A recent forensic audit has raised questions about the integrity of raw climate data maintained by Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology (BOM), prompting calls from scientists and politicians for greater transparency and independent review. The audit, conducted by investigator Tom Berger and retired scientist Geoff Sherrington, uncovered extensive errors and unusual anomalies in the BOM's historical temperature records, including duplicated data spanning different years and seasons at key stations such as Sydney Observatory.

One notable finding was the duplication of minimum temperature readings for August 1907 overlaying those for August 1867, an error confirmed through hand-written records at the National Archives that contradicts the BOM’s digital records. These findings have intensified scrutiny of the agency’s data management practices and fuelled demands for a comprehensive audit.

Experts including David Evans, who developed carbon accounting software for Australia’s land-use sector, criticized the BOM’s current approach as insufficient. Evans argued that climate data should be subject to regular audits akin to those required of publicly traded companies, emphasizing that transparency is critical for maintaining public confidence. He likened the need for data auditing to established practices in financial reporting and medical research, asserting that secretive handling of such crucial data is no longer acceptable.

Jennifer Marohasy, a scientist with longstanding concerns about temperature adjustments made by the BOM, echoed calls for thorough auditing of weather stations nationwide. She noted that aside from Adelaide, no rigorous examinations of stations like Sydney Observatory had taken place, and said that the recent findings reflect failures that proper audits might have prevented. Marohasy also highlighted the importance of reliable historical data for emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence used in climate forecasting, pointing to efforts in countries like China and Indonesia to use accurate records for predicting rainfall and extreme weather events.

Amid these scientific concerns, political figures have also weighed in. Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott dismissed demands for further forensic analysis, while Senator Andrew Bragg, the opposition spokesman on environment, publicly challenged the federal government to clarify the situation. Bragg accused the BOM of becoming “a laughing stock” following issues such as a costly website upgrade and called on Environment Minister Murray Watt to explain what was occurring within the agency and outline corrective measures.

The government, through a spokesperson for Minister Watt, declined to expand on the BOM’s existing statements regarding the data or to confirm whether an independent review or structural reform would be initiated. The situation underscores ongoing debates over the reliability of climate data and the processes used by key institutions shaping Australia’s climate policy.