Climate sense from The Australian

Which, let’s face it, is the only broadsheet in the country which demonstrates any kind of balance in the climate debate. The Fairfax press has already made up its mind on climate, suppresses any dissenting views, and spews one-sided alarmist propaganda on a daily basis. Two excellent opinion pieces and an editorial in The Australian today. Firstly, Bjorn Lomborg (the warmist/skeptic) warns against rapid action, which is precisely what Greg Combet advocated earlier in the week:

CLIMATE committees across the world are mistakenly putting the cart before the horse.

ADVOCATES of drastic cuts in carbon dioxide emissions now speak a lot less than they once did about climate change. Climate campaigners changed their approach after the collapse of the Copenhagen climate change summit last December, and the revelation of mistakes in the UN climate panel’s work, as well as in response to growing public scepticism and declining interest.

Although some activists still rely on scare tactics – witness the launch of an advertisement depicting the bombing of anybody who is hesitant to embrace carbon cuts – many activists now spend more time highlighting the “benefits” of their policy prescription. They no longer dwell on impending climate doom but on the economic windfall that will result from embracing the “green” economy. (source)

Then, Des Moore makes the blindingly obvious point that the science isn’t settled:

THE Royal Society’s report coincides with dissidence at the American Physical Society.

THE Royal Society’s September report, Climate Change: A Summary of the Science, has brought into the open the widening difference of views about how the science of climate change should be assessed. It comes after a prominent resignation from the American Physical Society (the top body of US physicists) for the refusal of the society’s executive to undertake a similar review despite requests from a large number of members.

In Australia, too, an examination of the Inter-Academy Council’s review of the processes and procedures of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concludes that, although the council’s chairman claims the IPCC’s findings stand, the review itself exposes serious flaws in the panel’s information and analysis. The examination by this group, which is a follow-up to its recent publication in the British journal Energy & Environment, is now being widely distributed in Australia.

All three assessments reflect the revelations provided by the exchanges between scientists actively involved in climate research – now known as Climategate – that some research results appear to have been falsified. These reports have spread widely in science circles in Australia. However, apart from The Australian, there has been almost no reference to these revelations in the Australian media. The Age, which had not bothered to cover the Royal Society’s report, was quick to report that the Royal Society’s vice-president John Pethica (who chaired the report committee) had rejected suggestions that the society had changed its position on climate change. (source)

And finally, an editorial savages The Age for its hopelessly compromised and biased reporting on climate:

ON a subject as important as our climate, reasoned, informed public debate is the key to finding the consensus that must underpin an effective policy response.

Interest groups that attempt to keep the public in the dark by suppressing alternative views have succeeded only in eroding the credibility of their own arguments.

So it is puzzling that a supposedly liberal broadsheet newspaper, The Age, not only failed to cover the Royal Society’s revision of its Guide to the Science of Climate Change but took a swipe at those who did. The story, which The Age ignored when it broke in this and major British newspapers on October 2, was significant because the Royal Society is regarded as the world’s most authoritative scientific body. It was clear from our report and commentary that the society was not dismissing climate change — far from it. The need for co-ordinated global action is no less pressing. But the Royal Society guide undercuts many of the exaggerated claims of looming ecological disaster, spun in order to scare the public into supporting various political positions. (source)

Read them all!

Comments

  1. This might be the start of something in this country’s media.. Kudos to The Australian for starting it..

  2. The Loaded Dog says:

    “The Age, not only failed to cover the Royal Society’s revision of its Guide to the Science of Climate Change but took a swipe at those who did”

    Well duh…every good religious zealot knows you can’t publish heresy in an official church media rag. NO, you must attack the heresy.

  3. The Age, like the Guardian in the UK are old dinosaurs that depend on “catastrophic” events to scare the hell out of it’s readership, mainly because this is what their readers expect.

    Enviro-nuts, all pretty much very needy people, want printed journalism to give them scare stories so they can blame their neighbour or whoever for not being “good” planet citizens. They use the tabloid stories from the Age and Guardian as their reference point at every dinner party, every gathering, to reinforce their needy faith system in the damage we are doing to their god, “Mother Earth”.

    Environ-mentalism is now a religion, with “Mother Earth” the central God character.

  4. Yes, credit where it’s due, by all means. However, The Australian itself is not all that far removed from the MSM stance. Back in March, its editorial regurgitated the asinine cliche “give the planet the benefit of the doubt”.
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/hyperbole-erodes-credibility/story-e6frg71x-1225837503932

    Not much has changed. Now it says
    “It was clear from our report and commentary that the society was not dismissing climate change — far from it. The need for co-ordinated global action is no less pressing.” No less pressing? The next sentence notwithstanding?
    “But the Royal Society guide undercuts many of the exaggerated claims of looming ecological disaster, spun in order to scare the public into supporting various political positions.”

    It seems that those screwball claims continue to spook The Australian.

    • @Graham: I agree – the Australian still follows the “benefit of doubt” line, which was (may be still) the Coalition line as well. But compared to the rest of the Aussie media (Fairfax/ABC) the Oz is a beacon of scepticism.

%d bloggers like this: