ABC's stitch-up of Bjorn Lomborg

31 May, 2010 by

This is Bjorn Lomborg, I wanted to bring you a picture of Howard Friel, but I couldn't because there's not a single picture of him on the internet

UPDATE: Howard Friel responds personally to this post in the comments section (see here)

Interview? More like an ambush, as Robyn “100 metres” Williams on ABC’s Science Show devotes a long segment of the programme to Howard Friel, who has been embraced by the warmists for having written a book criticising Bjorn Lomborg’s book Cool It. Before we even start, you kind of know people are really desperate when they have to write an entire book just for that purpose. But anyway, we’ll let that pass.

Firstly, however, and I’m sorry to ask … but just who the hell is Howard Friel? I cannot find anything about him other than he is an “author”. Take a look at his Wikipedia entry – blink and you’ll miss it. [UPDATE: An answer is provided by commenter Pat B: “Mr. Friel is a hard-left idologue, an Israel-hater, and a minor satellite in the Chomsky system. He is drearily predictable, and his mode of entry into the climate debate is consistent with his established practice of attacking the ‘moderate’ left from the perspective of the ultra-left. His previously published work, all from Verso, an avowedly leftist publisher, attacks the New York Times for spreading George W. Bush’s ‘lies’ and its cover-up of Israel’s “crimes” against the Palestinians. Now he attacks Bjorn Lomborg – not by mistake, but because there is nothing the hard left hates more than the ‘soft’ left.”] He has no history of writing about climate, no knowledge of climate science that I can find, no qualifications whatsoever in fact to write such a book. Ah, hang on a minute – qualifications only matter if you’re a sceptic, right? That must be it – Al Gore gets a free pass to say whatever he likes – but every utterance of a sceptic is scrutinised to the last letter, including his qualifications. So I think we’ll do the same, just for balance: where are yours? [Read more…]

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

UPDATED: The hypocrisy of Labor and the Labor-loving media

18 May, 2010 by

The media and Labor are all over Tony Abbott this morning after his “gaffe” on ABC’s 7.30 Report in which he rather too candidly admitted that politicians are susceptible to hyperbole in the heat of the moment. Well, knock me down with a feather. Tell me something I don’t know. But Labor are on to it, calling him Phoney Tony, trying to make cheap political capital out of it (always a sure sign of a government in deep trouble), and the media have all got collective “cat got the cream” expressions on their smug journalistic faces.

What short memories they have, and a truly impressive ability to forget instantly the lies, spin and deception of this bankrupt Labor government, which has executed more backflips than a gymnastics convention. Don’t know about Phoney Tony, but I sure know about Rudd the Dud.

Abbott simply told the truth about politics in the 21st century, and was rather too honest about it, but the hypocrisy it has received in response is nothing short of breathtaking.

UPDATE: Some of this simply has to be seen to be believed, as Labor ministers queue up to rubbish Abbott. Nicola Roxon (the worst health minister in living memory?) thinks Abbott is “cracking under pressure” and Penny Wong [who she? – Ed] thinks he “cannot be trusted” (see here). If those same standards were applied to the Government, there wouldn’t be a man or woman left standing. Andrew Robb calls the hypocrisy for what it is:

Those Government ministers who have been out all morning hyperventilating about Tony Abbott are hardly in a position to point a finger considering their appalling track record.

It is the pot calling the kettle black.

Kevin Rudd is the king of broken promises, back-flips and spin and when the going gets tough he goes into hiding, blames others and wheels out junior ministers to take the rap.

In stark contrast, Tony Abbott is a strong leader who is refreshingly authentic and who has the courage to get out there and take it on the chin.

Read it all.

Filed Under: Aussie Politics Tagged With: , , ,

ABC: presumption of bias

27 March, 2010 by

Biased unless proven otherwise

It has now reached the stage with the ABC that there must be a presumption of bias, towards Labor and climate alarmism. And, as in its legal analogue, where there is a presumption, that presumption must be rebutted on each and every occasion. That is the position from we have to view the ABC today. So when we read an alarmist article on climate change, we presume bias unless it can be rebutted. When we read an article critical of the Opposition, we must again presume bias, unless it can be rebutted. Unfortunately, since that rebuttal is almost never there, this means that our nationally funded broadcaster has ceased to be a serious media organisation, and is now nothing but a cheap shill for Labor and environmental pressure groups.

So it is no surprise that the ABC is still quite happy to use the derogative term “denier” in an article on climate sceptics published this morning (five times, no less). The story relates to a paper by John McLean, Chris DeFreitas and Bob Carter, originally published in July 2009 in Journal of Geophysical Research (JGR), challenging the theory of human-induced global warming. This is a peer reviewed journal, and the article was accepted for publication at that time, following the peer review process. In January 2010, a critical response was prepared by a team of consensus scientists, which was also published in JGR. The original authors put together a response to those criticisms, which … JGR refused to publish. Understandably, the original authors were furious not to have the right to respond to criticisms of a previously published paper. They have subsequently published on SPPI a paper claiming censorship:

“The practice of editorial rejection of the authors’ response to criticism is unprecedented in our experience. It is surprising because it amounts to the editorial usurping of the right of authors to defend their paper and deprives readers from hearing all sides of a scientific discussion before they make up their own minds on an issue. It is declaring that the journal editor – or the reviewers to whom he defers – will decide if authors can defend papers that have already been positively reviewed and been published by that same journal. Such an attitude is the antithesis of productive scientific discussion.”

You can read the full SPPI paper here. This is how ABC’s reporting of this story begins:

The latest debate on climate science to emerge centres on a paper that suggests humans played no role in the recent warming trend and that El Nino activity is mostly to blame.

But a group of climate scientists say that is false, misleading and that the data has been manipulated by climate deniers. [Well, they should know. Alarmist climate scientists are experts in manipulation of data – Ed]

Central to the paper, published in the Journal of Geophysical Research last July, was that the southern oscillation index, which is a measure of El Nino activity, was the most likely influence on global temperatures changing.

The senior author of the report, IT analyst [just thrown in to remind you he’s not a climate scientist – Ed] John Mclean, says man has had little impact on global warming.

“The major force seems to be probably the southern oscillation, though you’ve also got to think that maybe that is just an indicator of something else. Whatever’s driving the southern oscillation therefore drives temperature,” he said. (source)

They give McLean a quote of just 83 words to explain the paper’s position. They then proceed to give Kevin Trenberth (of Climategate fame), a quote of 237 words, nearly three times as much, criticising it (did I mention anything about bias earlier?), and in total there are 369 words critical of the paper compared to just 164 words explaining it. You can read all that in the source article if you wish.

The ABC article then deals with the censorship claim, but fails to identify the key point, that this was a response to a criticism of an originally peer-reviewed, and published, article in JGR. To not give authors the opportunity to respond to criticism sure sounds like censorship to me.

Presumption of bias? Tick. Rebuttal? None.

Filed Under: ABC Bias, Climate Tagged With: , ,

Quotes of the Day: Stephen Conroy on Lateline

18 March, 2010 by

Quote of the Day

I woke up this morning to hear Stephen Conroy’s lamentable, blustering performance on Lateline last night, repeated on News Radio. Now there’s a fine way to start the day … There was all the usual spin and hot air, but the funniest bit came when Tony Jones (who is one of the ABC’s most vocal climate change alarmists) held up his hands in horror at Maurice Newman’s accusation that the ABC was less than balanced on the issue of climate change. It was a classic “What, me?” moment. And then he successfully bullied Conroy into saying “No, no, it’s all fine you’re doing a great job”, and Conroy didn’t have the balls to resist:

TONY JONES: Alright, a final question. You’ve refused to comment in any detail on the claims by the ABC’s chairman Morris Newman that coverage of the global warming climate change issue is an example of “group think” where contrary views have not been tolerated.

Do you see any evidence of that?

STEPHEN CONROY: Well, look, the chairman… The ABC is an independent statutory authority. The chairman is entitled to his views and I understand from discussions that I’ve had over the last 24 hours it was a very robust discussion that followed that, uh, that speech and I think that is a healthy thing for all involved.

TONY JONES: Do you see any evidence? I am asking for your opinion. Whether you see- because it is a serious accusation he’s making: “Should there be a view that the ABC was sheltering particular beliefs from scrutiny or failing to question the consensus, I would consider it to be a dangerous perception that could lead to the public’s trust in us being undermined”.

That is the suggestion. Do you see any evidence that that has been happening?

STEPHEN CONROY: Well, I do remember that the ABC screened the documentary the Global Warming Scandal, I think last year.

TONY JONES: Swindle.

STEPHEN CONROY: Swindle, sorry, yes. So I think the ABC can point to a whole range of areas where it has given all sides of the debate a fair run.

TONY JONES: So you don’t see any examples or signs of “group think” in the ABC?

STEPHEN CONROY: Well, I am not sure that Mr Newman pointed his finger at any particular area. I don’t think he was speaking in a general sense but on an issue that you’ve mentioned like climate change, I think you’ve got a proud record where you can point to the screening of that documentary and there’s been plenty of debate over the last 12 months on this topic on the ABC. (source)

Ah, so showing the Great Global Warming Swindle is balance is it? Let’s remember what happened there, shall we? Firstly, Tony Jones himself, who was presenting the film, proclaimed before it was shown:

I am bound to say The Great Global Warming Swindle does not represent the views of the ABC.

Which means that the public service broadcaster has “views” on climate change – and I don’t need to tell you what they are. Hardly balance there. And following the screening, there was a round table debate in which TGGWS was thoroughly ripped to shreds by a typical ABC left-leaning audience. The hypocrisy is breathtaking. Why did the ABC take TGGWS apart, and yet never raise a finger to the partisan, innaccurate propaganda film An Inconvenient Truth? Where were the round table discussions picking that apart, Tony? No, wait. You’ve already explained. TGGWS doesn’t represent the views of the ABC, because AIT does, right?

If you want to see ABC bias at work for yourself, just go to the ABC’s Great Global Warming Swindle pages here and especially the nauseating article by Bernie Hobbs (ABC science broadcaster) here – it’s all there in black and white.

ABC balance on climate change? Don’t make me laugh.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , , , ,

ABC: Let's have a debate

12 March, 2010 by

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.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

ABC chairman: media displays "group think" on climate

11 March, 2010 by

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.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

ABC: Platform for Alarmists 2

8 March, 2010 by

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).

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

ABC: a platform for alarmists

8 March, 2010 by

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)

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

ABC gags Bob Carter's Drum article

4 March, 2010 by

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.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Jonathan Holmes: all sceptics are idiots

4 March, 2010 by

That’s the summary of another hopelessly biased piece on ABC’s The Drum (i.e. beating the drum for the Left), writing about balance in the media with respect to climate change. Jonathan Holmes is the oh-so-witty presenter of Media Watch and a confirmed climate alarmist. So we know which side of the fence this will be on. A few choice quotes:

What makes the issue more complicated than most is that the degree of scepticism in the community at large bears little relation to the degree of doubt that exists in the scientific community. Those who know the most are the least dubious that anthropogenic climate change is happening, and perhaps faster than they forecast just a few years ago.

In other words, if you don’t believe it, you’re just A STUPID BOGAN, got it? Then we have the inevitable cheap comparison between creationism and climate scepticism, starting off by claiming that the ABC doesn’t have to “balance” Richard Dawkins’ views on evolution:

Why not? Because creationism is espoused by rather few Australians, and therefore the ABC expects little demand for ‘balance’ on the topic? Or because the overwhelming scientific evidence does indeed support the ‘theory’ of evolution, as against intelligent design? Probably the former reason is far more important than the latter.

In other words, climate sceptics are really in the same camp as creationists, but because there are more of them in Australia than creationists, we at the ABC have to pander to their stupidity by giving a fake impression of “balance.” And he concludes:

But if I were running a science show on the ABC, I might well feel that what should guide me is the science, not shifts in popular opinion. And so far, for all the sound and fury, the vast majority of climate scientists remain convinced that the evidence for anthropogenic warming is getting stronger, not weaker, every year.

Hmm. I wonder what planet Holmes has been on for the last three months? Oh, I know. Planet ABC –  a left-wing elitist vacuum, isolated from reality.

Another great article from Your Their ABC.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,
«Previous Page
Next Page»