Topic: Shutdown of Australian Bureau of Meteorology Weather Observations Website (WOW)

[Cods]

Just received this today.
Wasn't sure the best place to put it - feel free to suggest where it might go better.
________________

Weather Observation Website update

You are receiving this email as a registered user of the Bureau of Meteorology
Weather Observations Website (WOW Australia), a UK Met Office service.

Due to low usage, the Bureau is ending our agreement with the UK Met Office to host this service.

From 2 January 2025, WOW Australia won’t be available at bom-wow.metoffice.gov.uk.

Registered users who wish to continue using the service to view observation data will need to use the UK website at wow.metoffice.gov.uk. Uploading of weather station data will continue unchanged via the UK Met Office API.
Visit the UK Met Office WOW

[Mattk]

  Maybe all the extra private station temperature data was conflicting with the manipulated and homogenized temperatures BOM have been pushing to justify their agenda ... just saying   

[Cods]

BOM is pretty accurate where I am, compared to my measurements, not really sure what you're getting at?

[Mattk]

BOM is pretty accurate where I am, compared to my measurements, not really sure what you're getting at?

The complete homogenization and manipulation of historical temperature records to the effect of basically increasing average temperatures of stations based on stations 100's of km away which showed the required trend, that is up, removal of recorded maximum recorded temps from the records in order to create "new" max records, the fixing of sensors not to read below -10 Deg C, sensor settings that fixed the max temp over a few seconds as opposed to the WMO 10 minute standard. The requirement was to make out the temperature is increasing to suit the narrative       

[Cods]

The complete homogenization and manipulation of historical temperature records to the effect of basically increasing average temperatures of stations based on stations 100's of km away which showed the required trend, that is up, removal of recorded maximum recorded temps from the records in order to create "new" max records, the fixing of sensors not to read below -10 Deg C, sensor settings that fixed the max temp over a few seconds as opposed to the WMO 10 minute standard. The requirement was to make out the temperature is increasing to suit the narrative       

Ah, gotcha, you're one of those guys, thanks for self-identifying so clearly, much obliged!

[Mattk]

The complete homogenization and manipulation of historical temperature records to the effect of basically increasing average temperatures of stations based on stations 100's of km away which showed the required trend, that is up, removal of recorded maximum recorded temps from the records in order to create "new" max records, the fixing of sensors not to read below -10 Deg C, sensor settings that fixed the max temp over a few seconds as opposed to the WMO 10 minute standard. The requirement was to make out the temperature is increasing to suit the narrative       

Ah, gotcha, you're one of those guys, thanks for self-identifying so clearly, much obliged!

So you for or against the actual facts 

[hofpwx]

The complete homogenization and manipulation of historical temperature records to the effect of basically increasing average temperatures of stations based on stations 100's of km away which showed the required trend, that is up, removal of recorded maximum recorded temps from the records in order to create "new" max records, the fixing of sensors not to read below -10 Deg C, sensor settings that fixed the max temp over a few seconds as opposed to the WMO 10 minute standard. The requirement was to make out the temperature is increasing to suit the narrative       

Ah, gotcha, you're one of those guys, thanks for self-identifying so clearly, much obliged!

So you for or against the actual facts 

Climate change is just an artifact of numerical manipulation? If only that were true.

[Mattk]

Denial in regard BOM manipulating of Temperature data is fine, gee even BOM denied that as well until BOM's own people blew the whistle  But in any case there were some who was already onto the manipulation and homogenization to essentially provide a misrepresentation of the historical data and anybody who denies this has it real bad. The background and why anybody would want to distort the facts can not be ignored https://ipa.org.au/ipa-today/jennifer-marohasys-top-ten-hits-on-bom-homogenisation

 

[hofpwx]

Denial in regard BOM manipulating of Temperature data is fine, gee even BOM denied that as well until BOM's own people blew the whistle  But in any case there were some who was already onto the manipulation and homogenization to essentially provide a misrepresentation of the historical data and anybody who denies this has it real bad. The background and why anybody would want to distort the facts can not be ignored https://ipa.org.au/ipa-today/jennifer-marohasys-top-ten-hits-on-bom-homogenisation

Where's her peer-reviewed article?

[Mattk]

Denial in regard BOM manipulating of Temperature data is fine, gee even BOM denied that as well until BOM's own people blew the whistle  But in any case there were some who was already onto the manipulation and homogenization to essentially provide a misrepresentation of the historical data and anybody who denies this has it real bad. The background and why anybody would want to distort the facts can not be ignored https://ipa.org.au/ipa-today/jennifer-marohasys-top-ten-hits-on-bom-homogenisation

Where's her peer-reviewed article?

Where's yours  The good old peer review thrust when being selective doesn't cut it  The next good one is the 97% of scientists ....... Anyway denial of the facts and being selective of the facts doesn't make one a source of truth with peer review being abused and recognized as a flawed process in that science should be rooted in belief, with reviews based on faith rather than facts.         

[hofpwx]

Denial in regard BOM manipulating of Temperature data is fine, gee even BOM denied that as well until BOM's own people blew the whistle  But in any case there were some who was already onto the manipulation and homogenization to essentially provide a misrepresentation of the historical data and anybody who denies this has it real bad. The background and why anybody would want to distort the facts can not be ignored https://ipa.org.au/ipa-today/jennifer-marohasys-top-ten-hits-on-bom-homogenisation

Where's her peer-reviewed article?

Where's yours  The good old peer review thrust when being selective doesn't cut it  The next good one is the 97% of scientists ....... Anyway denial of the facts and being selective of the facts doesn't make one a source of truth with peer review being abused and recognized as a flawed process in that science should be rooted in belief, with reviews based on faith rather than facts.       

So, no peer-reviewed article. Until she has one, she's just not credible.

[Mattk]

Denial in regard BOM manipulating of Temperature data is fine, gee even BOM denied that as well until BOM's own people blew the whistle  But in any case there were some who was already onto the manipulation and homogenization to essentially provide a misrepresentation of the historical data and anybody who denies this has it real bad. The background and why anybody would want to distort the facts can not be ignored https://ipa.org.au/ipa-today/jennifer-marohasys-top-ten-hits-on-bom-homogenisation

Where's her peer-reviewed article?

Where's yours  The good old peer review thrust when being selective doesn't cut it  The next good one is the 97% of scientists ....... Anyway denial of the facts and being selective of the facts doesn't make one a source of truth with peer review being abused and recognized as a flawed process in that science should be rooted in belief, with reviews based on faith rather than facts.       

So, no peer-reviewed article. Until she has one, she's just not credible.

You are going to have to do a lot better than that, credibility  I suppose you think an organisation that manipulates data, denies manipulating data, then has to admit to manipulating data is creditable, your approach is typically what is called selective deniability.

Anyway the facts are out there if you actually want to understand the facts, but somehow I doubt that one has to wonder where all those who believed in the flat earth society obtained their thinking from           

[hofpwx]

Denial in regard BOM manipulating of Temperature data is fine, gee even BOM denied that as well until BOM's own people blew the whistle  But in any case there were some who was already onto the manipulation and homogenization to essentially provide a misrepresentation of the historical data and anybody who denies this has it real bad. The background and why anybody would want to distort the facts can not be ignored https://ipa.org.au/ipa-today/jennifer-marohasys-top-ten-hits-on-bom-homogenisation

Where's her peer-reviewed article?

Where's yours  The good old peer review thrust when being selective doesn't cut it  The next good one is the 97% of scientists ....... Anyway denial of the facts and being selective of the facts doesn't make one a source of truth with peer review being abused and recognized as a flawed process in that science should be rooted in belief, with reviews based on faith rather than facts.       

So, no peer-reviewed article. Until she has one, she's just not credible.

You are going to have to do a lot better than that, credibility  I suppose you think an organisation that manipulates data, denies manipulating data, then has to admit to manipulating data is creditable, your approach is typically what is called selective deniability.
Anyway the facts are out there if you actually want to understand the facts, but somehow I doubt that one has to wonder where all those who believed in the flat earth society obtained their thinking from   

Meanwhile, the climate changes and because of us. How does it know it's all just manipulation?

[Mattk]

Denial in regard BOM manipulating of Temperature data is fine, gee even BOM denied that as well until BOM's own people blew the whistle  But in any case there were some who was already onto the manipulation and homogenization to essentially provide a misrepresentation of the historical data and anybody who denies this has it real bad. The background and why anybody would want to distort the facts can not be ignored https://ipa.org.au/ipa-today/jennifer-marohasys-top-ten-hits-on-bom-homogenisation

Where's her peer-reviewed article?

Where's yours  The good old peer review thrust when being selective doesn't cut it  The next good one is the 97% of scientists ....... Anyway denial of the facts and being selective of the facts doesn't make one a source of truth with peer review being abused and recognized as a flawed process in that science should be rooted in belief, with reviews based on faith rather than facts.       

So, no peer-reviewed article. Until she has one, she's just not credible.

You are going to have to do a lot better than that, credibility  I suppose you think an organisation that manipulates data, denies manipulating data, then has to admit to manipulating data is creditable, your approach is typically what is called selective deniability.
Anyway the facts are out there if you actually want to understand the facts, but somehow I doubt that one has to wonder where all those who believed in the flat earth society obtained their thinking from   

Meanwhile, the climate changes and because of us. How does it know it's all just manipulation?

Then why mess with the actual, original and raw data in the first place? Lets not confuse one with the other, lets not change the baseline data to fit with and reflect an expectation, lets not change actual cooling trends into heating trends, let the actual data talk for itself instead of meeting a perceived number based on cherry picking selective data ranges and leaving out date ranges which don't fit with the agenda 

[hofpwx]

Denial in regard BOM manipulating of Temperature data is fine, gee even BOM denied that as well until BOM's own people blew the whistle  But in any case there were some who was already onto the manipulation and homogenization to essentially provide a misrepresentation of the historical data and anybody who denies this has it real bad. The background and why anybody would want to distort the facts can not be ignored https://ipa.org.au/ipa-today/jennifer-marohasys-top-ten-hits-on-bom-homogenisation

Where's her peer-reviewed article?

Where's yours  The good old peer review thrust when being selective doesn't cut it  The next good one is the 97% of scientists ....... Anyway denial of the facts and being selective of the facts doesn't make one a source of truth with peer review being abused and recognized as a flawed process in that science should be rooted in belief, with reviews based on faith rather than facts.       

So, no peer-reviewed article. Until she has one, she's just not credible.

You are going to have to do a lot better than that, credibility  I suppose you think an organisation that manipulates data, denies manipulating data, then has to admit to manipulating data is creditable, your approach is typically what is called selective deniability.
Anyway the facts are out there if you actually want to understand the facts, but somehow I doubt that one has to wonder where all those who believed in the flat earth society obtained their thinking from   

Meanwhile, the climate changes and because of us. How does it know it's all just manipulation?

Then why mess with the actual, original and raw data in the first place? Lets not confuse one with the other, lets not change the baseline data to fit with and reflect an expectation, lets not change actual cooling trends into heating trends, let the actual data talk for itself instead of meeting a perceived number based on cherry picking selective data ranges and leaving out date ranges which don't fit with the agenda

That's what climate change contrarians do. Cherry pick out the wazoo.

[Mattk]

So what does the brains trust think the purpose of manipulating actual data achieves?   

[hofpwx]

So what does the brains trust think the purpose of manipulating actual data achieves?

When she submits her work for peer review (anything since 2019?) things can go from there. Allegations on a right-wing think-tank are a long ways from credible.
In the bigger picture, hasn't the Watts-ian "global warming is just an artifact of nefarious manipulation" narrative run its course by now?

[Mattk]

So what does the brains trust think the purpose of manipulating actual data achieves?

When she submits her work for peer review (anything since 2019?) things can go from there. Allegations on a right-wing think-tank are a long ways from credible.
In the bigger picture, hasn't the Watts-ian "global warming is just an artifact of nefarious manipulation" narrative run its course by now?

This was the question

..... So what does the brains trust think the purpose of manipulating actual data achieves?

I take it you don't have an answer and unable to explain why BOM had to manipulate the real data. The manipulation is not the question, that actually happened, that is fact, BOM has admitted to that, what we need from the brains trust are the reasons why the real data needed to be modified to produce an entirely different trend 

[hofpwx]

So what does the brains trust think the purpose of manipulating actual data achieves?

When she submits her work for peer review (anything since 2019?) things can go from there. Allegations on a right-wing think-tank are a long ways from credible.
In the bigger picture, hasn't the Watts-ian "global warming is just an artifact of nefarious manipulation" narrative run its course by now?

This was the question

..... So what does the brains trust think the purpose of manipulating actual data achieves?

I take it you don't have an answer and unable to explain why BOM had to manipulate the real data. The manipulation is not the question, that actually happened, that is fact, BOM has admitted to that, what we need from the brains trust are the reasons why the real data needed to be modified to produce an entirely different trend 

Any updates since 2019?

[Mattk]

 @hofpwx Now getting to that stage where either you are in denial or simply don't/won't and can't handle the question that was put to you  Come on help those of us out who are wondering why one would want to take the actual and observed data and reprocess that into a new data set in order to achieve some perceived agenda. Can you address the question or not? 

[hofpwx]

@hofpwx Now getting to that stage where either you are in denial or simply don't/won't and can't handle the question that was put to you  Come on help those of us out who are wondering why one would want to take the actual and observed data and reprocess that into a new data set in order to achieve some perceived agenda. Can you address the question or not?

Let’s see something more than pejorative claims on a right-wing think-tank blog. The credibility level from that is zero.

[Mattk]

@hofpwx Obviously don't have any substance and unable to respond or provide any explanation to what should have been an easy question for one so embroiled in the manipulation of weather data to justify an agenda. Your case is closed but feel free to come back and provide substance when you have well-grounded and supportable evidence   

[hofpwx]

@hofpwx Obviously don't have any substance and unable to respond or provide any explanation to what should have been an easy question for one so embroiled in the manipulation of weather data to justify an agenda. Your case is closed but feel free to come back and provide substance when you have well-grounded and supportable evidence 

Right back atcha. Allegations 5+ years old on some right-wing think-tank are not "well-grounded and supportable evidence".
Meanwhile, 2024 almost *cannot* be the warmest year on record. Curious. Why?

[Mapantz]

@hofpwx Obviously don't have any substance and unable to respond or provide any explanation to what should have been an easy question for one so embroiled in the manipulation of weather data to justify an agenda. Your case is closed but feel free to come back and provide substance when you have well-grounded and supportable evidence 

You lost badly when you posted that IPA link.

[Mattk]

@hofpwx Obviously don't have any substance and unable to respond or provide any explanation to what should have been an easy question for one so embroiled in the manipulation of weather data to justify an agenda. Your case is closed but feel free to come back and provide substance when you have well-grounded and supportable evidence 

You lost badly when you posted that IPA link.

It's understandable in the current climate (pun intended) some don't do facts real well at all, actually some don't do opinions real well at all either.

So is anybody willing to deny BOM didn't manipulate the actual data to achieve a different trending outcome? And without any further diversions on the facts the simple answer would be one of YES they did or NO they didn't