The Australian's War on Science 65 : Stuart Rintoul misrepresents a scientific paper (continued)

Media Watch does an excellent report on Stuart Rintoul's misrepresentation of Phil Watson's paper.

Count the whoppers from The Australian. The Australian:

as I understand it the CSIRO was invited to comment to Media Watch and declined to do so.

Kathleen McInnnes of the CSIRO on how they weren't invited to comment:

CSIRO ... would have appreciated the opportunity to clarify what is a complex issue for many people.

The Australian:

Phil Watson ... has made no complaint about how his research was represented in the article and will not.

Watson's Department:

Mr Watson does not agree with the use of his findings to infer future projections of sea level rise nor does Mr Watson agree that his research casts doubts on the future modelling undertaken by CSIRO.

And perhaps the biggest one of all from the Australian:

Much of the commentary around this story has suggested that it was written with an agenda in mind. It was not.

Update: Continued here.

More like this

The Australian? An agenda? No way!

By Vince whirlwind (not verified) on 03 Aug 2011 #permalink

Much of the commentary around this story has suggested that it was written with an agenda in mind. It was not.

The liar's lament:

"I'm honest."

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 03 Aug 2011 #permalink

I agree the Media Watch coverage is pretty damn thorough,but...

The main question remains why Howard Brady came to dominate comment in this story. 'Brady contacted us' according to The did he know about this paper and Rintouls plan to cover it? Did Brady know of the paper's publication,and bring the whole 'project' to Rintoul? Yes,Mathieson confirms that in his statement to MW at point 5. Watson is interviewed but clearly Brady's input is favored...and Brady gets to play expert at 2GB later in the day,as though Watson didn't exist.

Mathieson's statement is laughable. He claims at point 8 that the dispute between the CSIRO and Dr Brady was not the focus of the article,never mind that the second paragraph and paragraphs four to eleven inclusively are entirely concerned with CSIRO/IPCC projections!!

And Mathieson's point 7 noted that Brady had 'raised the same criticisms of CSIRO modelling' on ABC's 'Pacific Beat' on 25/7. [Once again Watson is ignored,Brady exclusively opines] So,The Oz having defined the approach,the ABC's following of their script 'proves' it was an ideal coverage.

Mathieson's point 9 proves he doesn't understand the criticism of the article's approach at all.

...and Brady's 'Pacific Beat' interview is one to deconstruct. His last comment about how sea-level rise projections are derived is BS.

John Mclean leaps into the Media Watch comments as JohnM to defend the Honorary Associate, retired paleontologist, Howard Brady.
His arguments are based around the assumption that global warming during the 21st century could not be more substantial or have a greater impact than during the 20th century. Since he thinks there is no global warming, he thinks this assumption is true.

John McLean has also jumped in with some characteristically idiotic claims about sea-level rise.

By Vince whirlwind (not verified) on 03 Aug 2011 #permalink

"Much of the commentary suggested that it was written with an argument in mind. It was not."

By Donald Oats (not verified) on 04 Aug 2011 #permalink

If there is no agenda, perhaps they could offer some explanation for the curious fact that all of their 'errors' in covering climate science point in the same direction, ie. downplaying the science.

No random distribution there.

If there is "no agenda", why are the experts in Australia's top scientific bodies never consulted?

By Vince whirlwind (not verified) on 04 Aug 2011 #permalink

So you really followed through with your links? Continue a little further and you'll find Brady's comments have merit... Have a look!

By Nanuestalker (not verified) on 05 Aug 2011 #permalink