The truth in the saga of Jon Jenkins, former NSW politician and adjunct professor at Bond University, remains unclear. A couple of days ago, Jennifer Marohasy stated that there was “no doubt” he was ditched by Bond University because of the opinions about global warming expressed in his op-ed in The Australian. I took her reporting of the dismissal at face value, but still had reservations about the reasons for it.
But Tim Lambert did a bit of exploring and has questioned whether the termination of Jenkins’ adjunct appointment was as recent as has been made out. Lambert’s suspicion is that Jenkins was reprimanded for claiming a position he no longer held. I think the evidence isn’t clear enough to draw the conclusion for certain; however, Lambert doesn’t seem to be getting much of a response from Jenkins to clear things up.
Meanwhile, Marohasy has restated her certainty about the accuracy of her original report, indicating that it came from a “reliable source”. But she provides no further information – not about the source of the information (Jenkins himself, or someone else?), not about whether there is any documentary evidence, and not about whether any statements support her claim that it was “no doubt” his anti-AGW views that cost Jenkins the adjunct appointment.
For a so-called sceptic, Marohasy doesn’t appear to value providing supporting evidence for her argument very highly. She expects her readers to believe something is true just because she says she is certain it is. Isn’t that the sort of thinking the “warmaholics” are accused of? Of course, some of her commenters had no problem falling into line behind her (“disgraceful”, “debauchery”, investigate Bond University’s funding to find the vested interest!) – but even among her “community” there are surprisingly few who swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
But that’s not to deter Jennifer – she’s at it again today, implying that the controlling hand of Robyn Williams resulted in an interview with Bill Kininmonth being cut from an AM segment about the recently published study suggesting warming in Antarctica. Apparently, Kininmonth’s perspective was included when the segment first aired on Radio National, but his (and only his) interview was edited out of the later broadcast on ABC local radio – and was also omitted from the transcript and podcast. This time, at least, Marohasy reproduces some of the evidence – Kininmonth has supplied the chain of e-mails as he has sought an explanation from the ABC and access to a record of the original RN broadcast (both of which, I would suggest, being things he is reasonably entitled to). There is some suggestion that the editing was for time constraints. But Jennifer injects her own suspicions:
At first blush this has all the signs of ABC censorship in favour of the bias of the science unit.
I guess it might; if you start with an assumption that the ABC and its science unit have a bias, then chances are you’ll interpret anything as reflecting that bias. Except when one of the other contributors to the segment had his explanation misreported to the point of silliness – that kind of thing can just be ignored.
We’ll see whether Marohasy ever sticks at a single case long enough to actually substantiate her claims and insinuations. I suspect she will continue to move from introducing one oppressed voice of reason to the next, never stopping long enough to have to plug the leaks in her story. But of course, all of her efforts are directed toward getting readers to ask that most important question:
UPDATE: Tim Lambert has a quote from Bond University’s registrar explaining what really happened to Dr Jenkins’ adjunct status – and refuting any claim that he was reprimanded or disciplined. “No doubt” Jennifer Marohasy will issue a retraction any moment now.