Saturday, July 30, 2011

Wendy's Wonderland

 A CHALLENGE: Wendy Carlisle, the lectern is yours. Respond to the three apparent errors listed below. You have been tweeting up a storm of denial, but a professional journalist would surely wish to invest more than 140-characters in defending her competence, honesty, or both. Email the Billabong or join the comments thread. Silence can only condemn.
By the way, there is another little curiosity about your report, but that can wait until tomorrow.
ABC reporterette Wendy Carlisle informs visitors to her twitter page that she is “working on a new secret story”. Women are said to be particularly good at multi-tasking, according to the settled science one finds in dog-eared magazines available in hospital waiting rooms, but Ms Carlisle must be a genuine journalistic wonder. After broadcasting her Background Briefing assault on Viscount Monckton, she promised to address the many criticisms of that 60-minute, taxpayer-funded slander, and in sundry other posts has insisted she and the ABC “stand by our story”. Yet two weeks have passed and no defence, comprehensive or tweeted, has been forthcoming.

Perhaps she simply does not know where to start, there being so much on her plate and so much that was wrong – not just sloppy, but downright, irredeemably false --  about the Monckton report. Now that she is also tweeting defences of a polar biologist who has been suspended over allegations of scientific misconduct, the poor thing may need a little help organising her thoughts. Indeed, she has not found time to note that the bounced boffin, Dr Charles Monnett, was one of her prime sources for her attack on Monckton.

Chivalry is not dead, at least not at the Billabong, where young, firm women can always expect gentlemanly courtesies. So to help the credulous Carlisle address those matters of gross inaccuracy, here are some of her assertions and the documentary evidence refuting them. All Carlisle’s quotes are taken from her broadcast. Each quoted source is lifted from the “supporting documents” she provides at the show's Background Briefing web page:

Wendy’s Wonderland #1:

Wendy Carlisle: … he [Fred Singer] was one of those scientists to basically cast doubt on the link between smoking and cancer

Fred Singer (from the cited paper): There are certain things about smoking which science can demonstrate. For example, active smoking is detrimental to the health of millions of smokers.

Fred Singer: It is accepted that smoking is linked to several forms of cancer, particularly of the lungs, and also to heart disease.

The full document is here. Readers will note that Singer casts not a shred of doubt on the cancer/smoking link; rather, he endorses it. His beef is with the bent and cobbled together “science” deployed to ban fags in bars and other public places, research that saw secondhand smoke designated as a known carcinogen only after orthodox statistical analysis was jettisoned to achieve that result.

Sounds kinda like climate science, eh?

QUESTION FOR CARLISLE: Did you not read the supporting document you provide?

Wendy’s Wonderland #2:

Wendy Carlisle: The scientific paper Lord Monckton cites does not say that the polar bears drowned because of a big storm.

The polar bear paper: High mortality in 2004 was more likely related to extreme and metabolically demanding conditions, such as high sea states associated with stormy weather.

The polar bear paper: Our count of dead polar bears related to the 2004 windstorm almost certainly represents an underestimate of the actual number of polar bears affected

The polar bear paper: Over the next days, high winds occurred across the study area with light westerly winds switching to strong easterly winds peaking at 54 km/h at Endicott and 46 km/h
… Winds offshore were likely considerably higher

The polar bear paper: Seas became very rough with wave heights estimated in excess of 2m.

The full document is here. And just for a little perspective, let us note that the paper’s author, who is in hot water with US federal investigators, has been, ahem, peer reviewed, as he explains: “Uh, well, it was, it was reviewed here. Um, Lisa Rotterman, my wife, who is a, you know, Ph.D. ecologist, reviewed it and, you know, she took the first cut”

Ah, the benefits of a happy and supportive marriage!

QUESTION FOR WENDY: Did you not read the supporting document you provide?

Wendy’s Wonderland #3:

So far, in our examination of Carlisle’s litany of loose reporting, her sins can be understood, if not forgiven. Let’s assume the slur on Singer and the misrepresentation of the polar bear study (itself highly dubious) were inspired by a dash of cavalier laziness and a larger dollop of personal bias. It is easy to see how it might have happened. Her green contacts fed her the libels, and being a reporter committed to carbon justice and a candle-powered planet, she parroted and published them. Shockingly slack, but not without precedent, as a good many of her ABC colleagues so often cut the same corners.

But the third and final of Carlisle’s transgressions is no mere study in slackness. Indeed, it is such a monumental misrepresentation that Media Watch’s Jonathan Holmes, even if he can ignore #1 and #2, needs to be all over this example of dopey, devious journalism. He won’t touch it, of course, but he most definitely should. Read the transcript below – and read it carefully.

Wendy Carlisle: And the show continued like this for another 50 minutes, with Lord Monckton repeatedly misconstruing the scientific evidence.
Christopher Monckton: Because Al Gore says in his movie that because of the melting of two ice sheets, Greenland and the West Antarctic, sea level is going to rise by 20 feet, imminently. But in fact the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that because of those two ice sheets the amount of contribution to sea level rise will be, over the whole of the next 100 years six centimetres, which is two and a half inches; not 610 centimetres, which is 20 feet. So there is a hundredfold exaggeration by Al Gore. 'I'm gonna do this big, baby!'
Wendy Carlisle: On this occasion the exaggerations cut both ways. Yes, Al Gore did overstate his case, but Lord Monckton's assertion, that the UN's climate change panel says seas will only rise by six centimetres this century, is pure fiction. According to chapter five of its report on sea levels, the sea is expected to rise between 20 and 50 centimetres this century.
Well, yes, the IPCC does say something like that, and you can find its predictions of total seal level rise at page 409 of its 2007 magnum opus.

But the key word is “total” – and Monckton was not talking about the overall global increase. The element of Al Gore’s theology that attracts his attention is the projected sea level rise attributable to just two ice sheets, the Greenland and West Antarctic ones. They are but two of several sources and factors the IPCC believes will drown us, the chief amongst these being the fact that water expands as it warms (see graphic 10.33 on page 821 and section

For those interested, the IPCC explains its logic not in Chapter 5, where Carlisle refers listeners, but in Chapter 10 (see section 10.6.1 on page 812), where the settled scientists note that Antarctica is unlikely to be a major source of sea level increases in the short term because the volume of land-based ice is growing. The Greenland ice sheet, it continues, is likely to be more troublesome, but estimating its contribution, and the speed of that contribution, must remain speculative because of all the many variables. According to the graphic on page 830, the near-total disappearance of Greenland’s ice might be seen 1,760 years hence, an interval that would appear to grant humanity a little breathing room.

All of the above is very interesting, but delving into the IPCC’s minutiae is to miss the staggering mischief in Carlisle’s reaming of Monckton. Just to recap, he refers to a 6cm sea-level increase as a consequence of just two ice sources melting in the short term. Carlisle pretends he is talking about total rises from all global sources and then uses that misrepresentation to give him a right bollocking while simultaneously excusing Gore’s towering falsehood.

Where did Monckton get his 6cm? Well, that remains a mystery, quite possibly because the IPCC report is a thick, dense and difficult document for a lay Bunyip to decipher in its entirety.  If that figure is in there and readers can find it, or if more incisive souls can spot the numbers Monckton crunched to get his estimate, please post a note of explanation in the comments thread and this post will be updated ASAP.

But again, fixating on pure numbers is a mugs game. Carlisle’s sin #3 is flat-out misrepresentation, the actual number being beside the point.

QUESTION FOR CARLISLE: Did you not read the supporting document you provide?

Add another exhibit to the body of evidence that says the ABC needs to be cleaned out or, if that proves impossible, shuttered for good. That the ABC published Carlisle’s poison is appalling. That it has allowed it to stand is a disgrace.


  1. Bunyip, well said. We need to keep the pressure on so people are called to account for their work - especially publicly funded work.

    The Ministry of Misinformation has much to answer.

    We pay the ABC to give us accurate facts and both sides of the story.

    That Carlisle report was shameless propaganda (as I also detailed on my blog).

  2. Well,Bunyips are never observed,but now at least we know they dig their own holes.

    Your precis of the paper is sadly lacking,just as Monckton's use of it is incredibly facetious. The authors speculate that the four bears died caught in high winds and seas while open-water swimming. We don't know whether they were surprised by a change of weather or ventured out in less than optimal conditions,though they are considered strong swimmers.

    These observations are a spring board to discussing likely future scenarios given the observed decline in sea-ice extent and projections for worse to come. The paper discusses the reality that the more extensive the open water,the greater the wave height under average weather conditions because more ice damps the run and amplitude of waves. So the authors are suggesting that swimming conditions,regardless of storms,will become more difficult for bears. Swimming is regarded as more metabolically demanding than land and ice based hunting. Shrinking sea-ice coverage,which reduces hunting opportunities and provokes longer distance swimming,is regarded as threatening to these populations viability. It's a discussion paper,part of the conversation about Arctic ecology in changing climate.

    So,while in the narrowest possible sense,Monckton is right to say the bears drowned in a storm,he completely avoids dealing with the paper like any reasonable,curious soul committed to inform might. What makes him any less dopey and devious a journalist than Carlisle?

    As for pal-review from Dr Wife,well,Monnett said clearly that she 'took the FIRST cut' No mention of you of second and third. Why?

    And why is Monnett being heavied by his department? You really do have an inkling ,don't you,but it does not fit your narrative.

    Why isn't the big Bunyip probe asking why Monckton ignores the copious other literature on polar bears and their future. Why does he climb over this mountain of research to snip a sentence out of one paper? Why is the Bunyip so incurious about Monckton's lies about having published several reviewed papers? And the rest of his resume-padding? Why does the withering analysis only have one polarity?

  3. Nicely put Mr B. Google can't help me re-locate the sound clip, but within the last few days I heard Monckton say he had instructed his lawyers to sue Carlisle.

  4. She certainly has been busy on Twitter trying to defend herself over this. Too bad she hasn't deigned to front up either here or at Jo Nova's to give a more robust explanation.

    Meh. She unfollowed me after I tweeted your post, so I'm not interested in hearing her out this time.

    It's truly #TheirABC.

  5. A great taken-down. Three cheers Stanley. Keep them coming.

  6. Let me get this straight. She thinks she is going to defend these claims? She is dreaming.

    Monckton mentioned that he would sue the ABC if he did not get a right of reply. I haven't yet heard what happened next here. Did the ABC bow to common decency or what?

  7. Para 6.. Seal level? Best wishes.

  8. Nick, it seems you are upset. Good.

  9. Yet another pathetically arrogant ABC reporter oblivious to the fact that the ABC culture she clings to is both stupidly partisan and devoid of substance.

  10. The incompetent Carlisle says, “Al Gore never said sea level rises of 20 feet were ‘imminent’”
    Well, from a PDF supplied by, “AIT in the Classroom: A series of lessons designed for science classrooms as a companion to the documentary An Inconvenient Truth”—i.e., propaganda in schoolrooms—, p. 30:

    “Deaths from global warming will double in just 25 years—to 300,000 people a year.
    “Global sea levels could rise by more than 20 feet with the loss of shelf ice in Greenland and Antarctica, devastating coastal areas worldwide.
    “Heat waves will be more frequent and more intense.
    “Droughts and wildfires will occur more often.
    “The Arctic Ocean could be ice free in summer by 2050.
    “More than a million species worldwide could be driven to extinction by 2050.”

    Al Gore and his lackeys aren’t specifying when catastrophic rise of sea-levels will occur, but the other “predictions” are for for the next few decades. That would sound imminent to many impressionable and scared children, I warrant.

  11. Did she go to the same school as Wendy Bacon?
    You remember comrade Wendy,the professor of journalism fluent in pidgin english.
    I am a plastering contractor with a team that were recently described as lazy,illiterate,overpaid c..ts
    Do you think there might be a position available for any of them at the ABC or the University of Technology,Sydney?

  12. Professor

    I think the 6cm figure might come from table 10.7 on this page:

    For top right hand figure in each scenario is the sea level rise out to 2099. Using the middle scenario (A1B), the figure for Greenland is 0.08 metres (8cm) and the figure for Antarctica is -0.02 metres (-2cm). Add the two together and you get a 6cm increase out to 2099.

    The table is confusing as hell - it took me a while to figure it out. They could certainly learn a bit about data presentation.



  13. Good work Prof. Nice to see the snippy armchai editing of Nick above. 'Why not go after Monckton?' Do it yourself, Nick. The Prof is going aftre the hack Ms Carlisle. And very well too.

  14. Having read Nick's response to the Bunyip's critique of Wendy Carlisle's report, I can only say that it is a blatant attempt to downplay and obscurate the obvious truth that on the issue of Carlisle's statement:

    "The scientific paper Lord Monckton cites does not say that the polar bears drowned because of a big storm"

    Carlisle is completely wrong and Monckton is totally correct. I have confirmed that from my own reading of Monnett and Gleason's paper.

    Nick begrudgingly admits in one sentence in the middle of his long screed that Monckton is "in the narrowest possible sense right...". Cut the BS, Nick, on the issue in hand Monckton is absolutely right.

    Your whole piece is nothing more than an attempt at misdirection - to change the topic, pile on the usual ad hominems, and lecture Bunyip on what he should and should not focus on in his own blog.

    By the way the paper itself is so full of "suggests", "perhaps" and "mays" its a wonder anyone could take it seriously at all.

  15. "The issue at hand",anonymous,is whether Monckton critiques Gore's use accurately,whether his own use of the paper is fair and whether Carlisle is right to conclude that M is "not one to let the facts stand in the way of a good show". As soon as you look into this,questions arise as to why Monckton avoids real discussion of polar bear literature.

    Gore mentions polar bears in this context,in a transcript of AIT: After an explanation of the reasons for enhanced Arctic warming,over and above the rate of global warming,Gore states: " That's not good for creatures like polar bears,who depend on ice. They're now,actually,looking for other ecological niches." He also said: " A new scientific study shows that for the first time they are finding polar bears that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find ice. They did not find that before." That pretty accurately reflects the paper: in the 16 years of observations before 2004,relatively fewer bears were seen swimming and none were seen drowned. Then in 2004,relatively more were seen swimming with 4 drowned. In this context you can understand that the paper is NOT about storms,but about odds in a changing environment;the more you have to swim,the more danger you may face. There were storms before,but no bears were seen drowned until huge amounts of open water were at play..

    Now,sure,there's more data to be gathered,but the combination of low ice,more open water and drowned bears is sufficient to make cautious conclusions about implications.This is ecological study in a large scale extreme environment."People",wildlife experts,the intended audience, would not take the paper seriously UNLESS cautious language and caveat was used.

    Monckton's use is a wilful simplification,ignoring all context. Carlisle's view is justifiable.

    Monckton: "Did any of these bears,according to the paper [Gore] was quoting, drown because they could not find the ice?... No. They died because there was a big storm with high winds and high waves,and they got swamped. Or as we scientists[sic] call it,shit happens."

    There,BTW,is Monckton pretending before the crowd to be a scientist.And misrepresenting the paper. Bullshit happens. That's not ad hominem,it's factual.

    Why does Monckton,in making claims about polar bears un-endangered status,ignore papers like Stirling & Parkinson 2006,who in the best monitored population of polar bears,in Western Hudson Bay,note that female weight is declining as sea-ice has declined in extent and duration over the preceding 25 years?

    And you accuse me of misdirection.

  16. Nick

    How on earth did those bears manage during all previous episodes of climate change? Sea ice is not static - some years you have lots of it; others you have less. Some years you have strong winds pushing the ice around; others less.

    We're looking at a study that went on for 16 years. It covers a small area of bear habitat, and bears were not the primary thing that they were observing - the study was directed at looking at whales. Just because bears hadn't been observed swimming that much in the past doesn't mean that bears have never actually had to swim that far - or further - in the past. It's just that man wasn't around to see it and record it in a database.

    They mention avoiding flying over natives who were out hunting. Did they ever bother to ask the native hunters if they'd ever seen bears out swimming like that before - or drowning? That exchange might have gone like this:

    RESEARCHER: Have you ever seen bears swimming in the past?

    NATIVE: Sure. We have a song about it. It goes, "Don't stick your kayak up the bum of a swimming bear". Inuk did that accidentally back in 1972 on a hunting trip.

    RESEARCHER: Can I see Inuk?

    NATIVE: You can see what's left of him up in the burial ground.

  17. Nick, a scientist, in a broad sense, can be a person who acquires knowledge by engaging in a systematic activity or, in a narrower sense, one who employs the scientific method. Lord Monckton, using his undoubted mathematical expertise, questions important assertions about the climate scientifically.
    Having qualifications, or completing a post-graduate degree does not mean that a person is necessarily a scientist. A scientist does not require certification from any university.
    Did William Perkin have any academic qualifications? Before being appointed Professor of Chemistry, did Michael Faraday have any academic qualifications? Were not Isaac Newton’s qualifications in mathematics and were not his scientific discoveries the result of private study? Before appointed to his chair of mathematics, did Galileo Galilei have any formal scientific qualifications? Other than his doctorate in canon law, did Nicolaus Copernicus have any university degree? Did Archimedes have a degree?
    Were Perkin, Faraday, Newton, Galileo, Copernicus and Archimedes scientists?
    Many people are careering around with alarmist tales of woe based on a pseudo-scientific conjecture; if their claims were scientific, where are their empirical data supporting their supposition?

  18. Yes,you are misdirecting, Nick.

    Let me repeat this again.
    The topic in hand is not what you want it to be. So live with it and address that issue, which is Ms Carlisle's assertion that:

    The scientific paper Lord Monckton cites does not say that the polar bears drowned because of a big storm.

    Of course it does, Nick and you know it does.

    This is not about Monckton, it is about Carlise. You want to attack Monckton, fine, get your own blog and pursue the matter to your heart's content, don't hijack this one.

  19. Fine,Boab,it's reasonable to think that bear populations have passed through environmental bottlenecks before,but this is about whether Monckton can be relied on to get things right in his haste to sink the slipper into Al Gore. Monnett and Gleason would never claim that their paper is the end of discussion;more likely the opposite,for precisely the reason you state.This work was a spin-off from another project,and an example of gathering as much as possible from the project,which is surely an admirable aim.

    All that Monnett and Gleason was concluding was that,if,as the projections say we're in for a long period of sea-ice retreat to a point where summer ice may disappear entirely,polar bears are in for a hard time as their currently preferred hunting habitats vanish.

    Palaeo records show that the Arctic is very sensitive to warming,the so-called polar amplification,and its reasonable to assume that polar bear populations wax and wane,but at present we have a mechanism that's going to lock in a new low summer ice regime for a long time.So this may be a new paradigm,no matter the shorter term disruption bear populations have experienced in the past.

    Monnett and Gleason's argument and that which Gore derives from their work is consistent with the observations and science.As well, Arctic summer ice extent is falling faster than projected.

    Monckton,sucking up the crowd's energy,claimed that Gore's handling of Monnett and Gleason was "complete fiction from start to finish".That just isn't true. The storm may have been the coup-de-grace for the bears in this instance,but it is incidental to the papers findings.

  20. Carlisle does misunderstand Monckton over what he is attributing the 6cm figure to.

    Monckton,however,is again facetiously dealing with information trying to compare apples with oranges. Gore sourced his 'imminent' 6m rise figures from Hansen IIRC,not the IPCC,though the FAR does mention that figure by way of backgrounding. But the IPCC are very conservative,and will not venture a figure from the ice sheets as they "exclude scaled up ice sheet dynamics". The contribution from the big ones is thus limited to an unlikely continuation of pre-2006 trends. Needless to say,this is too nuanced for Monckton to bother mentioning.He knows a crowd.

    Gore is exaggerating for effect,but it is critical to remember that according to the dynamics of the slow feedbacks what we emit now is critical to whether Greenland actually passes the mass balance threshold. No matter that 6m will take hundreds of years,our decisions will be the trigger,and this is consistent with the arguments even if you can't stomach them.

    The FAR is a bit out of date nowadays anyway,but Monckton clings to it,because the newer figures are less opaque,and are higher.

  21. Deadman,what makes Monckton's work anything more than pseudo-scientific conjecture? A bit of deliberately bodgy maths in quantifying climate sensitivity,strapped onto ill-informed opinions and rhetoric? The mathematical basics of estimating sensitivity are not time-consuming. His article in the APS newsletter,Physics and Society, was unreviewed,despite his claims that newsletter co-editor Al Saperstein had done so.Saperstein actually commented: "I'm a little ticked off that someone should claim this was reviewed. It was not".

    In that article,he even made nonsensical irrelevant claims like "the models" had failed to predict "the solar Grand Maximum of the last 70 years"! GCMs don't make solar projections! He made the same claim that GCMs had failed to project alleged warming on other planets! Were these claims sincerely thought to be even rhetorically useful in a newsletter for physicists?

    He's not a scientist,and often he has sufficient awareness of the company he's in not to pretend he is one... He has no publication record,which any scientist needs to build a professional life. No employment history in the sciences even as alab technician! And he doesn't even fit the description of an 18th century pioneer.

  22. Three lovely little pissing rants without a smidgen of 'evidence' that Nick is not plagerising from a list of AGW talking points. Gore may be exaggerating for effect, but Nickie is lying like a rug. BY the way, sourcing climate details from Hansen is akin to sourcing Dr Abbott's quotes from the PM's Office. And all the persons with science reputations pull out of the IPCC c.2006. But Nickie would not know because such is not mentioned in his list of handy talking points, from which he plagerises.


  23. No,minicap,I'm not lying. And not plagiarising: all these papers are online. Saperstein's quote came from an interview from New Scientist journo Catherine Brahic.

    Your comment that 'all the persons with science reputations pull[ed] out of the IPCC c.2006 ' is bullshit...and you present it without a 'smidgen of evidence',hypocrite. Go and search the list of authors for the upcoming Fifth Assessment report.

    Follow Boy in a Boats reference to IPCC FAR Chapter 10.6.5,check Table 10.7,read its caption,head for page 821...and you'll see exactly how the IPCC treats Greenland and Antarctica ice sheet contributions. Monckton omits this critical discussion,therefore misrepresenting the views of the authors of Chapter 10... Carlisle is correct in her characterisation of his approach,even if she makes an error herself in paraphrasing Monckton.

    Chapter 10 simply pegs current estimates,maintains them,and make no projections based on change in dynamics,not because they don't believe change in rate will happen,but because at the time of close for contributions to FAR,they considered it too unpredictable to call in a reasonable range. Five years on the picture is clearer,according to Hansen and Sato and a number of other papers.

    And whatever you think of Hansens work,Gore referenced it,amongst others, in his scenario.Of course he was painting the worst case scenario,he's an acknowledged advocate for action...but he didn't invent anything.If he'd grossly mischaracterised his references he would have been corrected by the experts.

    The experts have often corrected Monckton,but he ignores them. Any transcript of a Monckton presentation demonstrates that truth.


  24. Nick

    "Between 2004 and 2009 Pagano and his co-authors data from 68 GPS collars placed on adult female bears and combined that with satellite imagery of the changing ice, which allowed them to identify when bears needed to swim more than 30 miles at a time. During those years they found 50 long-distance swimming events, with one swim as long as 426 miles and lasting as long as 12.7 days.
    Those long-distance swims took a toll on cubs accompanying the mothers, in part because young polar bears don't have much fat and can't cope with being in the cold water for long periods of time. Cubs forced to swim suffered a 45% mortality rate during the years of the study, while only 18% of the cubs not forced to make long swims died."

    So we know bears young and old can swim, and can swim for considerable distances if need be. But not all of them make it. Interesting to note that 18% of polar bear cubs in this study died anyway from non-swimming related causes. The wild is an unfriendly place.

    As for sea ice melting, consider this:

    Each year, Arctic sea ice varies from a high of about 16 million square km down to a low of between 4 million and 6 million square km - the difference between winter and summer. Bears experience a massive ice melt every year - how on earth do they cope?

  25. How do they cope? They hibernate. they have to build the resources for that in summer,and if the ice is too far from shore then they may lose a major hunting ground,ranges contract and numbers drop.

    The long-distance swimming data 2004-09 reinforces Monnett and Gleason's suggestions.

  26. Of course you're lying. Had you done a smidgen of research you would have found the non-professional procedures practised by the IPCC's committees, the fraudulent publishing of the reports and the lack of reputable oversight within the IPCC itself. That was obvious when Repot #4 was issued. You are years late to the discussion, but interestingly and suitably ignorant.

    Dr Hansen went public with sob-stories lamenting the censorship of his 'exposés' by the Bush Administration and the silencing of his public discussions, overlooking the 300 presentations per year which garnered him $1.5M above his proper salary.


  27. So Mr Bunyip, did you actually attempt to contact Ms Carlisle and put the questions to her before you published? You know, like real journalists are supposed to.

  28. a good chap and list "all the persons with science reputations" [who apparently by your carefully argued analysis actually were the sum total of persons in the IPCC with science reputations]who pulled out of the IPCC. Then give your sources.

    Then list those who 'stayed' and tell me why they don't have 'science reputations'.

  29. Excellent call out on Wendy Carlisle Mr Bunyip. I await with interest to see if Ms Carlisle responds. All things considered, I suspect the ABC'll be providing the good Mr Monckton some airtime.