Australia BOM Caught Tampering With Climate Data

Eight degrees of cooling magically disappears. “Temperature records are ‘propaganda’ and not science.”


Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) ordered a review of temperature recording instruments after it was caught tampering with data in several locations.

Meteorologist Lance Pidgeon watched the 13°F Goulburn recording from July 2 disappear from the bureau’s website, says a bombshell article on

“The temperature dropped to minus 10 (13 degrees Fahrenheit), stayed there for some time and then it changed to minus 10.4 (14 degrees Fahrenheit) and then it disappeared,” Pidgeon said, adding that he notified scientist Jennifer Marohasy about the problem, who then brought the readings to the attention of the bureau.

“A similar failure wiped out a reading of 13 degrees Fahrenheit at Thredbo Top on July 16, even though temperatures at that station have been recorded as low as 5.54 degrees Fahrenheit.”

In 2014 the agency was accused of tampering with the country’s temperature record to make it appear as if temperatures had warmed over the decades, according to reports in August 2014.

Marohasey claimed at the time that BOM’s adjusted temperature records are “propaganda” and not science. She analyzed raw temperature data from places across Australia, compared them to BOM data, and found the agency’s data created an artificial warming trend.

Marohasey said BOM adjustments changed Aussie temperature records from a slight cooling trend to one of “dramatic warming” over the past century.

“The BOM admits temperature adjustments are secret and thus completely unscientific,” says “The Australian climate is a national crisis, but the Bureau won’t publish it’s methods in full, aren’t doing basic quality control checks, and can’t employ even one person to answer questions about its secret methods?” umbers/

Thanks to Jimmy Walter, Dean Koehler and Tom0Mason for these links

“Adjusting raw data just to suit the AGW dogma is not science it is FRAUD,” says Tom.

21 thoughts on “Australia BOM Caught Tampering With Climate Data

  1. I hate this sort of nonsense … in particular because there are many statistical analysis methods where making adjustments is a perfectly reasonable thing to do… provided you both say you are doing that and also provide details on how its done.

    For example, I worked where my main responsibility was analyzing death data for about 12 years. Providing age-adjusted death rates is absolutely the best way to do that. But the methods are transparent., easily replicable, and usually a report would include both crude (unadjusted) rates as well as adjusted rates. There are thousands of reports and articles available describing in detail the methodology, and it’s not really rocket science. Basic junior high math will do the trick (I can explain in more detail if anyone is interested).

    In the US the main source of information on how to do that is the National Center for Health Statistics (part of CDC) and internationally WHO also has details on how to do it… because they want to encourage understanding and share information on the right way to do the calculations.

    Normally reports coming out of state or local public health departments with any type of adjusted rates will either have a detailed appendix or glossary with a methods section or will provide references to standard articles on how to do the adjustments and who.

    One can also easily find very good articles on how it’s done which include clear and detailed discussions on why comparing adjusted rates provides information that is better than using crude rates and why. (In a nutshell, it makes for a better comparison when you are comparing rates from two or more places or across populations where the age distribution of the population differs and the risk of death, disease or injury differs across age groups.

    Having a branch of so-called “science” act in secret and hide information about how adjustments are made… destroys credibility among those who provide transparency… and is comparable to burning books!

  2. bom says wev have had 2.2mm rain for the day
    however the “day” isnt actually THE day its listed but the day prior
    not withstanding that crap, they then manage to make the rainfall amt considerable less than whats being recorded by people IN the town
    airport temp station is 1/2 a mile from the locals home gauges

    supposedly a tiny 2.2mm fall ? well my driveway puddle only get to the size it did when weve had 15mm or more, and i was awake and listening to huge deluge at 5am,
    our “dry july”
    when actually looking at prior yrs is ABOVE avg by some 35mm
    BoM is basically a farce.
    no one trusts them to even get the already happened weather correct let alone a 3 day forecast!

  3. Reading Jennifer Marohasy’s comments, the detailed screen shots and other information, the really disturbing point is that the actual measurements are being hacked BEFORE any homogenization or adjustments are made. That is, beginning with not-so-raw data, the BOM then “homogenizes” and “adjusts” the record to a “finished” data set. That means the BOM process has been corrupted from the thermometer to publication. More disturbing, the response of the BOM to earlier inquiries in June invokes “operator intervention” and “expert judgement,” rather than offer a methodological rationale. They invoke the “complexity” of the process and suggest civilians will not be able to understand the data.

    While it has become common place in science to skip a methodological discussion, methodology is fundamental to science. Methodology explains among other things the choices of methods for how data is collected, how it is recorded, how it may converted to a “conventional” data format, how a reader should understand the data, and what the known weaknesses of the chosen methods are. The methodology should make clear WHY the specific methods are employed and if necessary contrast them with alternatives and justify why those alternatives were not employed.

    So for instance in weather data, the record for a given clock cycle may actually start the day before (the BOM specifies a span from 9 AM to 9 AM – IIRC). So the coldest period of the day before may be “carried over” to the next day as well. The methodological trouble there is that the new day may be artificially cooled, which is purely a problem of the chosen method. The same should be true for warm records but apparently no one has been monitoring them for consistency.

    • yeah I have been bitching about that
      the actual 24hr days records COULD be kept factually correct timewise as the damned stations are on AUTOpilot.
      today our max temp was 9.5 at mid arvo
      to FIND that i had to drop into the past 24hr page for the curent days data
      the front page BoM has NO temp maximums for the last THREE days posted where the avg looker will see them!
      being told we got 6 ml rain when the yards flooded and you know it was more like 25mm or and inch just is NOT Factual OR helpful
      in fact lives could be lost due to river rises and inefficient reportage would be the contributing factor in a heavy rainfall event.

  4. Funny thing about this story is that you could replace “Australia BOM” with “NOAA” and the story would still be valid.

    • Possibly, but so far we haven’t actually caught them changing the instrument record itself (altering the actual raw data from a given instrument) BEFORE doing all the other “adjustments.” The critical thing here is that the BOM is “adjusting” previously altered (adjusted) data. That is the kind of behaviour that results in medical studies starring in “Retraction Watch.” This really does appear to be scientific fraud – we can carry on about the money, but in science the information is more important. The BOM is essentially telling people that their results are irreproducible, and they are not offering any apologies either.

  5. Seems that many of the Government Paid Climate Scientist must have read “How to Lie with Statistics” by Darrell Huff. It should be a required High School read and discussion. Read it and you will never look at statistics in the same way. Statistic are only as honest as the person that produced them. Old statistics saying “Torture The Numbers Until They Confess”.

  6. Strangely enough our local radio station during a talk session was discussing this & one other incident like this from a few years ago which surprised me a little, at least our local radio station is not biased towards gullible Warming.

  7. I don’t think Lance Pidgeon is an actual meteorologist, and I don’t believe he claims to be one, so that claim reduces the story’s credibility and ought to be changed.

    The BOM has been doing this for more than a decade – they choose record hot days from the early 20th century, claim they were not measured properly and delete or manipulate them. I heard an ABC radio program years ago where the BOM spokesman said they regarded most of the really hot records of the past were measured in the Sun or were incorrect for some other reason and hence either deleted them or adjusted them down.

    They removed access to the page about the record breaking 1930’s heatwave in Marble Bar.

    Lots of weather stations have been relocated after only a few decades.

    The amount of more subtle global warming stories on Australia’s publicly funded ABC is increasing – hardly a day goes by where the increase in electricity costs isn’t being blamed on NOT switching to renewables – can you believe how they have linked reliable cheap coal fired electricity to more expensive electricity ?

    But every day there is some story about the hottest something or other and climate change.

    Interestingly a few days ago was the 20th anniversary of the Thredbo village landslide which killed many and one survivor spent nearly 3 days trapped under concrete rubble etc.

    The recent video showed a lot of snow on the ground at the village. I remember being surprised in 1997 that there was no snow visible on the ground in the village at the time. Media coverage was extensive at the time so someone should have recorded snow at the village level.

    The ski trails were operating but they regularly announced that they “made” snow cover at the time – the snow fields and conditions used to have their own segment on the TV weather – something I haven’t noticed lately.

    The BOM just claimed July was the hottest on record – surprise surprise.

  8. What do we expect from a government run organisation? Of course they’re going to do an internal investigation. Just like when the ABC (All Bloody Communists) does a self investigation into claims of political bias, they’ll find themselves ‘not-guilty’, declare ‘nothing to see here’ and will probably just find a way to automatically adjust the temperatures to ensure they don’t get caught out again.
    It think it’s time we crowd fund for some independent temperature measurements to verify the BOM’s data, because apparently the ‘scientists’ who work their care so little about data integrity that they’ll happily fudge the figures.
    When we look back on this period in history, everyone will just agree that none of the ‘historical data’ from the past 20 years can be trusted, whether it’s due to incompetence or to malicious tampering.

    • . . . . . just to be clear the nature of the equation for calculating averages means that it is the two extreme values that have the most dramatic effect on the final number, in this case the highest temp for the year/ month and the lowest. Therefore omitting the lowest temp will give you the best bang for your manipulation buck.

  9. Thanks Rosco.
    I have met and chatted to Rosco several times via mail. You know me a this site too! There is an Australian Joke about being a Bush lawyer. The Australian called me a bush meteoroligist. What it means in our lingo is NOT QUALIFIED. I am a radio technician. Studied electronics. Just a dedicated skeptic Lance Pidgeon = Siliggy

  10. This part is not quiet right either “The temperature dropped to minus 10 (13 degrees Fahrenheit), stayed there for some time and then it changed to minus 10.4 (14 degrees Fahrenheit) and then it disappeared,” Pidgeon said, adding that he notified scientist Jennifer Marohasy about the problem, who then brought the readings to the attention of the bureau.”
    What happened was that it got down to -10.4 then the BoM systems displayed that for a while but changed to showing -10 for about a day then it dissapeared. Then the story hit the media and it came back as -10.4

  11. The BOM does say they also censor unexpectedly high temperatures in the automated record, but don’t seem to offer any instances. Since there is no methodological framework offered, and the BOM also invokes “operator intervention” and “expert judgement,” you can imagine that individual or theoretical bias might step in and treat unusual highs more considerately than unexpected lows.

Comments are closed.