Sometimes it does look as though BoM has a hard sell on its hands. For example on ABC Landline it pointed to unusual warmth for SE Australia on Sept 14. See 1.22 into
http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2015/s4320309.htm
Never mind the fact it has been cool the rest of the month.

However I accept the conclusion there is an overall warming trend and that we should prepare for bad outcomes. BoM tells us that a year worse than 1998 will happen and I believe it, whether it is 2015 or some other year. The fact this winter was unusually cold I take to be a sign that something is awry with the climate.

No, there is no warming trend. Hasn't been for 18 years and eight months.

The warming scare began in the mid-1970s, when the previous "cooling trend" scare became untenable. It lasted only until the late 1990s. The promoters of anthropogenic global warming didn't predict the current period of slight cooling. Thus BoM's attempts to "adjust" - ever upwards - the temperature record.

And the many thousands of predictions of various forms of catastrophe, large and small, have failed to eventuate.

You don't need to be a "climate scientist" to recognise that the whole confection has been a scam.

The BoM is a discgracefully inept department that cannot get the daily weather forecast right far too often. It certainly has to be ignored in matters of climate change, as does Minister Hunt, who will be able to now fully reveal his Left wing warmist beliefs under fellow Left wing warmist fool, Malcolm Turnbull.

Greg Hunt killed the review because it was politically motivated.
As the author knows it easy to spread doubt with laymen. As the authors knows the temp data maintained by the ABM, follows best practices methods and is reviewed by its peers.

Anthony Sharwood was correct in asking the Author about motivations. The fact that the Author has pointed to so called climate-gate is telling.

One of tactics of skeptical interest groups is to put up endless requests for data. This is a tactic for example used by anti-evolutionist asking government uni's to present their data . It takes time a resources to put the information together and when you know that the group your sending the data to, will not actually use it eventually you star saying no. This is essentially what climate-gate was about.

To the author the paper you link to is unfortunately behind a pay wall, so T haven't read. I'm not a climate scientist but I do have a good understand data analysis. I also know to use methods that have strong support by peers in the industry.

In the academic world I guess that would equate to how many times your paper has been cited, are you able to tell us if any groups have cited your paper to "improve" their temp data cleaning methods.

Cobber (Part 1).

I've published lots of examples showing that what the BoM actually do when they 'adjust' is not consistent with their own policies. Much of this is at my website www.jennifermarohasy.com . It is not rocket science, try working through an example at one of my recent blog posts.

Then there are my publications, the one you refer to does not detail a new methodology. But I start this process in a book chapter to be published next year by Elsevier.

The book chapter ran to more than 7,000 words, so I had to delete the final 11 recommendations. I am going to have to incorporate these into a new publication, but I will list some here.

... Except when I just tried to, I'm again up against a word limit. So, I shall have to make this two posts...

Cobber (Part 2)

My first two recommendations, that refer to the content of the upcoming book chapter...

1. Acknowledge that datasets currently used worldwide to report climate variability and change are not intended to be accurate historical representations. Rather these datasets are weighted means based on remodeled approximations, with the objective of demonstrating global warming as a simple linear trend. Adjustments made to individual temperature series, for example the Deniliquin ACORN-SAT record, are propagated backwards in time, Figure 11. This is a different category of change to correcting for outliers caused by transcription errors, etcetera, and should not be confused with traditional quality control.

2. Acknowledge that the current tendency to report temperature change as a single linear trend, generally reported as a change in degrees Celsius per century, is unlikely to provide an accurate description of climate variability and change. This is because temperature series worldwide show distinct cycles of warming and cooling at shorter intervals. For example, the maximum temperature series for Echuca on the Murray River shows four distinct cycles of 26, 21, 21 and 25 years duration, respectively, since 1914, Figure 8. These cycles correspond with years of drought and flood which are broadly synchronous with changes in temperature patterns across the Pacific Ocean...

More to come. Consider subscribing for my updates at my website.

And thanks for taking an interest.