There is a great piece over on Jo Nova, which tackles the Australian temperature record. This is a quote from the start of the post:
A team of independent auditors, bloggers and scientists went through the the BOM “High Quality” (HQ) dataset and found significant errors, omissions and inexplicable adjustments. The team and Senator Cory Bernardi put in a Parliamentary request to get our Australian National Audit Office to reassess the BOM records. In response, the BOM, clearly afraid of getting audited, and still not providing all the data, code and explanations that were needed, decided to toss out the old so called High Quality (HQ) record, and start again. The old HQ increased the trends by 40% nationally, and 70% in the cities.
I have added one of the findings of the independent audit at the end of the post. I am not as familiar with this case as with the New Zealand temperature record, so only include it as additional information. Nevertheless, here is the fun bit of the post, if ‘fun’ is the correct word:
To make it all look o-so-convincing, the BOM asked three experts (from NOAA, NZ, and Canada) to look over it all, and score the BOM against its peers. But the peers standards are not too high in the first place: NOAA was caught with 89% of it’s own thermometers in the wrong spots near air conditioners and whatnot, and NZ’s records were so bad, they disowned them themselves. (NZ adjustimongered their temperature trends from 0.06C right up to 0.9C, got caught, and their response under legal pressure was to say but it’s ok, “There is no “official” or formal New Zealand Temperature Record”.)
It’s all too wonderful to be true. Discredited institutions vouch for the work of other discredited institutions, and thereby give credibility to each other. Bearing in mind that the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) has given lukewarm support for the New Zealand temperature record, it is more than a little worrying. More to the point, when confronted with the problems in their records the BOM simply moved the goalposts, and did so to avoid an audit. Why would they do this? I will leave you to work out that one for yourselves (as I am guessing it is not too difficult).