UPDATE 2: And yet more ABC alarmism here: “Impact of climate change may be underestimated” Gee what a surprise. Does anybody give a rats what the ABC writes anymore?
As Andrew Bolt confirmed today, the ABC’s editorial policy on climate was stated thus, in a reply to a complaint:
“Given the overwhelming majority of the world’s scientists agree that AGW is real and needs to be addressed and the overwhelming majority of the world’s government’s and the UN acknowledge the reality of AGW and the need to address it, the ABC pursues a balance that follows the weight of evidence on this issue. The ABC’s coverage of this issue has well and truly moved on from the debate as to whether or not AGW is real.”
UPDATE: Ross in the comments points me to this great comment on Bolt’s post:
“So by logical extension any majority view on any topic or issue should be treated accordingly.
- No ALP politician from Queensland should get any airtime whatsoever until after the next election when their vote may have improved enough to give them party status
- Same in NSW, Victoria and West Australia
- No coverage of the carbon tax as polls overwhelmingly say people do not want it. The contrary view is then also given more exposure.
- No union leader gets exposure as unions only represent 15% of all workers
- The greens get 20% of the exposure that the Liberals get who now should get 100% of what the ALP gets given the votes at the last election.
Please add your own to my list.
The ABC is a sick joke.
So it’s little surprise that anything that fits that agenda is reported instantly, and anything that challenges it buried out of sight. The latest is a scare report from the well-know alarmist Potsdam Institute (see here for how a lead scientist there smeared a journalist who dared criticise the IPCC), reported glowingly by Reuters, and regurgitated uncritically by Auntie:
Extreme weather events over the past decade have increased and were “very likely” caused by human-induced global warming, according to a new study.
Scientists at Germany’s Potsdam Institute for Climate Research used physics, statistical analysis and computer simulations to link extreme rainfall and heat waves to global warming. The link between warming and storms was less clear.
“It is very likely that several of the unprecedented extremes of the past decade would not have occurred without anthropogenic global warming,” according the study published online in Nature Climate Change.
The past decade was probably the warmest globally for at least a millennium [ah yes, we must get rid of that darn MWP – Ed]. Last year was the eleventh hottest on record [or since 1880, if you wanted to be less hysterical but more accurate – Ed], according to the [UN’s] World Meteorological Organisation.
Extreme weather events were devastating in their impacts and affected nearly all regions of the globe. [Because people will build their homes in the paths of cyclones – Ed]
They included severe floods and record hot summers in Europe; a record number of tropical storms and hurricanes in the Atlantic in 2005; the hottest Russian summer since 1500 in 2010 and the worst flooding in Pakistan’s history. [Neither of which were shown to have anything whatsoever to do with “global warming”, see here and here – Ed]
The people that write this stuff have the memory of a goldfish, and/or cannot be bothered to do any research to back up their hysterical claims. Clearly, the planet never had severe storms, heat waves, extreme cold, rain etc before man-made greenhouse gases started entering the atmosphere, right? Odd that global accumulated cyclone energy is lower than it has been for decades, despite the climate warming a few points of a degree. Steve Goddard at Real Science does a great job of trawling the newspaper archives and finding all this severe weather we were supposed to never have.
Odd how they fail to mention that the Russian heatwave and the Pakistani floods were primarily natural events due to certain weather patterns rather than global warming.
The only thing we can be sure of is that the Lefty ABC has lost any claim to be a balanced news organisation (if it ever had it to begin with). Whilst we’re on the subject, check out former chairman Maurice Newman’s climate piece at The Spectator here (PDF).