Scientists should know better: the truth was out there

IT reflects poorly on Australia’s climate science establishment that tribal loyalty is more important than genuine inquiry.

IT reflects poorly on key members of Australia’s climate science establishment that tribal loyalty is more important than genuine inquiry.

Openness not ad hominem histrionics was always the answer for lingering concerns about what happened to some of the nation’s temperature records under the Bureau of Meteorology’s process of homogenisation.

BoM’s independent peer review panel called for greater transparency. BoM did not heed the call and when questions were raised the reflexive response of its supporters has been to shoot the messenger.

For BoM’s defenders, the fact that scientist Jennifer Marohasy once worked for the Institute of Public Affairs is somehow more important than her call for clarity on why a cooling trend at several weather stations has been turned into a warming one by BoM.

Melbourne University professor David Karoly has called BoM’s inquisitors amateurs. And in yesterday’s Sydney Morning Herald, Monash University astronomer Michael Brown said asking questions was an “attempt to deny a century of science that proves global warming has occurred and will continue to do so”.

It is entirely appropriate to ask public institutions to be open with real facts about actual events.

The belated compliance by BoM to publish its reasoning is proof enough of what was the right thing to do all along.