reproduced. Anything less is not science.

The Australian Sept 16, 2014

Birmingham brings early change to bureau review

THE Bureau of Meteorology has been ordered to bring forward the creation of a panel of external ­experts to oversee the national homogenised temperature record, ACORN-SAT.

The federal government will monitor the technical advisory group to ensure it includes ­respected external scientists and statisticians as recommended by the peer review panel that originally approved the ACORN-SAT methodology.

Simon Birmingham, the parliamentary secretary with responsibility for the weather bureau, said yesterday it had advised that establishment of the oversight panel was “in progress” and due to be completed by next year.

“However, the parliamentary secretary in reviewing the recommendations has brought the completion date forward to the end of 2014,” a spokesman said.

Senator Birmingham would be briefed on the proposed composition of the panel and would “ensure” it had the independence envisaged in the original recommendation, he said.

The bureau has been under pressure to meet the recommendations of its independent peer review panel, which praised the ACORN-SAT program two years ago but said greater transparency was needed.

Last week, the bureau published a full list of adjustments after criticisms that homogenisation had changed cooling trends at some regional weather stations to warming trends.

The bureau has said adjustments are necessary to compensate for changes in equipment or location or after comparisons are made with nearby stations.

The BOM are still telling us their adjustments don’t affect the trend when it is obvious they do:

“The bureau says while homogenisation had changed temperature trends at some stations, the overall national trend for warming has not been affected.”

Oh joy, a technical advisory group too?

In addition to the publication of reasons for adjustments, the peer review panel recommended two years ago a technical advisory group meet annually to review progress on the development and operation of ACORN-SAT.

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.2/10 (79 votes cast)
Another toothless review of the BOM? , 9.2 out of 10 based on 79 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/p49fzqp

137 comments to Another toothless review of the BOM?

  • #

    Only slightly OT. I just read an article on The Conversation where it is claimed that the handprint of global warming is evident in the Australian 2013 record.
    Someone linked to a graph at kenskingdom showing UAH vs BoM (how UAH showed an unremarkable year in 2013) and no other comments that could be construed to be impolite whereupon a warmy did a nice ad hom and about 30 seconds later both comments have been removed.
    Nice.
    I guess that is how you get a consensus.
    Australia’s universities need defunding.

    410

  • #
    BOMmer Lank

    Does anyone know if the new advertising revenue from the BOM website will go towards the costs of the ‘review’?
    Will the ‘guidelines’ noted by Birmingham to this advertising (see below) cover a representative field or will they allow only climate alarmists to give biased opinion? I suspect this could be a very dangerous propaganda stage for global warming terrorists……

    “Meanwhile, the Senate has passed the Meteorology Amendment (Online Advertising) Bill 2014, providing the Bureau with greater certainty to accept commercial advertising, and to prevent the display of inappropriate types of advertising on its website.

    The Bureau has trialled paid advertising on its website since April 2013 following a recommendation of the Munro Review in 2011 which identified that demand for the Bureau’s services would continue to grow.

    Parliamentary Secretary for the Environment, Simon Birmingham said online advertising had been identified as a potential revenue stream to assist the Bureau to meet increasing demands on its services.

    “The Bureau will develop and publish guidelines on the types of advertising the Bureau will display, ensuring the Agency can act with certainty when making decisions in relation to advertising,” Senator Birmingham said.” http://www.psnews.com.au/aps/Page_psn4254.html

    90

    • #
      Michael Batt

      Does anyone know what happened to the cute cartoons created by BOM at great expense featuring sheep dogs, to explain climate to dumb farmers?

      00

  • #
    Wally

    I wrote to Birmingham years ago re the ETS and such like.

    I got the waffly weasel politician reply, but in that he did state that he’s a firm believer in The Precautionary Principle.

    So in other words, he’s a wet indecisive waffly weasel.

    450

    • #
      Angry

      “The Precautionary Principle”……….
      HA!
      It is not even a real scientific principle.
      just some LEFTIST BS!!!!

      210

      • #
        Tim

        If I applied “The Precautionary Principle”, I wouldn’t get out of bed.

        20

      • #

        “The Precautionary Principle” is only ever applied be the left to potential problems, not to the alleged solutions. Here are some examples of that principle in others areas.

        1. I am fortunate to live in a fairly low crime area, so if I left my door unlocked I would be unlikely to have somebody steal something. But “the Precautionary Principle” means I lock every time I go through the door.

        2. Most people in a business are basically honest, but businesses use the “The Precautionary Principle”, in putting controls in place that eliminate the ability of one individual defraud the company. But the more common reason is so that people do not take short cuts; or go outside company policy; or break the Law by not knowing what they are doin; or expose the company to undue risks; or compromise company standards.

        3. Pharmaceutical companies have produced some marvellous products in the last few decades. However applying “the Precautionary Principle” we still insist that all new products must be independently checked and validated by laid down standards.

        I suggest that even those who think the BOM records are to the highest standards, “the Precautionary Principle” would be to have a properly constituted independent review, with experts in investigation. It could be that the BOM does not have sufficiently rigorous procedures in place, or there are aspects that insiders may have missed.

        00

    • #
      Ian George

      If we all believed in the ‘precautionary principle’ we’d all have to believe in God – you know, just in case.

      70

      • #
        Peter Carabot

        “we’d all have to believe in God – you know, just in case.”

        ….that’s why I subscribe to several “Religions” 7, I think, on the last census paper. Again, Just in case… and I cannot make up my mind on which one is the true one……

        40

      • #

        Actually it was the scientist and philosopher Blaise Pascal who essentially first formulated something like what you’re saying (the precautionary principle) as an argument for faith; and in fact it was a huge advance in probability theory.
        It is called Pascal’s wager, and concludes that faith is a better bet because the possible gains outweigh the possible losses of not believing by such a great degree. “You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.”
        Taken this way it is kind of equivalent to Lord Monckton’s argument for no action on climate change: the gains of believing climate change is real and acting on it when it is not real are far more catastrophic, potentially, in terms of economic losses, the effect on the poor, etc, than the effect of not believing and acting on climate change when it is real. (In fact, he showed that delayed action when climate is real is less costly)
        I know quite a few Christian scientists, engineers, etc who are climate change skeptics – with any luck(!), belief in God doesn’t necessarily mean loss of reasoning powers (Viz. Blaise Pascal, Isaac Newton, Niels Bohr etc etc)

        00

    • #
      Ian

      Probably better to have someone like Simon Birmingham heading the inquiry rather than a hard headed sceptic who before the inquiry even started, would be accused by Christine Milne and Bill Shorten and Tim Flannery and Ross Garnaut of bias and antagonism to any or all of IPCC/Greens/Greenpeace/GetUp/ETS/wind power/solar power/wave power

      00

      • #
        cohenite

        I disagree; this capitulatory approach is killing the Conservatives. It doesn’t matter what they do they will be pilloried by the left and greens. You either accept the facts, such as something is wrong with BOM and needs to be rectified and you go hard to rectify, or you don’t.

        On the subject of AGW this really is the last chance for the Coalition; if they let BOM get its way on this then there’s nothing left but to get the Climate Sceptics Party up and running again.

        11

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    In a previous thread Tony once again poked a hole in the idea of renewables as current – functional options for power supply with his

    “40 hours of power’ sounding a bit like TV evangelism.

    This prompted a review of recent experience with compulsory add-ons to new homes in NSW which are in addition to the non-compulsory Roof Top Solar PV mess.

    (see rant at: http://joannenova.com.au/2014/09/google-the-bird-killing-green-rent-seekers/#comment-1575993

    These add-ons are designed to reduce our carbon Footprint in that we don’t need to build as much public infrastructure in the form of :

    1. Dams.

    2. Electric power generation for air conditioning, and

    3. Electric power generation for water heating.

    Very rough estimates suggest that not only are these items not saving carbon and they are not even carbon neutral but are in fact producing

    more CO2 than the normal equivalent when all is considered.

    In other words they are Tokenism at its best.

    The point of this comment is to show that there are “remedies ” to the Carbon Problem which are being forced upon us which are actually

    working against the stated aims of the green proponents.

    Why isn’t one of the high powered committees mentioned in the post set to work to do a proper carbon balance and cost benefit analysis on

    these compulsory residential solutions to a non existent problem?

    KK

    202

  • #
    safetyguy66

    Well I guess there is a bright side. If it wasn’t for the amazing work of Jo, Jennifer, Tom Q and many others including many members of this site, its fair to say we wouldn’t even have this much action. So well done to all involved, on a cosmic scale its not much, but from an Australian pseudo science bureaucrats being brought down a peg or 3 view, its quite an achievement.

    I read an interesting snippet yesterday from a warmist who made the statement “Its fair to say there are no sceptics with any meaningful scientific training.” He went on to say that explaining “the science” to sceptics was pointless as they had already made up their minds and that most of it was too complicated for lay people to understand anyway.

    So someone purporting to represent hard science has 2 basic positions on AGW.

    1. Im not explaining it because that would give credibility to your scepticism
    2. If I tried you wouldn’t understand.

    Again there is one basic rule to AGW communication. “Trust Us”

    Well that’s where I get back to the point. If your method of communicating complicated science is “trust us its like this”. Then you better damn well be found to be trustworthy when then scrutiny does come. This is where the BOM has shot itself in the foot with a bazooka, win or lose their credibility is now in tatters. The call “trust us” now rings as hollow as it should for every thinking person.

    For the rest, who cares anyway, the sheep will always follow the ute if they think there is hay on the back.

    380

    • #
      Yonniestone

      As for “trust us its like this”. if the average person was to search Australian Meteorology for alternate opinions they will find AMOS and upon a first read it appears upfront and professional to the unaware, dig more and you’ll find links to the BOM, CSIRO and IPCC with this little gem of a ‘position on climate change’

      Once again the sheeple are herded by the MSM/internet to follow a green ute with no hay on a track to the financial abattoirs.

      180

  • #
    thingadonta

    The Senator won’t get his ‘action on climate change’ if he takes action on the BOM.

    60

  • #
    Greg Cavanagh

    I just have no faith that there is a person of credibility available to do the proper job. Sycophants the lot of them.

    I guess I’m disillusioned by the whole experience. This then is your reward for your efforts the last 15 years. I don’t believe or trust pollies worth a spit, nor any organisation that is funded the government.

    220

    • #
      safetyguy66

      And isn’t it sad that instead of mellow wisdom in our mature years, we are driven to frustrated cynicism, which should surely be the province of the young.

      Im with you Greg. I am saddened and disillusioned by the learning I have achieved in following AGW. I no longer trust CSIRO, BOM, most Universities and a bunch of other institutions that I should be proud of as an Australian. They have earned that mistrust 100 times over and their response is to name call and compare me to a denier of the holocaust. I couldn’t feel sicker if I ate a greeny.

      280

      • #
        ian hilliar

        You are absolutely correct, safetyguy. Personally , I think that green fundamentalists are more dangerous than any other religious fundamentalists on the planet- they are certainly responsible for more deaths since 1972,[DDT banned}. Everybody seems to want to be a policeman for the planet, but the political correctness , hypocrisy , and self satisfied smugness of these believers really drives me nuts! But we really don’t have to worry too much, as we are not the ones who choose to deny the prolonged pause , even as the CSIRO/BOM/”centre of excellence in scientific newspeak” at UNSW tumble over one another to avoid the bleeding obvious. And our politicians have seen the writing on the wall-thank heavens for Tony “the science is crap” Abbott!

        150

    • #
      Angry

      My uncle would call them all SPIVS & SHYSTERS…..

      120

      • #
        Leigh

        I have another name for all of them!
        And I could just about guarantee it immediately leapt to the forefront of most reader’s thoughts.
        Other than another whitewash.
        Its just the same old global warmists doing what they do best.
        But in the interests of Jo and her blog I have refrained from using it.
        As have most others.

        60

    • #
      Ian George

      I’m with you, Greg. I thought the Coalition would be different but I’m totally disillusioned. Now news outlets are telling us that Sydney’s last two days in Sep were the warmest on record. Oops, how about Sep, 1965?
      Oh, yes – that’s right. ACORN has adjusted those two hot days each down by a massive 0.7C – just about the whole of the so-called modern warming period increase. I bet they don’t investigate those adjustments.

      30

  • #
    Gary in Erko

    Another reason for convening a review panel, especially while the pressure is on, is to fob off further criticism – “Yes, we understand there could be flaws. That’s why we’re conducting a detailed review. It should only take a few years. Hopefully you’ll all go away by the time it’s completed.”

    190

    • #
      Tim

      How many of these ‘enquiries’ have we seen over the years? They are never voluntary, but conducted by hand-picked ‘independent panels’ only when a blowtorch is applied to their asses.

      They follow the same formula and the outcomes are predictable. I always live in hope, but won’t be holding my breath.

      60

  • #
    manalive

    Senator Simon Birmingham is a protégé of Senator Robert Hill (say no more).

    130

  • #
    George Applegate

    “the overall national trend for warming has not been affected”

    The slope of the warming trend may have been affected, but the overall trend, that is to say warming, still persists.

    So the warming trend has not been turned into a cooling trend? What a relief.

    50

    • #
      safetyguy66

      But also Greg this is a nonsense statement.

      “the overall national trend for warming has not been affected”

      So why make the adjustments? If the adjustments don’t affect the results, why make them? You simply cant have it both ways and the BOM treats everyone like morons even making that statement.

      If the trend is not affected, then the data did not require adjustment to reflect the trend. Except for one small problem….. it did require adjustment to reflect the required trend.

      230

      • #
        George Applegate

        I was just pointing out the weasel wording of “trend for warming has not been affected.” Much like the “warmest decade on record” is used to hide the fact that no warming occurred during that decade, contrary to predictions.

        120

    • #
      Ken Stewart

      The slope of the warming trend HAS been affected, and the bureau knows it. CTR 050 Table 1 shows the slope of the trend of mean AWAP (supposedly unadjusted) data 1911-2010 has been increased in Acorn by 36%. I will post on this at kenskingdom with more detail very soon. Pity I didn’t notice 2 years ago.

      40

  • #
    Lawrie Ayres

    I appreciate the cynicism expressed here but simply writing about it does nothing to progress the small steps gained so far. I write to politicians virtually every week, especially my local member, Dr. David Gillespie with copies to Barnaby Joyce. The government are pretty cocky and don’t take a lot of notice but as the election draws nearer they will become more focused. Keeping the press appraised, as has Jennifer Marahosy, has had a very positive effect. Birmingham has to be told that sufficient people are watching his performance or lack of it.

    From the BoM reaction we can safely conclude they are guilty of manipulation of the temperature record. The larger problem is how their doctored data impinges on their forecasts which has a flow-on effect for those basing decisions on those forecasts. Climate science has already destroyed faith in general science. The BoM are destroying faith in climate data and predictions. Heads should roll but sadly will not; protected by a politician with a belief.

    200

    • #
      ianl8888


      Climate science has already destroyed faith in general science

      Indeed

      Sadly, predictable 30 years ago. Most of the people who think I am cynically despairing were not even born then so they don’t yet realise the concerted time and effort it takes, especially from the MSM, to manufacture a public attitude like this (an “unintended consequence”, no doubt)

      UN-manufacturing it will take just as much time and effort, if it is ever agreed on to do this

      90

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      There has been suspicious government responses over the last several years coinciding with Jo’s posts and revelations. It looks like someone (or more than one) in government does review this blog and takes notice.

      CAGW has been a hot topic directly affecting the government in power. It makes sense that someone does take note of the undercurrents of society.

      So, it’s not just expressing one’s cynicism to the wind.

      70

      • #
        Peter C

        Can you be more specific Greg.
        My concern is that we few skeptics here are talking to ourselves.
        We do have some warmista visitors. But who is actually reading this blog?

        Would anyone in Government actually read and take notice,

        Andrew Bolt does seem to read it and relays some of the stories to a wider audience.

        20

        • #
          Sceptical Sam

          Peter C,

          Take it from me they read it. (Yes, sorry, that’s an Appeal to Authority – but in this case it’s on solid grounds!)

          Birmingham’s office does. Macfarlane’s office does. Hunt’s office does.

          On the Opposition side Wong, Carr and Butler’s people have a peep from time to time.

          They all then try to work out strategy: how to counter it; how to take advantage of it; how to use the material provided to benefit the cause.

          BoM does. CSIRO does. Industry Dept., does. The Environment boys and girls do.

          But they’ll all deny it. Jo who? They’ll say.

          80

        • #
          Greg Cavanagh

          I can’t be specific Peter, which is why I said “suspicious government responses”.

          I work as a lowly slave in local government. They get every morning newspaper and the personnel assistance will go through the papers and bring to the attention of manager’s relevant news articles.

          I do believe Jo’s work here is having a big impact for those who read, and those in power.

          40

    • #
      ian hilliar

      What of the CSIRO, on whose computer prognostications the BOM bases its predictions?

      50

  • #
    Angry

    “Simon Birmingham” is a global warming NUTJOB!

    I have emailed him many many artciles regarding the global warming scam and honestly the responses he gives would make your eyes roll!!

    To describe him as a F.CKING IDIOT WOULD BE KIND !!!

    From his own website (http://www.senatorbirmingham.com.au/About-Simon/Biography)…………

    “Simon grew up near Gawler in Adelaide’s north on his family’s small horse agistment property. Simon was educated at government schools before going on to study at the University of Adelaide where he completed a Masters of Business Administration.”

    YEP, NO SCIENCE EDUCATION THERE !

    160

    • #
      Angry

      “artciles ” should read “articles”.

      31

    • #
      sillyfilly

      He’s obviously better informed on the subject than you. Lovely language and ad hom though, real class!

      127

      • #
        the Griss

        Ahhh, the malignant mule is let out of its stable, and gives a brief but meaningless bray !!

        140

      • #
        ian hilliar

        Better informed, possibly, bit not probably. None the wiser, definitely. Or am I describing the talking horse?

        50

      • #
        Peter C

        He’s obviously better informed on the subject than you. Lovely language and ad hom though, real class

        The adhom is clear enough. But how can you claim that Senator Birmingham is better informed on the subject than Angry?

        60

        • #
          Tim

          They might select someone for the enquiry panel who is really well informed on climate science.

          Like maybe a Palaeontologist who knows all about Kangaroo poo.

          Watch this space.

          40

    • #
      Peter C

      Dear Senator Birmingham,

      I understand that you have requested the Bureau of Meteorology to set up a Committee of Review to re-examine their process of homogenisation of Australian Climate records.

      This is a very important issue for me.

      I do hope that you will ensure that the committee of oversight is appropriately constituted. The Bureau of Meteorology has important questions to answer here. These questions have been notified to you by Dr Jennifer Marohasy and others. A white wash is not the best outcome. The Bureau should answer appropriately, with all supporting documentation for public examination. Anything less will not satisfy.

      The Government has committed to enormous expenditure on Carbon Reduction Schemes. These political actions are reliant on scientific claims which are based on obscure science. The Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) records are central to these scientific claims.

      Before any more public funds are expended it is critical that the scientific basis of Anthropogenic Global Warming is firmed up. The BOM should explain the exact methods of homogenisation. The Committee needs to determine if homogenisation has actually created an artificial warming trend. This is a critically important issue.

      If the BOM cannot be more clear and open with their responses then the Government should not be spending public money in mitigation.

      120

      • #
        Sceptical Sam

        Nice draft Peter C.

        May I add an additional paragraph or two?

        After: “The Bureau should answer appropriately, with all supporting documentation for public examination. Anything less will not satisfy.” you might consider adding:

        The BoM needs to explain to the Committee why it has not publicly released the algorithm it uses to homogenise its raw data. It needs to release the algorithm so that the proper practice of science can be pursued through a process of replication. As the Minister responsible for this important area nobody doubts you understand that replication is one of the fundamental tenets of the scientific method.

        If more than one homogenisation methodology (algorithm) has been employed by the BoM to adjust its raw data it needs to explain to the Committee why different methodologies were needed; identify those data sets where the various methodologies were applied; and finally, how it decided which algorithm to apply to which data set. It also needs to release those algorithms so that the proper practice of scientific review can be undertaken.

        60

        • #
          Peter C

          Thanks Skeptical Sam,
          I agree with your additions 100%. However my letter (email) has already been sent so you might consider sending yours as well.

          30

  • #
    pat

    never mind…it’s all over bar the propaganda:

    29 Sept: Guardian: Beyond climate change treaties: ‘a deal in Paris is not essential’
    Ahead of the climate conference in Paris, there is increasing discussion of a new way forward that does not depend on international agreements, reports Yale Environment 360
    by Fred Pearce for Yale Environment 360, part of the Guardian Environment Network
    The United Nations Climate Summit in New York last week passed with many promises, but no firm pledges…
    But behind the scenes, some are asking what happens if there isn’t a deal in Paris. Or even how much it matters whether there is such a deal. Failure is possible, after all. The political winds are even less propitious today than they were five years ago.
    Economic stasis continues in Europe, previously the most vocal advocate of action on climate change. Earlier this month, the European Union decided to do away with a stand-alone climate commissioner in Brussels, merging the post with the energy portfolio. The new post-holder, Miguel Arias Canete, holds shares in an oil company and, when he was agriculture minister at home in Spain, sat in a government that cut spending on renewables, in defiance of EU policy.
    Meanwhile, Germany, once Europe’s climate tub-thumpers-in-chief, is in a messy transition on climate policy as it burns ever more coal, while shutting down its fleet of low-carbon nuclear power stations. Japan’s emissions are rising post-Fukushima. And Russia, the world’s second largest oil producer, is not about to cozy up to anyone on climate policy…
    It sounds bleak. Yet, strangely, all may not be lost. The answer may lie in Plan B — reframing the entire climate issue as one of national decision-making and self interest, rather than global treaty-writing…(AGENDA 21, CHINA IS ACTING, PLUS OTHER MEMES FOLLOW)
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/29/beyond-climate-change-treaties-a-deal-in-paris-is-not-essential

    50

    • #
      safetyguy66

      The other way to read “discussion of a new way forward that does not depend on international agreements”

      Is that it will require international compulsion, making agreements unnecessary.

      110

  • #
    pat

    ***note the mention of “intensity goal”:

    26 Sept: SNL: Corbin Hiar: EPA’s McCarthy: Clean Power Plan state targets, compliance options could change
    EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said the agency’s draft limits on planet-warming carbon emissions from existing power plants will be tweaked before they are finalized next summer…
    The plan is the centerpiece of the Obama administration’s pledge to reduce U.S. carbon emissions in the range of 17% from 2005 levels by 2020.
    That brief aside caught the attention of Sharp, who pressed McCarthy for more information on any revisions the EPA is considering. “You may see adjustments in the state levels. You may see adjustments in the framework,” she responded, referring to the emission reduction targets the EPA established for each state and the four building blocks the rule set out for creating plans to reach those levels…
    “You’re going to see us put out a technical document soon that’s going to look at how you translate the ***intensity goal that we put in the rule into a mass-based approach because, as folks probably know, there are nine states that have a market-based system in New England and mid-Atlantic states and they want to know what it means for them a little bit more definitively,” the EPA administrator told Sharp…
    “But the one caution I would sort of lay down at this point is it’s not going to look like a cap-and-trade program,” McCarthy added later. The Clean Power Plan “is not about carbon offsets, this is not about achieving a particular national [emissions reduction] target. It never was. It is about applying the Clean Air Act in a way that’s going to be legally defensible but still be aggressive in terms of achieving the reductions.”…
    “Natural gas in the U.S. has been a game-changer. The abundance of low-cost natural gas has really started an energy transition that we are really taking advantage of and hoping to follow through our 111(d) process,” she said…
    At the same time, the EPA administrator acknowledged that there are some climate drawbacks to increased drilling. “We recognize that methane remains an issue of concern with both oil and natural gas,” she said. Other drilling-related issues that McCarthy mentioned were its impact and reliance on water and releases of cancer-causing volatile organic compounds. “We know that there’s more to be done.”…
    https://www.snl.com/InteractiveX/Article.aspx?cdid=A-29329530-11824

    EIA wait til Obama makes his Climate Summit emissions claim, then release their data:

    26 Sept: USA Today: Wendy Koch: U.S. carbon emissions rise despite Obama climate plan
    U.S. emissions of heat-trapping carbon dioxide have risen 6% in the last two years despite the Obama administration’s efforts to curb global warming, federal data show…
    This increase is a setback for President Obama, who touted U.S. progress in cutting emissions at this week’s historic U.N. Climate Summit in New York, attended by representative from more than 120 countries…
    In his U.N. speech, Obama cited the U.S. surge in non-polluting energy sources such as wind and solar. While power generated by solar panels doubled during the first six months of this year compared to 2012 and that of wind turbines rose 31% in that two-year period, they remain a tiny share of U.S. energy production.
    The EIA data, released this week, show that energy produced from coal has fallen slightly, replaced by an uptick in natural gas. The biggest change in fossil fuels, though, is the production of crude oil — up 31% during the first half of this year compared to 2012…
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/09/26/us-carbon-emissions-rise-despite-obama-climate-plan/16276811/

    20

  • #
    john robertson

    Why not “Play a blinder” Or is that “A blinder well played”?
    It worked on the Presstitutes in those amazing “inquiries at CRU after the release of those damning emails.
    It worked when BOM provided an “independent” audit of the NZ record modification department.
    And it will work on the incestuous media in OZ, we had an investigation, the blind man read the testimony of the deaf mans report of what the mute told him.All is good.

    140

  • #
    Pathway

    In western republics we believe that we are represented by our elected officials, when in actuality we are ruled by the Mandarins.

    40

    • #
      David

      Pathway that also happens in Constitutional Monarchies which is what Australia is. Just being pedantic.
      :-)

      10

      • #
        Sceptical Sam

        Yes, but in Australia the Mandarins approximate Cumquats. Intensely bitter little buggers that come from slow-growing, green and short trees with dense branches, sometimes bearing small thorns.

        The small thorns that they bear are the blockheads that the majority of Australian voters elect to the Parliament.

        50

  • #
    pat

    should note here that Reuters Point Carbon, which i have visited daily for years, as u all know from the links i have posted (LOL), went out of existence just as Climate Summit week began, and has not returned. instead, the only Point Carbon website now is the following, which has no articles whatsoever. subscribers only:

    Point Carbon energy research/Thomson Reuters Financia & Risk
    http://financial.thomsonreuters.com/en/resources/articles/point-carbon.html

    80

  • #
    GM2

    Did I read it right,the BoM is going to set up an oversight committee,how many clichés can be made from that.
    I don’t want to appear cynical but,will Jo Nova and Jen Marohasy be on it?

    60

  • #
    Robber

    Gotta laugh at the speed of bureaucracy – “establishment of the oversight panel was “in progress” and due to be completed by next year”.
    Are they taking lessons from Yes Minister?
    Sir Humphrey Appleby: I mean they will give it the most serious and urgent consideration, and insist on a thorough and rigorous examination of all the proposals, allied to a detailed feasibility study and budget analysis before producing a consultative document for consideration by all interested bodies and seeking comments and recommendations to be included in a brief for a series of working parties who will produce individual studies which will provide the background for a more wide-ranging document considering whether or not the proposal should be taken forward to the next stage.
    James Hacker: You mean they’ll block it.
    Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yeah.

    150

    • #
      PeterPetrum

      What I realy find incredible is that the writers of “Yes Minister” knew, twenty or more years ago, how our Government would act today. Laughable describes the TV series, but not what is happening now. I get depressed at times.

      70

  • #
    the Griss

    a bit OT. but only a bit.

    From WUWT.. Bill McGibbon’s 350.org is funded HEAVILY by the Rockafellas

    The amount is magnitudes larger than AW ever got from Heartland to do work the government paid climate lackeys should have done.

    60

    • #
      the Griss

      I wonder how much the Keystone pipeline that Weepy fights so hard against, would hurt the Rockafella Big Oily.

      50

  • #
    DaveR

    I have to laugh at people who still think the wholesale manipulation of the ACORN temperature series is just shoddy work or accidental.

    It straight out of the FOE or WWF handbooks – just do it and we will deal with any consequences later (if we are found out).

    The CRU emails prove the BOM is full of radical green activists at high levels, connected to similar types in the UK Met Office and NZ’s NIWA. Only their identification and removal through diligent work will result in any improvement to the situation.

    And this is important because………even the Abbott government policies are built on this data.

    90

  • #
    Peter C

    No one here seems to have any faith in the minister, nor the committee of oversite, or what ever they might call it. Maybe John Brookes or BA4 or one of the others can tell us why we should not be so cynical.

    On the positive side the BOM has acted, prompted by by the very proper and serious questions which have been asked. Those questions have arisen because of patient and meticulous work by skeptics. The committee has to look at those questions and the BOM has to try and answer them.

    Even if the result is a whitewash it will bring up further questions. If the mainstream press asks them,(so far it has only been Graham Lloyd at the Australian) it will make matters worse unless the committee acts properly in the first place.

    50

  • #
    Val

    The ultimate disappointment is in those with the responsibility to fix the problem – our supposedly-correct-things new government. Looks like a repeat of the ABC fix…

    30

  • #
    handjive

    Behold the BoM’s Green Future:

    French towns swap rubbish trucks for horse-drawn carts

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/oct/01/french-recycling-horse-and-cart

    20

  • #
  • #
    sillyfilly

    All this effort for so little gain. The anti warming lobby of scientific incompetence continue their search for any illusory demonstration that the science may be wrong. On temperature records, they failed with Climategate, they failed in NZ, they failed in the US and they will fail in Australia. Good wishes to our scientists at the BOM.

    134

    • #
      James the Elder

      Go home; your mommy’s calling. Come back when the synapses have matured.

      81

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Jawohl herr Kommandant! I see nothink.

      80

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      How did they fail in New Zealand?

      120

    • #
      Bobl

      While of course grannies in Europe and N America continue dying from fuel poverty, we keep burning poor black peoples food aid in our cars, we continue murdering and evicting traditional owners off their lands in Africa to make way for carbon dioxide sink forests, philippino’s die by the thousands in the next cyclone because we built useless windmills in South Australia instead of cyclone shelters in the Philippines.

      And all of this death and destruction directly caused by action on global warming is just dandy with the Silly Filly.

      80

    • #
      Another Ian

      Macquarie Dictionary

      Filly

      1. a female horse not past its fourth birthday, a young mare

      2. Colloq. a girl

      Then check their item on “girl” and then that on “wisdom”

      40

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      What would it take sillyfilly, to give you a suspicion that something was not quite right with the warming theory so far described?

      60

    • #
      Heywood

      “All this effort for so little gain”

      I think the same thing every time I see the StupidHorse post…

      20

    • #
      scaper...

      The nag used to post at Bolt’s place, was shot down to a point of not posting. Then re emerges here after a while. Offers nothing of value…does the blogosphere have a knackery?

      30

    • #
      James Bradley

      Silly Filly,

      The anti-warming lobby assesses the available evidence.

      Warming activists are using statistical models that have not included all the parameters, which makes all those models nothing but waffle.

      Climate modellers attempting to quantify a natural effect that has no numerical values are at best incompetent and at worst negligently peddling this waffle for personal gain.

      30

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        That pretty much sums up the protagonists. It is a pity that the warming activists have fiddled with the evidence. It spoils all the fun.

        30

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        You’re last sentence could be used as the definition of a snake oil salesman.

        00

  • #
    handjive

    Weather Is Now Climate UPDATE:

    Climate Central is pleased to announce a new initiative called World Weather Attribution that will seek to perform “extreme weather autopsies” immediately after an extreme weather event occurs, when the world’s media is still asking “was this event caused by climate change?”

    http://assets.climatecentral.org/pdfs/Attribution-PressRelease.pdf

    30

  • #
    Angry

    More FRAUD from the BOM !

    Did a switch in gauges cause Melbourne’s temperature “rise”?

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/did_a_switch_in_gauges_cause_melbournes_temperature_rise/?nk=beaf41323c70477f3e82c24cd8999d6f

    DISGRACEFUL & UNPROFESSIONAL!

    21

  • #
    Ed

    Is anyone disappointed in Tony Abbott yet?

    11

    • #
      Angry

      Well he has implemented two good policy decisions:-
      1 Abolished the carbon DIOXIDE(PLANT FOOD) TAX
      2 Stopped the illegal immigrants

      He needs to take a firmer position on the muslim treat to our society though.
      Far to soft so far!

      61

      • #
        the Griss

        And somehow get rid of the pointless waste called the RET !!!

        40

        • #
          the Griss

          Trouble is, I suspect Palmer can see the possibility of a buck or two in it for himself, even if its directly from Big Al. !!

          he’s gotta get some funds from somewhere, and it does seem his businesses are going great guns

          20

          • #
            David

            He might have some problems with a State funded Chinese mob. They have long memories and deep pockets where litigation is concerned. Clive baby could get a thrashing business wise – especially if the $12m has been “alternatively utilised”.

            60

          • #
            Greg Cavanagh

            Clive was useful to his constituents in making the greens mad. That’s a good thing.

            Otherwise; Clive has proven to be foolish and self-centric, and certainly not to be trusted at his word.

            20

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        Then Abbot’s journey to Populism will be complete?

        10

  • #
    Bulldust

    Just curious when I saw yet another pro-climate, in this case pro-RET, article on ‘your’ ABC:

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-30/lewis-theres-still-heat-in-global-warming/5778728

    Saw this was based on another dodgy survey from Essential Media Communications. You see this name a fair bit on the ABC, or at least that was my impression. Click on the first author profile and you get an idea:

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/thedrum/peter-lewis/39660

    This is a private company which seems to specialise in pro-Labor/Green PR:

    http://essentialmedia.com.au/

    Which begs the question … why on earth does a private company, which clearly is not balanced in its position, get such an amazing number of articles up on The Drum? If it looks like astroturf, smells like astroturf…

    50

  • #
    scaper...

    Toothless? Before one bites, one must suck it and see.

    Don’t know this Birmingham chap…Chess comes to mind.

    20

  • #
    Eddie

    They don’t need no out-of-sight committee. If they’d show their working like good scientists opening it to public scrutiny they wouldn’t then be so tempted make stuff up.

    40

  • #
    handjive

    I see what you did there.
    . . .
    The Broken Hill hospital is leading talks on ways to begin preparing as climate change impacts the far west.

    The Far West Local Health District hosted a weekend forum on the issue led by Climate Council chief and former Australian of the Year Tim Flannery.
    ~ ~ ~
    The NSW state government announced a $1 million ‘Building Resilience to Climate Change’ grant program earlier this year to help local governments plan adaptive measures.

    Broken Hill City Council has applied for funding to help with the installation of solar power at the city’s aquatic centre.

    “We undertook a risk assessment back in 2012, and one of our risks associated with climate change was increasing energy costs,” Council’s deputy general manager Sharon Hutch said.

    “Applying for this solar panel project is one way to address that.”

    30

    • #
      Bobl

      and one of our risks associated with climate change was increasing energy costs,”

      and one of our risks associated with pointless government policies on climate change was increasing energy costs,”

      There fixed it for you.

      60

    • #
      Ceetee

      “Applying for this solar panel project is one way to address that.” Stupid is as stupid does.

      30

    • #
      Another Ian

      I used to see driving into BH a sign proclaiming it a “Nuclear Free Zone”

      And I used to wonder (given that potassium features in human nutrition) how they got rid of the radioactive portion?

      Any answers?

      40

      • #
        Bobl

        They banned bananas

        60

      • #
        Carbon500

        Another Ian: ‘Nuclear free zones’ – what memories – yes, we had them in the UK.
        Derbyshire’s County Council for example had signs erected at the roadsides leading into Derbyshire telling everyone that the county was a ‘nuclear free zone’.
        Big deal.
        Naturally the Russians wouldn’t have ‘nuked’ any county proclaiming itself to be ‘nuclear free’!
        What a waste of public money, and what an exposure of the type of people running local government – the same ones that believe in catastrophic man-made global warming these days. What next, I wonder?

        60

  • #
    pat

    30 Sept: Australian: Jared Owens: Insulation scheme: compensation and retribution to come
    BUREAUCRATS accused of bungling the Rudd government’s $2.7 billion insulation program could face punishment, Tony Abbott has revealed, as part of a multi-pronged response to damning royal commission findings. ..
    Mr Hanger this month found the insulation program, announced by Labor in February 2009 to stimulate the economy, had been devised only weeks earlier by a few public servants over a long weekend and the government overruled advice to consider a slower, more cautious approach…
    Mr Abbott said Environment Minister Greg Hunt had been directed to oversee the government’s response and coordinate with Finance Minister Mathias Cormann to deliver compensation for the families of the four killed workers.“Although nothing can bring them back, the Barnes, Fuller, Sweeney and Wilson families should know that government won’t walk away, that government accepts responsibility and will do its best to make amends,” Mr Abbott said.
    Mr Abbott said Attorney-General George Brandis, Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane and Senator Cormann had been directed to develop a compensation package for pre-existing insulation businesses that were undermined by the implementation and sudden from the cancellation of the scheme…
    “Pre-existing home insulation businesses, large and small, have suffered significant losses as a result of this program; they trusted government and were let down,” Mr Abbott said…
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/insulation-scheme-compensation-and-retribution-to-come/story-fn59niix-1227075477883

    30

    • #
      Lawrie Ayres

      businesses, large and small, have suffered significant losses as a result of this program; they trusted government and were let down,” Mr Abbott said…

      We trusted the BoM too and were let down, we trusted politicians and were let down, we trusted scientists and were let down; will we now have compensation Mr Abbott?

      30

  • #
    Peter C

    as recommended by the peer review panel that originally approved the ACORN-SAT methodology.

    Do we know who the peer review panel actually were?

    30

    • #
      Peter C

      Judging by the inconsistencies found by Ken Stewart and others it would seem that the peer review panel might not have been very thorough.

      30

  • #
    Ursus Augustus

    Completely off topic but I just saw this gem on the ABC web site and I would not be able to sleep if I didn’t share it with an appreciative audience.

    “Video from our 1993 vault: Professor Tim Flannery and biologist Lester Seri go in search of the world’s largest fruit bat in the highlands of Papua New Guinea.”

    Why would Tim Flannery go to PNG in search of such a creature? He could have stayed at home and looked in the mirror.

    100

    • #

      He could have stayed at home and looked in the mirror.

      Not so. I don’t blame you, of course, but it is a common mistake: you are thinking of a close relative of the fruit bat, the ding bat.

      10

  • #
    David

    the world’s largest fruit bat

    I thought that was Margo Kingston – or maybe that was Fright Bat

    60

  • #
  • #
    pat

    an attack on the Koonin/WSJ “Climate Science Is Not Settled” piece (link http://online.wsj.com/articles/climate-science-is-not-settled-1411143565) from Kluger in Time.

    it is so poorly written – not to mention the pathetic heading – that i couldn’t be bothered reading it all. yet Kluger’s profile says he “is Editor at Large for TIME magazine and TIME.com, overseeing coverage of science and human behavior. He is the author of nine books, including Apollo 13, upon which the 1995 movie was based, and two novels for young adults. His most recent book is The Narcissist Next Door, which will be published in September 2014″.)

    29 Sept: Time Jeffrey Kluger: The Climate Deniers’ Newest Argument
    It’s a lot easier to attack environmental scientists when you make up something they didn’t say—and then criticize them for saying it…
    http://time.com/3445231/climate-denier-settled-science/#3445231/climate-denier-settled-science/

    10

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Would this by chance be that same proverbial committee that designed the camel or the elephant depending on which version you want to use, when a horse was needed.

    Committees are the reason we have but one president or prime minister, one CEO, etc. One person can come to some conclusion and make a decision. All a committee can do is talk, argue and never get you something useful. They will use endless time and produce endless reports but never a decision on what to do. :-(

    Someone has to hold the reins and take the actions necessary to control any organization and keep it out of trouble. If the head of the BoM can’t do it then he needs to be replaced. It’s the head man’s job to know what’s going on and keep the organization pointing straight down the right road.

    Fie on review committees. If it’s gotten to the point where a committee is being set up then the thing has deteriorated far too much and needs to be replaced with something that will get the job right.

    Of course, that’s the last thing that happens in human society, is it not?

    40

  • #

    all nominations must be verified by the person concerned and include academic resume and relevant reviewed scientific publications to ascertain credentials.

    So the qualifications for a review are meteorologist or climatologist. The very people who are incapable of getting a proper perspective, or asking the awkward questions. If you want a proper review you need barristors and auditors.

    60

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      Amen brother.
      I’m just drawing attention to your comment because it needs to be said loudly.

      20

  • #
    Doug Proctor

    Would it be possible to produce a PDF that has ALL the Australian station data going into the current BOM survey, with two graphs, one raw and one adjusted and homogenized?

    I think this was done for the New Zealand 21 Station data by the Kiwi skeptics. These days there are only 1500 or so stations used by GISS for the global. 1500 is not such a big number for such a project; I’m sure Australia is not a problem at all.

    A crowd-sourced PDF would work fine. Just agree on the Excel setup, divide the country into portions and get 20 people on the task. Then the appearance, if not the actuality, of misrepresentation would be complete. As it is, each complaint is treated piece-meal and dismissed as cherry-picking.

    40

  • #
    Ian George

    Doug,
    Good idea. The ACORN data set is set out in a very unfriendly format and takes time to establish means, etc. The AWAP data has a much more friendly user data set. However, the adjusted data set only uses 112 Australian stations so to compare data, you can only use those stations.

    40

  • #
    Peter Carabot

    Jo. you are too polite when you write:”Anything less is not science.” well it’s blatant Hog wash, lies, and cover up to me!!(I suppose when your income depends on the world “warming up” ..all is fair!!)
    Maybe we should start raising money for a fighting fund and then sue the Bureau. that will force them into a court of law and they will Have to explain how they got the results that are still promoted on the ABC as “Record Warming”, “Almost 100% certain that the heating up of the atmosphere is caused by Humans (Farting?)”, “The hottest years in our history” etc.

    40

  • #
    PeterPetrum

    Great article in the Australian by Maurice Newman on this subject this morning. Hope he has got Tony’s ear. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/climate-is-right-for-a-probe-into-the-bureau-of-meteorology/story-e6frg6zo-1227075659378

    20