Yet more bias and alarmism from the ABC

… to climate Armageddon, that is.

Margot O’Neill’s execrable blog Countdown to Copenhagen (see here for previous post on this) acts as a kind of conduit for all of Australia’s looniest alarmists, conveniently distilling them all into one place. In her latest offering, she quotes Amanda Lynch of Monash University.  O’Neill prefaces the whole thing with this completely even-handed and balanced introduction:

So what’s happening? Are sceptics having a serious impact? Is the drawn-out argy bargy over the proposed emissions trading scheme anesthetising [sic] public engagement? Have scientists failed to cut through because they’ve been too cautious or too inaccessible? [Ha, ha, my aching sides – Ed]

A couple of recent US books argue that scientists need to loosen their lab coats. Unscientific America by Chris Mooney urges young scientists to undertake communication courses.

Of course, because it’s just simply that we can’t get the message across. Nothing to do with the science – hey, that’s settled, you filthy denier, you – we need to reprogram the population to accept our message (as if the media and the government weren’t doing that job well enough). Ms Lynch clearly thinks that censorship is the way forward to shut up the dissenters once and for all. Welcome to the People’s Republic of Kruddistan:

What I am sensing right now is a very high level of anger and frustration particularly at the ‘sceptics’ who continue to derail the discussion. That frustration is probably at the forefront, and from many I’ve heard a real sense that to play the nay-sayer in the face of such serious consequences is deeply unethical. I’ve heard this directed both at scientists of various stripes and at members of the press.

O’Neill also quotes the following impartial observers of climate change:

  • David “Asteroid” Karoly (Melbourne University)
  • James Risbey (CSIRO)
  • Andy Pitman (UNSW)
  • Michael Raupach (CSIRO)
  • Will “ACM’s Favourite Alarmist” Steffen (ANU)
  • Barry Brook (Adelaide Uni)

So pretty fairly balanced, then… Pity the blog doesn’t allow comments (why not?).


  1. Anonymous says:

    She even links the dust storms to climate change…what a joke

  2. Now … isn't that interesting. Every one of the rabid alarmists mentioned in this article is a parasite that is sponging off the taxpayer. This list should form the basis of the people against whom said taxpayers can launch a class action for damages that result from their abuse of their positions of trust. Perhaps the prospect of losing their homes and doing time in jail may prompt them to reconsider their positions.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Did anyone see the Catalyst interview with Will Steffen tonight. OMFG

  4. Simon from Sydney says:

    Thanks for the tip – new post on the Catalyst interviews up now.

  5. Nukespruik says:

    Well, at least Barry Brook said something sensible and practical re: action, unlike the others:ADELAIDE UNI, Barry Brook: I think Copenhagen is doomed as an effective negotiating forum for carbon emissions reduction. I strongly suspect that even if we get 'agreement' to make cuts, it will be lip service only, like Kyoto turned out to be, with individual nations continuing to do what they perceive to be in their best interest. What is really now required is a very strong technology push, to commercialise and deploy energy systems that have the beneficial features of fossil fuels, but are as cheap, or potentially, cheaper. I can only realistically see nuclear power as doing that.

%d bloggers like this: