ElasticTruth

 

Correspondence with Media Watch — the parts that matter

This is an excerpt from my correspondence with Media Watch. The full thread is available as a PDF at the end of this page. I have redacted the email addresses of third parties who were copied on the thread. I have made no other changes.

1. The producer's conclusion, two days before I was asked to respond

On 23 October 2026, before I had submitted my statement, Mario Christodoulou wrote to Dr Jennifer Marohasy:

"Our research suggests the accusations levelled at BoM, while accurate in part, have been exaggerated and are largely disputed."

This was written before I had answered any of the questions put to me, and before I provided the CSV files. A conclusion reached before the subject responds is difficult to describe as an assessment of the subject's position.

2. What the audit actually is

In my statement of 26 October 2026, I wrote:

"If Column A for July 1943 exactly matches Column B for July 1944 line-by-line, that is a data management anomaly, not a weather event. Demanding a PhD in climate science to point out identical data tables is like demanding an architectural degree to notice that a book has printed the same chapter twice. 

We use the same logic for counting days without decimals after 1990. And so on."

That is the whole argument. It does not require a climate science qualification. It requires a file and the willingness to open it.

3. The distinction that was not addressed

When I objected to the publication of my employment history, Mario replied on 27 October 2026:

"We do not need your consent to publish your response. I made it clear that I was a journalist, and that I was contacting you for the purpose of seeking a response to our Media Watch segment."

He removed the documents after I objected. 

I am publishing this excerpt because it shows the distinction I raised was not addressed. "Verification" and "publication" are different purposes. 

I provided my employment history for the first. I did not provide it for the second. That the documents were removed is the correct outcome; that the right to publish them was asserted is the point that remains on the record.

The full thread:

The complete correspondence is available here as a PDF. Third-party email addresses have been redacted. Nothing else has been removed.

[Link to redacted PDF] (coming soon)

One further matter, for the record.

During our telephone conversation I was repeatedly spoken over and was not permitted to complete my answers. When I raised this at the time, I was told the right to respond was my choice, which is true, but it does not change the fact that the interview did not allow me to explain the points I was asked about.