Group think on climate

Geoff Elliott, writing in The Australian, analyses the effect of ABC chairman Maurice Newman’s speech (see here):

The responses to Newman’s speech have been predictable. Some see it as management interference in the ABC editorial processes, others as a case of Newman expressing some hard truths.

Perhaps not surprisingly, first to express outrage was Jonathan Holmes, the presenter of ABC1’s Media Watch.

After Newman spoke, Scott followed with his own speech but, according to those present, did not directly address the chairman’s comments. He then opened the forum for questions in which Holmes rose to his feet and, according to those present, said: “It was an excellent speech, Mark, but I found it difficult to concentrate because I’m so angry about what the chairman just said”, or words to that effect.

Holmes’s view is that it was an inappropriate forum for the remarks. An ABC spokesman says it was an internal discussion, though a speech to 250 people at the ABC was unlikely to remain internal for long and Newman reiterated his remarks in a lengthy interview on ABC radio’s PM that night.

The Friends of the ABC says Newman’s criticism of the coverage of global warming was “extraordinary and inappropriate”.

Spokesperson Glenys Stradijot says Newman “is entitled to his personal views on controversial matters. But his expression of them while he remains head of the ABC damages public confidence in the national broadcaster’s independence”. She goes on: “Just as worrying, Mr Newman’s comments look to be an attempt to influence ABC programming to be more favourable to global warming scepticism.”

But others wonder if this argument holds, as the ABC board, as a taxpayer-funded entity, is responsible under the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act to “ensure that the gathering and presentation by the corporation of news and information is accurate and impartial according to the recognised standards of objective journalism”.

The ABC has been under heavy fire in the past few months for its reporting on climate change, partly with reference to the climategate emails, and as public opinion shifts on the issue, particularly after the failure of the Copenhagen climate summit. (source)

But just when you think it can’t get worse, we find the ABC spinning the recent story from China (also discussed here) regarding a senior official branding climate “denialism” an extreme viewpoint, as ABC News Watch points out:

In the AM report Xie Zhenhua is reported as saying the following in answer to McDonell (translated – by the ABC or Chinese officials?):“Climate change is a fact based on long-time observations by countries around the world. The mainstream view is that climate change is caused by burning of fossil fuel in the course of industrialisation. And there’s a more extreme view which holds that human activity has only an imperceptible impact on the natural system.”

The Reuters report however attributes the following statement to Xie Zhenhua (translated – by Reuters or other Chinese officials?): “There are still two different viewpoints in the scientific field about the cause of warming,” Xie told a news conference on the sidelines of the annual session of China’s largely rubber-stamp parliament. “At present, many people, or the most mainstream view, is that the combustion of large amounts of fossil fuel over the process of industrialisation caused an increase in greenhouse gases, which caused climate warming.” “Another point of view holds that the main reason is changes in sunspots, or natural changes in the environment. There is an even more extreme point of view, that human influence on changes in nature can only be miniscule,” he added.””

And as Marc concludes:

If this complaint is upheld we believe a deeper investigation, perhaps a Parliamentary Inquiry, into ABC news coverage on climate change is more than warranted. If readers can get more accurate coverage of news for free on the internet why do we need the ABC’s news service?

So true, so true.

Read Marc’s entire report here.

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)