Government campaign of climate misinformation on the way?


Think propaganda

I guess that would finally finish off Gillard and her crooked Government. Spending tax-payer dollars to promote a policy that was explicitly ruled out before the election won’t go down too well, I would suspect. Excellent. Bring it on.

AUSTRALIANS face bombardment with glossy brochures, emotive TV ads and subliminal “below the line” marketing under a ready-made strategy to sell the government’s proposed carbon tax.

A communications plan drawn up for the dumped carbon pollution reduction scheme urged a “call to action” campaign to boost public support for cutting carbon emissions.

The plan reveals a $6.5 million mailout of 6-8 page information booklets was under consideration by the former Rudd government to win public support for its climate response.

It also recommended a $7-$20 million media buy to explain to households the need for climate action, which would cost them $4-$5 a week more in electricity bills and $2 more a week for gas.

The December 2009 document, obtained by the opposition under freedom of information laws, urged a multi-pronged campaign worth up to $30 million to address an “information gap” in the community.

“It is important to note that advertising will need to be a core component of the communications program,” the plan said.

It said “below the line activities”, involving public relations specialists and digital marketers, should also play a role. (source)

Can’t wait, and I bet neither can you…

ABC's loathsome propaganda machine


Double whammy

The fact that the national broadcaster has a well-known and self-confessed climate alarmist as the presenter of its “flagship” science programme, The Science Show, is a perfect example of the ABC “groupthink” Maurice Newman exposed so clearly in March 2010. Robyn Williams is well known to the readers of ACM, having achieved a veritable litany of guest appearances (see here for a few examples) and is someone who accepts the politically motivated pronouncements of the IPCC, cobbled together as they are from environmental advocacy groups’ tatty leaflets, without a hint of scientific impartiality or healthy scepticism. So it is little wonder that whenever climate matters are discussed, it is invariably from the alarmist viewpoint, with generous helpings of “denier”, “flat earther”, “Big Oil”, “tobacco” and all the usual tedious ad hominems hurled at sceptics thrown in for good measure.

Oddly, for some strange reason, the audio and transcript from the 1 January 2011 programme, which opens with Williams wishing everyone a Happy New Year, has already been published on the ABC web site (making readers feel like they have tunnelled through some space-time wormhole), and therefore I can advise you to AVOID IT LIKE THE PLAGUE [and avoid the following week’s show even more, for reasons which I will discuss later – Ed]. For Williams’ guest on the show is none other than that other ACM favourite, Tim “Flannel” Flannery, whose name is almost invariably prefaced by “Australian Alarmist of the Year”  to add a bit of street cred. However, since the alarmists love to do this, I will just point out, purely for the record you understand, that Flannery isn’t a climate scientist, he’s a mammalogist and palaeontologist (according to Wikipedia), but despite that he is a “global warming activist” and since he’s plugging the consensus/IPCC/ABC/Labor view, that’s just fine. We only worry about qualifications when it’s a climate realist we’re talking about, right?

To an extent, the details of the interview are irrelevant (the transcript runs for a mind-numbing 20 pages), but as would be expected, Williams gives Flannery a free ride to plug his new book and spout all the usual misrepresentations about the current state of the climate. The two of them seem perfectly happy to inhabit this cosseted world, insulated from reality, where they can stew in their own alarmist juices. There’s lots of Gaia talk, a theme of the new book, which Flannery tries to argue has some scientific merit, which shouldn’t surprise anyone, since it has the same level of pseudo-scientific credibility as catastrophic AGW:

Robyn Williams: So there you’ve got an image of the earth, the planet as a god, but also a very sophisticated and credible scientific idea.

Tim Flannery: That’s right. I was tempted in the book to simply give in and call it Earth System Science, because Gaia is earth system science and in many university departments around the world, as you’ll know, Robyn, earth system science is a very respectable science. But as soon as you mention Gaia of course, the scepticism comes out. I didn’t do that though, because I think there’s a certain elegance to Gaia, to that word and the concept, and also because I think that within this century the concept of the strong Gaia will actually become physically manifest. I do think that the Gaia of the Ancient Greeks, where they believed the earth was effectively one whole and perfect living creature, that doesn’t exist yet, but it will exist in future. That’s why I wanted to keep that word.

“Physically manifest”? “It will exist in the future”? But that’s just the start – things get even more astrological, straying dangerously close to “energy crystals”, tarot cards and ouija boards, accompanied by the stench of patchouli wafting from the monitor screen. Williams actually dares ask a tricky question, but then doesn’t follow through:

Robyn Williams: How will it exist in the future? Because an organism is one thing; the earth is complicated, but it is after all a lump of rock with iron in the middle and a veneer of living things outside, and a very thin atmosphere. It’s not an organism, so how is the feedback system such that it stabilises things, temperature anyway, like an organism?

Tim Flannery: That’s the great question. I must admit that as I wrote the book I was unable to come to a clear landing on the extent of Gaian control over the system, because much of the data is equivocal. I think that there is clear evidence for something that I call in the book geo-pheromones, which are elements within the earth system, which when present in very small amounts have very large outcomes, a bit like ant pheromones. But they often do multiple jobs. Some ant pheromones do as well, but many of them are specific. One of those is course carbon dioxide, a trace amount in the atmosphere, four parts per ten thousand is enough to keep the earth habitable. Ozone is another one present in just a few parts per billion. Human-made CFCs are yet another one. Atmospheric dust may well be another one. So these elements in the earth system have a profound impact on the system, and there is some evidence that there’s some sort of homeostasis established, if you want. But you don’t have to look very far into earth history to see that homeostasis change. When I say homeostasis, that’s like my temperature is always at 98.4˚ or whatever it is.

Robyn Williams: As are your body fluids largely maintained.

Tim Flannery: Yes, all balanced and everything.

This kind of pagan Earth-worship stretches credibility as thin as it can go. And as always, Flannery goes on to presents the bog-standard alarmist climate arguments – faster, bigger, badder, worser:

Tim Flannery: … The climate science is getting more dismal at the same time this is happening. We’ve seen the IPCC projections are now ground truthed against real world change, and we see that we’re tracking the worst case scenario, which is 6˚ of warming.

Robyn Williams: Six! [Why does that surprise you, Mr “100 meters of sea level rise by 2100” Williams?]

Tim Flannery: Yes, that’s for the early part of the curve. You know what happened in 2001, the IPCC produced these projections and they indicated that if we double CO2 above pre-industrial levels there’s a 60% chance that the result will be a 2˚ or 3˚ rise in temperature, a 10% chance of a 1˚ rise and 10% rise of a 6˚ rise. Because those projections were done ten years ago, scientists are now going back and looking at the real world data and saying were the projections right or not? It turns out that they were wrong. They were too conservative, at least for the early part of the projection curve. We’re seeing the worst case scenario unfold.

Is this an outright lie? I guess not, because Flannery is relying solely on the UHI-contaminated, corrupted and fudged surface temperature record, which conveniently fits the alarmist cause (wonder why, with Jimmy Hansen in charge?). If he actually stopped to consider satellite records, which cannot be “adjusted”, global temperatures are tracking well below IPCC projections. But that’s not going to grab any headlines, and it certainly doesn’t fit the ABC’s groupthink agenda.

But as I said, all this detail is irrelevant. When you have a flagship science programme hosted by a presenter with a blatant political agenda to push, it is no longer science, but propaganda – precisely what Maurice Newman was keen to avoid at the ABC. Flannery is happy to smear a geologist, Bob Carter, for not looking at the “appropriate timescales” when considering climate – the ultimate irony, given that geologists have a far better understanding of timescale than climatologists or politicians – but why doesn’t Williams actually bite the bullet and invite Carter on his show? I mean, his arguments are paper-thin, so clearly he will simply make a fool of himself, right?

But it’s not that simple. This isn’t about being persuaded by facts or rational argument – this is all about religion and faith. Just as billions of Christians put their faith in the Christmas story and the Bible, so Williams and Flannery are devout followers of the Church of Global Warming, and anything that contradicts the holy scripture (An Inconvenient Truth) is heresy. Maurice Newman should kick Williams out of the ABC – nothing prevents him from making a career as a ecotard activist or Green politician, that’s his right as a citizen in a democracy, but there is no place for him at the national broadcaster.

You can read the transcript here.

And the reason you should avoid the following programme?

“Next week on the Science Show, the dynamic Naomi Oreskes at the University of NSW on merchants of doubt – how a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. I’m Robyn Williams.”

Lumping climate realists with Big Tobacco… the ABC propaganda mill grinds ever onwards, at your expense. More on this next week, no doubt.

NSW government uses black balloons to represent CO2


Because we all know that CO2 is black, right? Because it’s carbon, right? And it’s pollution, right? And it’s causing catastrophic climate change, right? Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong again. But that doesn’t stop the moonbat NSW government wasting even more precious taxpayer money (that could be spent on e.g. fixing the state’s woeful transport network or any one of a thousand more deserving causes) on no less than fifteen (count them, fifteen) adverts to blackmail the weary population to wear dirty, damp clothes covered in bird-shit (no warm washes, no tumble dryers allowed, line dry instead), suffer in cold houses in winter and hot ones in summer (turn down that evil heating and cooling), and of course, live entirely in semi-darkness with flickery, epilepsy-inducing CFLs (get rid of those tungsten filament bulbs right now) all to “save the planet”. I am all in favour of reducing energy consumption, but this is just pure Green propaganda:

[hana-flv-player video=”http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/video/nsw_save_power.flv” width=”400″ height=”330″ description=”NSW Save Power advert” player=”4″ autoload=”true” autoplay=”false” loop=”false” autorewind=”true” /]

There’s also a hideous new website [how much does that cost?] to go with it here, and plenty more of those sinister black balloons.

Welcome to the interfering, meddling, nanny state of environmentalism… or as we call it, New South Wales.

BBC to be investigated over climate science bias


BBC: impartial climate reporting

And not a moment too soon. The Daily Mail reports that the BBC Trust, the broadcaster’s governing body, has launched a major review of its science coverage after complaints about bias, especially on climate matters:

The BBC Trust today announced it would carry out the probe into the ‘accuracy and impartiality’ of its output in this increasingly controversial area.

The review comes after repeated criticism of the broadcaster’s handling of green issues. It has been accused of acting like a cheerleader for the theory that climate change is a man-made phenomenon.

Critics have claimed that it has not fairly represented the views of sceptics of the widely-held belief that humans are responsible for environmental changes such as global warming.

Last year a leading climate change sceptic claimed his views had been deliberately misrepresented by the BBC.

Lord Monckton, a former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, said he had been made to look like a ‘potty peer’ on a TV programme that ‘was a one-sided polemic for the new religion of global warming’.

In 2007 the then editor of Newsnight hit out at the BBC’s stance on climate change.

Peter Barron said it was ‘not the corporation’s job to save the planet’. His comments were backed up by other senior news executives who feared the BBC was ‘leading’ the audience, rather than giving them ‘information’.

Mr Barron had claimed the BBC had gone beyond its remit by planning an entire day of programmes dedicated to highlighting environmental fears.

His comments had come after the broadcaster had already been accused of not being objective on green issues and of handing over the airwaves to campaigners. In 2007 it had devoted a whole day of programming to the Live Earth concerts.

I wouldn’t hold your breath (except to reduce your carbon footprint, of course).

Read it here. (h/t Climate Realists)

Moonbat media plays down CRU leak


Moonbat media

Moonbat media

Of course we could rely on the lefty media, in thrall to the global warming bandwagon, to trivialise the significance of the leaked emails and documents.

The Guardian (UK) huffs and puffs and wheels out the “poor ikkle alarmists” routine:

Over the past five years, Mann and Jones in particular have been subjected not only to legitimate scrutiny by other researchers, but also to a co-ordinated campaign of personal attacks on their reputation by ‘sceptics’. If the hacked e-mails are genuine, they only show that climate researchers are human, and that they speak badly in private about ‘sceptics’ who accuse them of fraud.

It is inevitable as we approach the crucial meeting in conference in Copenhagen in December that the sceptics would try some stunt to try to undermine a global agreement on climate change. There is no smoking gun, but just a lot of smoke without fire. (source)

And in the same paper Michael Mann gets very hot under the collar: [Read more…]

Jo Nova: Rudd the global bully


Rudd the bully

Rudd the bully

In response to Kevin Rudd’s extraordinary tirade at the Lowy Institute last week, Jo Nova has crafted a brilliant article:

In 6000 words Rudd uses ad hominem attacks, baseless allegations, argument from authority, mindless inflammatory rhetoric and quotes not a single piece of evidence that carbon drives our climate. He repeats quote after quote of sensible, ordinary points from his opponents as if it shows they are confused. Yet he can’t point out how any of them are wrong. It shows the depth of his own delusions—that he thinks merely questioning “the UN committee” is a flaw in itself.

It’s as if being a sceptic is a bad thing, yet the opposite of sceptical is gullible.

Rudd throws baseless innuendo when he claims vested interests are at work. The truth is the exact opposite. Exxon spent $23 million on sceptics, but the US government spent $79 billion on the climate industry. Big Government outspent big-oil 3000 to 1. Worse, carbon trading last year was $126 billion dollars. That’s for just one year. The real vested interests stand in the open like signposted black holes hidden in plain view by a legal disclaimer. The singularities at the centre of the climate change galaxy have names like Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, ABN Amro, Deutche Bank, and HSBC.

Read it all.

The ABC: Labor's climate propaganda machine


Labor propaganda machine in action

Labor propaganda machine in action

Whilst the Howard government was given a rough ride by the ABC over every single one of its policies, Kevin Rudd and his cronies are allowed to get away with almost anything. Kerry O’Brien savaged the Coalition on a daily basis on the 7.30 Report during the Howard era, constantly interrupting and badgering, never letting them get a word in edgeways, forever ridiculing and humiliating, but with Labor he’s about as scary as Kerry-Anne (O’Brien’s a lefty of course, so it’s to be expected).

Since Labor has been in power, the ABC has continued in the same vein… except against the Opposition. It therefore comes as no surprise that tonight’s edition of Four Corners will focus not on the government’s flawed ETS and the quiet signing away of billions of taxpayer dollars to developing countries under a Copenhagen treaty, but on the Opposition’s response to it.

Reporter Sarah Ferguson goes inside the conservative parties to find out what the party members really think about climate change and why they’re so reluctant to back their leader.

In October Liberal Party leader Malcolm Turnbull said, “I will not lead a party that is not as committed to effective action on climate change as I am.”

It was a potentially dangerous strategy because it tied his leadership to a single issue. Just how risky that declaration was is only now becoming clear.

At that stage coalition MPs had clear doubts about supporting an emissions trading scheme but now a range of Nationals and Liberals have told Four Corners they don’t believe that climate change is primarily man-made.

“The earth is not actually warming, we still have rain falling … we can go outside and not cook.”

“If the question is, do people believe or not believe that human beings …are the main cause of the planet warming, then I’d say a majority don’t accept that position.”

This may surprise many voters and it’s led some to ask if Malcolm Turnbull’s position as leader is now untenable.

The problems for the opposition leader are reinforced by Liberal insiders who say his handling of the issue was a “folly”. Another says Malcolm Turnbull is simply too “green” for the party he leads. Yet another senior figure justifies his refusal to support his leader’s views by saying it’s important for him to openly question the idea that man is changing the climate at all.

There are so many questions the ABC should be asking Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong – like why Rudd hysterically condemned all who disagree with him on climate as dangerous (a small step away from silencing critics), or why they are keeping so quite about the Copenhagen draft treaty, or why they unquestioningly put their faith in the science from the IPCC, which has been discredited as a politically motivated and biased organisation to the core? But no – they choose to use it as an opportunity to further expose issues within the Opposition.

The only tangential benefit may be to strengthen the position of the sceptics within the Coalition, and weaken Turnbull’s position as a result, but I doubt it.

Thanks to the ABC, we are in a situation where an opposition is under more scrutiny than a serving government.

Read it here.

%d bloggers like this: