Group think on climate
The sound of lefty journalistic heads popping at the ABC can be heard for miles around. Their chairman, Maurice Newman, has pilloried the media for its one-eyed stance on climate change:
Describing himself as an agnostic on climate change, Mr Newman said climate change was an example "of group-think where contrary views have not been tolerated, and where those who express them have been labelled and mocked".
He warned ABC staffers that he would not tolerate anyone suppressing information, citing the fact that a BBC science correspondent knew for a month before the scandal broke of damaging emails at the University of East Anglia in Britain highlighting the politicised nature of climate science but did not report them.
Mr Newman said the Guardian newspaper had noted that the moment climatology is sheltered from dispute, its force begins to wane.
"Which raises an important question for a media organisation," Mr Newman said in the speech obtained by The Australian. "Who, if anyone, decides what to shelter from dispute? And when?
"Should there be a view that the ABC was sheltering particular beliefs from scrutiny, or failing to question a consensus, I would consider it to be a dangerous perception that could lead to the public's trust in us being undermined."
The first of the lefty heads to pop were those of two committed global warming advocates (notice I don't use the word "journalist"), Media Watch presenter Jonathan Holmes, and batty science reporter Bernie Hobbs (see here for an example of Bernie's form). And then managing director Mark Scott "played down" his comments, using the offensive "D-word" as usual:
Sources said Holmes had told Mr Newman he was wrong to assert that sceptics were silenced on the ABC. Holmes declined to comment when contacted by The Australian. [Gee, I wonder why? - Ed]
ABC science journalist Bernie Hobbs also spoke, supporting Holmes's view and saying the ABC could not give undue weight to the sceptics and thereby push a sceptics' agenda.
Mr Scott is said to have tried to make the peace by playing down the importance of Mr Newman's remarks.
Sources said while Mr Newman claimed publicly he was agnostic on the issue, he was a passionate climate-change denialist in private. Mr Newman has told journalists he doesn't believe in the science of man-made climate change. (source)
All smoke and mirrors. And it won't make the slightest bit of difference when you have people like Holmes, Hobbs, Robyn Williams in the frame. And the ABC is on good form this morning, plastering its broadcasts with a story about a Chinese official who claims climate sceptics are a bunch of crazy extremists (again, throwing in the "D-word" again just for good measure):
A deputy director of China's most powerful economic ministry has come out swinging against climate change denial.
Senior Chinese government figures have described the view that climate change is not man-made as an "extreme" stance which is out of step with mainstream thought. (source)
Slightly at odds withChina's policy of doing absolutely nothing to reduce its emissions, perhaps? The journalist hasn't considered the possibility that if climate change were not manmade, then billions of dollars in climate debt would not have to flow from the West to developing countries any more… duh.
Out of order
You couldn't make this stuff up. It's always those filthy sceptics, flat-earthers, deniers. Here we are, just ordinary climate scientists going about our daily lives, fudging data, deleting emails when we get FOI requests, and threatening journals that dare to publish papers that challenge the consensus, and you nasty mean sceptics somehow find that objectionable. If only we could just get on with our skulduggery without your annoying interference:
CSIRO scientists say they are coming under political attack as part of an orchestrated campaign by climate change sceptics.
A delegation of scientists is in Canberra this week to push for bipartisan political support for open debate and diversity in government science. [Open debate? That'll be the day - Ed]
CSIRO Staff Association president Michael Borgas says scientific integrity is under threat. [Yes, it certainly is, but not from the sceptics, it's from the climate scientists who have forgotten what being a scientist is all about - Ed]
"It's a very large concern both internal but in particular externally," he said.
"Now we're seeing some quite unprecedented attacks on the integrity of science in the CSIRO, that was in senate estimates recently."
Dr Borgas says scientists need more support from management.
"We frankly think that the management does make matters worse by appearing to gag comment and exert too much control of the scientists," he said.
"But we can see that they are attempting to manage the risk that they see from these attacks which are coming from the outside."
Whose fault is all this? Get your own ship in order before looking for excuses elsewhere.
Read it where? You guessed it. In the ever-impartial ABC.
UPDATE: And Stephen Schneider gets in on the victim act, with this outlandish claim:
”I have hundreds” of threatening emails, Stephen Schneider, a climatologist at Stanford University in California, told Tierramérica.
He believes scientists will be killed over this. ”I'm not going to let it worry me... but you know it's going to happen,” said Schneider, one of the most respected climate scientists in the world. ”They shoot abortion doctors here.” (source)
Schneider, like all the others, was strangely silent when threats of "Nuremburg Trials", jail or execution for climate sceptics were being made. Funny that.
ABC loves Labor, hates Liberals
More outright bias from the ABC, as it slams Tony Abbott's maternity leave policy based on nothing more than random comments posted on its web site, and - wait for it - Facebook. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, our public service broadcaster now gets ammunition to beat the Coalition from Facebook:
Parental plan a 'cheap ploy' to win votes
Reaction from ABC readers suggests many Australians are sceptical about the Federal Opposition Leader's ambitious parental leave plan.
Yesterday at a lunch as part of International Women's Day, Tony Abbott announced a plan to offer six months' paid paternal leave if the Coalition wins the next election.
Mr Abbott says the Coalition will offer the pay for parents at their current salary, up to a ceiling of $150,000, rather than the Government's scheme of 18 weeks paid at the minimum wage.
The plan would be funded by a new levy on big business, which has been quick to voice its opposition to the scheme.
ABC readers were today non-committal in their reaction to the plan, with some saying that although it sounds good, it will never happen.
"It won't affect me at all because it will never be implemented by Tony Abbott, the Liberals or Labor in this current form and funding method," Budovski commented on ABC News Online.
"It is a good idea, no doubt about that, but it is a totally disingenuous promise to woo voters.
…
On Facebook, some said the plan was a cheap ploy to win votes and that it would never be delivered.
"I will not be polite about it, he is hunting votes. If he thinks giving mums on that salary a break is fair then he has rocks in his head," one commenter said.
Another said: "Simply put, Tony Abbott's plan is just a con job for morons to soak up. It's an empty promise that would never be delivered and he knows this. (source)
Ignoring the obvious fact that the ABC would never reprint such comments critical of His Royal Kruddness or his tawdry government, you have to hand it to the ABC - you know their standards have reached rock bottom when they simply reprint uninformed, anonymous comments from the public and Facebook!
This is a pitiful and frankly disgraceful excuse for journalism.
Their ABC - banging the Drum for the Left, Labor and Rudd.
Sore loser
David Karoly and Robyn "100 metres" Williams on the same day. It's just too much:
There has been an unrelenting campaign to destroy trust in the IPCC and mainstream climate science. Find a fault - and there is always something a nitpicker or Jesuitical actuary can find - and use it to demolish the entire edifice of scientific research going back decades.
Accept no counter arguments. Reject authority. Professors are suspect, willing to utter any catechism for a grant. And if massive evidence is offered dismissing your arguments about the Earth cooling - then ignore it, and just retort with the same old denial, only more loudly.
And it's working. Public acceptance of climate science and legislation to control gases has plummeted in the last few months. As the Economist magazine wrote in December, "It is all about politics. Climate change is the hardest political problem the world has ever had to deal with. It is a prisoner's dilemma, a free-rider problem and the tragedy of the commons all rolled into one."
The reality is that the IPCC and "mainstream climate science" has destroyed itself, by fudging data, destroying emails and threatening journals that dare publish papers that challenge the consensus. And this guy presents The Science Show on ABC? There is no hope. Always remember the mantra:
"Their ABC, banging the Drum for the Left, and full-blown climate hysteria."
Read it here (trust me, it will spoil your day).
Specialised subject: Alarmism
Thanks to Their ABC, Australia's most famous alarmist, David Karoly, is given a free ride on Radio Australia, telling us the old story that it's all much worse than we thought. There are no details of the report, or those responsible for it, just the inevitable alarmist hysteria. And you can tell Karoly is on another planet by some of his responses:
DI BAIN: What does this report do to debunk the growing scepticism about climate change?
DAVID KAROLY: Well, what this paper does is show that the evidence of human caused climate change is even stronger than it was in the IPCC assessment and it was already very strong in the IPCC assessment because the IPCC concluded that most of the warming in global average temperatures over the last 50 years, essentially the 50 years leading up to 2007 was very likely more than 90 per cent certain due to human activity.
And what our study has found is it is even more confident in terms of a human influence on global mean temperatures and we can also see a significant human influence from increases in greenhouse gases in warming in temperatures in all continents, at a regional scale in many different regions, in warming in the oceans, in reductions in arctic sea ice and in changes in rainfall patterns.
DI BAIN: How does the person who isn't adept in the science know what figures to trust, especially after the recent IPCC errors and the climate change email scandal last year?
DAVID KAROLY: As far as I'm aware, there is only one error of substance in the IPCC assessments which was a mistake and has been admitted to in terms of the timing for the Asian glaciers, or Himalayan glaciers to disappear. [Conveniently forgetting all the others... - Ed]
That's been acknowledged as a mistake but that was not a key conclusion of the IPCC and there is still conclusive evidence that glaciers are retreating and have retreated over the last 100 years all around the world and there is clear evidence that human caused increases in temperatures regionally have contributed to that decline in glacier extent, or retreat of glaciers, all around the world.
So, I think there is still, well, no, I think, I know there is still convincing evidence that human activity is causing both global and regional warming in most parts of the world over the last 100 years.
DI BAIN: The climate change debate doesn't appear to be the number one priority for Kevin Rudd anymore, are the sceptics winning the public debate in Australia?
DAVID KAROLY: Well, I think that there has been a range of misinformation being spread by media outlets because the climate change sceptics are spreading that misinformation. I think that a range of scientific studies, such as this one, on the relationship between observed climate change and its causes, reaffirm the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
They will literally say anything, won't they? As if the media isn't in the alarmists pocket? Per-lease. Oh, and let me know when a sceptic is given a similar easy ride. I won't wait up.
Read it here.
P.S. Here again, for your enjoyment is Karoly's famous Lateline quote:
The only way that I could see the climate system in 50 years time or 100 years time being cooler than at present is if the earth got hit by an asteroid and basically human civilisation was destroyed. (source)
Unfortunately, Kevin Rudd's tactic of focussing on other issues, such as health, in order to divert attention from his climate policy, appears to be working. That, together with the Garrett insulation debacle, has ensured that the media this morning is almost bereft of any mention of climate change, or the ETS or Penny Wong. Which is a pleasant change.
But it does mean that the Coalition no longer has that huge ETS-shaped stick with which to beat the government. And that is a great pity. The Coalition should, however, continue to remind the electorate that climate change was, until a short time ago, "the greatest moral challenge of our generation" (or something), and that if Rudd had any principles (which he doesn't), he would be focussing on getting his ETS through as soon as possible. But Rudd is political weathervane, twisting here and twisting there, helplessly following the winds of public opinion, because his only desire is to remain popular and, more importantly, remain in power. Now that the ETS is losing support, he abandons it.
However, Kevin Rudd has said that climate change will be at the "front and centre" of policy moving towards the Federal election, so it is only delaying the inevitable. The ETS will be back in the news in May as Rudd tries to force it through the Senate for the third time. And it will be back in the news in the election campaign later in the year.
Until then, it looks like climate change is off the Australian media agenda.
Bonkers
Note that they're not planning to just get the science right, which would be a start. No, they're going to attack sceptics:
Undaunted by a rash of scandals over the science underpinning climate change, top climate researchers are plotting to respond with what one scientist involved said needs to be "an outlandishly aggressively partisan approach" to gut the credibility of skeptics.
In private e-mails obtained by The Washington Times, climate scientists at the National Academy of Sciences say they are tired of "being treated like political pawns" and need to fight back in kind. Their strategy includes forming a nonprofit group to organize researchers and use their donations to challenge critics by running a back-page ad in the New York Times.
"Most of our colleagues don't seem to grasp that we're not in a gentlepersons' debate, we're in a street fight against well-funded, merciless enemies who play by entirely different rules," Paul R. Ehrlich, a Stanford University researcher, said in one of the e-mails.
Some scientists question the tactic and say they should focus instead on perfecting their science, but the researchers who are organizing the effort say the political battle is eroding confidence in their work.
"This was an outpouring of angry frustration on the part of normally very staid scientists who said, 'God, can't we have a civil dialogue here and discuss the truth without spinning everything,'" said Stephen H. Schneider, a Stanford professor and senior fellow at the Woods Institute for the Environment who was part of the e-mail discussion but wants the scientists to take a slightly different approach.
Erlich is the guy who once said we'd run out of oil by 1990, or something equally stupid and famously lost a bet to Julian Simon about the future prices of resources. Schneider is a serial bandwagon rider and was a global cooling alarmist in the 1970s, when that was the bandwagon-du-jour. Now of course it's global warming, er, sorry, "climate change."
Personally, I don't consider myself a well-funded merciless streetfighter who plays by any rules other than getting to the scientific truth of climate change. These guys are off the freaking planet.
Read it here.
Evil oil companies to blame
This could be interesting. The victims of Hurricane Katrina are to sue oil companies for emitting CO2, fuelling "global warming" and sea-level rise and thereby intensifying Hurricane Katrina. Their enthusiasm is clearly not dampened by the fact that the precise point on which they rely has been debunked so many times I've lost count (and recently in the Hurricanegate fiasco). In order to succeed, they would need to establish a causal chain between the oil companies and the intensity of Hurricane Katrina through all the intervening steps: that the emissions from those companies caused an increase in temperature, that the increase in temperature caused hurricanes to be more energetic, and that Hurricane Katrina itself was intensified by that mechanism - an impossible task.
But oddly, they are only suing US oil companies. What if it was Chinese coal burning that was to blame? Or Indian? Or here's a novel suggestion: it was natural forces at work, with no-one to blame except Mother Nature? No, that won't do - in our litigation-obsessed culture, blame has to be apportioned for every event in life. If a meteorite that had been circling the sun for 4.5 billion years eventually collided with earth and hit their house, they'd blame George Bush… This action has about as much chance of success as Al Gore getting a degree in climatology:
Victims of Hurricane Katrina are seeking to sue carbon [dioxide? - Ed] gas-emitting multinationals for helping fuel global warming and boosting the 2005 storm.
The class action suit brought by residents from southern Mississippi, which was ravaged by hurricane-force winds and driving rains, was first filed just weeks after the August 2005 storm hit. [By ambulance chasing shysters, no doubt. As if the victims would have been able to formulate their thoughts in three weeks - Ed]
"The plaintiffs allege that defendants' operation of energy, fossil fuels, and chemical industries in the United States caused the emission of greenhouse gasses that contributed to global warming," say the documents seen by the AFP news agency.
The increase in global surface air and water temperatures "in turn caused a rise in sea levels and added to the ferocity of Hurricane Katrina, which combined to destroy the plaintiffs' private property, as well as public property useful to them."
More than 1,200 people died in Hurricane Katrina, which lashed the area, swamping New Orleans in Louisiana when levees gave way under the weight of the waves.
The suit, claiming compensation and punitive damages [of course, we must punish them for being so wicked - Ed] from multinational companies including Shell, ExxonMobile, BP and Chevron, has already passed several key legal hurdles, after initially being knocked back by the lowest court.
Three federal appeals court judges decided in October 2009 that the case could be heard. However, in February the same court decided to re-examine whether it could be heard this time with nine judges.
These guys must have money to burn.
Read it here.
Certainly not my ABC
Of course, you fool. The Drum bangs the drum for the Lefties of this world, not the rest of us. So Clive Hamilton was allowed to spout unexpurgated drivel for five days, without a hint of censorship, because everything he says fits with the ABC's left-wing, climate hysteric agenda. Bob Carter on the other hand is a filthy flat-earth, smoking-doesn't-cause-cancer advocating, big-oil-funded, creationism-believing denier, so they must use all means to suppress his views. Carter's article was critical of James Hansen, and guess what? Hansen's in Melbourne right now. As Quadrant puts it:
We can only guess at the pressures which have been exerted on the ABC to close down criticism of Hansen - and the cowardice which saw them conform. So much for Australia's brave freedom fighters of the press.
So go to this link and read what the ABC deemed was not appropriate for you to read. And spread it around.
Your Their ABC - Banging the Drum for the Left.