If you read your own article the reason given for the -10.4 not being included at the time of her writing was exactly what I stated. It was exactly to do with quality control flags. What do you think "The Bureau’s quality control system, designed to filter out spurious low or high values was set at -10 minimum for Goulburn which is why the record automatically adjusted.The error was picked up yesterday internally and quality control processes are being reviewed for those stations where temperatures below -10 are possible."
The quality control process flagged it as outside their QC flagged limit. Just 12 days later, while the review into those sort of quality checks would still not be complete, Marohasy is making a fuss about "being stonewalled". What was actually happening, rather than being stonewalled, is Marohasy was grandstanding before BoM had completed their full review process and their decision on whether the data record should be re-instated or whether there was an issue.
Marohasy does not claim that it was not re-instated after review. Nor does she make any case for why it should have been included if it was not.
She is actually vacant on the findings of this case. Her only possible credible case on the evidence she presents is that possibly the QC flag limit could be set at a different level. Although that is not clear either.
There is no follow up to the article to identify what happened after QC. Likely (as has been the case for other Marohasy claims posted here in the past), there was actually no fault in the BoM process or finding. No justified case by Marohasy. And no retraction. On her track record, I know who I'd back if it was a betting game.
Marohasy was one of the the primary lobbyists for Abbott and co to do the inquiry. And Abbott was talking up doing so. I have no particular interest in Aus politics, but the fact that the Abbott government did not go there when they had at least two terms to do so, iirc, should tell you something; about what they thought of the reliability of Marohasy's "evidence" and what their Minister was having communicated to him from BoM. Nothing about politics, Other than a party that intended to conduct an inquiry into this did not follow through. There is a reason for that.
That you take that inconclusive diatribe from Marohasy as any sort of cogent argument tells me one or both of two things: - you haven't been savvy enough to give this some reasonable critical thought, and made yourself informed enough about the processes involved to realise that Marohasy hasn't made any sort of a case and is premature in her judgement, plus emotive and prejudiced in her language. and/or - you are savvy enough but your biases incline you to not do that research and to take what is an obviously false argument at face value, as it is spun.
