“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 .
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Bravo ma’am!
It’s refreshing to see such intellectual honesty Jen.
It’s so lacking in AGW debates generally – hardly anybody seems willing to acknowledge the evidence ( on both sides ) which contradicts their position or , as in this case , admit that some supporters of their position are just plain wrong.
It’s why I like this site.
I’ll cease the adulation at this point – I’ll try to be as dispassionate as the rest of your contributors !!!!!
I wonder what The Australian will do?
Jennifer – This shows that while you might be a skeptical about AGW at least you can be balanced.
Jen
I think you post is quite appropriate and refreshing, but
The Australian has nothing to apologise for.
They don’t have to check the complete accuracy of every letter, the letter writers do. Of course the Oz should be informed enough to not publish obvious rubbish and should regulate author identity by some scrutiny so fake names and identities don’t get through often (but lets face it sometimes do), but the views in the letters are not theirs.
When I see views I think are nutty in The Weekly Times I don’t blame the publisher, they are just allowing their readers to let off steam. As long as the admit all points of view (even mine) that are well expressed, that’s the standard I expect.
Who owes the apology then? Who tried to milk this cow in the public domain before discovering it was a bull?
1. The Australian (excused by detribe’s comment, as it was only a letter)
2. Hissink
3. Marohasy
I apologise for nothing – I did not accuse the CSIRO of anything. I merely identified politically motivatated science as Lysenkoism, as exemplified by the published letter Jen linked in here introductory post.
That it is now shown to be a fabrication is neither here nor there, the principle remains the same, whether committed by the Univeristy of Bath or the CSIRO.
It is however, annoying that letters such as these are inadvertently and occasionally published by the mainstream media, but any opinion that factuality is not checked by the sub-editors is pure supercilious waffle.
As one who has written many letters to the media, and having most published I can categorically state that the editorial people do check the truth of what is published in the letters section of a newspaper, being subjected to the editorial process myself by ACP and Fairfax on numerous occasions. Any hint of libel in a proposed letter to the editor and it is not published.
Sorry guys, better luck next time.
The Australian published a letter suggesting that CSIRO, and by implication the BOM because they are responsible for weather sites, was being selective in its choice of sites to generate a warming trend. Given the seriousness of the allegation I am surprised The Australian didn’t send a reporter out to Sherrington’s house to do a feature on the issue. As it turns out, the story is wrong. I do think The Australian has a responsibility to do better than this. If not an apology, then what? Just publish my letter – removing the sentence where I ask for an apology?
The laws of libel are in operation here – as News Limited well knows – so on this issue I would step back and observe, (from experience).
Telling a media gorilla they faffed big time publicly is not a useful thing to do.
Jennifer, How about replacing the sentence asking for an apology with ‘The claims in Mr Sherrington’s letter should be discounted accordingly’?
Change made as suggested by Ian C.
Be that it may discussion, here, over the content of Jennifer’s proposed letter to the Australian already puts it into the public domain, and thus not a candidate for the letters page in the OZ.
Sometimes the tone of comment used on this blog to illustrate a theme is about as subtle as management in high places breaking wind. Stop it!
bugger,
Obviously you have not experienced a visit from the lawyers from hell. Nor I, (yet) but colleagues have, and the Ebola virus is, by comparison, a mild skin irritation.
There is a load of old climate politics left in the draft response. Cut it out too. That doesn’t leave much hey.
Ender says:
“Jennifer – This shows that while you might be a skeptical about AGW at least you can be balanced.”
I have a dream that one day this ENDER will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all NOT ALL WARMING IS MAN MADE.” I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia ENDER, PHIL AND BUGGER will be able to sit down together at a table of SCEPTICS. I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a desert state, sweltering with the heat of THE SUN and GREENY oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and NOT VITUAL REALITY. I have a dream that THREE children (ENDER, PHIL AND BUGGER will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by AGW but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.
(With apologies to MLK, one of the greatest speeches ever made.)
Ender, Martin Lunther King the same applies to you.
Joe – do you have proof that the hills of Georgia are lateritic or kraznozems?
Anyway – what about palladium – what do you think?
lateritic or kraznozems?
Assume, as you do that I am a dummy (and aslo too lazy to google what does that mean?
More changes made to the above letter based on comment here and emails received – including, “A rebuttal where an injustice has been done should be simple to the errant point with no other content”.
many thanks.
Anyway – you have raised an important point nonetheless which needs addressing – some warming is WOMAN MADE – why should we guys get all the blame. I am sick of the inequity and suggest you need to follow Jen’s lead with a letter to the Australian. Althoughs guys having more testosterone (well some of us) probably drive cars harder and use more computer games so we’d have to adjust for that. Although as you indicated we need to bill your own wife for her wanton indiscriminant use of washing machines, stoves and dishwashers. Why should you take the carbon hit for her – are you turning them on – and she could do it by hand.
Oh yea – they’re red earths.
Thanks Jennifer. If we can step back for a moment and stop watching thermometers and their minders here and there around the world and let the ice be the final arbitrator of the question; is the globe is warming or not? Then the next big question is; how much puts us in the briny? The answer again is in the ice.
Now I reckon 2 C is enough to start the clock ticking, all other discussion about who knew what back when or what caused it is irrelevant. Lets move on.
yeah Phil, put the PC back into the IPCC!
Jennifer, good work on the open draft. It’s still worth sending it and asking them to publish it whether or not you expect them to (then posting the result as an update here).
Once in a while one comes across a true classic : Louis says “I merely identified politically motivated science as Lysenkoism, as exemplified by the published letter Jen linked in here introductory post.
That it is now shown to be a fabrication is neither here nor there, the principle remains the same, whether committed by the University of Bath or the CSIRO.”
A mental construct so perverse, so contorted, as to defy any reasonable interpretation. But I’ll try .. .. Louis is uncritically, as his blog site says, throwing hand grenades into the blogosphere (“rhetorical ones” we assume).
His hatred of AGW is such that whether there are any facts associated with such grenades is irrelevant. The means justifies the end.
I would like to know what the political motivations of CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology are? Has Louis any statistics? Has he conversed with a sample? What can he tell us about their motivations? Or is this (given his predilection for Russian metaphors) a Stalinist like purge that will inevitably wipe out a few thousand innocents along the way.
I nearly commented exactly the same Phil, I thought it was such a corker, but i knew that Louis would simply retire to the crazy world of his closed blog where he posts, then comments on his own posts, and then replies to his own comments and so forth..
Thinksi comment touched a nerve. Many of us letter writers included, will have watched the ABC report of how the CSIRO through government tightening of the public purse strings has been muzzled. Editors are not that different compleat editorial freedoms are mythical. Assertions that facts particulary in letters are checked while we understand these publications continue to be used as the political tools of their owners is just more supercilious waffle.
If anyone has a concern about how the Australian responds to this issue, take it up with the Australian Press Council http://www.presscouncil.org.au/
In any case it is worthwhile having a look at the APC Statement of Principles.
CSIRO are not on their own when it comes to budget cuts, all commercial life is fiercely competitive and govt departments and statutory authorities should be seen to seek every opportunity to integrate with the mainstream.
Yes but there’s a tension of being relevant, innovative and anticipating tomorrow’s demands. And of course if you pay peanuts and have 3rd world equipment you may only get monkeys.
It’s not an easy game – if you want to make serious money, do accounting or get a trade. Or even better go into policy – that way you don’t need to know anything.
Phil Done has posted:
“Once in a while one comes across a true classic : Louis says “I merely identified politically motivated science as Lysenkoism, as exemplified by the published letter Jen linked in here introductory post.
That it is now shown to be a fabrication is neither here nor there, the principle remains the same, whether committed by the University of Bath or the CSIRO.””
“A mental construct so perverse, so contorted, as to defy any reasonable interpretation. But I’ll try .. .. Louis is uncritically, as his blog site says, throwing hand grenades into the blogosphere (“rhetorical ones” we assume).”
Comment: Phil, politically motivated science is Lysenkoism – science that is modified to fit preconceived policies, that of AGW as maintained by I.
“His hatred of AGW is such that whether there are any facts associated with such grenades is irrelevant. The means justifies the end.”
Comment:It is difficult to hate something which does not exist. As for the last sentence, my position is that “The Means ARE the end”.
I would like to know what the political motivations of CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology are? Has Louis any statistics? Has he conversed with a sample? What can he tell us about their motivations? Or is this (given his predilection for Russian metaphors) a Stalinist like purge that will inevitably wipe out a few thousand innocents along the way.
Comment: CSIRO and the BOM cannot have political motivations, being acronyms and abstractions; only individuals have political motivation. Statistics? On what Phil? The issue is the manipulation of science to fit a predetermined agenda, here the AGW belief, and that is Lyenkoism. As for your misplaced metaphor of a Stalinist like purge, I believe Stalin purged millions, not a few thousands, of innocents.
Letters to the editor are indeed part of the editorial process to highlight specific issues a newspaper may wish to emphasise but contrary to Edward James’ belief, letters are checked for factuality – the laws of libel are too onerous for errors to be made.
In anycase I find the absence of any comment from the CSIRO on the fabrication even more telling. If the published letter was, as Jen proved, fraudulent, then why so much silence?
As for the belief that CSIRO scientists are being muzzled, heavens sakes, if they were this thread would not exist.
Thinksi
Thanks for your perceptive comments, I rather enjoy the free advertising.
Some boys never grow up
To illustrate your total silliness Louis – it’s the Australian Bureau of Meteorology not CSIRO that maintain the reference climate network. Louis if CSIRO had to respond to your level of generated nonsense they’d need a whole unit of writers to cope. They simply ignore you as a waste of time.
Silly Philly
Who said the BOM did not maintain the reference climate network. Not I. Your abilities in reading the white spaces between sentences, paragraphs and letters is truly amazing. That such a paucity of information could result in so much speculation boggles the mind.
So Limp Louis wot’s the CSIRO stuff about then?
Phil,
This thread is about a fraudulent letter to The Australian Newspaper.
Now what are you thinking the CSIRO’s stuff is about, since no one raised it before except you.
So why are you reproducing fraudulent letters on your blog then?
Because at the time I did not have 20-20 hindsite. Being human I err, often, but not being stupid, and thus incapable of error, statistically, I found little room to explain my actions.
You ?
Accepted.
I’m not campaigning for a position though. I’m defending one. One I believe is being researched, in the main, by serious intelligent people of integrity.
Your mob defended the view, then, that the sun orbited the earth, researched, in the main, by serious intelligent people of integrity.
I don’t think so. (My mob ?)
You see it remains to be seen who’s playing the Catholic Church and who’s playing Galileo.
We might indeed.
St Phil and Pope Louis !?!?
Does whoever’s wrong get burned at the stake?
Well Galileo has only just been forgiven. Some of us may be quite old or deceased before we know for sure. Posthumous fame or infamy.
Louis thinks he’s playing Galileo – I disagree ! I think he’s playing silly buggers.
Although a large majority of climate scientists would claim they have enough evidence right now to be paid. My issue with Louis is he is throwing any argument that he finds anywhere desperately trying to stop the tide (uncritically). The problem is that every day that passes trends and events tend to confirm a direction towards warming.
So even most sceptics have signed off on the warming we are currently experiencing. If you get through that you can say it’s natural. If you decide it’s not likely to be natural you can say it’s a good thing; or we’ll be able to technically fix CO2 growth; or we don’t have our emission scenarios correct; or our climate model sensitivity right.
IHMO the more enlightned critics are at least debating down the more arguable ends of the spectrum.
Jen has at least decided it’s warming. As a scientist she now needs to ask why?
Letter emailed to the Australian this morning.
And Phil, You can be so patronising. I’ve not changed my position on warming and I’ve published on various possible causes – see OLO.
Drat – thought I’d get away with that.
You could write your own letter Phil, if you have the courage.
ooooooo – Rog is a bit toey after getting Thinksi wrong.
What was the wrong bit Phil?
Underestimating who she is.
I have just returned from a few days seeing my toddler grandson, son and daughter-in-law in Gladstone. How wonderful.
I clocked on to the site and find little has changed..the usual amount of bile and vitriol interspersed with some illuminating posts.
But I still do not understand why some contributors cannot observe some basic civility in their postings.
For example Thinksy why can’t you you refer to Jennifer as Jennifer, Dr Marohasy or even Jen?
Phil doesn’t seem to be addressed as Done so why not extend the same courtesy to Jennifer?
Let us be honest, with Jennifer this Blog would not exist.
I haven’t seen any developments re Wiki (although Reuben had a good game last week-end) but reading about all the conventions needed for the concept to be useful I doubt whether many of the current contributors would let it stand a chance.
Blair
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?)