I suppose an inquiry into the Bureau of Meteorology is not a bad thing, but I’m wondering what George Christensen hopes to find?
He seems to be suggesting that any process involving statistics (or accounting) is hopelessly compromised. Now that is simply not true. He also seems to think that an inquiry will show the Bureau is up to no good.
What such an inquiry will find is that index construction is a complex task that involves many more or less arbitrary value judgements. That if you make a whole bunch of different value judgements that you might get a different outcome, or might not. I very seriously doubt that any inquiry into the temperature record methodology is going to find a deliberate effort to show rising temperatures in the present relative to the past. That may well be the outcome of the actual methodology employed to create the time series. More likely we would find that the temperature time series isn’t particularly useful for policy purposes given all adjustments that need to be made to generate “consistent” data.
So the community would learn a lot of the limitations of aggregate data and the uses of those data, but not much about the intentions of the Bureau of Meteorology.
The overall lesson would be that we don’t know as much as we think we do – certainly not enough to be spending billions of dollars on direct action, or taxing carbon emissions and that the Bureau should stick to forecasting the weather.