Apology Owed to CSIRO and BOM: Geoffrey Sherrington Letter Misleading
Posted by jennifer, March 26th, 2006 - under Uncategorized.
Tags: Climate & Climate Change
“On the 15th February The Australian newspaper published a letter from Geoffrey Sherrington of North Balwyn, Victoria, alleging that CSIRO fraudulently selected weather recording sites that showed more warming, including sites predominantly from capital cities under suspicion for heat island effects. This would give a result that suggested global warming, even if most weather recording sites showed little or no temperature change since the 1880s.
The Sherrington letter was emailed about cyberspace and used by some global warming skeptics as reason to dismiss the Australian Bureau of Meteorology(BOM)finding that last year was the hottest on record.I phoned Geoffrey Sherrington last week. He said that he stands by everything he wrote in that letter. But when I pressed him for details, he said it was the University of Bath in the United Kingdom, not the CSIRO or
BOMBureau of Meteorology, that had been selective in its choice of weather recording sites and furthermore that the letter related to work he did 20 years ago.
I suggest The Australian newspaper and some global warming skeptics owe the CSIRO and the BOM a big apology.The claims in Mr Sherrington’s letter should be discounted accordingly.While I am often labeled a global warming skeptic
because I not convinced that ratifying the Kyoto Protocol will bring Australia anything but grief, and I am unsure how much of the warming over the last 100 years is due to natural forces as opposed to human activity,, I have no reason to dispute the methodology that theBOMBureau of Meteorology uses to calculate temperature change and I accept that last year was the hottest year since official recordings were made in Australia.”
This is a draft of the letter I intend sending to The Australian newspaper tomorrow, or Tuesday, based on discussion at a previous thread at this blog, click here. Apart from Louis Hissink who republished the letter, here, I can’t find any other reference to it in the public domain?
Let me know if you have any suggested additions or changes to this letter, by posting a comment below or sending an email to jennifermarohasy@jennifermarohasy.com .
Warming?
On what evidence – not surface temperatures recorded from mercury thermometers. In fact the purported warming is less than the instrument resolution, so its all B/S from the start.
Pertinent articles published in Issue 83 of the AIG News.
http://www.aig.asn.au/
PS: As for Phils Patronising attitude, this is a ubiquitous attribute of the socially superior lefties and greenies. Phil scores points because none of us wish to descend to his argumentive style, which is primarily shooting the messenger.
How Stalinist of him.
Get off it Blair, it’s common practice to refer to a person in the 1st instance by their full name/title, then subsequently by last name only for the sake of brevity (to avoid perpetuating the kind of long-winded posts issued forth by Mr Castles, complete with punctuation errors because he composes his comments in another programme then cuts & pastes them here). I wrote “Marohasy” on it’s own for the 1st time ever, in a short list (not a sentence) of names only. I have referred to Jennifer elsewhere, in all instances as either “Jennifer, Dr Marohasy or even Jen” so kindly refrain from suggesting on such weak grounds that I lack civility. Clearly you’ve overlooked some of the earlier utterly foul name-calling by others, not by myself. People (incl Phil eg Done like a dinner) are commonly referred to by last name only on this blog. This practice is also used by Jennifer herself and is quite acceptable.
Don’t let tiny details distract you from the real issues. Jennifer was happy to republish the letter when it suited her position, before it was widely condemned. Note that a wiki encourages more considered and careful editing (they have to compete with EB now after all!), particularly if moderated by an impartial and careful person who doesn’t get it off to a bad start by suggesting that it would be a dog’s dinner.
Thinksi
Jennifer did not publish the letter, she made mention of it in a comment thread. She then published a correction as a new blog post.
I have observed for some time the extent to which you misrepresent the actions of others. It is also clear you have a bias against Jennifer.
Wrong Dennis. Jennifer did publish the letter (in the comments section) and asked “Why doesn’t the BOM always use the same sites?”. Jennifer subsequently indicated her scepticism of the contents of the letter (after Phil picked it apart).
Re bias, note that above I wrote “Jennifer, good work on the open draft.”
It’s clear then Dennis that your unjustified accusation of misrepresentation is made with a strong bias. To no effect though, another biased opinion certainly won’t be starved for company here.
Thinksi
Using your own criteria you have published both Ian Castles and Jennifer Marohasy because you sometimes copy what they have written as a comment to make a point or discuss an issue.
Extracted quotes, not a complete work, not without discussion, and not on my own blog. Besides which, so what? (Did anyone suggest otherswise?)