Doomed Planet

The Bureau of Meteorology’s Climate of Deceit

If Australia isn’t as hot as catastropharians would wish it to be, there’s a simple solution: Let the warmist data-ticklers at the Bureau of Meteorology loose on the numbers.

Presto! Now, suddenly, it has never been hotter, kids skip class to march in the streets and rent-seekers make out like bandits while that miserable ghost Malcolm Turnbull  rails against “do-nothing deniers”.

Just how many liberties is the Bureau taking with the temperature record? Below, Tony Heller of Real Climate Science, documents the extent of taxpayer-funded fraud.

24 thoughts on “The Bureau of Meteorology’s Climate of Deceit

  • Ian MacDougall says:

    As long as ice remains at both p[oles and on the Himalayas, temperatures measured wherever will mean nothing. But glacial and polar ice is melting, resulting in measurable sea-level rise, as measured by satellite altimetry accurate to +/- 0.4 mm.
    The sea level is rising, indicating that the planet is warming, spelt W-A-R-M-I-N-G; WARMING.
    GMSL Rates
    CU: 3.3 ± 0.4 mm/yr
    AVISO: 3.3 ± 0.6 mm/yr
    CSIRO: 3.3 ± 0.4 mm/yr
    NASA GSFC: 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/yr
    NOAA: 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/yr (w/ GIA)

  • Peter Smith says:

    Ian, your point about sea level rises seems valid to me. Satellite data shows that the world has become warmer since 1979. However, Tony Heller’s post claims that maximum temperatures in Australia were higher in the 1890s and 1900s than they have been in recent years. Your point does not address that claim.

  • Nezysquared says:

    Ian MacDougall – which satellites are you referring to? Topex, Jason 1, Jason 2?? Which calibration are you referencing? Tidal Gauges? Do you understand the (in)accuracy of measurements taken by satellites at either single pulse or 1000 pulse resolution? Sea level may or may not be rising but this cannot be confirmed by satellite measurements to the accuracy claimed by the sources you refer to. A warming planet and sea level rise need to be referenced back to real (raw) data not the adjusted kind so often quoted by the religious global warming / climate change police. Do some research spelt R-E-S-E-A-R-C-H….. Don’t mindlessly quote figures without understanding the unreliability of the data…..

  • matheus says:

    And the fact that sea level is rising does not prove any point. It has been rising since the end of the ice age, tens of thousands of years ago. If the rate of rising is accelerating in the last few decades, then this would indicate that there was a change. All evidence, with summaries available for example from Tonny Heller’s YouTube channel, does not show this acceleration.

  • ianl says:

    Roy Spencer:


    ” … global sea level rise which has been occurring at a rate of about 1 inch per decade for as long as it has been monitored (since the 1850s, well before humans could be blamed).”

    Benign is so scary.

  • pgang says:

    Peter Smith,
    actually Ian is fundamentally wrong. Melting polar ice caps can make no difference to the oceanic level at all. The phase change of ice to water (remembering that water is more dense than ice) combined with Archimedes’ Principle means that when you melt an ice cube in a glass of water the water level remains constant. As for melting glaciers – this is insignificant and he knows it.
    Ian pointed out another problem with the melting ice theory recently (and inadvertently). If ice is melting then the oceans are moving to a higher energy state. This would mean that we should expect increased evaporation, and in fact a decrease in ocean levels. So the whole sea-level-rise:global-warming connection is a fraud right from about year 8 science onwards.
    The question then is – why are sea levels consistently rising? Is there in fact decreasing evaporation due to oceanic cooling? Is water leaking out of the earth itself? These are the real questions, which have been confounded by the junk axiom of AGM.

  • pgang says:

    Sorry, AGW. Nothing to do with holding meetings.

  • pgang says:

    Interestingly a blogger at Real Climate Science who calls him or herself ‘Dion MacDonald’ reads very much like the obfuscating ‘Ian MacDougall’ (or whatever his/her real name is). The ranting is in the same style, as is the straw man trolling methodology of raising an almost-but-not-quite pertinent argument.

  • Lacebug says:

    pgang, it’s Australia’s worst kept secret that ‘Ian macDougall’ is Malcolm Turnbull.

  • irisr says:

    Lacebug, wish I had a LIKE button to push!
    This is hilariously good … and correct!

  • shirley nott says:

    When our BoM is telling us that current Fort Dennison sea levels are six inches LOWER than they were at their first recording 105 years ago and this is a stilling pond adjacent to the biggest piece of ocean in the world, there is no true sea level rise happening anywhere:

  • shirley nott says:

    This is Mean Sea Level, I should have said [which is the accepted measurement].

  • Citizen Kane says:

    Infact, Ian MacDougall is fundamentally wrong in utilising satellite altimetry data is collated to present a picture of uniform sea level rise. Satellite sea level altimetry has a fundamentally large margin of era due to the large degree of data recording and processing manipulation required to gain a meaningful measurement. Here are but some of the manipulations required;
    • A satellite in an orbit which repeats the same ground track very closely (within about 1 kilometre)
    • A radar system to measure the distance from the satellite to the sea surface to high accuracy. TOPEX/Poseidon and Jason-1 use two radar frequencies, Ku band (13.6GHz) and C band (5.3Ghz).
    • A tracking system capable of locating the satellite vertically at any time to within a few centimetres. Some of the components of such a system are:
    o Systems (usually a combination of GPS, SLR (Satellite Laser Ranging) and the French DORIS system) to locate the satellite
    o A high quality gravity model
    o A model of the drag from solar wind and the atmosphere
    o Suitable software to combine all of the above
    • Other corrections to correct the range:
    o On the satellite:
     A water vapour radiometer to measure the amount of water vapour between the satellite and the sea surface (the water vapour slows down the radar pulse, causing the raw measurement to be too long).
    Measurement of the range at two frequencies to estimate the “ionospheric correction” – that is, the degree to which the radar pulse is slowed down by free electrons in the ionosphere
    The troughs of waves contribute more to the radar reflection than the crests, so we need a correction for this. This is estimated from the wind speed and the wave height, both of which can be estimated from the characteristics of the returned radar pulse.
    o On the ground:
    Ocean tide models to convert the raw altimeter measurement to the “detided” SSH.
    Estimates (from a model) of the atmospheric pressure. This is used to calculate a correction to the radar range to compensate for the fact that the atmosphere slows down the radar pulse.
    A correction is made for the “inverse barometer” effect, where sea level is depressed in areas of high atmospheric pressure, and vice versa.
    Furthermore, Ian MacDougall ignores the fact that tide gauge measurements, which have been in operation for a far longer period than satellite altimetry demonstrate very little if any movement in permanent sea level rise in tectonically stable locations such as Australia. In fact both satellite and tide gauge data agree that sea level is both rising and falling in different localities around the planet and that oceans are lumpy and dynamic depending on such factors and prevailing wind and barometric pressure. Add to this cyclic moon gravitational influences, land subsidence and post glacial rebound effects and calculating a stable mean sea level is a very problematic concept. While both acute periodic and continuous coastal erosion will remain a feature in varying degrees at varying locations on any coastline, as will coastal deposition over the vastness of time. There is no compelling evidence for permanent mean sea level rise and the catastrophic predictions emanating out of the alarmist kiddie botherers are the antithesis of science. Much of what Ian MacDougall contributes on this subject on these site reminds me of the old adage, ‘a little knowledge is a dangerous thing’.

  • DG says:

    Looking at historical data the climate proxy of ‘global’ temperature (whatever that means) seems to show a long period fluctuation, and probably inter period minor fluctuation while it follows a time series random walk. I’m not panicking, I’m not worried, and I don’t feel a catastrophe coming on. However, if our pals in parliaments are going to do something to prepare for natures untoward moves, we need: a strong economy, minimal red tape, no green tape (which is merely to palliate Gaia worshippers), plentiful reliable cheap power and water storage and reticulation that is cognizant of Australia’s consistent experience of drought.

  • Peter Smith says:

    Just caught your reference to my comment pgang. Yours and other comments have convinced me to absent myself from debate about sea level changes. I am out of my depth as it were. It would be nice if there were authoritative sources that we could all trust to give a balanced perspective on these matters. Alas it is mostly misinformation, politics and propaganda.

  • Biggles says:

    A ‘climate scientist’ from Monash U. writes a regular article for my local rag. There is always a graph of temperature, and the line showing the mean always slopes upward to the right. You would think that a PhD would know better than to cherry-pick a stochastic data set, but you would be wrong. The problem for us all is that perhaps only one in one thousand people realise that the wool is being pulled over their eyes by this fraudulent reporting.

  • Lewis P Buckingham says:

    Its a pity about the Ad Hominems in this video.
    There are many dedicated and good people in BOM.
    One recently stated that there was no trend in Australian droughts.
    Which means this one is not caused by CO2.
    Hopefully he is tenured.
    Judging by tonight’s SBS news it looks as if there are problems having the developing countries pay cash to the rest, as encapsulated in Madrid.
    As before, it appears that adaptation may be the antidote to climate change, whatever the cause, since the majority populations are not curbing CO2 output anyway.
    However the video points to the fundamental problem in our Australian data.
    Apart from peer review, there is no worked and validated explanation of altered data, from raw,based on the individual sites.
    It would be great to have some worked examples of the actual calculations used.
    This would be a good place to start,
    The point made here, that data is missing from the climate record, is correct.
    Its an error to leave it out.
    This whole subject is being constantly re worked. For example.
    The problem for me, and I suspect the BOM, is that the commentators are winning.
    So if anyone in the know reads this,lets have a worked example, say of The Alice.
    Show raw data.
    Explain ,in English, not code, the methodology.
    Attribute error bars.
    Show all worked calculations.
    Validate results.

  • gardner.peter.d says:

    is anyone else here aware of what is being taught in schools? I have just seen this appalling piece of indoctrination by Dr Karl on the Australia Science Channel for schools, which is operated and developed by The Royal Institution of Australia Inc., an independent charity and unique national science hub promoting public awareness and understanding of science. The Royal Institution of Australia was founded in 2009 and is the sister organisation of the prestigious Royal Institution of Great Britain.

    Towards the end of his diatribe against Western free market capitalism Dr Karl goes on to cite the example of Climeworks, a Swiss company established in 2010 following publication of six EU Climate Directives in April 2009. It develops and manufactures equipment to recycle CO2 already in the atmosphere. It is backed by wealthy private investors whose expected high profits from Climeworks are wholly dependent on CAGW being legally enforced political orthodoxy rather than scientifically proven and commercially enabled in a free market. Without the EU’s climate directives, there would be no profits for these investors. Dr Karl exhorts the children to help secure sales of 25 million of Climeworks’ machines. Has he any shares in Climeworks? If so, has he declared his interest? Has he already forgotten what he said about lying companies – oil, tobacco and alcohol companies? I am sure he hopes the children have. We can do it he says because Pearl Harbour in 1941 demonstrated it can be done, it just needs political will. He implies we are at war. By which he comes close to admitting that science has not proven CAGW. He is so close to the truth but he dare not say it because the children would lose faith in CAGW if he did. Instead he quotes from Chairman Mao and exhorts children to go into politics because that is where the power is to enforce the CAGW faith – and to ensure healthy profits for wealthy private investors in Climeworks. Beaming teacher and applause from the children. Job done for Dr Karl. Mao is an excellent mentor for this man since he set up Communist indoctrination and re-indoctrination centres. Perhaps Dr Karl believes that is what schools are for.

  • ianl says:

    @Citizen Kane

    Yes, those points have been made here before. It makes no difference. The same straw men are simply re-cycled.

    The point to Roy Spencer’s quote above (and note that the 1″ per decade is about the same as 3.3mm/year) is that these observations have been made since at least the 1850’s with no significant acceleration seen. It is simply not scary – in short, flimflam.

    Why such almost unmeasurable changes should be happening since the end of the Little Ice Age is subject to endless argument (warming oceans increase evaporation and rainfall, not drought). Adapting to this minute increase is not a difficult issue. Storm surges are not rising sea levels of course.

    And the topic of the article here is BoM manipulation (or not) of the temperature data. The trollster simply inserted a straw man to destroy the thread. As pointed out on a number of occasions, this is a standard trolling tactic.

  • Biggles says:

    Hitler once said that he was not interested in politics, but in making a New Man. That is what Green slime like Dr. Carl are about.

  • pgang says:

    not at all surprised either by the schools or by Dr Karl. The latter is an avowed atheist who has always put his religion before science (which is what we all do essentially, given that science is a branch of philosophy). Therefore he will say anything he wants to say, because truth is whatever he wants it to be.
    My son has been taught radical neo-Marxism and environmentalism in a Catholic school these past few months, so it doesn’t surprise me that teachers are allowing Dr Karl’s ideology free reign. Did you know that the world is over-using its natural resources and could run out within ten years? Or that English workers during the industrial revolution were slaves? (Or that Mary is the mother of God? ha ha). We’re changing schools next year and will be keeping a close eye on things. I wonder how much of this is the the pope’s influence filtering down.

  • Ian MacDougall says:

    ianl:” … global sea level rise which has been occurring at a rate of about 1 inch per decade for as long as it has been monitored (since the 1850s, well before humans could be blamed).”
    The industrial revolution started in the year 1750, and was well underway in 1850.
    Having glanced through all of the above, I find that the most powerful anti-AGW argument is completely missing. (Must be the Christmas rush.)
    AGW (anthropogenic global warming) could not possibly be happening, because if it was, it would be bad for established business, and particularly for the COAL (as in COALition) business.
    That is all about digging up all the coal asap, feeding it into furnaces and converting it into $$$$ in the bank accounts of those who have secured proprietorial rights to it, and who have every reason to worry as to how long this arrangement can continue.
    That is my guess as to why the spokespersons for the Ostrich School of Climatology also come down just as hard on renewable sources of energy, particularly wind and solar.
    My own view is that the fossil carbon would best be put to uses other than power generation, and made to last as long as possible. For example, steel smelting, road tar, polythene pipe for agriculture etc. Otherwise our descendants could well finish up driving horse-drawn wooden vehicles along cobbled roads and watering their fields out of buckets.
    But then again, ostriches are legendary as the most short-sighted birds around, burying their heads in the sand as they reportedly incline to do at the slightest provocation.

  • Doubting Thomas says:

    You’re even wrong about ostriches burying their heads in the sand, Ian. They don’t. The nonsense you spout is hilarious.

  • Ian MacDougall says:

    I said it was a legend. If the joke is on anyone, it is on you.
    Sucked right in.
    But happy new year, and for a resolution, try to be a teensy weensy bit less gullible.

Leave a Reply