And now to a topic that shouldn't be the cause of partisan political argument, but unfortunately is: this was a front-page article in The Australian the Friday before last:

Sea-level rises are slowing, tidal gauge records show Exclusive Stuart Rintoul — The Australian, 22nd July, 2011

Read the full article

It's all about a research paper published in March in the peer-reviewed Journal of Coastal Research. According to Stuart Rintoul ...

The analysis, by NSW principal coastal specialist Phil Watson, calls into question ... the assumption of an accelerating rise in sea levels because of climate change. — The Australian, 22nd July, 2011

Well, as we'll see, Phil Watson disagrees that that's what his paper does. But this much is uncontested: Mr Watson's mathematical analysis of eighty years of tidal gauge records at four locations in Australia and New Zealand

... finds there was a "consistent trend of weak deceleration" from 1940 to 2000. — The Australian, 22nd July, 2011

A slowing, that is, in the rate that sea levels rose over that period.

The Australian's article goes on to quote

Climate change researcher Howard Brady, at Macquarie University... — The Australian, 22nd July, 2011

who had some startling conclusions to draw from Mr Watson's paper, and from a similar American analysis published earlier this year. Dr Brady, we're told, concludes that...

... sea level rises accepted by the CSIRO were "already dead in the water as having no sound basis in probability". "... this factual information means the high sea-level rises used as precautionary guidelines by the CSIRO in recent years are in essence ridiculous," he said. — The Australian, 22nd July, 2011

Well, you can imagine how that story was jumped on by the proliferating websites devoted to debunking climate change science...

Andrew Bolt Yet more evidence that the CSIRO is alarmist and that its models are flawed — Herald Sun, 22nd July, 2011

Sea Level Paper debunks Ridiculous CSIRO Predictions — Climate Common Sense Blog, 22nd July, 2011

Coastal Expert Debunks Sea Rise Rubbish — CO2 Climate Scientific Blog, 22nd July, 2011

Ding Dong, the Climate Witch is dead — No Carbon Tax Website, July, 2011

And by the talkback radio hosts with a similar agenda...

Alan Jones: And this challenges, of course, all the predictions - including the corrupt CSIRO - that sea levels will rise because of climate change and they'll inundate Australia's coastline by 2100. — 2GB, The Alan Jones Breakfast Show 22nd July, 2011

The 'corrupt' CSIRO, says Alan Jones. In contrast, Dr Howard Brady, interviewed by Chris Smith on 2GB later that day, is apparently one of...

Chris Smith: Australia's most prominent experts on sea levels ... — 2GB, The Chris Smith Afternoon Show, 22nd July, 2011

The Australian tells Media Watch that it was Howard Brady, among others, who brought Mr Watson's paper to its attention. And, it says, ...

Dr Brady was considered well qualified to comment on the potential deficiencies of scientific modelling compared to observable record. — Clive Mathieson, Editor, The Australian, 29th July, 2011

Read Clive Mathieson's response to Media Watch's questions

Considered by whom, I wonder? True, Howard Brady is an

Honorary Associate

in the department of

Biological Sciences — Macquarie University, Directory, 2011

at Sydney's Macquarie University. But the head of that department, Professor Lesley Hughes, tells Media Watch...

My colleagues and I were concerned to see Dr Brady referred to as "a climate change researcher at Macquarie University" in The Australian's article, as he is a retired paleontologist. — Professor Lesley Hughes, Head of Department of Biological Science, Macquarie University, 28th July, 2011

Read Professor Hughes response to Media Watch's questions

In his retirement, writes Professor Hughes, Dr Brady has done work on his local beaches but...

... he is not formally collaborating with any climate change researchers at Macquarie, and he has not published any papers on this topic in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. — Professor Lesley Hughes, Head of Department of Biological Science, Macquarie University , 28th July, 2011

Asked about his credentials, Dr Brady sent Media Watch a substantial statement. It's on our website. The nearest he comes to describing his scientific expertise is this:

I am a qualified scientist interested in researching relationships between past and present environments, climates, and organisms. — Dr Howard Brady, 30th July, 2011

Read Dr Brady's response to Media Watch's questions

The fact is that, on the topic of sea levels and climate change, Howard Brady may be knowledgeable, but he's an amateur. That doesn't mean he's not entitled to a view. But what did the CSIRO have to say when he dismissed its sea level projections as 'dead in the water' and 'in essence, ridiculous'?

Well, unbelievably, Stuart Rintoul didn't bother to ask it for comment. When we asked the editor of The Australian why not, he replied only that:

...as I understand it the CSIRO was invited to comment to Media Watch and declined to do so. — Clive Mathieson, Editor, The Australian, 29th July, 2011

Well, Mr Mathieson, you're wrong about that. We got a comprehensive response from CSIRO sea-level expert Dr Kathleen McInnes - as no doubt Mr Rintoul would have done if he'd asked. She says that although Phil Watson's analysis of the data he has is useful as far as it goes, it

...does not call into question the projections of the IPCC nor CSIRO and so there is no basis for anyone else to make such assertions. — Dr Kathleen McInnes, CSIRO Marine & Atmospheric Research, 29th July, 2011

She explains why not, in some detail. You'll find her full response on our website.

Read Dr McInnes's response to Media Watch's questions

Dr McInnes adds:

CSIRO ... would have appreciated the opportunity to clarify what is a complex issue for many people. — Dr Kathleen McInnes, CSIRO Marine & Atmospheric Research, 29th July, 2011

We've received comments on Phil Watson's paper, and The Australian's article, from five other professional experts on sea level and climate change, two based in Australia, one in the US, and two in Britain.

Those responses, too, are on our website. None of them agree with Dr Brady. And most of them point out that the slight deceleration that Phil Watson identified is a result of the particular time period he's dealing with.

As Dr John Hunter of the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems CRC in Hobart told us:

Over the past 20 years, observations of sea-level rise have been WELL ABOVE the IPCC projections (by about 60%). — Dr John Hunter, Antarctic Climate & Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre, University of Tasmania, 28th July, 2011

Read Dr Hunter's response to Media Watch's questions

The Australian says that Dr Brady's opinions on Mr Watson's article are...

... interesting, confronting and newsworthy. — Clive Mathieson, Editor, The Australian, 29th July, 2011

They certainly are. But The Australian should have made clear that they're also, to put it mildly, highly controversial.

And as for Phil Watson, his employer, The New South Wales Office of Environment and Heritage, sent a letter to The Australian on the day the story was published.

Your article has misrepresented our Mr Phil Watson's research paper by saying that 'global warming is not affecting sea levels'. — NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, 22nd July, 2011

Read Letter to NSW Office of Environment and Heritage's letter to The Australian

The Australian points out that those particular words were used only in an online picture caption that's since been corrected. The article itself, says The Oz, did not misrepresent Phil Watson's research, so it hasn't published his employer's letter. It adds...

Phil Watson ... has made no complaint about how his research was represented in the article and will not. — Clive Mathieson, Editor, The Australian, 29th July, 2011

But the Office of Environment insists Phil Watson was indeed upset by the article. And his objections are pretty fundamental...

Mr Watson does not agree with the use of his findings to infer future projections of sea level rise nor does Mr Watson agree that his research casts doubts on the future modelling undertaken by CSIRO. — Adam Cooke, NSW Department of Environment & Heritage, 28th July, 2011

Read the NSW Department of Environment & Heritage's response to Media Watch's questions

The Australian tells Media Watch haughtily...

Much of the commentary around this story has suggested that it was written with an agenda in mind. It was not. — Clive Mathieson, Editor, The Australian, 29th July, 2011

Well, we don't have an agenda either - except to hold The Australian to News Ltd's own Professional Conduct Policy.

Here's one clause:

1.3 Try always to tell all sides of the story in any kind of dispute.

And here's another:

2.1 Individuals or organisations that have been criticised...should be given a fair opportunity to respond. — News Ltd Professional Conduct Policy

Both of them, I reckon, well and truly flouted.

If you're interested in what's admittedly a complex subject, I urge you to read the responses we've posted on our website.

Our thanks to all the scientists - including Dr Howard Brady - who took the trouble to answer our questions.

Until next week, goodnight.

Further responses:

Dr Michael O'Leary, University of Notre Dame, Fremantle, responds to Media Watch's questions

Professor Philip Woodworth, National Oceanography Centre, Liverpool, responds to Media Watch's questions

Professor Jonathan Gregory, Met Office Hadley Centre, University of Reading, responds to Media Watch's questions

Professor Mark Merrifield, Director, Sea Level Centre, University of Hawaii, responds to Media Watch's questions

Journal of Coastal Research, Phil Watson, March 2011

Journal of Coastal Research, Houston and Dean, May 2011

Journal of Coastal Research, Discussion Paper of Houston and Dean, June 2011