Maurice Newman, the prime minister’s business adviser, has called for a government-funded review of the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) to “dispel suspicions of a warming bias” in its temperature record-keeping.

Newman, who has repeatedly questioned the findings of mainstream climate science, wrote in an opinion piece for the Australian that the bureau needed to be investigated over allegations of “temperature manipulation.”

The Australian has run a series of articles questioning data “homogenisation” techniques used by the bureau when collating temperature records. The bureau measures temperatures at nearly 800 sites across Australia.

The newspaper has published the views of Jennifer Marohasy, a climate science sceptic, who has claimed the BoM has “corrupted the official temperature records” by adjusting data and moving the location of temperature monitors to make it appear that Australia is warming.

Climate scientists say that the standardisation of raw temperature data is important to remove rogue readings and has, in most cases, actually resulted in a reduction of the warming trend in Australia.

But Newman said questions over the bureau’s methods meant that “nothing short of a thorough government-funded review and audit, conducted by independent professionals, will do”.

“As a member of the World Meteorological Organisation, the BoM is inevitably caught up in global warming politics,” he wrote.

“After all it was the WMO that part established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and it remains an anthropogenic warming propagandist.”

Newman said that while the “BoM is a large and expensive agency, employing 1,700 people and costing more than $300 million a year to run”, it’s temperature record was “error-ridden”.

“Lending its name to clearly partial scholarship only increases concerns that the bureau puts climate change advocacy ahead of scientific rigour and transparency,” he wrote.

“Trust in our national climate records is critical. Yet the more we see, the more we question. Now is not the time for a tame review. For the sake of public policy and the BoM’s reputation, the air must be cleared.”

Newman, who has no scientific training, is chair of Tony Abbott’s business advisory council. He recently claimed that the world was in danger of cooling, rather than warming, and has previously called evidence of climate change a “delusion” and a “religion.”

Newman’s latest foray into climate change issues has added to a sense of despair among staff at the BoM, who feel their work is being undermined and are suffering from a lack of support within government.

A staff member who has been at the BoM for more than a decade said the criticism of the bureau is “offensive” to employees.

“It’s a kick in the guts, to be honest,” said the employee, who declined to be named. “It’s offensive to the professionalism and dedication that people show here day in, day out.



“There’s a real sense of frustration because there’s such a level of skill and expertise involved here. But yet no matter what proof is shown, it won’t make a difference to those hell-bent on attacking what we do.

“There needs to be an acknowledgement of the work that the bureau does. We should all understand that these aren’t just attacks on ideas, they are attacks on people and their integrity.”

Beth Vincent-Pietsch, deputy secretary of the Community and Public Sector Union, said a review of the BoM was unnecessary.

“What’s actually needed is a review of the funding situation because the cutbacks are hurting right now,” she said. “Quite specifically, the Australian climate change science program has been cut by 20%, which does directly impact what the bureau can achieve.

“I think it’s very sad this government devalues science in every walk of life. The fact no-one is defending the bureau’s staff and the good work they do is a crime.”

In 2011 and 2012, an international panel conducted a review of the BoM’s Australian Climate Observations Reference Network – Surface Air Temperature (or Acorn-Sat) dataset. The experts ranked the BoM’s procedures and data analysis amongst the best in the world, making 31 recommendations around the future management of the data, all of which the bureau has agreed to, either fully or partially.

The bureau has denied that it has altered temperature records to exaggerate global warming.

“Temperature records are influenced by a range of factors such as changes to site surrounds (eg trees casting shade or influencing wind), measurement methods and the relocation of stations (eg from a coastal to more inland location),” the bureau explained in a statement. “Such changes introduce biases into the climate record that need to be adjusted for prior to analysis.

“Adjusting for these biases, a process known as homogenisation, is carried out by meteorological authorities around the world as best practice, to ensure that climate data is consistent through time.”

The BoM said that both the unadjusted data and the homogenised data showed Australia had warmed over the past century, consistent with the findings of Britain’s Met Office and Nasa in the US.

Liberal senator Simon Birmingham, who has responsibility for the BoM, said: “I have requested that a technical advisory group, as recommended by the Acorn–Sat review panel, be established by the end of 2014.



“The group will include respected scientists and statisticians and have the independence recommended by the peer review.”

Greg Hunt, the federal environment minister, said he disagreed with Newman’s comments on the BoM.

“I respect his views but I respectfully and clearly disagree,” he told Guardian Australia. “The BoM is a world leading meteorological organisation and the government is investing in a major new supercomputer which the ALP refused to fund.”