Celebrated NASA Planet Hunter Shifts His Sights Back To Climate Change On Earth

The Guardian - Dana Nuccitelli

Earth rise over the Moon. Photograph: Alamy

William Borucki donated Shaw Award prize money for pioneering planet finding to the Union of Concerned Scientists for its climate change efforts
William Borucki has had an amazing scientific career. One of his first jobs was at NASA Ames Research Center, where he worked on the Apollo moon missions, including helping to develop the heat shield for the space shuttle. After the successful moon landings, Borucki shifted to NASA’s Theoretical Studies Branch in the 1970s, where he developed models of the Earth’s atmosphere to predict the effects of nitric oxides and chlorofluoromethanes on the ozone layer. Both were determined to contribute to the problem of ozone depletion and the hole in the ozone layer.
In the 1980s, Borucki began advocating the development of a space mission that could detect Earth-size planets. He published a paper in 1984 showing that a photometer 1,000 times more precise than any in existence could detect Earth-size planets. Undeterred by rejections of four proposals in the 1990s for a planet-finding mission, Borucki was ultimately appointed Principal Investigator in 2001 for NASA’s new Keppler Mission to discover these planets. During its four years of its operation, the Keppler Mission discovered over 4,600 planetary candidates, confirmed more than 1,000 as planets, and made numerous contributions to stellar astrophysics.
For his work in conceiving and leading the Keppler Mission, Borucki was awarded the Shaw Prize in astronomy. He decided to donate a portion of the award to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) to support the organization’s work in addressing climate change, explaining,

I’ve spent a large portion of my career searching for other worlds. What we’ve found has underscored how important it is to protect this one. While we can detect other worlds, we cannot go to them. Our future is here on Earth and we must do much more to ensure that our planet’s climate remains hospitable.
The UCS has a reputation for actively and successfully advocating mitigation of the climate change problem. Their arguments are based on scientifically valid arguments and on comprehensive climate data and model results.

I asked Dr. Borucki about his perceptions of the threats posed by human-caused climate change, and his thoughts on the steps we’ve taken so far to address them.

I consider the threat to be severe. Substantial changes are already occurring to the environment that effect many people; especially those who are impoverished. In the 1980s, the Climatic Impact Assessment Program warned that if changes weren’t made very soon, it would be difficult to reverse the changes. Clearly, they were correct.
I am very hopeful because the leaders of many countries (and some religious leaders) now recognize the problem as an imminent threat and are meeting to develop a consensus as to the most practical methods of mitigating it.

Searching for Earth-like planets has made Dr. Borucki appreciate our own and the need to preserve it, as he told the Huffington Post,

The Earth is a very special place. Unless we have the wisdom and technology to protect our biosphere, it could become like many other dead worlds ... It wouldn’t take a lot of change to make the planet uninhabitable for ourselves.

Borucki remains optimistic that humans will still solve the problem of climate change before the consequences become too severe.

Once mankind understands the threat, I think they will get together ultimately and conquer that threat. But they have to recognize it and really be dedicated to accomplishing the task, because the tasks are just enormous.

China Shows It’s Getting Serious About Climate Change

TIME - Justin Worland

The best thing to come out of a summit between China and the U.S. is a renewed commitment to fight global warming

Chinese President Xi Jinping listens as President Barack Obama speaks during an official state arrival ceremony for the Chinese president at the White House in Washington on Sept. 25, 2015.

China—the world’s largest polluter—has sought to portray itself as a leader in the global fight against climate change in recent years. The country has expedited the development of renewable energy power plants, experimented with cap-and-trade programs and last year committed to curb its growing carbon dioxide emissions in coming decades.
But despite these initiatives many lawmakers in the United States and policy makers around the world have viewed China’s environmental programs with skepticism—more promise than performance. China’s landmark announcement Friday of a national cap-and-trade program and other policies to reduce carbon emissions should ameliorate some of those concerns, experts said, even while the country faces roadblocks to implementation.
Last year’s joint announcement from the U.S. and China set big goals on the part of both countries to eventually reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. promised to reduce carbon emissions by 26% to 28% below 2005 levels by 2025, and Chinese officials said the country’s carbon dioxide emissions would reach peak levels by 2030.
This week’s announcement, both from the U.S. and China, follows up on that target, providing a plan to reach it. A cap-and-trade program would set a national limit in China on carbon emissions in the heavy-polluting industries of power generation, iron and steel, chemicals, and building materials and require companies to buy credits to pollute. Another program will prioritize the use renewable energy on the grid. (Right now, while China produces a great deal of renewable energy, problems with the grid means much of it goes unused.) The country will also improve appliance and vehicle efficiency standards.
“It’s really walking the talk to the commitment last year,” said Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “China has really been working over the last year to put flesh on the bones.”
China benefits internationally from taking on climate change—especially at a time when the country is coming under pressure for alleged cyberespionage and territorial expansion—but experts say the most logical reason to trust the commitment China may be because of internal issues the country faces. Most of the country’s energy currently comes from coal. In the past, coal plants in China have been cheap and easy to build, but the fossil fuel source has led to crippling pollution and a dramatic public health problem. Air pollution in China causes 1.6 million premature deaths every year, or 4,400 per day, research has shown. At the same time, the country is the world’s largest importer of foreign oil, leaving it dependent on shifting oil prices and the messy geopolitics of the Middle East. Renewable energy provides the logical alternative, experts say.
“Their cities are choking, to put it bluntly,” said John Creyts, managing director at the Rocky Mountain Institute, an energy think tank. “They need a development pathway that allows them to grow without choking their people and requiring them to be depend on external economies for the resources they need.”
In fact, China has already matched commitment with action. In 2014, for instance, the country invested $90 billion in clean energy, compared to $52 billion in the U.S., according to a U.S. government report.
Still, experts say implementing some of the policies in China will face uphill battles given the many overlapping jurisdictions and different reporting standards throughout the sprawling country. In their announcement Friday, China and the U.S. said they would develop a program to ensure transparency, but the details remain unclear.
Many in the U.S. and around the world have expressed skepticism about investing in efforts to fight climate change, arguing that costly efforts would lead to a free rider problem of sorts. They say under national plans to curb climate change, the U.S. would invest in expensive efforts to cut carbon emissions while other countries—primarily big developing nations like China and India—would reap the benefit without doing anything to slow their own emissions.
The argument has played out in public as recently as last week, when Republican presidential contenders suggested that government regulations to address climate change would leave the country at a competitive disadvantage.
“We are not going to destroy our economy,” said Florida Senator Marco Rubio, a GOP presidential candidate. “America is not a planet. And we are not even the largest carbon producer anymore, China is. And they’re drilling a hole and digging anywhere in the world that they can get a hold of.”
Meyer says this week’s announcement undercuts this opposition, leaving the U.S. to show how it will meet its commitment to cut emissions.
“This is yet another indication of momentum and seriousness,” Meyer said. “The job’s not done yet.”

China Climate Change Pledge To Barack Obama Also A Gift To Malcolm Turnbull

Fairfax - John Garnaut

Labor questions Turnbull's conviction: Labor is accusing Malcolm Turnbull of compromising on core beliefs including climate change, marriage equality and water reform. (Courtesy of ABC News 24). 

It used to be politically hard work for an Australian government to sell the case for policy action on climate change when the world's two great emitters were opting out of the game.
Now that China's President Xi Jinping has arrived in Washington with an emissions trading plan, policy inaction has become the harder sell.
Quixotic campaigns against wind farms and other acts of enviro-economic sabotage are now politically untenable, if they weren't already.

President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping at the White House in Washington on Thursday ahead of crucial talks. Photo: Manuel Balce Ceneta

And the global headwinds on climate policy that helped destroy the Rudd and Gillard governments, and bring Abbott to power, have turned into a tailwind for Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.
Mr Xi's national cap-and-trade emissions reduction scheme, which he will reportedly announced on Friday Washington time, will not be without problems.
Details will be hard to come by, and anyone who watched the development of other complex markets in China will rightly wonder whether it can be done.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. Photo: Andrew Meares

 Efficient emissions trading schemes require a degree of trust, transparency and regulatory autonomy which simply does not currently exist in China.
China's scheme will risk being rorted and possibly paralysed amid the contradictions of Chinese market-Leninism, if recent travails in the markets for shares, futures, bonds and currencies are anything to go by.
But Mr Xi's new emissions trading plan is symbolic of changes already made as much as a promise of things to come.
Climate change has become the centre of US-China cooperation under Mr Xi and Mr Obama, at a time of otherwise darkening relations.
Both leaders have relied on tough administrative edicts to meet energy-intensity and emissions commitments, in combination with underlying economic structural change. Together, they have altered what had been a catastrophically steep global emissions trajectory.
Emissions growth in China has been slowing for several years and may have even peaked. In the US, emissions have been declining since 2007.
The old Australian excuse of waiting for the world's two great emitters is no longer viable.
The world's most powerful leaders are giving Mr Turnbull a chance of working with Foreign Minister Julie Bishop and Environment Minister Greg Hunt to restore Australia's constructive role in the global fight against global warming, without upsetting the delicate chemistry of the Coalition party room.
Action in this area would have the important side-benefit of re-opening a productive channel of cooperation with China, at a time of rising regional tension.
The modest commitment to the Paris climate change conference later this year will become a floor for Australia's ambitions, rather than a ceiling.
In short, the geo-political climate is changing rapidly in Mr Turnbull's favour.

The Inconvenient Truth About Direct Action Comes From Turnbull Himself

The Guardian - Lenore Taylor

Malcolm Turnbull is now defending the policy he criticised, but his truths about climate change won’t go away and this stop-gap scheme will come badly unstuck 
 

Malcolm Turnbull at the memorial dedicated to war correspondents at the Australian War Memorial this week. Photograph: Lukas Coch/EPA

You asked for this Malcolm, standing in the wind outside the war memorial this week. You said journalists had “to hold up the truth to power”. But in the case of your climate policy you’ve made our job easy. You’ve said so much on the subject that for the most part we can hold up your own truth to yourself.
This mirror reflecting back your own past verities could become a bit of a theme in your prime

READ MORE

ministership, with all that you’ve said and all the things that now constrain you. Or maybe it won’t – it’s still too early to say.
But since you’ve asked for them, here are some of your own truths about climate change.
Lately you’ve claimed the $2.5bn emissions reduction fund (ERF) – part of the Direct Action climate policy you once ridiculed but have now inherited – has been “very successful” and that “all of the advice we have suggests that the government’s policies will achieve the reductions ... that we’re taking to the Paris conference of the parties.”
On Friday (as China – yes, China – announced a start date for its national emissions trading scheme) your environment minister Greg Hunt went so far as to say ours is the “best and most efficient scheme in the world”.
But we all know that’s not true. Not as it stands. And we know you know it because you’ve stuck a pin in its problems yourself.
First – trying to meet deeper emissions long-term reductions by buying them with the ERF is going to become too expensive.
The scheme might meet the 2020 target (a 5% cut of 2000 levels by 2020) but if it does it will be in large part because we vastly overestimated what our emissions would be – the job is now less than a third of what we expected.
But to get to our next target (a cut of between 26% and 28% by 2030) it will cost a bomb. As you told Lateline in 2011 “if you want to ... cut carbon emissions ... in a very substantial way to the levels that the scientists are telling us we need to do by mid-century to avoid dangerous climate change, then a direct action policy where ... industry was able to freely pollute, if you like, and the government was just spending more and more taxpayers’ money to offset it, that would become a very expensive charge on the budget in the years ahead.” Pretty much every expert agrees with what you thought back then.
Second, it’s very hard to know whether the ERF is actually buying emission reductions or just paying people to do things they would have done anyway.
Direct Action’s first “reverse auction” spent $660m to reduce Australia’s expected greenhouse emissions by 47m tonnes, which you and Greg Hunt now claim was a stunning success.
On close examination that’s questionable.
It spent $300m to make sure farmers around Cobar and Bourke who had already promised not to clear trees on their land, continued to keep that promise. Most of them had been getting money under the former government’s carbon farming scheme. Perhaps they would have started clearing again had they lost the government income stream but almost no one thinks they ever intended to clear all the land they were permitted to clear, and for which they are receiving payments to leave alone.
Another $200m went to ensure that garbage dumps, mines and livestock operations that were already capturing the potent greenhouse gas methane kept on doing what they were already doing. Most of those projects had been around for a long time, had already recouped their capital costs, were generating an income and would have continued even without additional government funding.
Back into 2010, you were also already onto this obvious pitfall.
“Arguments of considerable ferocity will arise as to whether a new piece of equipment would have

READ MORE

been bought anyway with the risk that the government ends up funnelling billions of dollars to companies to subsidise their profits without achieving any real additional cuts to emissions,” you told parliament, with remarkable prescience.
As you knew, usually when governments pay for these kinds of projects the lucky grant-winners have to try to demonstrate that the money is essential for them to do some greenhouse-gas reducing thing in addition to what they would have done anyway.
But in the case of these projects the Direct Action legislation let them off. It assumed “additionality’ and did not require it to be proven – in the interests of “investment certainty”. We avoided the ferocious arguments you predicted but we have no idea whether all our money went on buying new emission reductions or not.
Is that really “stunning”, or as you said before “a recipe for fiscal recklessness on a grand scale?” We’re pretty sure we know what you would have concluded.
Third, there’s the other element of your policy that could possibly reduce emissions – the “safeguards” mechanism – the bit that sets “baselines” for big industrial emitters. Except the current draft rules explicitly state that it’s not even trying to reduce emissions, it just aims to make sure they don’t go up and undo all the emission reductions the ERF is buying.
And expert analysis, for example by Reputex, suggests it will fail even in that astonishingly modest aim, and instead allow the country’s biggest emitters to increase their greenhouse pollution.
You actually have a chance to change this – consultation on the draft rules closed last Monday, and independent senator Nick Xenophon is saying if they aren’t given at least some “teeth” he’ll disallow them in the Senate – a threat that may not have concerned your predecessor but he’s thinking might just give you pause.
Tougher baselines would start to create a baseline and credit emissions trading scheme. Will you do it? Is that what Hunt has planned after the review you’ll be holding in 2017? If it is you’ll have to give up on the line that you’ve found a way to reduce emissions without any impact on consumer prices.
Fourth, if we are going to reduce emissions we have to change the way we generate electricity. Yes, we have a renewable energy target, but the general policy uncertainty means even the political truce on that issue has not restarted investment. The biggest increase since the abolition of the carbon price has been the dirtiest brown coal fired power.
And we know you know this too.
“The transition from a high emission economy to a low emission one cannot be achieved without major changes to the way we generate and use energy,” you said. “Given that the cheapest fuels are generally the dirtiest, in the absence of a clear carbon price signal, new capacity is likely to be coal rather than gas, rather than renewables.”
Yes, your predecessor was forced into a deal on the renewable energy target, but the ongoing uncertainty means retailers still aren’t building the large-scale renewable developments that are required. You are going to have to give them a sign.
We understand you had to make some concessions to become prime minister. You have promised to work within the current scheme, which Hunt always hoped would morph into a baseline and credit trading scheme over time. And yes, you need time to consult and make decisions, to add or amend or change. To take your own side with you. But your own truths won’t go away and as it stands this stop-gap policy will come badly unstuck.

Pope's Climate Change Appeal Boosts Hope For Bipartisan Action In Congress

The Guardian - Suzanne Goldenberg

Climate campaigners applaud pope’s bridging of environmental issues with moral obligation as way to force Republican party leaders to reconsider position


Pope Francis calls on the US – and Congress – to lead the charge in efforts to combat climate change.

It just took one utterance from Pope Francis – “earth” – to rouse cheers from the climate campaigners who had gathered on the Mall to watch the pope’s historic speech to Congress.
The pope’s visit to what remains a fortress of climate denial among the Republican party leadership greatly boosted hopes among campaigners of elevating climate change from a narrow, partisan issue to a matter of broad public concern.
As Francis appeared on the large screen, several thousand campaigners – some carrying quotes from his encyclical on the environment on large banners trimmed in Vatican yellow, a contingent of animal rights activists dressed as nuns – whooped and cheered.
“We’re excited about the pope being here, especially his saying that climate change is not a partisan issue, and that we have a moral obligation to act,” said Ashley Aguirre, 20, and a student at Virginia Commonwealth University, who had travelled from Richmond for the rally.
Although there was only a very brief mention of the environment in his speech to Congress – he avoided a direct clash with Republican party leaders by diving into climate change deeply in his visit to the White House on Wednesday – the pope still managed to emphasise two clear points. He re-affirmed that human activity was driving climate change, and that political leaders needed to act.
“I am convinced that we can make a difference and I have no doubt that the United States – and this Congress – have an important role to play,” the pope said. “Now is the time for creative actions and strategies aimed at implementing “a culture of care”.
Francis’s intervention has produced some new alliances in the climate camp, with faith groups now coming together with civil rights campaigners and traditional environmental supporters.
His appearance in Congress came a day after his endorsement of Barack Obama’s clean power plant plan – arguably one of the biggest targets of Republicans in both houses as well as on the presidential campaign trail.
More than half of Republicans in Congress deny the existence of climate change, or oppose government regulations to cut carbon pollution.
Environmental campaigners had been thrilled at the prospect of the pope reprising his powerful message for climate action from the encyclical in front of Republican Catholics, such as house speaker John Boehner.
The musician Moby, one of the performers at the climate rally, called it “Pope-enfreude”. “Basically,

Pope's climate push is 'raving nonsense' without
population control, says top US scientist
Read more

it’s watching crazy rightwing anti-environmental Republicans who have always hidden behind religion actually be held accountable,” he told The Guardian. “To have people like [Republican presidential candidates] Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio watch the head of their church come out as an outspoken environmentalist – it’s just satisfying to me watching them squirm.”
Jairo Diaz, an artist who had come from Fort Lauderdale with a canvas of Christ, said he hoped the pope’s presence in the US – just after his encyclical and before the Paris climate negotiations – could help advance prospects of climate action. “It’s a blessing that the pope is here at this moment in this country,” he said.
Even the very mention of the words climate change are awkward for Republicans, who have typically aligned with the Catholic church on social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage, and now find themselves out of step with the pope.
By the time of Francis’s speech to Congress, campaigners dared to believe there was already a pope effect taking hold.
“Just by being here, he is forcing the discussion on climate change,” said Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth. “With the pope coming out strong and really leaning into climate change, this is about trying to further shift the US discussion particularly in the Republican party, and get more conservatives talking about climate change.”

Bureau of Meteorology Defends Climate Data

Fairfax - Lisa Cox
 
The Bureau of Meteorology has defended the accuracy of its climate records after documents released under freedom-of-information laws showed the Abbott government considered investigating its estimates on global warming.
The agency said that while it welcomed scrutiny of its scientific work "the bureau has always confidently maintained that it has not altered climate records to exaggerate estimates of global warming".
The comments come after documents released to the ABC showed former prime minister Tony Abbott's department discussed investigating the bureau's climate data following claims in The Australian newspaper last year that the bureau was "wilfully ignoring evidence that contradicts its own propaganda".
 

A weather bureau source said forecasters were instructed to be "more careful" when discussing climate change after Tony Abbott was elected. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen

The inquiry, had it proceeded, would have been carried out by a taskforce in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet established to consider Australia's post-2020 emissions reduction targets.
One bureau source told Fairfax Media that forecasters were instructed to be "more careful" when discussing climate change after Mr Abbott was elected in 2013.
The source said the instructions were unofficial but passed down through government channels.
"It was common knowledge that the Liberal Party were not as convinced about climate change,

Illustration: Ron Tandberg

and they just asked us not to be too keen about all these records being broken all the time," the source said.
Seven of Australia's 10 warmest years on record occurred in the past 13 years.
The bureau has repeatedly rejected claims it has altered or exaggerated climate data.
A review published in July by a technical advisory forum set up to examine the bureau's data backed the accuracy of its records, but recommended some improvements in the clarity and presentation of its information.
The FOI documents show Environment Minister Greg Hunt argued against the government's targets taskforce investigating the bureau, noting that the technical forum was already conducting its review.
Mr Abbott in correspondence to Mr Hunt asked Senator Simon Birmingham, who had responsibility for the agency at the time, to "write to me on the outcome of the review of the temperature dataset".
A briefing that was sent to Mr Abbott noted the articles in The Australian but said the way the bureau managed its records was "transparent" and "recognised internationally as among the best in the world".
"It is a scientific approach that has been peer reviewed," the note says.
"Nevertheless, the public need confidence information on Australia's, and the world's, climate is reliable and based on the best available science."
The bureau's spokeswoman said "the bureau always welcomes scrutiny of its scientific work".
"Temperature records are influenced by a range of factors such as changes to site surrounds, measurement methods and the relocation of stations. Such changes introduce biases into the climate record that need to be adjusted for prior to analysis," she said.
"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."

Government Considered Investigating Bureau of Meteorology Over Global Warming Warnings

 ABC News - Jake Sturmer

Former prime minister Tony Abbott's own department discussed setting up an investigation into the Bureau of Meteorology amid media claims it was exaggerating estimates of global warming, Freedom of Information documents have revealed.
In August and September 2014, The Australian newspaper published reports questioning the Bureau of Meteorology's (BoM) methodology for analysing temperatures, reporting claims BoM was "wilfully ignoring evidence that contradicts its own propaganda".

Key points: The Australian published reports suggesting BOM was "wilfully ignoring evidence" Weeks after the articles were published, Mr Abbott's department canvassed taskforce investigation, FOI documents reveal Environment Minister Greg Hunt argued against investigation Review found no evidence BOM had been adjusting figures

With seven of Australia's 10 warmest years on record being in the last 13 years and warnings climate change will bring disastrous impacts for Australia, the accuracy and integrity of temperature information is crucial.
The BoM strongly rejected assertions it was altering climate records to exaggerate estimates of global warming.
Nevertheless, documents obtained by the ABC under Freedom of Information show just weeks after the articles were published, Mr Abbott's own department canvassed using a taskforce to carry out "due diligence" on the BoM's climate records.
Late last year, the Government set up a taskforce to provide advice on post 2020 emissions reduction targets ahead of the United Nations Paris climate change conference in December 2015.
The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet originally wanted the taskforce to also conduct "due diligence to ensure Australia's climate and emissions data are the best possible, including the Bureau of Meteorology's Australian temperature dataset".
"The way the Bureau manages its climate records is recognised internationally as among the best in the world," the brief said.
"Nevertheless, the public need confidence information on Australia and the world's climate is reliable and based on the best available science."

Public trust in BOM paramount: Hunt
The pressure intensified when Mr Abbott's business advisory council chair Maurice Newman wrote an opinion piece in the paper, demanding a Government-funded audit and review of the Bureau.
The concerns centred on the Bureau's temperature homogenisation process — the method in which it adjusts temperatures for weather sites based on factors like trees casting shade or influencing wind or if the station is moved.
Both the Department of Environment and Environment Minister Greg Hunt argued against having the taskforce investigate the Bureau.
One Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet bureaucrat described a Department of Environment official as being "on a campaign" to get the references to BoM removed from the taskforce's responsibilities.
Further documents appear to show Mr Hunt convinced senior cabinet members to remove any references of "due diligence" or "quality assurance".
In a letter to Mr Abbott written on November 18 last year, Mr Hunt highlighted the fact the "draft terms of reference refers to the taskforce doing due diligence on the Bureau of Meteorology's Australian temperature data set".
"In doing this, it is important to note that public trust in the Bureau's data and forecasts, particularly as they relate to bushfires and cyclones, is paramount," it said.
"Given the recent publicity about the Bureau's temperature data sets, Senator Birmingham and I established a strengthened governance oversight of the Bureau's ongoing work in this area."

Review group set up in response to articles
The strengthened governance of the Bureau that Mr Hunt referred to is the setting up a Technical Advisory Forum to review and provide advice on the Bureau's temperature data — a recommendation from an earlier review of the Bureau's processes.
"It is important to emphasise that this is primarily a matter of meteorology, statistics and data assurance," Mr Hunt wrote in his letter to Mr Abbott.
A 2011 review found the Bureau's data and analysis methods met world's best practice but recommended a group be set up to review progress on the development and operation of the temperature data.
The 2015 panel included eminent statisticians and members have told the ABC they were in no doubt that it was set up in response to the newspaper articles.
A draft letter from Mr Abbott addressed to Mr Hunt showed that Mr Abbott wanted personal updates on the panel's review.
"The credibility of Government agencies is important and must be ensured," the letter read.
The review confirmed the credibility of the Bureau of Meteorology in its report released in June 2015, which did not find any evidence that the BoM had been adjusting its figures to fit a pattern of global warming.
"There is a clear trend [of temperature] increase in both the raw and homogenised temperature data, and the temperature patterns exhibited in a variety of other datasets have a similar character," the report said.
However, it did recommend improving the clarity and accessibility of information and refining some of the Bureau's data handling and statistical methods.
An accompanying brief seen by Mr Abbott noted that "in recent articles in The Australian, the BoM was accused of altering its temperature data records to exaggerate estimates of global warming".