Following is an email just sent to Bob Baldwin concerning the need for him to urgently establish a public forum to enable dissident views to be heard concerning the bastardization of Australia’s official temperature record by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.
Noosa, Queensland, 9th March, 2015
Dear Mr Baldwin
Re: Robust assessment of the trusted and respected Bureau of Meteorology obviously requires that the dissident view be heard
There once existed a broad consensus that the Church must be the ultimate judge of scientific truths. That was before the enlightenment. More recently, there was an equally mistaken consensus that the Church could provide a safe environment for little children.
Those who dared suggested otherwise were first ignored, then ridiculed, and only much later able to fight for truth and justice. When their concerns finally registered, there was disbelief that such outrageous abuse was allowed to persist for so long.
In your recent appointed as ‘Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment’ with responsibility for the Bureau of Meteorology, you have the opportunity to provide a forum for dissident voices to be heard concerning what is perceived by many to be the bastardization of Australia’s temperature record.
Eventually, simply through the establishment of a forum of experts tasked with hearing the alternative evidence, history might record you as courageous, and as having begun a process that ultimately exposed the deceit and bias that now riddles this once most respected and trusted organization. This, I thought, was indeed a possibility when I read your media release of January 19, 2015, outlining the establishment of a technical advisory forum that would undertake a “robust assessment” of Australia’s official temperature data set.
Then, just today I was provided with the actual terms of reference for this forum comprising eight statisticians and/or mathematicians, and I see that they intend to meet for only one day each year. Furthermore, during the morning of this one day they will be lectured to by Bureau scientists, with the afternoon devoted to discussion.
Indeed the current format is likely to be as useful at getting to the bottom of our issues with the Bureau’s revisionist approach to Australia’s climatic history, as expecting George Pell to voluntarily admit pedophilia during a Sunday sermon.
If indeed you are serious about a robust assessment of the Bureau’s handling of temperature data, then I urge you to immediately modify the format for the forum. I urge you to immediately establish a mechanism for public critical review including testimony from dissidents.
Dr Jennifer Marohasy, Independent Scientist