Sarah Ferguson and Michael Brissenden Withhold Important Information from the Australian Public Concerning Climate Change

Australian politicians, and the media they sponsor, have been throwing their hands in the air and screaming unprecedented climate change – particularly over the last two weeks. A focus has been on the record number of new record hot days. But in all of this, there is no mention that the method used to actually measure hot days has changed.

This week’s Four Corners program began by interviewing Karl Braganza from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. Braganza explained that it is really only since the 1990s that we have started to see the extreme heat. What he didn’t mention is that a totally new method of measurement came into effect on 1 November 1996 – with the transition continuing, so each new year, additional weather stations have their mercury thermometer replaced with an electronic probe taking one-second spot readings.

For example, the Bureau claimed a new record hottest day for September for the state of Victoria on 23 September 2017, which was actually a one-second spike from an electronic probe installed in June 2012. The Bureau reported this as the hottest September day back to 1889. Yet between 1889 and 1996 a completely different method was being used to measure maximum daily temperatures at Mildura.

According to the Guinness World Records, a record must be standardisable and verifiable. Yet the new record from Mildura was not measured according to world standards of calibration for the use of electronic probes which specifies that one-second readings be averaged over at least one minute. Meanwhile this questionable data is being used to justify ever more expenditure on Australia’s perceived climate catastrophe – without any questioning by leading Australian journalists Michael Brissenden or Sarah Ferguson, who presented Monday night’s program that lamented the new record hot days.

In not reporting that the incidence of “extreme heat” corresponds with a change in how maximum temperatures are measured, these two journalists, Brissenden and Ferguson, have withheld important information from the Australian public.

Given the new, very different, method of measuring temperatures, it would be assumed that there are dozens of reports published by the Bureau that document how comparable the measurements from electronic probes have proven at different locations, and under different conditions. Yet there are none!

The Bureau claims, when asked, that temperatures from its electronic probes and traditional mercury thermometers are comparable – without providing any actual evidence. My analysis of temperature data from Mildura indicates that there is a statistically significant different – with the first probe (in place from 1996 to 2000) recording too cool, and subsequent probes too warm relative to the mercury thermometer (often by up to 0.4 degrees Celsius).

I have been attempting to bring this to the attention of the media, particularly the ABC for some months. But their journalists turn-away. They don’t want any scrutiny of this much revered institution, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.

Even in the Australian parliament there is a closing-of-ranks. Rather than consider my evidence, Monday before last Senators Richard Di Natale and Anne Urquhart from the Australian Greens claimed that the questions I have been raising about the integrity of the temperature data amounted to ‘climate denial’ and harassment of the Bureau’s CEO, Andrew Johnson.

In reality, my few emails to Johnson have focused on the single issue of how temperatures are measured, which really has nothing whatsoever to do with denying climate change. Indeed, if we are to accurately quantify the magnitude of global warming, then the integrity of the temperature databases is paramount. Yet the number of documented anomalies continues to grow – as does the indifference of our political class.

Sarah Ferguson introducing Michael Brissenden on Monday night’s ABC Four Corner’s program that ostensibly reported on climate change. Four Corner’s is a publicly funded news program, that claims to be investigative. On Monday night it could be best described as climate porn, or climate propaganda with critical information withheld – perhaps through ignorance.

27 Responses to Sarah Ferguson and Michael Brissenden Withhold Important Information from the Australian Public Concerning Climate Change

  1. Dave Vought March 6, 2018 at 4:31 pm #

    Climate denial and harassment, Johnson is a sook hiding behind the greens. If he has nothing to hide he should be more than happy to produce any and all documents any of us taxpayers request to see.
    Two leading Australian journalists who forgot to do some homework by the looks. Nothing has changed.

  2. Geoffrey Williams March 6, 2018 at 5:14 pm #

    To change the ‘mechanism’ by which they (the BOM ) monitor and record temperatures, without maintaining a parallel set of ‘old’ data beggars belief.
    Surely temperatures recorded from mercury thermometers are not compatible with those measured using spontaneous electrical devices.
    As for the two reporters from the ABC I believe they should be ashamed of their clear bias. Add to that ‘untrustworthy and incompetent’.
    Integrity is the key word here, we do not have it from the BOM and their temperature records, and neither do we have it from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
    The third level of incompetence is of course from our disgraceful politicians.

  3. Michael Cosgrave March 6, 2018 at 9:04 pm #

    Please keep pushing. I cringed my way through passages of the publicly funded propaganda that is the ABC and its 4 Corners weekly. They cite the IPCC and its cronies as being the fountains of truth which I assume most of the public buy as credible.

    Please keep pushing the criticism necessary to thwart the ongoing public funding of this waffle.

  4. spangled drongo March 6, 2018 at 9:05 pm #

    Just what does it take for the BoM, as a govt science department, to realise that it is a perfectly reasonable and scientific procedure to compare the new temperature measuring device with the long time existing device and establish a comparison over a reasonable period of time.

    And then make that comparison available for all to see so that credibility is established.

    But the fact that they avoid this transparent scientific procedure only leaves them open to justified criticism.

    But then what’s new in the climate gatekeeping world?

    What does it remind you of?

    So the next step in the consensual, groupthink procedure is for another govt department, the ABC, that is similarly required to be honest, open and impartial to investigate, report and clear the BoM without mentioning these errors.

    The hubris is overwhelming!

    I will have to make a formal complaint to my federal member and hopefully he will get that this double “indulgence” is beyond the pale and can’t be ignored.

  5. Steve Niemiec March 7, 2018 at 12:59 am #

    How did we get here?

    For many years I was taught the scientific method. A system designed to create an accurate record of experimentation and to allow others to repeat the same experiment at any future date and hopefully obtain the same result or for any change in result to be questioned.

    Is science in general to blame for this lack of robust enquiry? Is it simply too hard to be a scientist these days when everyone wants instant, shocking results which make headline news? Are the datasets becoming way too small to have any real meaning because bigger ones simply take too long and investigators want results and they want them now!?

    Where have the morals of scientists gone. Once, scientific investigation resulted in a quality paper, put out there for other scientists to mull over, to perhaps repeat and possibly expand on and then to comment on their results. Is it now all about the money and fame? A form of X-factor for scientists? No time to come up through the ranks, just jump on the band wagon if a grant becomes available to ‘prove’ a hypothesis? Now, some self proclaimed experts simply threaten to take legal action if others question their work – WTF?

    There are good, even great scientists still around, but unfortunately there is an increasing number of ‘group think’ individuals more interested in themselves and their safe circle of agreeable associates without the time or inclination to be bothered to examine the real science any longer.

  6. David Coad March 7, 2018 at 3:20 pm #

    The standards issue particularly in calibration, validation of data and physical measurement are very important. I work in a forensics laboratory with very sensitive equipment for weights and measures. We are externally audited and comply with GLP requirements and our work is Internationally accepted. Instrument calibration is regularly undertaken using external accredited specialists. The BOM appears to be a closed rank of professionals, lacking real external review and audit, with no accreditation to recognised standards and people accept the BOM data on face value for International use in climate modelling and publication of influential governmental reports. Simply stating in the recent BOM review that the systems and paperwork are in place and equivalent to ISO is not good enough. If the BOM doesn’t have the appropriate quality assurance standards which includes anyone maintaining the sensitive equipment then there are serious questions regarding the validity of that data. You cannot say that simple parallel observations are sufficient. All observations may be flawed.
    As a side note, I noted that the Cape Grimm GHG data is no longer up to date, with the last data published in Aug 2017. Some instrument / data issues there as well.

  7. Ian George March 8, 2018 at 3:05 pm #

    Please keep up the good work in exposing the BoM. How the BoM and the ABC can keep propagating this misinformation is alarming.

    Here’s an example of one second recording of temps.
    Casino AP at 13:55 today (8 Mar) was 27.3C.
    At 13:50 it was 26.6C.
    At 13:56 it was 26.5C.
    At 1400 it was 26.1C.
    So up 0.7C in five mins, then down 0.8C in 1 minute. The average for those 1o mins would be about 26.4C.
    (All this data will disappear within a day).

    And further to your remarks above, the BoM did not mention that despite the warming, +50C has only been recorded three times – twice in 1960 and once in 1998.

    BTW, two +50C temps happened in Mildura in early Jan,1906 but these were ‘adjusted’ down to around 47C.

  8. Siliggy March 9, 2018 at 8:03 am #

    Thermometer type at Mildura is not the only poorly documented change that could affect the temperature readings.
    At some time, the screen sise was changed. This affects the temperature reading too. Many ways.

    Can’t see any mention of when here.
    Lance Pidgeon

  9. Ian George March 9, 2018 at 9:57 am #

    I originally found the adjustments to Mildura’s 50.7C here at
    but the article seems to have disappeared.
    The 50.7C shows up at the DWO and CDO but there may not have been an SS in place at that time.
    Is there a BCSM for Mildura PO?

  10. Lawrence Ayres March 9, 2018 at 4:20 pm #

    The level of corruption in scientific circles, abetted by the press and politicians is so depressing. I can understand Di Natalie running away for a successful challenge of the BoM and it’s methods would render the great hoax unsustainable and Di Natalie irrelevant. They are so far committed to this fraud that any leaking of truth would cripple them and make them a laughing stock.

    Jennifer we need you more than ever. The corrupted know that their days are numbered and they are digging in in the hope the great unwashed will believe them. Over 50% of Australians do not.

  11. TedM March 9, 2018 at 4:22 pm #

    “Please keep up the good work in exposing the BoM. How the BoM and the ABC can keep propagating this misinformation is alarming.

    Here’s an example of one second recording of temps.
    Casino AP at 13:55 today (8 Mar) was 27.3C.
    At 13:50 it was 26.6C.
    At 13:56 it was 26.5C.
    At 1400 it was 26.1C.
    So up 0.7C in five mins, then down 0.8C in 1 minute. The average for those 1o mins would be about 26.4C.
    (All this data will disappear within a day).”

    I have noted the same thing Ian G when watching the local (Manjimup WA) weather station early morning. I have observed temperatures vary by up to 0.4C in a matter of a minute or two .

  12. Siliggy March 9, 2018 at 4:44 pm #

    Hi Ian. On any of the climate data online station temperature data pages click the Australia map up in the top right. “details” then click “basic site info”
    However when you get there you will find it almost information free.

    Was more interested in the change to a modern small Stevenson screen from the old larger one at the airport and if there was an overlap period.
    Here is an interesting question. At what temperature does a 1951 refrigerator explode?

    Also the locals did notice the readings go down when the screen changed in 1907

  13. Rayvic March 9, 2018 at 4:56 pm #

    The ABC cannot claim to be objective on climate change when it consistently censors the views of scientists who maintain that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has not been substantiated when subjected to the scientific method?

    The ABC and the supposed scientists it consults may be considered to be politically correct at best.

  14. Jon Warren March 9, 2018 at 7:14 pm #

    Thankyou Jennifer and to the other replys.

  15. Richard Bennett March 10, 2018 at 1:16 am #

    The BOM’s method of recording 1 second temperature spikes and then taking as being representative of the daily maximum temperature calls for the WMO to disregard such readings as unrepresentative of true daily maximum temperatures. Does the BOM treat daily minimum temperatures in the same way so that record cold daily minima based on a one second low spike are recorded as record lows? I suspect that record low temperatures based on 1 second low spikes are either disregarded or adjusted to a 1 minute average lowest temperature. Whatever the case BOM is discrediting the integrity of genuine meteorologists and clearly the future of the BOM in the WMO must be questioned since there is no place in scientific institutions for charlatans posing as serious reliable scientists.

  16. Ian George March 10, 2018 at 6:05 am #

    Thanks, Siliggy.

    BTW, noticed another ‘spike’ yesterday at Casino.

    3:30pm 26.2C
    3:30pm 25.7C
    Half a degree in the same minute.

  17. Mike Williams March 10, 2018 at 6:59 am #

    Then the only way forward would be to do the testing of the different types of probes as well as old school mercury thermometers and see how different the devices are to each other in regards to readings.
    Perhaps a gofund me program ?
    Regarding the Greens lame Orwellian responses.
    These are the same greens who drive cars, use planes and their homes are connected to the fossil fuel cognitive dissonance there 🙂

  18. hunter March 10, 2018 at 8:05 am #

    The climatocracy belueves they gave sold their apocalyptic claptrap so well that not enough people will care to mske a difference.
    And they sadly may be right.
    But fighting their brazen scam is worth the effort.
    Thank you.

  19. John Nicol March 10, 2018 at 9:28 am #

    Great article yet again Jennifer. I believe that the ramping up of the hysteria is in direct response to the real records of cold weather being experienced in the US, Canada and Northern Europe.

    I am yet to see a report on the ABC, sorry, MY ABC, of the snowfalls which Tim Flannery promised us all twenty years ago, would be gone in five years!!!

  20. Lindsay Little March 10, 2018 at 2:14 pm #

    The Sydney Morning Herald now falls into the same category as the ABC. Headed by Peter Hannam, the Environmental Editor, refuses to acknowledge any discussion points, “only the consensus of opinion”.

  21. Jennifer March 10, 2018 at 2:40 pm #

    Hi Richard Bennett

    Thanks for taking the time to leave a comment.

    I wrote much about the Bureau setting limits on how cold an individual AWS could record temperatures during July and August last year at this blog/website. In short, the Bureau have had a mechanism in place to rounding-up recordings below minus 10 degrees at several sites for over a decade. This was acknowledged, in a round-a-about way in the AWS report that was published by the Bureau last year, in September.

    You can read more about this here:

    Cheers, Jennifer

  22. Russ Wood March 10, 2018 at 10:32 pm #

    Any fine level instrument needs to be checked. As an apprentice, I worked for a while in the engineering company’s metrology (NOT meteorology) unit, where all of the measuring instruments used in engineering production were checked regularly. If the BOM didn’t do a DOCUMENTED comparison check, then why should anyone believe them?

  23. Ian George March 11, 2018 at 10:19 am #

    Don’t worry. NASA GISS has made sure it hasn’t been too cool in the states in Jan.
    I believed one of the Great Lakes froze but you wouldn’t think that from this map.

  24. Ian George March 12, 2018 at 7:23 am #

    Answer to your fridge question – 41.8C.

  25. Allen Ford March 12, 2018 at 10:09 am #

    It is not too difficult to figure out why we are in this mess. I would venture to say that it is because the upper levels of management, all over the place, are occupied by pea brains, with no qualifications to make the claims they do, whether about the climate or any other field involving science or engineering knowledge.

    On a completely different matter, why else would the NSW government suddenly discover that a new fleet of trains, costing $2+ billion, that they have signed a contract for, are too wide to negotiate the 10 tunnels on the Blue Mountains railway line, so they are caught between fudging the numbers in the safety standards to circumvent the fiasco, or closing the very busy line for a period to widen the tunnels?

    It takes a very perverse level of incompetence to make such monumental blunders.

  26. Garry Graham March 24, 2018 at 4:48 pm #

    Perhaps an approach should be made to Senator Bernardi to have the matter debated in Parliament. Of course the Greens are going to obstruct and protect the BoM from scrutiny because they are from the same tribe. It is not just the failure to follow the scientific method that has created this mess, but also the active adulteration of historical records by the BoM. It is unconscionable and indefensible.

    With regard to your comparison of climate alarmism and Christianity, as discussed in your email newsletter, I fear that you are undermining your own credibility. Firstly, you acknowledge that your original assertions were amiss. Secondly, you look at the miracles of Jesus, and in particular, his resurrection, as events that need be verified by repeatable scientific experiment. The point about the resurrection is not whether it is verifiable by experimentation, but whether it actually happened. Certainly rising from the dead is on the surface biologically impossible (but then, not so long ago, organ transplants were considered biologically impossible), however it is recorded as having actually happened. Don’t forget that Jesus was no mere man either, but God incarnate (a spiritual concept that science can have no part in).

    History can rarely be verified by repeatable scientific experiment, but is routinely verified by forensic science. Our legal system is founded upon, and underpinned by, the principles of forensic verification “beyond reasonable doubt”. Murderers are convicted, not by repeating their crime, but relying upon forensic and eyewitness evidence.

    The death of Jesus and his subsequent resurrection have been examined forensically by many great scholars and scientists and have been found to be entirely verified. The evidence that Jesus was dead (the issue of blood mixed with water from his abdomen, for example) is incontrovertible. The testimony of over 500 eye witnesses to his appearance following his resurrection is also incontrovertible from a forensic and legal evidence perspective. The most elementary and essential evidence to verify Jesus’ death and resurrection have been provided.

    To trivialise and mythologise it is disingenuous and undermines your commitment to the veracity of the scientific method to determine truth. Christians do not need to rely on science to verify history, but wherever it can be so verified, the historical record of the Bible is always confirmed. You need not appease nor patronise us on issues of science. Truth is truth and science is but one tool to discover it. Sadly, the BoM and their enablers like the Greens are not interested in either.


  1. Complaint Lodged Against Four Corners' Weather Alert - Jennifer Marohasy - March 13, 2018

    […] last week, I blogged on the issue of the unreliability of the temperature measurements as narrated by Michael Brissenden […]

Website by 46digital