I read an interesting article article about Peter Martin, head of the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
He has a refreshing, mature attitude to his job.
‘I want people to challenge our data – that’s a good thing, it helps us pick things up,’ he says.
Big contrast to the attitude of Climate Scientists. Examples that they believe they cannot be challenged are legion, from meetings to peer review. For example, emails expressing disagreement with the science are treated as threatening, as shown by the text of eleven emails released under ‘roo shooter’ FOI by the Climate Institute at Australian National University.
Australia’s Chief statistician is also egalitarian. In response to a complaint by the interviewer about employment figures, he responds:
He says he doesn’t believe there is a problem, but gives every indication he’ll put my concerns to his staff, giving them as much weight as if they came from the Treasurer.
This is a far cry from the stated policy of the CSIRO/BoM (Bureau of Meteorology) to only respond to peer-reviewed publications. Even when one does publish statistical audits identifying problems with datasets, as I have done, you are likely to get a curt review stating that “this paper should be thrown out because its only purpose is criticism”. It takes a certain type of editor to proceed with publication under those circumstances.
When the Federal Government changes this time, as appears inevitable, one initiative they might consider is a greater role for the ABS in overseeing the BoM responsibilities. Although the BoM is tasked with the collection of weather and water data by Acts of Parliament, it would benefit from an audit and ongoing supervision by the ABS, IMHO.