Fudging the data to suit the agenda

Originally posted by Chrysalis ↑

Not surprising to see this in print -

"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."

Column 1

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.

She wrote:

“Repetition is a propaganda technique. The deletion of information from records, and the use of exaggeration and half-truths, are others. The Bureau of Meteorology uses all these techniques, while willfully ignoring evidence that contradicts its own propaganda.’’

This is a global problem. Earlier this year, Breitbart reported that similarly dishonest adjustments had been made to temperature records by NASA and NOAA. Similarly implicated are the UK temperature records of the Met Office Hadley Centre and at Phil "Climategate" Jones's disgraced Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

One of the many disingenuous arguments used by climate alarmists against sceptics is mockingly to accuse them of being conspiracy theorists. "How could global warming possibly not be a problem when all the world's temperature data sets from Australia to the US to the UK clearly show that it is? Are you seriously suggesting that so many different scientists and so many distinguished institutions from across the globe would collude in such a massive lie?" their argument runs.

Our answer: yes we bl--dy well are"

macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/25973/53/

Expand

On this issue I have sent the following email to Bureau Of Meteorology and await their response:-
Dear sir, Now that an increasing number of Australians believe BOM doctors data to achieve a politically correct increased warming result may I suggest a way to regain integrity.
NOAA has for the last eight years taken data from 141 pristine measurement areas that therefore require no adjustments. Although time interval is short these show overall slight cooling of .8C. BOM should release raw data from sites similarly pristine to show true warming and cooling trends.
I believe that his would remove the increasing belief that BOM data manipulations are inconsistent and illogical and give a truer picture to temperature changes.