We know there is something wrong when we pay public servants to serve us, and they provide us with temperature records that are not the same as the original data, but they won’t explain why they adjusted them. We know the system is rotten when the inexplicable adjustments are used as an excuse to take even more money. We’ve tried FOI to get the information, but they ignore it. We’ve asked the National Audit Office to audit the records, but the people who adjusted the records are essentially the same ones who control them, so they just changed the records again, and said the audit request applied to a set they did not use now.
Today we announce a new approach — Anthony Cox and others are pursuing the legal option. It’s a creative strategy — he‘s approaching this through consumer protection laws.
Is there a chance consumers could be misled by reports that don’t include the uncertainties? We think so. – -Jo
—————————————————————————-
Guest Post: Anthony Cox — Legal Action Against AGW
Image: Wikimedia
In New Zealand there is an ongoing legal action against the government producer of the New Zealand temperature record, the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric research Limited [NIWA].
Researchers found the temperature record produced by NIWA had a warming bias which basically created a warming trend of 1C per century when the raw data showed no increase at all. After being stonewalled by NIWA the researchers issued a Statement of Claim seeking a Judicial Review of the temperature record.
The Defence issued by NIWA was novel in that it claimed there was no official New Zealand temperature record [clauses 6 & 7].
An Amended Statement of Claim was issued and the case is now at the Affidavit stage. Could a similar case be brought in Australia challenging the validity of the Australian temperature record which is prepared by the Bureau of Meteorology [BOM]? There are similarities between BOM and NIWA: both have adjusted their temperature record and both have created a warming trend through the adjustments. The BOM’s has adjusted their temperature trend by approximately 40%. This appears not to be consistent with criteria for adjusting temperature laid down by Torok and Nicholls and Della-Marta et al.
However a complication with BOM is that they have replaced the former High quality network [HQ] with the new improved ACORN adjusted temperature network. In ACORN supposedly the problems with the HQ network which involved the creation of a warming trend have been corrected. In fact conceded errors with the HQ network which likely caused an increase in trend such as metrication have been left intact and it appears the temperature trend in ACORN is greater than in the HQ network.
Clearly the ACORN temperature network has not corrected the adjustment problem in the HQ network which produced the increase in temperature trend. But is it possible to litigate the ACORN temperature record and, as in New Zealand, seek a Judicial Review that the ACORN record is flawed and misleading?
Judicial reviews are sought under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) ACT 1977- section 5.
The provisions of this Act should be read in conjunction with the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, section 2C. This establishes that the BOM is not exempt from the provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. BOM is not exempt because while it is a prescribed agency with staffing and financial autonomy under various legislation it does not satisfy any of the exemptions under Section 2C.
The BOM describes its activities as including:
” The Bureau contributes to national social, economic, cultural and environmental goals by providing observational, meteorological, hydrological and oceanographic services and by undertaking research into science and environment related issues in support of its operations and services. ” [ BOM ].“
The BOM holds itself out to having expertise in its specified activities and provides services based on this expertise to both governmental and private customers.
BOM, therefore, is covered by Australian Consumer Law and is not exempt from the consequences of contravention of that law.
The ACL says this:
“Businesses have an obligation not to engage in any conduct that is likely to mislead or deceive consumers. Note that the conduct only needs to be likely to mislead or deceive; it does not matter whether the conduct actually misled anyone, or whether the business intended to mislead—if the conduct was likely to mislead or deceive, the ACL is contravened”
If we apply this criteria to section 5 of the Administrative decision (Review) 1977 Act it is likely that subsection 2, parts (a) and (b) are relevant. In application to the ACORN temperature record, if, as it appears likely, that not only the defects of the HQ network have been remedied but exacerbated, then either irrelevant considerations were taken into account, or relevant considerations were not taken into account during the compilation of the ACORN data.
In addition section 5, subsection 2, part (h) may apply. If the temperature trend in ACORN is different from the trend of the unadjusted data, as appears to be the case, and the reasons for doing so are not justified, the uncertainty is created in respect of what the actual trend should be. This is especially the case since it is certain that some adjustments need to be done to the raw data for reasons outlined in Table 2.2, pages 59-60 Torok and Nicholls.
A Judicial Review is a specialised area of law and any litigation seeking a Review would be expensive. Litigation would be based on expert testimony. A peer reviewed paper has already been prepared in response to the HQ defects. Another would have to be done in respect of the ACORN ‘improvements’; researchers have already started this process. Not with standing this a failed application for Review would be likely to involve the payment of the BOM’s costs and possibly the government’s if it sought and succeeded in obtaining standing in the proceedings.
On the other hand if the ACORN temperature record was successfully impugned the flow-on to challenging all policies, charges, imposts, levies and costs, applied by government and private interests would be feasible since those flow-on areas arguably all rely on the temperature record produced by the BOM being the dominant indice of AGW. If this dominant indice is not accurate and exaggerated then the certainty of the AGW justification for imposts on the community is much harder to sustain.
In respect of this certainty it should be noted that the “precautionary principle” has been incorporated in legislation. However this may not be a bar to litigation. While the precautionary principle ostensibly provides a defence to the extent that the pro-AGW science is not settled and that any uncertainty with the ACORN temperature record should not prevent it being used to underpin policy, the statements of certainty from the BOM would seem to place any reliance on the precautionary principle as inherently contradictory; the BOM says this:
“Australia and the globe are experiencing rapid climate change. Since the middle of the 20th century, Australian temperatures have, on average, risen by about 1°C with an increase in the frequency of heatwaves and a decrease in the numbers of frosts and cold days.” [BOM]
This statement by BOM is not uncertain; the lack of uncertainty is sustained by the ACORN temperature record. If the ACORN record can be shown to be uncertain then the record is uncertain not because the science is unsettled so as to justify the support of the precautionary principle but due to the misrepresentation of the science in the ACORN temperature record; this uncertainty would not be salvageable by the precautionary principle. On this basis litigation would proceed.
Image: By Unknow (http://mgallolaw.com/gavel.jpg) [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
The green left has mastered the use and abuse via legal pathways to get their way. I say pour the coals on and full steam ahead! It’s time they get a taste in return.
00
That is very neat.
I know from the New Zealand experience that this will cause more than a few sleepless nights for “the keepers of the records”.
Of course, the politicians are only ever, “acting on the professional advice of their officials”, so any action will not directly impinge on the political will, but it will create a few WTF responses in the wavering masses, and that may have a flow-on to majorities at election time. In fact, just starting this process may have that effect.
I am reminded of the movie, “The Man Who Sued God”, staring Billy Connelly. Filmed in Australia, and still a classic.
00
The high priests are not going to like this change of tack Jo. Be prepared for a full on smear campaign.
00
I’m not so sure.
I think the Social Studies class of 2012, will have finished that assignment, are are about to move on to another experiment … time will tell.
00
Is a fighting fund to be established? Will the hat be passed around? How much would such a fund need as a critical mass to kick things off?
00
Clive, Gina, Angel investor required?
Grass roots funding – what are the possibilities?
How much would it really cost. This is something I would be willing to donate to if it was properly organised.
00
Jo-I think the strategy of coming at it from an unanticipated angle makes a great deal of sense. It is what I have done on education which is also a weapon to obtain a radically different society and economy because the schools and then the colleges and universities have radically changed what people value and what they believe.
The idea in education has been that “they” are the experts so “they”, the properly credentialed who get their degrees and grants because they agreed to push this awfulness, get to decide who, how, and what. I came along and dug through the plausible but false explanations and found the repeated statements about using education to change behaviors to change the economy to a “Caring economics.” To change the student so they feel but do not know.
A campaign that “That’s not your mandate” works. Plausible but false was always the tactic on climate change as well because it’s merely the stated goal, not the real one. Keep the real goal of a collectivist state where the politically connected benefit as the focus. Because it is. The temperatures don’t matter because this was always a bogus explanation to restructure the economy and move away from any focus on the legitimacy of the individual. To create a citizenry who only knew enough science to be alarmed when the media was told to generate publicity around the created pressure point of emotional distress.
There is no individual freedom in the world of the Happy Planet Index. The Happy Planet Index doesn’t care about temperatures. The precautionary principle needs a good case of the “we can’t disprove this because this is only a pretext for what is really going on. The pretext exists as an emotional appeal and to try to invoke the precautionary principle. This is how I know this is only a pretext.”
Get the issue off that pretext platform ASAP.
00
Well said.
00
Hey Jo,
Good to see you doing a your best for Alan Jones global warming witchcraft.
Following the yellow brick road no doubt!
00
Hi Sillyfilly,
What’s wrong with a legal enquiry – what outcome of an enquiry do you have to fear?
00
Are you scared that Global Warming doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on? That will give it the full set because it doesn’t have a scientific leg either, or a sound financial one, or a moral one.
00
Hmmm – marked by a substantial absence of legs…
CAGW is sort of like…
REF: The Little Man Who Wasn’t There
00
Sillyfilly, You are just telling us what you think of Alan Jones, but nothing about what he actually says on the issue. Presumably you also subscribe to the theory of the extremists that the fact that AJ has the biggest radio audience in Australia’s biggest city confirms that most people are stupid. My experience of people like you is that you will never change you mind about anything: it was made up long ago. I’d suggest you can get all the confirmation bias you need at other blogs.
00
Sillyfilly sounds eminently worried, clearly threatened by the possibility of dreaded accountability. So certain is he/she/it of the validity of his/her/its opinion that “they” would rather be boiled in oil than appear in a court under oath to justify their claims. Most professionals carry the threat of litigation if they overstep the mark or cause damage through negligence or wilful failure to disclose pertinent facts, and too many academics and government employees are rather too comfortably indemnified against the ramifications of half- baked opinion and fudged data upon which others are reliant to avoid financial damage. Bring it on, I say- anyone found to have misled or failed in their duty of care to society at large should face the full brunt of those legal ramifications implied by laws to protect the public from mischievious or fraudulent advice.
00
Oh hello again sillyfilly.
Once again stooping to baseless smears again are you? No evidience or proofs to back up your wild claims?
Just trolling as usual then eh?
00
From Alan Jones:
“The notion of global warming is a hoax”… “This is witchcraft”
Baseless smears you say? pull the other one! Jones is a pompous fool on all things AGW/CC.
00
Problem SillyFilly is that Jones is probably a CORRECT pompous fool. Actually, Jones may be occasionally Pompous but he is definitely no fool. Jones has his audience not because the audience is stupid but rather Jones represents their opinions, Jones is a realist, rather than an Idealouge.
00
Oh, of course, equuleus minimus stupidus. Jonesy only has the largest audience of any individual radio broadcaster in Oz.
And your audience reach is…? Yup. Thought so, niente, nichts, nada…..
00
As opposed to your good self, who is ALWAYS open to a full and frank debate about the science behind AGW, eh donkey?
00
Certainly creative thinking and also an interesting way of testing the effectiveness of disclaimers
00
$1bn flood damage bill threatens economy, farms
Not to mention the cost of broken dreams, hopes & lives.
What price for that?
How better prepared would these people be if they were given correct climate information and flood mitigation was undertaken?
Inaccurate Australian Bureau of Meteorology Outlook predictions for max and min temperature – this time for October to December 2011.
The comparison between the Outlook and real world result is stark.
Warmer, warmer, warmer. Always warmer.
(Thank you, Warwick Hughes @ his excellent blog: Errors in IPCC climate science)
What was “the best” public funded climate science saying?
… global warming was indeed bringing less rain, the drought could be permanent and our dams could or would run out of water.
And finally, though many more links could be provided:
2009
VICTORIA is likely to come under the influence of another El Nino within the next three years, exacerbating the drought and the likelihood of bushfires, a senior Bureau of Meteorology climate scientist David Jones says.
Of course, the real world, not “totally typical of climate change at the most pessimistic end of the models” was the lived experience:
2009
2010
2011
2012
And, on this record, we are to pay a carbon (sic) tax to ‘tackle global warming’ in the distant future.
Accountability is demanded.
00
And one more link for the record:
April 27, 2012-
Australia will be officially drought-free for the first time in more than a decade from Monday.
00
Yes, now what are they going to do with the desalination plants built because the left claimed the dams would never fill again?
00
From the BOM…
Link is Disclaimer
They OWN nothing with regards too the work that they do. If Engineers proceeded on this basis, you would never cross a bridge for fear it would fall down…
Mind you – If I was in their shoes I would do the same as Meterology Forecasts are NOT Engineering – hence the massive uncertainty in the forecasts. An uncertainty that the Warmist Zealots can not admit is present in their own forecasts of climate doom.
00
I’m with you Handjive. I remember after the Black Saturday bushfires how every man and his dog got into the media with their claims that the extreme heat would be more common and the fires like this would become the norm yet what happened? Nothing like their predictions and did the media hold anyone to account when they were proven wrong? Nope. The following Spring a senior forecaster from the BOM predicted, in the Herald Sun, that that Summer, January & February would ave 32 Degrees. Never happened and no follow up by the media asking the BOM to explain how they got it so wrong. Also, not one reporter in the lame stream media bothered to check why it was so hot in Jan 2009. If they had bothered they would have seen that the Daily Solar Exposure for that month was 30.9 which was, by far, the highest since the records began in 1991. I ofter wonder where we would be today if there were reporters in the lame stream media who actually cared enough about their profession to actually investigate and report the truth. We sure as hell wouldn’t be in the mess we are today
00
Gee whiz! regurgitating more nonsense from Warwick Hughes.
If you have ever been to his linked web site you can see in plain sight that he doesn’t even match up the correct BOM graphs for comparison. Of course supporting such ineptitude is just par for the course, fiction masquerading as fact yet again. So proudly brought to you by the scientific dung heap that is the Galilieo Movement.
00
Have you pointed out Warwick’s “fiction” at his blog sillyfilly?
I’m sure he would like to know about it. It may even turn out that he is not as inept as you think. You may even learn something in the process, who knows?
In any event, it’s poor form to slag him off here in his absence with vague innuendo don’t you think? For example, it would be good to know what post you are referring to, what graphs, and why they are incorrect.
Then the civil thing to do would be to invite him by email to defend that here with a link to your comment (easy to do) or to take your accusations directly to him in comments under his relevant blog post.
What do you say to that sillyfilly?
00
That’s asking a lot, don’t you think!!!
00
Indeed Bob.
Asking sillyfilly to actually follow up on her wild accusations and smears by talking directly to those she slags off is akin to asking the sun to rise in the west…
It’s far easier for the donkey to come here (and elsewhere, like Andrew Bolt’s blog) and post her instructed memes than to actually engage in any discussion by doing some of the very research she instructs the rest of us to do.
00
Yes, but as usual he’s in complete denial!
00
Care to link us to your refutation of Warwick’s “fiction” sillyfilly?
And his response?
Then we will be able to better assess who is in denial of what.
00
.
BOM Cyclone Predictions:
1. 2010 – 2011 BOM predicted 20 to 22 cyclones at 98% chance (actual 11 cyclones)
2. 2011 – 2012 BOM predicted above 12 at 80% (actual 8 cyclones)
3. 2012 – 2013 BOM …. better off just guessing!
Great stuff BOM!
00
Tony & Jo, I am not a legal person but I think action could be taken against public servants and publically funded organisations under code of conduct requirements in various public service administrations acts. In Queensland there is the Public Sector Ethics Act which applies apart from public servants to Universities, Local government and “an entity, prescribed by regulation, that is assisted by public funds”. There is a legal requirement for a code of conduct for all organisations coming under the act and this code of conduct then applies to contractors. The act sets out requirements of the code of conduct and stipulates the public has the right to access it at no fee. One of the requirements is to uphold the law, State and Commonwealth. In Qld there is a Professional Engineers Act which it seems to me that many in the Public Service (eg Tim Flannery), local government, universities (eg that Cook character at UQ) and organisations such as CSIRO, and BOM are continually breaching.
I agree with action under the Competition and Consumer Act but I sugest hit them harder so they can not wriggle out of it by appealing to friendly judges. Hit the defending lawyers for contempt of court when they have no technical qualifications particularly in engineering services (such as outlined in the PE Act Qld, charge expert witnesses with contemp of court when they have no expertise (eg the exaggerated evidnce given by Prof Ian Lowe of the ACF in the 2007 case)
00
Watch out for “plausible deniability”
“A condition in which a subject can safely and believeably deny knowledge of any particular truth that may exist because the subject is deliberately made unaware of said truth so as to benefit or shield the subject from any responsibility associated through the knowledge of such truth.”
00
That was a point I made about the politicians in comment 2 of this thread. So you go after the “Senior Advisors”, who do have a duty of care. If they claim plausible deniability, then the onus moves back on to the politicians who suddenly start to look very exposed, or it moves further down the bureaucratic chain, and starts to look like a conspiracy.
What is not to like?
00
Plausible deniability denied.
00
Sorry Belfast I don’t agree with the plausible deniability scam. If for example you are a Captain of a Vessel with a lot of crew or passengers the duty of care is almost overwhelming but the ultimate responsibility falls on the Captain regardless of whether he/she knows about a problem or not and IMO this is how it should be.
Juliar is our current captain and she is steering this vessel head on for the rocks. Her Court case will be short and sweet at the next election when she is tried by her peers.
00
She will claim that she doesn’t have any peers, and therefore should not be tried.
00
Did you note the admission from the ABS this week that their employment statistics are flawed and that the problems are too expensive to fix, but they stand by the unemployment rate of 5.1% regardless of the Morgan rate of around 10%. The three filing cabinet drawers marked Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics.
00
The Shadow Stats site is US Centric, but provides brilliant examples of the misuse of statistics by Governments. Something that every informed citizen needs to be aware of.
For example, the methods for calculating Unemployment, and Inflation have both shifted over time, and the older methods when used now, show higher unemployment and higher inflation. Both results of course are politically unacceptable (and bi-partisan unacceptable).
Cheers ExWarmist
00
Do it!
00
Just do it
00
This is off topic but kind of related in that it talks about misleading statements
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100168831/monbiot-wrong-again-peak-oil-this-time/
00
Hi Crakar24,
You will probably enjoy the Coal Juggernaut link embedded within the link provided.
00
More OT news
Global Warming makes goats get angry yep thats right, due to a deep snowpack in JULY I MIGHT ADD the goats are pissed off and rightly so.
If it was not for global warming we would not have so much snow and the goats would return to their more friendly state of mind.
The damage caused by CO2 is untold…………..
http://iceagenow.info/2012/07/aggressive-goats-force-closure-olympic-national-forest-trail/
00
Perhaps they are just kidding. Goats are always bleating on about something, including the weather.
00
This is no laughing matter, i had a nanny named Billy and she used to Kid around like this………..sorry
00
This was so close to complete but you misspelled wether.
00
Ha Very funny gee Aye.
Is a wether an animal with no equipment?
00
Very good!
But did you mean to say:
Whether the weather is cold, or whether the weather is hot, wethers weather the weather whatever the weather, whether they like it or not.
Jus’ askin”
00
That might be worth even more points than GAs effort.
00
It is spooky how frightening a Goat enraged by Man Made Global Warming could be – sort of like the karmic revenge of Nature against the sins of Industrial Man.
An inarticulate scream of RAGE!
Warning: Video runs for 25 seconds, and could cause you to spit coffee over your keyboard given the context of crakar24’s comment.
00
Yeah, I can relate to that primal scream. Translation- “WTF!!!!”
00
Sorry mate – where is the link to CAGW? Didn’t see it.
I did see this though – “The park said the urine creates a long salt lick, attracting the animals.”
Gives new meaning to the term “pissed off”.
00
Yes Mike there is no link it was just inferred (heavy snow pack in NTH Hemisphere summer).
Co2 works in mysterious ways and all that.
The poor old Goats being displace by AGW (climate change refugees)
Do they take away your sense of humour at The church of climatology?
00
Maybe there’s an opportunity here for a new church… GOD Church – Goats of Doom!
Or POD Church – Pissed off Goats.
With my beard and attitude I would definitely qualify for membership.
00
.
CAGW = Church of Angry Goat Worshipers = our trolls.
00
Douglas Adams had a reference to a Giant Space Goat
That was used to scare the unwanted part of the populace into planet evacuation… Scare for Social Control… Sounds like CAGW.
00
I am tempted to say, “That depends on how horny you are”, but I will resist the temptation.
00
3 points in relation to legal and scientific scrutiny.
#1 From the article above:-
Those are (from the abstract):-
However for ACORN, BOM has added another reason to make major step adjustments that are more significant than just being “other problems”:-
Blair Trewin covers this with references in CAWCR Technical Report No. 049 but does not provide any convincing reason to make weather based adjustments. Sure, seasonal differences will mean different length grass at an airport and an influence on temperature but that is the nature of weather all over the world, just record it as such and leave it at that. If BOM can define a sound, reasonable and replicable basis for weather dependent adjustments that will stand up to legal and scientific scrutiny – fine. But of this, I for one am extremely sceptical.
#2 From the article above:-
Maybe so but the test is that given the raw data and methodology, an independent party can replicate the series. This was problematic in the case of HQ as Ken Stewart points out:-
Is ACORN any different?
#3 Much mention of “trend” or “warming trend” but what type of trend? I can only assume the reference is to a linear trend. If so, everyone seems to have fallen for the warmist predilection for using an inappropriate trend for fluctuating data. An appropriate trend is one that best represents the data; in no way can it be said that a linear trend represents ACORN with an R squared value closer to 1 than a best fit polynomial would for example.
I’m sure that the “warming trend” apparent for a period in the 20th century will soon be forgotten if people start using appropriate trends for fluctuating time series climate data e.g. for ACORM, NZT7, GAT, GMSL, GMSST etc.
And if the warming has disappeared from the metrics this century using appropriate trends, what’s the basis for punitive taxes?
00
The issues distilled, as I see them, Richard, are:
1 Were the adjustments necessary to ascertain an accurate record of the temperature trend over the period of the data
2 Were the method[s] used to adjust statistically justified so that the methods themselves were not responsible in part or whole for the temperature trend.
All of BOM’s trend graphs show a linear trend; eg and eg
Given this does the linear trend depicted in the adjusted temperature data justify the conclusion made by BOM about AGW:
If the answer is yes, AND either/both of the above 2 issues can be impugned, then there is your case; or, at least one possible approach.
00
Tony if the answer is “yes”, I’m sure the linear trend basis of justification could easily be dismantled by a specialist mathematician or statistician in the first instance as part of the case you describe. Then the actual span of time that the 1 C rise occurred must be determined. BOM gives the start (“Since the middle of the 20th century”) but nothing is said about an end. A linear trend implies continued temperature rise (as in the plots you linked to) but a polynomial or moving average will reveal any cessation even in the current published series.
NZCSC engaged a statistician for their revised SOC but for different reasons. I realize funding might be an issue but any case must make recourse to the best expertise that can be obtained. It remains to be seen of course what the judge makes of the NZCSC statisticians work. Worth watching as a pointer to what might be expected re BOM/ACORN.
There must be someone out there with that expertise willing to do pro bono work at least at initial preparative level?
00
.
Sort of O/T but . . .
Yet another study confirms clouds have net cooling effect, not warming.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/new-paper-finds-clouds-act-as-negative.html
Someone remind me again why we need a carbon tax?
00
O/T but priceless … the CO2 tax claims it’s first job loss days after implementation:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/carbon-tax/carbon-tax-claims-first-scalp-with-the-resignation-of-brumbys-bakery-boss/story-fndttws1-1226419213166
Perhaps the brumby boss can go get one of those mythical green jobs…
00
The UN needs the money ?
00
Can we also start questioning the generation capabilities of proposed wind farms?
A new 105 turbine, 315MW farm is to be built near Jamestown, SA. The stated (in 6/6 Advertiser) annual energy to be expected from this is 1,050,000MWH.
1,050,000/365 = 2,876.7MWH/day
2,876.7/315 = 9.13 hours per day of generation
BUT, Betz’ Law states these generators have a little less than 60% MAXIMUM efficiency, so to get this output requires over 15 hrs (9.13/.6) PER DAY, EVERY DAY, AT MAXIMUM POSSIBLE, THEORETICAL OUTPUT.
From http://windfarmperformance.info/, the output graph for nearby Snowtown shows as 30% max and generally much lower than that, down to less than 5% for much of the day.
We are being told lies about what these generators are capable of.
00
check out what John O’Sullivan has to say about mandamus (judicial review)
http://algorelied.com/?tag=law
for legal enthusiasts (THE AUST VIEWPOINT) http://law.wustl.edu/wugslr/issues/volume6_2/foley.pdf
00
At last!
BOM promised/predicted 65% greater tropical cyclone activity than normal this year. we expect 5 or so to cross the coats each year but are still waiting for the first one to arrive! I go sailing up in Far North Qld – I rely on the BoM for their weather forecasts but they continuosly get it wrong. It’s so bad we call them the Bureau of Mythology up here.
00
Tim,
Keep a log of a) their forecast, and b) the actual observations.
The BOM is required to publish accurate meteorological information as part of Australia’s commitment to the Convention for Safety of Life at Sea. Get your friends to do the same thing. The results could prove interesting.
00
As Jo said, it’s a creative strategy. If you’re going to law though, the criminal route might be better. Certainly the audits of the BOM temperature datasets, have undoubtably shown evidence of systematic tampering. In response to the apparent warming problem, the BOM and others have received substantial amounts of money they otherwise wouldn’t have. That’s obtaining money by deception, a criminal offence.
Pointman
00
Neither BOM nor the Government should be able to claim it would be expensive for them to defend such an action. Surely all the scientific justification for adjustments and a detailed record of those adjustments should be readily available? If they have to spend thousands of dollars preparing for the case, it would be proof that they hadn’t made the adjustments in a professional and scientific way.
I look forward to this action proceeding.
00
Where are all those international pilots who complain about problems due to BoM reports being different to their on-board instruments? International pilots have been known to comment that Australia has a poor performance when compared to other countries, especially European with fog and ice and dense traffic to cope with. Aircraft can crash if given inaccurate weather info. Anyone from pilots’ associations interested in joining in?
00
A quick pprune search result.
http://www.pprune.org/safety-crm-qa-emergency-response-planning/482671-uk-met-forecast-reliability.html
00
BTW I’m in the UK atm. There currently is an ‘Amber Alert’ level for floods… Looking at the rain I’m getting here, which is meant to be heavy rain – it is not ‘heavy’ – seems rather ‘normal’ rain to me and consistent with what I remember rain being like in the UK… Australia has the mark for what is heavy rain and this is not it by a long chalk.
I’m really wondering if we are getting over reporting of what was previously taken as ‘normal flooding that occurs when it rains for some time’.
00
You call that rain, the people of Meghalaya have rain – 25 metres in one year (the world record)
See:
00
Your Meghalaya link seems to have been washed away….
Eager followers may borrow this one.
00
Much obliged, Andrew.
00
Jo,
Interesting how many weather stations are in the current heat wave of the US and the thousands of records broken to the very few cold areas where only a few hundred records broken for the cold.
Don’t be surprised when the government starts changing the protection laws. They may already have amendments in place already or use one law to supersede over another. Adjusting laws to cover loop holes and boughten media will insure any actions are covered over so that the individual citizen will not see it.
00
This is a fascinating situation on so many levels.
IN the first place, I hate the law. It looks like a well meaning law, but intentions are not a yardstick of a good law. When all you have to do is prove “likely” and not intent, that gets in to all sorts of potential shenanigans. We all too often see those laws passed in all countries by well meaning (perhaps) politicians who are yelling about “fairness”. And they create bad laws because they fail to understand rule #1 of life – it is not fair. So in order to correct a perceived unfairness on some, they penalize all.
But in the second place, the law is there. Created no doubt by the same people who are now penalizing all Australians with an onerous tax that was promised never to pass. So I see a delicious irony in using it against them. In this case, there is no question of intent. They clearly do intend to deceive. But that high bar of proof is not necessary, and so all that has to be shown is “likely”, which totally removes motive from the equation.
It is a bad law (the ACL), but now it can be used for a good purpose. And one that is quite likely to send the alarmists into apoplexy. Indeed, it may even cause the modification or repeal of the law – but hopefully not until it has done some good.
Good luck with the strategy. That the adjustments are fraudulent is a given. The problem is that most alarmist forget the maxim of all socialistic movements – think globally act locally. There is no need to prove that EVERY area is warming – but like most of us, climate is your home, not someone’s across the world. So they have to show their homes are warming, when the very postulate of AGW is that not all areas are going to show warming equally.
So roast them on their own petard! It will be great irony to see a bad law used for some good.
00
“Consumer protection laws may protect citizens against misleading BOM statements?”
Sure, BoM have the usual disclaimer, excluding “implied warranty of fitness”, but is this sufficient to excuse work that is clearly defective and has wide application?
I don’t think so. Let’s go for it.
Some of us are directly, professionally, affected by this, so imho contributions could constitute work-related expenses …
However, there may be a lot more at stake.
CSIRO & BoM messing with temperature and tide gauge records is bad enough, but both have input to the future development of the NCC (National Construction Code).
This could affect everybody.
goo.gl/lnC8F
Latest Australian Building Regulation Bulletin. Read Pages 2 to 3:
(It is not possible to simply copy/paste from this. I have extracted the quotes below by image capture and OCR.)
Apart from the ambiguous title, there is much here that makes sense.
Large doors frequently fail in cyclones. Tiles frequently come off in cyclones. (If just one tile is badly fixed, a substantial part or the whole roof can come off, becoming a hail of destructive missiles impacting downwind buildings.)
Flood potential also – too many places too low down with a massive river catchment behind them.
I have no problem with the Bushfire Code, and haven’t heard any adverse comment on it in the industry. Stuff that needs fixing anyway.
However:
Low emissions? Any other explanation than ” increased CO2 causes extreme weather events”?
Then:
[emphasis added]
Main impacts “are” – not even “may be” …
These people are assisting in writing the National Construction Code. That covers every assessable building, along with any extension, major refurbishment – anything that needs a building permit !!
We now have the Draft Standard and Handbook, Building in Flood Hazard Areas.
building-in-flood-prone-areas
I am slowly working through these. Going to read every damn word …
00
Martin, the effect of the CO2 tax will be both insidious and widespread in ways this gormless government has not and cannot anticipate. However some pullback is occurring; for instance Gosford Council has just announced it will no longer enforce or include compulsory notifications about sea level rise in its requirements to home owners and builders near the coast.
This will have considerable ramifications for the construction costs of new houses by the water; arguably, this precedent could also have flow on effects to any home-owner in conflict with some of the more fundamental, pro-AGW councils such as Lake Macquarie and of course, that repository of wealthy Green hypocrisy, Byron Bay council.
00
Thanks for the Gosford link – I am currently compiling a list of “pullback” items 🙂
Following the recent electoral rout in Queensland, it should be less likely that the disease will move north. On the other hand, new regulation at a federal level, plus SPA (Sustainable Planning Act) Planning Schemes being developed, means there is a vast amount of documentation needing oversight. Having had 42 years experience in regulation of this type, I expect a few pink elephants will get through 🙁
Solution looks like being Agent Ransack or FileLocator Pro, running on list of keywords and ‘weasel’ words …
00
From CSIRO’s State of the Climate – 2012
OK, let’s have a look at the “warming trend” that has “progressively warmed” through “to 2011”, see BOM plot:-
First thing to note is that 2011 was back down below the 1961-1990 climatological period average.
Second thing is what State of the Climate – 2012 describes as (continuing from above):-
That is, natural variability trumps CO2 forcing by CSIRO’s own implicit admission.
Third and last, it will take a very strong El Nino to get the beginning of the 2010 – 2020 decade back up to the level of the 2000 – 2010 decade. Given that El Nino has only just moved positive from neutral with little indication of any strength to come, the likelihood of a rise above 1961-1990 average looks doubtful let alone a rise back up to 2000 – 2010 level.
Basically, the Australian CSIRO/BOM “progressive warming trend” most likely peaked around 2005 as in HadSST2 and NZT7.
00
Richard, I had alook at the CSIRO and BOM’s latest State of the Climate reports here, and here.
Cheers
00
I alwas question why they start at 1910 when we have records going back to the 1850’s. Why do they “forget” to include about 60 years of data? Its like their other reports that started from 1960. Right in the middle of the cooling period of 1945-1975. Obviously coming out of a cooling period you would expect to see a rise but they fail to show if that rise brought us back to a higher or lower average than before the cooling period and how that compared to the 110 years of data that they conveniently forgot to include in their first report.
00
Should Anthony Cox, under duty of disclosure, also have written that he has been paid $90,000 USD$ to challenge “warmist science essays that counter our own”. “Own” being the Heartland Institute.
[I don’t know Ted, have you evidence to back up your claim?] ED
00
That’s a lie. Not only have I not been paid any money by anyone but I have spent a considerable amount of my own money in opposing the scam of AGW.
00
From a cartoon just received by e-mail, can’t show the image, but the text will do:
Tiny Tim asks:
“Dad, I’m considering a career in organised crime.”
“Government or Private Sector?”
says Dad, and continues:
“I personally suggest government. They never go to jail.”
00
Nice one L. Michael.
Here’s a link , with a nice story about the origins of this one, by Jack Swanepoel.
Gems such as this have an enduring timelessness.
Cartoon by Dr Jack
00
Ah yes – the wonderful things about blogs is the sheer amount of bogus science nonsense sprayed by Cox over many years. All available to test the quality of our fearless litigant to comment on the science and the integrity of his arguments.
So bring it on – don’t bluff and fill up blog space. Get on with it.
What a hoot it will be …. as my old lawyer once said “One needs to be most cautious getting into litigation – the results can be quiet unpredictable”.
00
Examples please; I don’t expect a reply but in the interests of full and open discussion I am compelled to ask.
00
Oh there’s a great number over many blogs and op-eds all snipped, databased and catalogued for your day in court my friend (with your other like travellers). Quite a nice history of ill intent.
So hurry on to litigation by all means. The credentials of all the the applicants will make for fascinating discussion. Bring it on ! Don’t wait.
But all so depressing really. Looks like NIWA will win its court case. Ho hum. But sceptics will keep dredging. It’s all so gutless really – you lot could have done your own alternative analysis by now instead of fiddling and diddling and blog whinging. (somewhat like other reconstruction efforts but oh so special) You might have even had it peer reviewed and published. Hopefully not in some backwater soft review journal.
And it’s interesting like savanna scavengers you’re always skulking around in the background. Isn’t it great that public servants who have no interest in legal activity or policy are being drawn into this. Guess it’s classic Serengeti strategy where individuals are picked off by opportunists in the long grass.
A non snake-in-the grass would march into the front door of BoM HQ and nail their published alternative analysis on the wall.
00
Why? What specific deficiencies can you pinpoint in ‘Statistical Audit of the New Zealand Temperature Series’?
And what court case?
It’s a request for a judicial review that a judge (out of court) is considering right now.
00
href=”http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2011/2011report.html”>Alternative Analysis
A non snake-in-the-grass would not have invented and joined the lie of AGW.
00
Oh come now – how utterly embarrassing if you’re putting up Idso, Carter, and Singer as evidence of anything.
Anyway I’m talking about the alternative temperature trend analysis of the Australian record. It would easier to present an alternative (replete with all programs and methods archived) than sit around picking lint from navels. Jo, Dave and Davey, Ken and Bob and your good self should be able to get through that in no time.
A non snake-in-the grass would ejected their dodgy fellow travellers years ago. Failure to engage BoM or CSIRO front-on and through the front door is simply cowardice. Anyway shouldn’t you be moving downwind and waiting for lunar darkness?
—–
REPLY: Anonymous Ad homs will mean you lose the right to post. Do better ok? If the paper is wrong, explain why, don’t just smear the author. As for alternative surface reconstructions. The BOM has not released their explanations for their adjustments. We have done alternate reconstructions (see Ken Stewart in my index) but they will just say they made adjustments that are important (they raise the trend by 40%) but then the reasons are not important enough to document or provide to us. Go figure. And you gullible wonderboy believe them. – Jo
00
The paper has been done and peer reviewed and will published shortly. As I said in the article.
In the meantime this makes interesting reading. I think it makes extraordinary reading, especially since a great deal of the temperature record in ACORN is within the last 50 years and at most since 1910.
00
I bet we don’t see an alternative paper on the Australian temperature record in a serious peer reviewed journal. It will all be will o’ the wisp.
As for smearing Jo – you’ll just have to do better than the last publishing outing your friends went on http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011637.shtml alas it seemed to have been shredded in published rebuttal. One of your 800 papers is it? Do better.
00
What a load of rubbish. The BOM (or equivalent overseas) are paid public servants whose duty (in fiduciary terms) it is to compile the national record, probably taking 100s of man-hours and at what cost?
And archive all programs and methods so that the record can be replicated by any other party. It is NOT the duty of Jo, Dave, Davey, Ken, Bob or Tony to do that. It used to be that public servants could be trusted (again in fiduciary terms) to undertake that work without the aforementioned unpaid public representatives looking over their shoulder. But now that climate has become highly politicized, that’s no longer the case.
It’s those replication attempts Wonderful, that have exposed the highly questionable methods and practices that have brought the once mundane topic of temperature records front-and-centre to a sceptical public with justification (think GISTEMP).
In short, the custodians of national temperature records are no longer trusted due to a political agenda being upheld by them.
00
From Tony’s link:-
And the inevitable eventual political response to that very slow climatological revolution? Tax of course.
00
Why should we? The IPCC Assessment Reports aren’t.
00
It is worth noting the quote below, succinct & true.
“Freeze or fry, the problem is always industrial capitalism, and the solution is always international socialism.”
– Dr . Malcolm Ross
00
Bogus science:
Please select from any of the following from Cox and Stockwell hall of infamy (courtesy ABC):
In fact, during 2010 alone there were at least 7 new peer-reviewed papers which were based on observation and which fundamentally contradicted catastrophic AGW. These papers include Lindzen and Choi’s follow-up paper on outgoing long-wave radiation, Spencer and Braswell’s new paper on negative feedback from clouds, Knox and Douglass’s paper on ocean heat content increase [there ain’t any], Miskolczi’s revised paper on the optical depth of the atmosphere, McShane and Wyner’s paper demolishing the centrepiece of AGW science, the Hockey-stick, McKitrick’s paper demolishing another centre-piece of AGW, the Tropical Hot Spot and Koutsoyiannis’s follow-up paper showing the AGW computer models have no predictive skill.
The same ol’ dreary mantras of scientific ignorance, probably with the exception of Dr Roy. Even Spencer has no truck with Miskolcki’s nonsense. And as for Lindzen, with his tropical temperatures reconstructions, so adsurd that he can’t get these papers published in any reputable scientific journal. Bogus science at it’s best up there with the Evans “hotspot” ignorance
00
Wow! That’s a stunning in-depth analysis of that range of complexity sillyfilly.
In view of that acute synopsis, I most certainly now must revise all my previous misconceptions formed from the reading of same (gee I should never have done that). Most definitely those papers are bogus.
Or not.
00
Yes filly, I must agree with Richard; that’s a bit light on.
To take on example; you say:
Spencer’s critique of Miskolczi is here.
The critique can be distilled to 2 issues; the Aa = Ed equilibrium and the constant optical density. The OD issue is a matter of Spencer thinking the radiosonde data is not reliable; many people including Garth Paltride and even AGW advocates like Thorne would disagree with him.
The Aa = Ed is interesting; Miskolczi defines them as:
If this were true then AGW would not exist because there would not be any accumulation of thermal energy.
Spencer concedes on behalf of AGW that they are almost equal with Kiehl and Trenberth saying Ed is 93% of Aa, while Miskolczi says it is 96%. This difference is supposed to constitute the fullness of AGW.
The point is discussed in the comments to Spencer’s article. Chriustopher Game, who knows Miskolczi back to front, says this:
As far as I can see Spencer does not address the point. Perhaps you can explain filly, where the error lies?
00
Drum roll, while the filly trots out her scientific credentials……………
00
sillyfilly
It would be productive if you could offer some “gold standard” findings, refutations, alternatives etc (from AGW-aligned climate science presumably, given anything else is “bogus”) to the papers you deride.
Miskolczi’s 61 yr OD finding was an obvious start but Tony beat me to it. Wrt OHC though, there’s a conspicuous absence of a physical mechanism whereby atmospheric heat of anthropogenic origin is imputed to thermosteric SLR. That mechanism, I would have thought, is fundamental to any anthropogenic attribution.
I’ve looked but nowhere can I find any documentation. Not in IPCC AR4, nor Hansen’s papers from NASA GISS or Meehl and Trenberth’s work from UCAR. They all just assume that it happens somehow. All I can find is an opinion piece by Peter Minnet at the Real Climate blog (taken up by SkS) that’s easily refuted with recourse to conventional cool-skin warm-layer physics (it’s even contrary to the core AGW evaporation tenet).
It seems odd to me that the basis of anthro thermosteric SLR has been overlooked by climate science but perhaps it’s there and I just haven’t come across it. If you could provide a reference sillybilly, it would be most helpful.
OTOH if you can’t, the “gold standard” might only be in the advanced stage of the refining process, mightn’t it.
00
NCAR, not “UCAR”
00
Well don’t waste your idle hours here Richard – race to publication and dazzle us. You can add it to Anthony’s impressive list which is …?? You’re all having such an impact on the science. Vexatious litigation is much easier isn’t it?
I look forward to your rebuttal of Peter Minnet’s interpretation of empirical observations. Such a pity the OHC is spreading and sinking to depth. Toodle pip.
00
It would be better Wonderful, if climate science would “race to publication”.
After all water surface physical properties and spectroscopy have been the subject of experimental work outside climate science (e.g. medical laser physics) since at least 1973.
Oceanography established the cool-skin warm-layer conditions in 1996 and guess what? Minnet’s Hs mechanism (blog science) is a bit player, completely ineffectual compared to Hl that does the bulk of the cooling at the surface (that’s why they call it cool-skin Wonderful).
So what? Sea surface temperatures aren’t rising (actually on a downward trend), 700 – 2000 heat isn’t coming from the atmosphere by conduction (SST 3C warmer than atm on average) so it’s not anthropogenic and it’s only “sinking to depth” in Meehl et al’s model Wonderful.
What I’m getting at Wonderful, is that the sea surface science has already been established but “gold standard” climate science prefers to ignore it, just assumes, guesses, supposes, “suggests” and makes stuff up.
Then govt’s around the world base their SLR policies and regulations on that supposition until the yawning gaps in the basis are discovered. That’s where we’re at now Wonderful.
00
Sillyfilly, you say “The same ol’ dreary mantras of scientific ignorance”. Let me try to ease your frustration and go back to something really basic. Co2 & water vapor are both greenhouse gases because they both absorb infra red rays, right? Now CO2 is approx 0.04% of the atmosphere whilst water vapor is, on average, 73% right? So lets draw 2 lines to represent each gas. We’ll start with CO2 and we’ll draw, say, a 1mm line. Now we’ll draw the line for water vapor and we’ll draw it in ratio to CO2 so we will have to draw the second line about 186,000mm. Don’t believe me, do the sums yourself. Now convince me that your 1mm line will hold more infra red rays than my 186,000mm line. Given that simple example, for 1 degree rise in temps, given the ratio, how much is to be attributed to water vapor and how much to CO2. Maybe you can check out what Susan Soloman ahs to say about it. She’s a member of NOAA and a co chair of the IPCC (you know, the experts we should listen to)and she released a peer reviewed paper attributing the decline (that’s right, decline) in air temps to falling levels of water vapor (gasp) despite rising levels of CO2. I hve no doubt you will have some sort of abusive response but, hey what the heck, knock yourself out, go for it. Also, are you familiar woth the Woods experiment in 1901 where he cast doubts on the actual greenhouse effect. Seems many people seem to overlook this in their discussions. Anyway here’s another question for you to ponder. It’s going to sound like I’m trying to be funny but give it some thought and you will see my point is quite valid. Have you ever seen a greenhouse without walls and a roof and how effective would such a greenhouse be? I have no doubt you will ridicule me and most likely call me all sorts of names but, hey, go for it, knock yourself out because no matter how much vile you send my way it will not change real life fact that water vapor is approx 186,000 times greater than CO2 but at least thank me for not posting the same old arguments 🙂
00
[…] http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/news-legal-action-against-agw/ […]
00
A non snake-in-the grass would march into the front door of BoM HQ and nail their published alternative analysis on the wall
That’s a bit rich coming from a [snip] who uses the name “wonder world” and expects us all to stand up and take note. You might impress that silly filly with all your tough talk but I agree with you -BRING it on. Do you seriously think that copy and paste off a blog is going to be a defence against corrupting and adjusting data to suit the “cash for comments” public servants and their masters. I bet you have a new shredding machine on hand but that won’t work in the long run.
Reprogramming for a road tek crew would be too generous for those who conspired this hoax!
00
Thanks for the Website Joanne. Yes this AGW is all a carefully engineered plan
to rip us all off. The poor will want more money to live on and who provides it?
The rich and middle class. My beef is this: if the GHG’s can trap the heat in,
can’t they also block it out as well!!! Thanks again Joanne.
00