Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO referred to National Audit Office

National Audit Office

I’m not sure how far this will get [probably not very far, given how every public body you care to mention seems to be infested with climate alarmists – Ed], but we can at least thank them for their efforts and wish them the best of luck – they’ll need it. From Jo Nova’s site:

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 decadesafter 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?)

The NZ equivalent to the Australian BOM is under an official review

The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition found adjustments that were even more inexplicable (0.006 degrees was adjusted up to 0.9 degrees). They decided to push legally and the response was a litany of excuses — until finally The National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) was forced to disavow it’s own National Temperature Records, and belatedly pretend that it had never been intended for public consumption. But here’s the thing that bites: NZ signed the Kyoto protocol, arguably based very much on the NZ temperature record, and their nation owes somewhere from half a billion to several billion dollars worth of carbon credits (depending on the price of carbon in 2012). Hence there is quite a direct link from the damage caused by using one unsubstantiated data set based on a single student’s report that no one can find or replicate that will cost the nation a stack of money. NIWA is now potentially open to class actions. (Ironically, the Australian BOM has the job of “ratifying” the reviewed NZ temperature record.)

Thanks to work by Ken Stewart, Chris Gillham, Andrew Barnham, Tony Cox, James Doogue, David Stockwell, as well as Cory Bernardi, Federal Senator for South Australia.


  1. It’s about time!
    interesting that I haven’t heard about this on the regular news channels…this is a serious breach of professional ethics from so called “scientists”

    • The Loaded Dog says:

      interesting that I haven’t heard about this on the regular news channels…

      Not really that interesting. Just more of the same old monotonous activism that we’ve all come to know and hate.

      I really hope this audit is performed thoroughly; and by thorough I do not mean the warmist garden variety form of thoroughness as observed during the “climategate inquiry”

      If it’s completed properly we are about to witness an exponential increase in the stuttering of key players.

      Look, can I just say, err, but, but, but, I, it errr, well look it’s like this….

    • Shannon the reason you have not heard of this in the news is that it is not news, there is no problem with the Bom data, Ken Stewart is not a scientist (he is the source of these claims) but his work was discredited over a year ago, it is only sites beating the denial drum that are even bothering with this nonsense.

      • Great, so when the audit office investigate the data, they’ll find that it’s all tickety-boo. Then everyone will be happy. Even me. Or perhaps you don’t want an investigation for fear of what might be uncovered? No, that can’t be the reason, surely…

  2. Mervyn Sullivan says:

    No disrespect to the National Audit Office but it is not appropriately qualified to undertake this task.

    This task should be assigned to reputable climate scientists, for example, individuals such as Dr Roy Spencer and Dr John Christy, award winning climate scientists for their work in creating the satellite temperature data system.

    My fear is that the National Audit Office might not fully appreciate some of the necessary adjustments required to temperature data such as in relation to the urban heat island effect.

  3. There is a problem when so much of the “climate science” research relies on govt. grants and funding to continue. So they produce the results they know will mean the funds continue to flow.

  4. R GRIESHABER says:





  5. Colin J Ely says:

    I have just sent an email to the ANAO supporting this audit. If enough of our citizens show their support, it cannot be denied!

  6. sinesurfer says:

    This is just a waste of time.

    And you’re wrong about the result of the NZ investigation: NIWA’s results were found to be robust scientific findings. The results from the re-examination are here.

    The main point is this (my emphasis):

    The key result of the re-analysis is that the New Zealand-wide warming trend from the seven-station series is almost the same in the 2010 revised series as in the previous series. That is, the previous NIWA result is robust. In terms of the detail for individual sites, the 100-year trend has increased at some sites, and decreased at others, but it is still within the margin of error, and confirms the temperature rise of about 0.9 degrees over the last 100 years.

    • So what! Are we all going to die? Is this is what catastrophic global warming is all about?

    • So robust they withdrew it and disowned it. Yet for years prior they were only too happy to provide it to the ignorant masses on their web site. User licence for the 7 station data proudly claimed that it was the intellectual property of NIWA.
      Now you believe them when they say their data is robust ?

      0.9 degrees per century, so we’re on track in keeping temperature rise below the 2 degrees specified by Copenhagen. That’s great news. And no “carbon price” necessary. Well done world. Yay for you.

  7. I don’t expect great things for this proposed audit. These kinds of requests might take years to action. The Auditor General doesn’t sit around all day just waiting for someone too ask him to do an audit. He has a full program, and he won’t interrupt current audits on the basis of a request. He’d leave himself open to charges of impropriety if he did so.
    In any case the request falls short in the pivotal area of data integrity and security of the original raw data. This is fundamental before questions regarding adjustment algorithms can be addressed.


  1. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by firetalkmoney, Simon from Sydney. Simon from Sydney said: Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO referred to National Audit Office: I’m not sure how far this will get [probably … http://bit.ly/gNLtqg […]

%d bloggers like this: