Creating new datasets is just another form of propaganda to push the global warming hoax.
“There are three datasets, the original datasets, ACORN 1 and ACORN 2 and the mean difference between the original dataset and ACORN 2 dataset is 0.43 degrees. In other words homogenisation has increased warming by over 50% since 1910.
Would you agree with that?
Absolutely there are differences between the unadjusted records and ACORN 1 and ACORN 2 datasets.”
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
“The WMO Guide states that an acceptable range of error for thermometers (including those used for measuring maximum and minimum temperature) is #0.2 °C. However, throughout the last 100 years, Bureau of Meteorology guidance has allowed for a tolerance of +0.5 °C for field checks of either in-glass or resistance thermometers. This is the primary reason the Panel did not rate the observing practices amongst international best practices…………The Bureau should specify the statistical uncertainty values associated with calculating Australian national temperature trends and make this information readily available whenever trends are discussed. Additionally error bounds or confidence intervals along the time series would be useful.”
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped.
George Orwell
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
This is old footage of my time in estimates where I asked the BOM why they keep multiple datasets of weather records and why the Independent Peer Review didn’t rate the BOMs observation practices as world class.
Needless to say I got obfuscation and spin.
What the Bureau has done to weather records is a crime. By replacing original observations with fudged reworkings they have created the false impression the temperature has risen by over a degree in the last century when it in fact hasn’t.
These fraudulent adjustments have then been used to justify wasting billions of dollars on renewables which only hurt taxpayers, consumers and the environment.
Committee on 2/03/2020
Environment and Communications Legislation Committee
Senator RENNICK: You have three datasets, the original data, ACORN 1, ACORN 2. The mean difference between ACORN 1 and ACORN 2 is 0.23 degrees, and the mean difference between ACORN 2 and the original data is 0.43 degrees. In other words, homogenisation has increased the amount of warming since 1910 by up to 50 per cent. Would you agree with that?
Dr Johnson : Just to clarify, you’re talking about the unadjusted temperature records?
Senator RENNICK: Yes.
Dr Johnson : And the ACORN 1 dataset?
Senator RENNICK: And the ACORN 2.
Dr Johnson : And the ACORN 2? Absolutely there are differences between the unadjusted records and the ACORN 1 dataset and the ACORN 2 dataset. They are published. They’re on the public record. The bureau stands behind them.
Senator RENNICK: So what is the margin of error?
Dr Johnson : I’m not going to do any mathematical gymnastics on it, but those are the records.
Senator RENNICK: It’s important that we do mathematical gymnastics, by the way. What’s your margin of error for the original data, ACORN 1, and ACORN 2?
Dr Johnson : Margin of error?
Senator RENNICK: Yes.
Dr Johnson : What are you asking for? A margin of error on what?
Senator RENNICK: On your data.
Dr Johnson : The data’s observed.
Senator RENNICK: That’s right.
Dr Johnson : The data is observed and then we undertake a series of processes to bring that data into line so that it’s a consistent long-term data record.
Senator RENNICK: These margins of error matter.
Dr Johnson : It really depends on specifically what you’re talking about.
Senator RENNICK: I am talking about your raw data. Let’s start off with your raw data. It’s reported here in your observations data that it is plus or minus half a degree.
Dr Johnson : It could be.
Senator RENNICK: This is what—
CHAIR: There is a point of order.
Senator McALLISTER: On a point of order—Senator Rennick seems to be referring to a document, but none of the other participants on the committee know what he’s talking about. I wonder if he could name the document.
Senator RENNICK: I am happy to table this. It’s the 2011 Observation practices. The other one I am talking about is the independent peer review commissioned by the Gillard government in 2011. A number of recommendations were made. One of the recommendations in that was that the margin of error on the raw data be reduced from half a degree to 0.2 degrees, which is the World Meteorological Organization’s standard, plus or minus 0.2 degrees.
Senator McALLISTER: Thank you. That assists the rest of us to understand this.
Senator RENNICK: You report plus or minus half a degree. Another recommendation out of the independent peer review was that ACORN 1 and ACORN 2, the adjusted data, also be reported with a margin of error or a confidence interval. Have you got a margin of error or a confidence interval with ACORN 1 and ACORN 2?
Dr Johnson : Again, it would be helpful if I could have a look at the documents that you are talking about.
Senator RENNICK: You probably should be familiar with them. There were 31 recommendations—
Dr Johnson : Could I answer the question please? All scientific instrumentation has tolerances, as you correctly point out. We publish those tolerances on our website and we manage those to international best practice. In addition to the 2010-11 review that you are talking about there have been two other subsequent reviews into the measurement practices of the bureau for the datasets that you refer to. Both of those reviews have shown that they are entirely robust, consistent with world’s best practice and entirely appropriate.
Senator RENNICK: That’s not what it said.
Dr Johnson : They’re on the record. Those were reviews commissioned by Minister Hunt and Minister Frydenberg. Since the last review we had in 2017 I’ve also established an independent integrity advisory committee of world experts in measurement and statistics and mathematics to advise me, to provide the assurance that I think the bureau and the public require that the integrity of the datasets is of the highest order.
Senator RENNICK: Can you come back to my original question. Is your margin of error plus or minus 0.2, which is the World Meteorological—
Dr Johnson : Our practices are consistent with international best practice. Our practices have been validated—
Senator RENNICK: That is not what the numbers here are saying.
Dr Johnson : Our practices have been validated and endorsed by three independent reviews, and those reviews have been comprised of international experts. I stand by the quality and integrity of those datasets.
CHAIR: Last question.
Senator RENNICK: Given that on page 7 of the independent peer review—
Dr Johnson : Which one are we talking about?
Senator RENNICK: The independent peer review that was done in 2011—this is their words—stated that the panel did not rate the observing practices as amongst international best practice. Why are you working on rewriting your old records when you should be trying to improve quality assurance and measuring actual data? If we don’t quantify your actual margin of error or confidence level, which was recommended by the independent peer review, why are you reporting ACORN 1 and ACORN 2?
Dr Johnson : You are referring to a review that was done in 2010-11. The bureau is continuously improving its methods and practices. I’ve said before that two further independent reviews were commissioned in 2015 and 2017 comprising absolutely world leading scientists across all the relevant areas on these panels. They have affirmed to both Minister Hunt and Minister Frydenberg the integrity of the bureau’s records, the practices that we use to obtain our weather observations, the way they’re measured, the way they’re quality assured, quality controlled and delivered to the product.
Senator RENNICK: What is their confidence level, then?
Dr Johnson : We’ve already been over this. They’re published and they’re consistent with world’s best practice.
Senator RENNICK: I’ve only got plus or minus half a degree on the actual data. I don’t have any confidence levels for ACORN 1 and ACORN 2.
Senator Birmingham: Chair—
CHAIR: We are over time. Please put the remainder of your questions on notice. I recommend they are detailed so that the bureau can answer them in detail. We will move on. Senator Roberts, you have five minutes.
