Poirot, Tony, DavidK,
What would you accept as disproving your beliefs in support of global warming policy?

Assuming that all issues of climatology were conceded in your favour - (which they aren't, but just supposing):
- how have you established that the ecological consequences of AGW would be worse rather than better? How have you compared the human evaluations of the status quo you want to change, to the situation you want to achieve? Show your workings.
- how have you established that your policy proposal will produce a net benefit, rather than a net detriment, in terms of the human evaluations of all affected persons now and as far into the future as you claim to be concerned with. Show your workings.

Bill does not have an issue with anything.

It is just a fact that $3000 for a retired someone without a research grant, to publish something that ought be in the public-domain; is a lot of money.

It is also just a fact that the peer review process for ACORN was shallow.

BoM have now scurried out to their archives, and dedicated a whole web-page saying I was right in the first place.

As my analysis has shown, Rutherglen's met-lawn DID move; ACORN was wrong; and the referees did not look thoroughly at any data; just at the process involved in polishing it. And yes I have looked at many of CAWCR glossies, and I am aware of Blair Trewin's publication record.

Its also true that as soon as someone as much coughs about BoM, out pops a professor from Melbourne Uni; then someone from UNSW; then from BoM; then more; like the deluge of dataless opinion expressed here; then .... It's so predictable.

At the bottom of the vegie patch, still sits the Rutherglen conundrum.

If you also accept BoM's recent revelations, and analyse Rutherglen's ACORN minimum temperature each side of the data-break; you will find no valid trend. It is of course INVALID to analyse for trend in data that contains an inhomogeneity.

Instead of checking my spelling, which I did get wrong, perhaps agronomist needs to go back to agronomy-kinder and learn about data analysis and climate. Some others clearly need to go out to the archives more often.

If there was no need to change the site data for Rutherglen, it should have been left alone. The same is true for a growing list of ACORN stations.

If Rutherglen caused all the fuss it did after it hit; I guess BoM and the professors may eventually need to save-up and buy a huge new fan. I saw the blade for one on a truck near Cooma today that'ed do nicely.

Dr. Bill

I have read the Bureau's statement at the following location.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/rutherglen/rutherglen-station.shtml

The report states that earlier during homogenization of Rutherglen data, the statistical processes detected an artificial jump in temperature records prior to 1966. Statistical processes then adjusted for that jump. The output of that process remains in the ACORN data base. The bureau's report then details the search for records showing a movement of the recording equipment. They indicate possible movement, but no definitive statement was found.

The main "take" from my reading of the report was that the Bureau's statistical processes successfully found and corrected for a station move. The data for Ruthergen still remains in the ACORN set. No fault in the data has been found. The only problem is that categoric documentation on the time and reason for the move has not been found. The absence of such documentation does not, in my mind, affect the legitimacy of the homogenised Rutherglen data.

But, I must record a potential conflict of interest. I worked at the Bureau for 12 years during the 70's and early 80's, working in IT with meteorologists and scientists. Such a great bunch of colleagues, all committed to providing a great service to the public. That climate change deniers should push and push and push to denigrate a great staff, for political reasons, is reprehensible.

PS: and I enjoyed going to a Stevenson screen and doing an occasional midnight (or there abouts) temperature reading, often in the minus 20s and 30s and howling blizzard, while working as an auroral physicist at Mawson for a year

Scanning through all of this I can see a lot of back slapping and justifications.

I see that Tony, an ex-BOM employee, and others, feels that the BOM are justified in homogenising Rutherglen.

And I think its great that DavidK and Blair and others can bring themselves to almost discuss the data for Rutherglen at this thread… even if Blair can't quite bring himself to post under his real name.

But still in the end, can anyone of you in plain english sum-up in a paragraph or less why you feel a paddock move justified changing what was a cooling trend in the minimum temperature series of 0.35 degree C per century into a warming tend of 1.73 degree C per century at Rutherglen.

Because after all the handwaving and back slapping this is what has been done: a warming bias has been created in a temperature series where none previously existed.

I admire all data-collectors; even myself.

This debate has has become a farce, well beyond data per se.

It never was about homogenisation; it was about changing data for a particular site.

ACORN said the site, out in the open, never moved. Read: a perfect long-term site. They are wrong.

By their own description it should have been a perfect reference site. But it's data got changed.

The change showed warming, whereas the data did not. (Which words do you not understand?)

Irrespective of measuring the weather at Wagga Wagga or Mawson; the complexity of homogenisation is a crock.

If individual datasets do, or do-not, statistically indicate the need for adjustment, they should remain unadjusted.

Alternatively, 'homogenisation' should only be applied to data known to be faulty. It seems there are no un-faulty datasets.

Agronomist should get in-touch with his/her brain and think about that!

Like the monster is to Loch Ness; existent still, is the Rutherglen conundrum!

Cheers,

Dr Bil

Jennifer,

It would be helpful if you, Stockwell and Bill wrote a paper citing the "corruption" and try to get it published in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Statistics, for starters.

Surely you can find the $3000 fee, even if Bill can't.

I doubt Blair has your online opinion on his radar screen, Jennifer.