Guilty of Agreeing to Meet with Scott Pruitt

SCOTT Pruitt heads the US Environmental Protection Agency. Last year he was planning to visit Australia, and the proposed agenda did include a two-hour roundtable with me and colleagues from three Australian universities.

Some of this is reported today in The Guardian.

Along with the inference I’m a nutter – because I have accused the Bureau of Meteorology of corrupting the temperature record.

The Australian public do have much confidence in the Bureau, as they have in the past had confidence in the Commonwealth Bank, Catholic Church – even the Australian cricket captain.

In the case of the banks and the churches, ordinary Australians were complaining for years before any action was taken. Now, the authorities are asking how could we have been so-misled for so long? Why was nothing done sooner – and why was the mounting evidence of wrong-doing ignored.

For some years I have been asking for an open, honest and independent inquiry into the operations of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. In 2015, I wrote to the Auditor-General of Australia suggesting a performance audit with terms of reference to include: consistency with its own policies, and reliability of methodology. At the time my primary concern was the remodelling of temperature data through a process known as homogenisation.

In response, it was suggested I direct my concerns to Dr Ron Sandland AM, who at that time was chairing a Technical Advisory Forum to review these same issues, that I had previously raised with then Minister for the Environment, Hon. Greg Hunt MP. It was already clear to me that Dr Sandland and his team were undertaking a most cursory review and not working through a single example of homogenisation. I nevertheless made a submission to Dr Sandland’s Forum that has never been acknowledged.

As I detailed in a letter sent just this morning to Australia’s Chief Scientist, Alan Finkel, my issues continue to be less with the actual policies, protocols and best practice manuals already in place, but with increasing evidence these are being systematically ignored. This is exactly the issue that the current Royal Commission is finding with the banks – because it is not believing the documentation, but actually working through examples and establishing what happens in practice.

The Guardian would do well to consider my evidence closely – to stop parroting assurances from Bureau chief, Andrew Johnson, and work through an example of how data is remodelled.

I could detail many other areas of operation in which the Bureau blatantly and systematically disregards its own specific and correct policies.

The one issue that I detailed for Alan Finkel is the way temperatures are currently measured in automatic weather stations by electronic probes. This goes to the heart of the integrity and reliability of temperature measurements recorded by the Bureau, subsequently homogenised, and incorporated into international databases – including those relied upon by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

I may have raised exactly this issue with Scott Pruitt. He would have been arriving in Australia in September, at about the same time that the Bureau handed down an internal review in which it admitted to having set limits on how cold temperatures could be recorded at both Goulburn and Thredbo in south eastern Australia.

When I first detailed the evidence for this at my blog in early July – I was considered a nutter by many. But after Alan Jones interviewed me on radio 2GB, and despite the Bureau strenuously denying it was setting limits, Environment Minister The Hon. Josh Freydenberg MP did asked for a review of the operations of the Bureau’s automatic weather stations.

On 7th September, just as the report was published, the Minister phoned me to let me know that the Bureau’s internal investigations confirmed that Goulburn and Thredbo were the only sites where temperature records had been affected by the inability of some Bureau automatic weather stations to read low temperatures… limits had indeed been set.

What are the chances? Of the Bureau’s 563 weather stations, I had stumbled across the only two with problems.

Guardian reporters like Adam Morton may continue to be dismissive and suggest those who doubt, including Scott Pruitt and me, are fools. But the real fools are those who fail to see that climate science falls well short of Popperian standards, rather engaging in all manner of tactics to defend absurd practices as detailed in my letter this morning to Alan Finkel. Indeed, it very much resembles the model of scientists behaving badly as described by Paul Feyerabend.

It is unfortunate that Scott Pruitt had to cancel his visit to Australia when Hurricane Harvey hit the Texas gulf coast – but the evidence against the Bureau for corrupting the temperature record remains.

Jennifer Marohasy visiting the automatic weather station at Goulburn in late July 2017.

10 Responses to Guilty of Agreeing to Meet with Scott Pruitt

  1. Pathway May 5, 2018 at 11:33 am #

    Love your scientific work. If you’re a nutter then I’m a nutter, as well.

  2. spangled drongo May 6, 2018 at 2:59 pm #

    Thanks for your continuing determination with these idiots, Jen.

    In virtually any other situation of bureaucracy not being scrupulously open in dealing with the public, the Groaner as well as all MSM would go into melt down but when these groupthinkers consider you are being in any way critical of their religion of CAGW you will come in for whatever insults they can get away with.

    You will have the last laugh.

  3. James May 6, 2018 at 4:25 pm #

    Keep up your good work Jennifer, ignore their insults for that is is all they can do since the are too scared to have a debate about the issues you raise.

  4. Max Eastcott May 7, 2018 at 1:43 pm #

    There are many who have every confidence in you Jennifer

  5. John Robertson May 7, 2018 at 3:26 pm #

    Thank you Jennifer. There could not be a finer Australian representative to meet the head of the US EPA.

    Your indefatigable work is beyond praise.

    John Robertson

  6. wal1957 May 7, 2018 at 4:44 pm #

    We hear of so many stories about ‘nutters’ who decry climate change or the severity of our contribution and are abused for it. Keep up the good work Jennifer. It is much appreciated.

    I was just reading recently about Judith Curry. She was verbally abused for basically questioning the theory. It is one of the many reasons she quit her position of Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
    She also has problems with the ‘science’ of global warming.

    Bad science is bad science. Even if you accept the premise of global warming, nobody can prove how much, or how little is man made. To my little mind it seems to be common sense that the world cools and warms in cycles, and is a natural event.

    Do they really think anything that man does can overcome what mother nature has in store for us? Are they really that egotistical?

  7. Dave May 8, 2018 at 9:20 am #

    Thanks Jennifer. Just like the banks etc, they don’t want to know.
    You’re over the target and the name calling is all they have left.

  8. hunter May 13, 2018 at 7:42 pm #

    Stay the course. The climate consensus is a reactionary brutish mob. But facts are pesky things, and thee facts are with skeptics in general and you in particular.

  9. Vernon Goddard May 16, 2018 at 5:45 pm #

    It is very easy to use labels which impact the integrity of an individual without ever dealing with facts or evidence. I note the everyday use of terms like …..racist, alt right, left winger etc etc which decry and undermine a person’s standing without ever engaging in the arguments or debate that person is promoting. The use of the term…..nutter….is such an abuse. Although difficult to counter the simplicity and stupidity of this kind of attack, thank goodness you continue to state the case arising from your data.

    Please continue your work even though there may be times when it seems too difficult a task. There are a growing number of scientists and others, beginning to question the broad and over simplistic claims of the Global Warming Theorists.

    You have a good day……

  10. David Wall May 17, 2018 at 5:40 am #

    You are not a nutter,rather a voice crying in the wilderness.Time will tell in your father.
    David Wall.

Website by 46digital