All posts by Bill Johnston

2026 Murray-Darling Basin Review

The 2026 Murray-Darling Basin Plan statutory review

The Murray Darling Basin Plan is not Sustainable

The Murray Mouth (1910 photograph of an early map. State Library of South Australia).

Summary

The Murray-Darling Basin Plan, enacted under Australia’s 2007 Water Act, aims to manage water sustainably across this semi-arid region but faces profound challenges. The $13billion water buybacks used to flood forests and irrigate the Southern Ocean is a monumental travesty. Models apportion a larger share of natural flows to the environment post-1996—“ghost water” that was not be provided by rainfall. Inconsistent baselines add to the chaos. The Basin’s boom-bust cycles have been ignored to imply a “garden of Eden” construct. Maintaining that narrative has usurped the productive use of water for agriculture and communities. By sidestepping Section 100 of the Australian Constitution, WWF, Robert Purves, the Purves Environmental Fund and their Wentworth Group monetised a billion-dollar asset class “out of thin air”—a heist of monumental proportions.

Constrained by Ramsar-listed wetlands and the Barmah Choke, demands of the southern-Basin’s corporate almond and nut industry in summer, and unrealistic legislated environmental flows are limited by the system’s capacity.

As rainfall returns to its longer-term trajectory, without aggressively buying more high-security water from irrigators via the market they created, the Plan simply cannot work. The debacle can only end by repealing the undemocratic 2007 Water Act and reinstating Constitutional rights.

The Murray Mouth and the Coorong in the 1930s (photographer: Smith, D. Darian, State Library of South Australia).

The full report is available here: [Link]

Download the 2026 Report Data package – including for Tambo post office [here]

The 2010 Murray-Darling Basin Plan Review

2010 Murray-Darling Plan Review

Dr W.H. (Bill) Johnston

scientist@bomwatch.com.au

In light of ongoing climate variability and renewed rainfall replenishing Basin storages, Dr. Johnston urges caution in adopting sweeping regulatory plans grounded heavily in modelling and selective science. His comprehensive review suggests that the MDB’s ecosystems are inherently resilient, that hydrological variation is natural and cyclical, and that water management must balance ecological integrity with social and economic sustainability.

Paddle steamer “Tarella” at Swan Reach, on the Murray River in 1917 (State Library of South Australia).

Keywords

sustainable water use; ecological resilience and adaption; rainfall cycles and variability; ecological misinformation; environmental alarmism; data-free faulty models; science vs politics; agricultural and community harm; WWF; The Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists; Purves Environmental Fund; institutionalised CSIRO bias

Summary

  1. The Scientific Basis of the Plan lacks credibility: The Plan relies on biased, speculative modelling rather than empirical data, particularly unfounded projections of ecological collapse. Reports cited in the Plan are are based on “guesswork,” especially those using pre-European (1770) conditions as a baseline—conditions for which no data exists. Natural cycles of drought and flood have historically shaped the Basin’s ecology, and irrigation infrastructure has mitigated drought severity, contrary to claims of mismanagement.
  2. Political Motivations & Constitutional Concerns: The Water Act (2007) undermines state rights under the Australian Constitution, with the Commonwealth leveraging international agreements to centralise control. The Plan priorities marketisation of water resources over genuine ecological or agricultural needs, risking food security and community cohesion.
  3. Critique of Institutional Integrity: Scientific bodies like CSIRO and the Wentworth Group produced research to fit policy narratives, with dissent suppressed and disclaimers used to evade accountability. This erodes the role of independent science. Further, the Report uses cherry-picked data and lacks critical reviews on key issues (e.g., ecology and socio-economic impacts).
  4. Proposed Alternatives: The Plan should have been rejected in its entirety and the Water Act (2007) should have been repealed. Instead, focusing on local water-use efficiencies, additional water should be returned to the communities that saved it in the first place, to create wealth, foster growth and ensure sustainability. Rather than diverting freshwater to irrigate the Southern Ocean, restoring brackish conditions in the Lower Lakes by removing the barrages would be a viable but politically and ideologically unpalatable option.

Conclusion: The Plan represents a derelict misdirection of resources, driven by alarmism and political expediency, with potentially dire consequences for agriculture, water dependent communities, and democratic governance.

Key points:

The ecology of the Murray-Darling Basin is self-repairing. That it is ‘near-collapse’ is an outright political myth.

Detachment and disclaimers from key institutions such as the CSIRO and the Murray-Darling Basin Authority downplay responsibility for the accuracy and implications of their work.Dr. Johnston perceptively asks: “if august institutions … will not stand by their work, why should the community be swayed by it or believe in it?”

Johnston portrays the Plan as a policy tool encased in “alarmist” rhetoric and “strategic” media releases rather than transparent, collaborative science.

The full report is available here: [tap this link]

The 3-Degree Folly: the Australian Academy of Science Must Dump Its Support for Net Zero

Bureau of Meteorology

Dr Bill Johnston

Instrument shelter (Stevenson screen) at Sydney Observatory December 2017. Site, instrument and screen size changes caused temperature to increase independently of the climate. (Photo credit Bill Johnston.)   

  • The Australian Academy of Science (AAS) has abandoned empirical scientific rigor in favour of advocacy, particularly in relation to climate change and net zero.
  • The risks to Australia of a 3°C warmer world (AAS-2021) is a politicised document recycled by activists within its ranks.
  • Historical climate variability is ignored in favour of a post-1950s “narrative” that data shows does not exist.
  • The policy and bureaucratic machinery surrounding climate legislation is highly centralised, economically destructive and not accountable to the electorate.

Net Zero is scientifically unjustified, economically irrational, democratically illegitimate and should be abandoned. The AAS should lead the way by dumping its support for net-zero.

Important links:

The rebuttal report is available here: (click here)

Commentary relating to the Report is available here: (Quadrant: the Australian academy of nonsense)

Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements

Bureau of Meteorology

Dr Bill Johnston

Crowdy Bay National Park January 2020 (Credit: Bill Johnston)

Summary and recommendations

  • Bushfire fighting capabilities are a matter for the States and the role of the Commonwealth should be limited to providing manpower (ADF personnel, who are largely untrained for firefighting per se.) and financial support on request. The problem with the Commonwealth assuming some overarching role is that it adds another level of complexity to an already over-crowded coordination-space; and as occurred during the recent crisis it also invites political grandstanding.
  • The proposal that the Commonwealth be able of its own volition to declare a state of national emergency is unsound. It could declare a ‘climate emergency’ for political purposes for example, when no such thing exists.
  • It ought to be of concern to the Commission that there is no evidence that Australia’s climate is changing or that summers are becoming longer, hotter or drier. Relationships between climate and bushfire are well understood and empirically predictable. Briefly, runs of years of above-average rainfall encourage fuel build-up, which if not controlled results in potentially cataclysmic fires once dry conditions return. As rainfall is episodic, unpredictable and shows no trend the contention that bushfire is related to some unnatural phenomenon is unsupportable and should not cloud the Commission’s deliberations.
  • It is a matter of great urgency to resolve the contradiction that, on the one-hand NSW Rural Fires Act (1997) compels managers of public and private land to undertake hazard reduction; while on the other, onerous environmental considerations make the carrying-out of hazard reduction more difficult and possibly illegal. As neither objective sits comfortably with the other, legislative change is recommended.
  • The intensity and unmanageability of recent fires in NSW resulted from the failure to mitigate biomass accumulation since the end of the Millennium drought in 2010/11. Blame for that situation lies squarely with the environmental provisions of the Rural Fires Act (1997), which places undue restraint on Rural Fire Service volunteers and others by requiring them to take account of ‘principles of sustainable development’ in order to gain approval for implementing control measures on public land.

Important link:

Click here for the detailed report (Click here)

The 3-Degree Folly: the Australian Academy of Science Must Dump Its Support for Net Zero

AAS and the folly of net-zero, ,

Dr Bill Johnston[i]

scientist@bomwatch.com.au

[i] Former NSW Department of Natural Resources research scientist and weather observer.

Main points

  • The Australian Academy of Science (AAS) has abandoned empirical science in favour of advocacy, particularly in relation to climate change and net zero.
  • The risks to Australia of a 3°C warmer world (AAS-2021) is a politicised document recycled from activists within its ranks.
  • The policy and bureaucratic machinery surrounding climate and nature-positive legislation is highly centralised, unaccountable, and economically destructive.
  • Historical climate variability is ignored in favour of a post-1950s “warming narrative”.

Net Zero is scientifically unjustified, economically irrational, democratically illegitimate and should be abandoned.

  1. Background

Entrusted under its Charter to promote and uphold rigorous scientific standards, the Australian Academy of Science seems to have forgotten what science is.

Drawn under the umbrella of CSIRO and universities by the Commonwealth and the Council of Australian Governments, the quality of Australia’s natural resources research effort has deteriorated markedly over recent decades. Decline is evidenced by an overreliance on complex models – often described simply as “The Science” – which lack robust empirical grounding. Instead of fostering unbiased inquiry based on rigorous research, the scientific process has been swayed by policy objectives, leading to questionable conclusions about the effect of climate change and warming in Australia.

  • The AAS-2021 report

In March 2021 the AAS released a report written by an independent “expert panel” chaired by WWF supporter, activist and Great Barrier Reef doomsayer Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg (hereinafter AAS-2021). The report entitled “The risks to Australia of a 3°C warmer world” was reviewed by “expert reviewers” headed by Professor Ian Chubb, former Chief Scientist. Chubb was connected to Hoegh-Guldberg due to his Chairing the GBR Independent Expert Panel of the Reef 2050 Advisory Committee, of which Hoegh-Guldberg was a prominent member. 

AAS-2021 claimed “Heatwaves, bushfires, storms and coastal flooding, have become more frequent and intense in recent times”. Also, that “risks are likely to escalate as global temperatures continue to rise” and that: “our capacity to respond becomes compromised as frequency increases”. Further, that the only way to contain the risks of global extinction was for Australia to reduce its already miniscule emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) to net zero by 2050.

  • Review of AAS-2021 – motivation and impetus

Scientific progress fundamentally depends on the impartial testing of hypotheses supported by solid empirical evidence. In contrast, consensus indicates progress has stalled, possibly because inconvenient data, or alternative viewpoints are ignored or loudly brushed aside. For example, while low rainfall across eastern Australia from about 1996 to 2010 was stridently blamed on global warming, conditions were considerably worse, and the economic consequences more dire, during droughts that ended with the WW-II drought in 1947[i]. Focussing on post-1950s ‘warming’, reimagines the true history of Australia’s climate.

  • Policy becomes science

Established in 1998, the Australian Greenhouse Office (AGO) was the world’s first agency dedicated to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The AGO was also tasked with providing government-sanctioned information to the public. Former speechwriter for Senator Robert Hill, Environment Minister from March 1996 to November 2001, Guy Pearse, was also a paid AGO consultant. According to his Biography[ii] Pearse was also a lobbyist and worked for a time for then U.S. Vice President, climate-doomist Al Gore.

For his ANU thesis[iii] that essentially decried the influence of the National Farmers Federation and alleged fossil-fuel lobby groups on Howard-era greenhouse policy, Pearse neglected to mention or reach-out to the green-lobby, specifically WWF-strategist Mr Peter Cosier. While their paths seemingly never crossed, the former environmental planner for the Yass Shire Council, became senior policy adviser to Robert Hill at the same time Pearse was Hill’s speechwriter. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999) was likely strongly influenced or written by Cosier, WWF and its former President Robert Purves.

Interestingly, while Pearse invents conspiracy theories, writes one-sided opinion pieces and books admonishing industries that paved his way from childhood to speechwriter[iv], Cosier moved on. Having demolished state-based Murray-Darling Basin natural resources research agencies; and via the office of Minister for the Environment, eventually re-purposing the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO to reflect the policy demands of ‘green-science’, Cosier is now a board member of Accounting for Nature Ltd. — an outfit that through his convening the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists on behalf of Purves Environmental Fund, Cosier was instrumental in creating.

Accounting for Nature Ltd. is just one of the pillars of the Commonwealth’s Nature Positive Plan – a plan that will eventually plan Australian industries out of existence by creating another tax burden alongside the re-vamped carbon tax. Documents point to a bureaucratic nightmare[v], plans within plans, climate goals set by the ‘independent’ Climate Change Authority, regulations enforced by an ‘independent’ Environment Protection Authority, and an ‘independent’ Clean Energy Regulator – all unelected, hand-picked and unable to be sacked – an unnecessarily complex and costly imposition on farmers, businesses and taxpayers, but not accountable to the increasingly sidelined electorate. Government by process-creep and fiat[vi] unconscionably undermines Australia’s system of parliamentary democracy.

  • The information marketplace tsunami

Since the 1990s funds provided by research councils and government were steered to support policy rather than explore ir advance contentions or contradictory issues. Concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, together with funding constraints, science’s capacity to provide fearless, balanced advice was severely compromised.

Taken together – funding and policy directives including AGO’s remit to only provide government-sanctioned information into the public square, led to a virtual tsunami of publications, new journals, PhD theses and studies in support of the warming narrative. In addition, many investigations and technical reports were funded directly by the AGO to support the governments carbon-accounting model — FullCAM.

Google Scholar estimated 25,100 papers related to “climate change Australia” were published between 1980 and 1990. The following three decades saw exponential growth: 142,000 (1991–2000), 231,000 (2001–2010), 541,000 (2011–2020), and 228,000 from 2021 to October 2025. Sea-level rise alone attracted some 15,000 references between 1990 and 2022[vii]. According to Gemini AI, press activity rose from 514 articles per year in the 1990s to over 80,000 per year in the 2010s.

Climate projections, initially simple brochures, have evolved into multi-volume, multi-tool digital products — all dependent on government funding[viii]. The sheer volume of agenda-messaging, risks overwhelming public understanding rather than clarifying uncertainties.

The Australian Academy of Science is trapped within this web: it accepts government largess, which binds it to unquestioningly support policy. COVID overreach[ix] is a poignant example of an instance where public debate was stifled.

  • Climate warming: a wicked scientific problem

The supposed threat of global warming is wicked in the sense that it is complex, challenging and open-ended. If it exists, its causes and effects are interconnected and there is no way to know if or when the problem is solved. Evidence of climate warming is also impossible to separate from the chaotic behaviour of the natural world. Regardless of the precautionary principle outlined in AAS-2021, which itself lacks scientific boundaries, it is foolish to deplete treasure on a problem defined by moving goalposts and which is non-solvable in a conventional sense.

Overarching narratives of the United Nations and particularly the World Economic Forum of using COVID and disaster-marketing more broadly to achieve a “Great Reset” – essentially a coordinated policy shift without electoral mandate, should ring alarm bells throughout western democracies. WWF’s nature positive laws fall within that gambit.

Against the background of policy-driven science, moving goalposts, unachievable outcomes, and the desire by elites including the WEF and WWF to exert coercive control over sovereign states and the freedom of individual citizens, it is important that claims of imminent climatic, ecological or sociological catastrophe, highlighted in AAS-2021 be closely examined and adjudicated based on hard evidence, and from a scientific rather than an emotive perspective.

  •  Conclusions and a bridge to the 2022 critique

In the interest of open debate about the climate and its many confected horrors, it is an opportune time to put the evidence into the public domain. The unedited 2022 critique of AAS-2021, submitted to the Australian Academy of Science may be accessed here.

  • The Academy ignored it, but the issues remain — and they deserve public scrutiny.
    • Australia has always been the driest inhabited continent. Our landscapes are old, eroded and infertile and our fire-adapted vegetation has evolved to contend with highly seasonal and episodically changeable climates
    • Historical records show natural disasters long predate contemporary climate change concerns; there is no evidence that frequency, extent, or intensity has or will change markedly in the future.
    • Due to its reliance on cherry-picked, modelled, or homogenised data, AAS-2021 fails to present multiple lines of evidence that extreme events are increasing. No credible evidence exists that temperatures, evaporation, or rainfall are trending in ways that materially increase bushfire risk or imperil the Great Barrier Reef.
    • The unfounded claim that action by governments will change or control the climate is irrational and absurd. Even if it were remotely likely, the prohibitive cost, and the consequences for employment, industry, commerce and sovereignty is not in Australia’s national interest.

In short, AAS-2021 is unbalanced, unscientific, and strongly biased. It lacks evidence of a catastrophic future, yet it interferes with politics by promoting narratives that are never likely to come to pass.

Dr Johnston’s detailed repudiation of AAS-2021, which the Academy ignored is available here [click link]

[i] Foley, J.C., 1957. Droughts in Australia. Review of records from earliest years of settlement to 1955. Bulletin No. 43, Bureau of Meteorology, Melbourne, September 1957.

[ii] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Pearse

[iii] https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/bitstreams/7f600956-ffb2-4106-9316-a7808c926568/download  

[iv] Pearse, Guy (2007). High & Dry: John Howard, Climate Change and the Selling of Australia’s Future. Penguin (Australia).ISBN 978-0-670-07063-3.

[v] https://www.dcceew.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/nature-positive-plan.pdf

[vi] Funnell, W., 2001. Government by fiat: the retreat from responsibility. Unsw Press.

[vii] Communications Earth & Environment (2023) 4:257 https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-00920-4     www.nature.com/commsenv

[viii] Whetton, P.H., Grose, M.R., and Hennessy, K.J., 2016. A short history of the future: Australian climate projections 1987–2015. Climate Services, 2-3, 1-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2016.06.001

[ix] https://www.paulramsayfoundation.org.au/news-resources/fault-lines-an-independent-review-into-australias-response-to-covid-19

Part 7d. Mount Isa, Queensland, Australia

Bureau of Meteorology

Dr Bill Johnston

www.bomwatch.com.au

Mount Isa post office (Bureau of Meteorology, BoM ID 29125), and Mount Isa airport (Aero, 29127; Latitude -20.72o, Longitude 139.49) joined 1 January 1967; temperature data from 1 January 1957 to 31 December 2024; and separately, Mount Isa Mine (29126), Latitude – 0.7361, Longitude 139.4817; temperature from January 1965 to July 1992.

Although mining is due to cease in the near future, Mount Isa in central Queensland is home to one of the most productive single mines in the world. A post office opened in 1924, and the railway to the port of Townsville opened in 1929. An aerodrome constructed for the United States Army Air Force in 1943 became a major military camp during WWII. Post office data from 1957 were merged with Aero site data from January 1967.

While little seems known about conditions in the post office yard, site summary metadata suggests the Aero site was partially automated in September 1996, but a humidity probe was apparently not installed until March 2009. An Almos automatic weather station (AWS) has replaced manual observations but the changeover date is not available. Metadata also ignores when 60-litre Stevenson screens replaced 230-lite screens at the previous or current site; however, it is likely to have been before data for the earlier manual comparison site was so-designated. As metadata cannot be trusted, analysis is best undertaken using objective statistical methods.

While not an Australian Climate Observations Reference Network – Surface Air Temperature (ACORN-SAT) dataset used to monitor Australia’s warming, together with up to nine other sites including some ACORN-SAT ones, maximum temperature (Tmax) observed at the post office, airport and the mine were used by scientists at the BoM to homogenise ACORN-SAT sites as far afield as Victoria River Downs (1015 km), Rabbit Flat (987 km) and Longreach (571 km) (Figure 1).

Figure 1. In addition to Victoria River Downs, Rabbit Flat and Longreach, maximum temperature data for Mount Isa post office, Aero and the mine were used to homogenise ACORN-SAT sites at Tennant Creek, Camooweal, Burketown, Normanton and Richmond.   

As no attempt is made by ACORN-SAT to assess the quality of data used to construct comparator datasets, as a subset of Victoria River Downs, this study aimed to determine whether the combined Tmax dataset for the post office, airport (Aero), and the mine were fit for the purpose of homogenising other sites.

Conclusions

While Tmax data for the airport and mine were thermodynamically sound, due step-changes in their rainfall-adjusted mean, neither dataset was homogeneous. Lack of reliable metadata and corroborating information such as aerial photographs, satellite images and archived plans and documents, is a major problem in relating step-changes in data to changes at sites.

Possible site changes include undocumented site moves, removal of vegetation in the vicinity of screens using herbicide or mechanically, replacement of 230-litre Stevenson screens with 60-litre ones, introduction of the Almos AWS at the airport and the withdrawal of staff that maintained sites and instruments.

Checks and balances that are part of the BomWatch approach provide assurance that step-changes in 1966, 1980, 1996 and 2013 in the combined post office/Aero dataset, and in 1980 at the mine, are unrelated to the climate. Post hoc tests verified that data consist of non-trending segments delineated by step-changes that are unrelated to the weather.

Importantly, accounting for step-changes and rainfall simultaneously left no residual trend or change that could be attributed to CO2, coal mining, electricity generation or anything else.

The use of correlated, faulty data that are not homogeneous, to adjust faults in ACORN-SAT has no statistical or scientific merit and should be abandoned.

Important Links:

Click here to download the full paper with photos, graphs and data

Click Here to Download the Mount Isa DataPack

Part 9b. Elliott and Ali Curung, Northern Territory, Australia

Data Homogenisation, , ,

Dr Bill Johnston

There is no evidence that the climate of Elliott or Ali Curung has warmed due to CO2, coalmining, electricity generation or anything else.

Elliott and Ali Curung are two isolated weather stations located far from anywhere. Elliott was a staging camp for northbound troops, established by Army Lieutenant Snow Elliott beside the Stuart Highway, about half-way between Alice Springs and Darwin. It is now a service town with a population of ~300, mainly Indigenous people. Ali Curung is an isolated Indigenous community of about 350 people, 467km ESE of Rabbit Flat, and approximately 170km south of Tennant Creek.

While the Ali Curung weather station closed in 2014, the current weather station at Elliott is about 150m NE of a sports field occupying a watered area of approximately 2 ha. (Google earth Pro satellite image, Airbus, 2025).

According to Wikipedia, Ali Curung was established between 1955 and 1958 by the Welfare Branch of the Northern Territory Administration after the Phillip Creek Aboriginal settlement ran out of water, forcing the community to relocate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Curung).   

Together with data for up to nine other sites, Elliott and Ali Curung have been used to homogenise Tmax data for several ACORN-SAT sites (dashed blue lines) including Camooweal and Rabbit Flat.

Why the Elliott and Ali Curung weather stations are important

Maximum temperature (Tmax) data for Elliott and Ali Curung is used to homogenise Australian Climate Observations Reference Network – Surface Air Temperature (ACORN-SAT) data for Rabbit Flat (Bureau of Meteorology ID 15666), Tennant Creek (15135) and Camooweal (37010). In addition, Elliott is used to homogenise Victoria River Downs (14825), while Ali Curung is used for Alice Springs (15590) and was used for Boulia (38003).

Homogenization is the process used by BoM scientists to detect and adjust ACORN-SAT data for non-climatic effects such as site moves and changes. In turn, ACORN-SAT is used to monitor warming of Australia’s climate, with data reported by BoM/CSIRO’s state of the climate reports. The integrity of comparator datasets like Elliott and Ali Curung, is therefore critically important.

The research completes the assessment and analysis of comparator sites used to homogenise daily Tmax for Victoria River Downs and Rabbit Flat.

What the study showed

A major outcome of this and previous BomWatch studies is that many sites used to homogenise ACORN-SAT, including Elliott and Ali Curung are themselves plagued with incomplete and untrustworthy metadata, data gaps and low precision. Site conditions such as watering that affect observations, and replacement of former standard 230-litre Stevenson screens with 60-litre screens is never mentioned for example. 

The study raises serious questions as to whether BoM scientists, currently Blair Trewin, can truly produce reliable datasets for monitoring Australia’s climate, or if poor data and complex methods propagate and statistically mask original errors, while promulgating a smoke-and-mirrors –like belief that it can.

ACORN-SAT cannot simply hope for good reference data. Undertaking exploratory data analysis, which they don’t do, would show where comparator data fall-short. Averaging across multiple cross-correlated datasets that embed common faults, such is the case for Elliott and Ali Curung cannot make such problems vanish.

Conclusions

Due to the impact of step-changes related to site changes, watering, numerous data gaps, and low precision, temperature records for Elliott and Ali Curung are not suitable for homogenising other sites. The study calls into question the methodology underpinning ACORN-SAT, and in-turn, the suitability of ACORN-SAT to monitor warming of Australia’s climate.

Furthermore, in contrast to claims by BoM, CSIRO, allied university researchers, and Climate Council communicationists and activists, there is no evidence that the climate of Elliott or Ali Curung has warmed due to CO2, coalmining, electricity generation or anything else.

Important links

Click here for the detailed report

Click here for the the Datapack used in the analysis (*.xlsx)

20 August 2025

Part 9a. Jervois, Northern Territory Australia

Data Homogenisation

Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) ID 15602, Latitude -22.95o, Longitude 136.1442o; temperature from January 1966 to December 2024.

Dr Bill Johnston

Keywords: BoM; homogenisation reference sites; data quality

Having completed analysis of Tmax data for the Jervois weather station using BomWatch protocols, (Report available here), I asked several online AI-reviewers to provide a short- and medium-length independent overview and summary.

I specifically searched for online AI-reviewers requiring no login and no upfront $$$.  Selfish I know, but I receive no reimbursement for the many hours, weeks and months it may take to research and analyse a weather station. BomWatch protocols are transparent, objective and replicable, which is the hallmark of the scientific method.

AI-reviewers were:

https://notegpt.io/

https://www.portfoliopals.net/summascript/

https://docxsummarizer.com/

https://noiz.io/free-ai-tools/doc-summarizer/

While all Reviewers provided similar overviews, the summary provided by NoteGPT was less accurate and missed the Report’s main focus.

The medium version of the review by https://www.portfoliopals.net/summascript/ seemed accurate and well structured. Highlighting specific aspects in logical order (context and background, key findings and analysis, implications and reflection, and conclusions) helped organise one’s thoughts.

Their 106-word summary can be quoted directly, and only requires light editing:

This report by Dr. Bill Johnston evaluates the reliability of maximum temperature (Tmax) data from the isolated Jervois weather station in Australia, used to homogenise ACORN-SAT records at Rabbit Flat, Alice Springs, and Boulia. Findings reveal the Jervois dataset is of poor quality, marked by missing observations, probable watering, and unexplained step-changes in 1979 and 2017 causing a spurious warming trend of 0.225°C per decade. Dr. Johnston argues, “The overall trend… was thus spuriously due to non-climate factors,” challenging the validity of adjustments based on Jervois data. This critique raises broader concerns about data integrity in climate monitoring and the scientific rigor behind national temperature records.

Some reviewers misinterpreted the role of BomWatch protocols in undertaking multi-faceted analysis of single-site datasets; failed to highlight the metadata problem and that maximum temperature (Tmax) and its relationship with rainfall was a key statistical metric.   

Due its clarity, the medium length summary from https://docxsummarizer.com/ also rated highly as it overviewed the objectives, provided a brief outline of the site, the analysis, and main conclusions. Their unedited report is as follows:

Assessment of Jervois Temperature Data and Its Role in Australian Climate Homogenisation

This report investigates the quality and suitability of maximum temperature (Tmax) data from the isolated Jervois weather station in the Northern Territory, Australia, for use in homogenising key sites within the Australian Climate Observations Reference Network – Surface Air Temperature (ACORN-SAT). Jervois, positioned some 246 km northwest of Alice Springs, is not itself an ACORN-SAT site but its data have been employed to adjust Tmax records for Rabbit Flat, Alice Springs, and Boulia. This practice prompted scrutiny due to existing concerns regarding the accuracy and completeness of Jervois temperature observations.

Analysis of annual Tmax and rainfall data from 1966 to 2024 revealed significant shortcomings. The dataset was segmented into three distinct periods marked by abrupt step-changes in 1979 and 2017, with temperature increases of approximately 0.52°C and 0.83°C respectively. Notably, these changes are attributed to non-climatic factors such as missing observations, site watering, and instrument changes rather than genuine climate trends. The reported overall warming trend of 0.225°C per decade thus appears spurious, driven by data inconsistencies rather than atmospheric change. As the report states, “as no trend remained in MLR residuals, it could not be claimed that the Jervois climate has warmed due to CO₂, coalmining, electricity generation or anything else.” Rainfall exerted a significant cooling effect on Tmax, reducing temperatures by 0.294°C per 100 mm of rain, explaining over half of the Tmax variability alongside the identified step-changes.

Compounding concerns are metadata inaccuracies, including erroneous site coordinates and undocumented instrument transitions. These undermine confidence in the station’s data quality and the validity of its use in homogenisation processes. The report’s author, Dr Bill Johnston, concludes that given the “poor” quality of Jervois data, its use for homogenising ACORN-SAT sites “has no statistical or scientific merit,” and calls for the abandonment of the ACORN-SAT project in its entirety.

This detailed examination illuminates challenges in climate data homogenisation where underlying observational inconsistencies distort perceived warming trends. As climate policy and public discourse increasingly rely on precise temperature records, the integrity of such datasets is paramount. The findings here serve as a cautionary note on the risks of incorporating flawed data in climate analyses and stress the importance of rigorous, transparent data quality assessments to maintain scientific credibility in climate monitoring efforts.

Points to note.

The Report itself was developed and constructed entirely using human intelligence.  Information about the site was sought from BoM metadata, the National Archives of Australia, Google earth Pro satellite images, and Google (see for example, https://walerdatabase.online/jinka-and-jervois-stations/, and of historical interest https://cifhs.com/ntrecords/ntcensus/jervois.html). Analysis was undertaken hands-on. Use of R packages, and detection of shifts in Tmax ~ rainfall residuals using Sequential Step-change Analysis of Regime Shifts (STARS), required human judgement, which is unlikely to be replicated by AI.

Is using AI to review a complex report ethical?

It is important to acknowledge all sources of information, programs etc. used in compiling research reports. Likewise, to acknowledge the contribution of peers and colleagues. In that it is adding value to words and complex analyses that some may find daunting to read, provided it’s use is acknowledged, summarising the main points using AI-tools is no different.

With the caveat that AI-reviews be replicated across multiple tools, they also provide a rapid form of ‘peer review’, even though they ought not be thought of as actual peers. AI-reviewers also cannot step far beyond the boundaries of the report on which reviews are based. Further, if the report itself or the methodology on which it is based is faulty, while seeming authoritative and authentic, reviews generated using AI are also likely to be faulty.

It would also be cheating (i.e., academic misconduct) to take a publication or report, create summaries using AI, and combine and publish the result as one’s own work. Most universities publish guidelines on the use of AI in academic studies that set clear boundaries around what is, and what is not acceptable (e.g., https://www.teqsa.gov.au/students/artificial-intelligence-advice-students).

(18 July 2025)