'Changing received evidence to fit a preferred storyline' is what the author of this article accuses the BoM of, but in fact it is her habitual game. Jennifer have you read the BoM's response to your allegations?
https://theconversation.com/no-the-bureau-of-meteorology-is-not-fiddling-its-weather-data-31009

The data is on their website for all to check but as most wouldn't have time to do that, this article summarizes BoM's response. It states:
'(BoM's) data on extreme temperature trends show that the warming trend across the whole of Australia looks bigger when you don’t homogenise the data than when you do"

It shows two maps of frequency of hot days using the homogenised and the original data that illustrate this clearly.

Masquerading behind a PHd makes your game the more reprehensible. I would defend your right to air your opinion, but opinion is all it is and more akin to prostitution than science.You are in league with deniers Lloyd and Murdoch's "The Australian" using the dark old trick of throwing manure (sowing doubt) and hoping some of it will stick. But I think most readers are awake to that by now.

As a layman tax-payer, may I suggest that Ms Marohasy's et al accusations cannot remain unaddressed by Minister Greg Hunt. Independent investigators should not have had to 'read between the lines' to assess the BoM taxpayer-funded work: that work should have been completely transparent. Now, our BoM must candidly and completely show their hand and answer all responsible inquiries. In the name of universal scientific progress, what could our BoM have to hide from the world?

Nit-picking over miniscule statistical details is surely a sign of the denialists desperation, Blind Freddy can see the climate is changing and the harder they scrabble in the detritus the more ludicrous they reveal themselves to be.

Data is also homogenised to remove the (warming) bias of the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect - is anyone complaining about that?

Jardine, you obviously don't know what AdHom is, but I am not surprised given your history.

Thank you for an excellent post Jennifer. Any corruption of the data is a terrible reflection of the BOM. It is unfortunate that an institution such as this should become involved in tacky climate politics.

I can't believe anyone is too dumb to see that all the smoke from the continual "adjustment" of data by the global warming fraternity is not coming from a fire of lies. Any conclusion drawn from such bastardised data can be no better than a scam.

I guess the only question is which ones can see some personal benefit in the scam, & those who don't. Obviously those in favor of the lies believe they will be among the elite to profit from world government by the UN or similar cesspit.