A Climate Audit reader in Australia drew CSIRO’s attention to criticism of their data stonewalling here at CA. CSIRO promptly told the Australian reader that the “appropriate CSIRO climate scientists and Communications team have responded accordingly to Stephen McIntyre and David Stockwell directly, in order to address their concerns” and that “some of the direct responses have even been posted on the http://www.climateaudit.org website”.
Well, for the record, they haven’t responded to me “directly” in the sense that anyone from CSIRO actually sent me an email of any sort and, to the extent that they are claiming to be responding to my particular criticisms, it is untrue that “some of the direct responses have even been posted on the http://www.climateaudit.org website”.
Also for the record, I was not a party to any of David Stockwell’s original inquiries and merely read his account of his encounters with CSIRO as any other reader of his blog might have done. CSIRO correspondence with David Stockwell was posted at his website and I quoted excerpts from this correspondence in my previous posts. All of this correspondence pre-dated my particular posts, the earliest of which was on July 14, 2008 and cannot possibly constitute a “direct” response to my posts.
Here is the correspondence:
The Original Inquiry from an Australian Reader
Sent: Thursday, 17 July 2008 12:48 PM
Subject: Climate Audit Discussion on CSIRO
No doubt you are aware that CSIRO is currently being discussed on Steve McIntyre’s site Climate Audit. However, on the off chance that you are not aware, here is the website address: http://www.climateaudit.org.
It looks like CSIRO has some fence-mending to do.
From: Enquiries at csiro.au
Sent: Friday, 18 July 2008 10:00 AM
Subject: Our Ref: TP16.. – RE: Climate Audit Discussion on CSIRO
Thank you for your email.
Yes, we are certainly aware of the comments and activity related to CSIRO on Steve McIntyre’s blog website.
The appropriate CSIRO climate scientists and Communications team have responded accordingly to Stephen McIntyre and David Stockwell directly, in order to address their concerns. I believe some of the direct responses have even been posted on the http://www.climateaudit.org website.
CSIRO scientists welcome open and serious debate, discussion and questioning of their science through the peer-review process. They also stand by the results of their research. CSIRO unequivocally stands by its scientists.
You may also be interested to read the article by Dr Paul Fraser, Chief Research Scientist with CSIRO’s Marine and Atmospheric Research Division, titled “The science of discussing climate change”, which was published in The AGE newspaper and is available on our website, as per the following link: http://www.csiro.au/files/files/pfcj.pdf
To learn more about CSIRO’s current research into climate change, please visit: http://www.csiro.au/science/ClimateChange.html
I hope this assists with your enquiry. If you have any further enquiries regarding CSIRO and its research capabilities, please contact us at enquiries at csiro.au
CSIRO Information Officer Davidson stated:
I believe some of the direct responses have even been posted on the http://www.climateaudit.org website.
Let’s see. If he’s referring to my quoting from the emails to David Stockwell, I can locate two such quotes in my posts.
In this post , I criticized the statement by CSIRO that “some of the media reports have misinterpreted the findings of the report”.
So when Hennessy said that
“some of the media reports have misinterpreted the findings of the report”
this seems extremely unjustified in relation to the article that David cited. I find it difficult to understand exactly where he thinks this article went astray. But if he did, as noted above, CSIRO has an obligation to write the agency and set the record straight about exactly what they think the news agency misinterpreted.
This particular criticism did not appear at David Stockwell’s website and, to my knowledge, no CSIRO climate scientist or official has made any response to this particular criticism either here or anywhere else, be it mealy-mouthed or otherwise,
The only other quotation from a CSIRO response was in the first post where I quoted:
In the most recent episode, CSIRO stated:
I’m not able to hand over the data from the 13 models, due to restrictions on Intellectual Property, but I can describe the methods used to determine statistical significance.
This particular statement is not a “direct response” to the criticism. It was the original refusal itself and it’s what I criticized.
Why would CSIRO send out a response where the particulars are not merely untrue but the inaccuracy of which can be easily checked? Maybe they used someone from the Team as a fact checker.