“Get Carter” campaign grows on Australia’s ABC radio & TV,

Guest post by Bob Fernley-Jones

[Note from Ric Werme: Bob asked me to help post this while Anthony was away. I'm not familiar with everything going in this matter, but the previous post appears to have been welcome in Australia. (The A in ABC does not stand for American here!) Besides, Bob Carter inspired my first climate web page and I met him last year. He's a good guy. So is his book.]

Following on from an earlier WUWT article, Professor Bob Carter and others sceptical of catastrophic AGW, have been long vilified on radio in the “Science Show”, but this has recently been amplified by Media Watch on ABC TV. Media Watch is intended to reveal any errors or unfair play throughout the media, including the ABC itself. However, the show of 21/March/2011, went awry in several ways:

Science Show host; Robyn Williams – ABC website

Host of Media Watch, Jonathon Holmes, from ABC website

A) Media Watch dismissed Professor Carter’s book, The Counter Consensus despite that it has had high acclaim. (See below)

B) Media Watch attacked commercial talk-radio on the attitude of the “shock jocks”, on global warming, yet, surprisingly, only one of the accusations of falsehoods was appropriate. (one against Alan Jones; arguably the most notorious shock jock).

Now let’s look at the Science Show’s recent record of “fair play” first:

Science Show versus Bob Carter:

1) 24/Sep/2010 Email from the Science Show producer, invited Professor Carter to have a telephone interview following an unheard critique by Bob Ward.

2) 26/Sept/2010 Reply Email from Bob Carter suggested amongst other things, an interview on his book which was declined. Additionally, based on previous experience with Bob Ward, an already published response was emailed to the producer, but was ignored during the broadcast. (instead, it was posted on the ABC website, for the “convenience” of listeners)

3) 2/Oct/2010; Bob Ward, a PR man from the London School of Economics egregiously attacked a two year old paper by Professor Carter. (without reference to the professor’s already published response to Ward’s previously published attack, or his other 100 or so papers etc)

4) 18/Dec/2010, Science Show (Robyn Williams) chatted with David Suzuki with reference to his recent book.

5) 1/Jan/2011, Science Show interviewed Tim Flannery on his new book.

6) 8/Jan/2011, Science Show replayed a launch speech by Naomi Oreskes on her new book.

7) 26/March/2011, Science Show interviewed, James Woodford, Quote: author of superb book The Great Barrier Reef

8) 26/March/2011, Science Show interviewed Richard Pearson author of book, Driven to Extinction

9) TBD, Email from Professor David Karoly of 21/March201 discussed intention to provide a strong critique of Professor Carter’s book. (See below)

For more detail on 1) through 6), see previous WUWT article (link repeated here).

Items 3) through 9) involve people of opposite view to Professor Carter. Professor Karoly of the IPCC in particular has a vested interest in condemning Professor Carter’s book. Everything was blandly accepted by Robyn Williams, the presenter, and his interviews of favoured authors commonly amounted to Dorothy Dixers.

Media Watch versus Bob Carter:

10) 21/March/2011, Media Watch slammed Professor Carter’s book, mainly on the basis of this Email from Professor Karoly:

From: David Karoly Sent: Monday, 21 March 2011 5:20 AM To: Jonathan Holmes Subject: Review of Carter’s Book in 2010: Hi Jonathan, I have received emails from several people asking me about my review of Bob Carter’s book, Climate: The Counter-Consensus, which is being prepared for Robin Williams Science Show. I have read the book twice but not yet completed my review in writing. A general comment on the book: While it has fewer gross errors than Ian Plimer’s book Heaven+Earth, it is a mixture of scientific facts with misinformation and misinterpretation, as well as outright errors, spun around a framework of personal opinion. Its conclusions are inconsistent with any scientific assessment of climate change prepared by any major national or international scientific body, such as the US National Research Council, the British Royal Society, the Australian Academy of Science, or the IPCC. His claims of a counter-consensus on climate change based on sound science are wrong. Best wishes, David

It will be interesting to see some specifics, but meanwhile, some other scientists that have praised Bob Carter’s book are:

* An absolute must-read; Professor Jan de Ruiter (U.S.A.)

* Should be in every library and school in the world. – Dr. Hamish Campbell (N.Z.)

* is excellent from every perspective. He uses gripping language and is very precise in everything, covering the whole range of issues from the science through the social and economic implications to the fraudulent behaviour of AGW people. Dr. John Nicol (retired physicist, James Cook University).

* Magnificent! Would that all politicians, and some so-called academics, would both read and understand what is really going on. Emeritus Prof. David Bowen (Cardiff University, pers.comm.)

* is one of the best books I have ever read (and I have read a lot). Professor Antero Jarvinen University of Helsinki).

* provides an up-to-date and informed guidance to the scientific criticism of the climate catastrophe hypothesis, and it is an essential contribution to the debate. Emeritus Professor Roland Granqvist

* presents a level headed argument for the problems facing the planet and exposes the media/government generated hysteria surrounding the debate. Gerald Beesley (MSc, DIC Geology).

* A thorough analysis of the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming. This splendid book should be required reading for anyone interested in the climate debate. Dr. Phil Playford

For a fuller list of over 40 enthusiastic reviewers, click here.

Media Watch also asserted that Professor Carter is not a climate scientist, but a mere marine geologist. However, here is a brief description from James Cook University (School of Earth and Environmental Sciences) on his climate research:

Bob Carter is actively researching climate change, using datasets drawn from DSDP/ODP/IODP seabed cores from the Southwest Pacific Ocean on drilling legs 90, 188 and 317. Some of these cores contain high resolution climate information at decadal scale. He is also active in topics in more general sedimentology, stratigraphy and marine research.

See also his extensive research paper listing there. (of course, not all climate scientists are meteorologists as in the case of the IPCC’s Professor Karoly)

END OF PART A) Part B), to follow, concerns an attack on commercial radio shock jocks, whom both I and Media Watch detest, however, that does not justify many errors or misrepresentations as broadcasted on 21/March/2011. BTW, the transcript has attracted over 300 comments, many of them strongly critical of Media Watch bias.

About Bob Fernley-Jones

I’m a retired mechanical engineer, and I guess that because in my science, any bad assumptions can get people killed, I have an abhorrence of many things that are perpetrated by academics in some areas of science. In the case of so-called climate science, the culture and bias in some media is also repugnant to me. I’m hoping that the ABC will improve its self regulating policies and culture to eliminate bias, and this website is under development towards that end. (if necessary).

About these ads

About Ric Werme

I'm a software engineer with roots that go back to PDP-10s and the ARPAnet (and WWW references to those days). I also like most anything scientific and am active in the climate skeptic community.
This entry was posted in media and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

77 Responses to “Get Carter” campaign grows on Australia’s ABC radio & TV,

  1. Ken Stewart says:

    ” I’m hoping that the ABC will improve its self regulating policies and culture to eliminate bias, ” –
    You must be kidding! Hell could easily freeze over first. As they get more desperate it will get worse.

    Ken

  2. AusieDan says:

    I agree with this post.
    Bob Carter’s book is very good.

    To some extent I have some sympathy with the ABC (Australia).
    When you’re trying to promote a crazy theory,
    It’s disasterous to give the truth an even break.
    (I know, I know, I know it’s in their charter to maintain true balance; but…….)

  3. AusieDan says:

    On second thoughts, perhaps just putting Bob Carter’s email somewhere obscure on the ABC web site does adequately balance out all the discussions with all the authors of all the books that they have reviewed in detail on their flag ship science program.

    Yes, that’s it.
    Fair enough, as we Ausies are wont to say.

  4. wayne says:

    “[...] any bad assumptions can get people killed, I have an abhorrence of many things that are perpetrated by academics in some areas of science. In the case of so-called climate science, the culture and bias in some media is also repugnant to me.”

    Bob, I feel exactly the same. Hope this doesn’t just fall on deaf ears… that would be repugnant too.

  5. Al Gore's Holy Hologram says:

    ABC’s interview with Martin Durkin was a despicable piece of Stalinist character assassination.

  6. Martin Brumby says:

    Interesting but not surprising. ABC and Robyn Williams and Karoly are complete strangers to genuine science, honesty and fair play.

    Just like Bob ‘Attack Chihuahua’ Ward, Joe Romm or Meltdown Mann.

  7. Paul80 says:

    When the ABC presenters’ “proof'” of the warming due to increasing CO2 is limited to “Arrhenius proved it” and its like “putting on another blanket,” then they rely on the pronouncements of the authority of the organisations as in the e-mail above.
    The “gang” of climate scientists do not acknowledge that there may be another interpretation of the data – (let alone homogenising the data). They appear to believe only what they have been taught; they do not question the accuracy of the science used.
    When a physicist or a geologist takes a good look, the conclusions based mainly on models just fall apart. Their defence is abuse because they cannot bear to see their cherrished view of the world tumble down around themselves.

  8. Martin Brumby says:

    Amazingly, the Press Complaints Commission in the UK has backed James Delingpole against the complaints of the UEA crooks.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100083071/uea-the-sweet-smell-of-napalm-in-the-morning/

    Eventually the truth will out in Oz, despite the best endeavours of Williams and Karoly (and Juliar). At least you have some sceptical politicians to vote for.

  9. In the end we’ll all be stronger for this episode. Climategate (the whole scam on climate) has shown how easily deluded are the ruling elite of even the most “advanced” countries. People like ABC and the BBC don’t have any right to their position in our societies, yet they act as if they have some god given right to preach their delusions at the rest of us.

    Unfortunately for them, the one thing you can’t create a law to force to comply with your delusion is the climate … and so it simply continues to do what it always has done! Sometimes going up triggering some mass hallucination in the ruling elite; sometimes going down – no doubt triggering a new mass hallucination by the (much less) ruling elite that they can somehow predict the climate cooling when they patently couldn’t predict it warming.

  10. Fair-Dinkum Dept says:

    Very thorough. Have shared this with several firm ABC supporters. Looking forward to part two.

  11. davidc says:

    Simple: Robyn Williams should debate Bob Carter on the Science Show. Or somewhere.

    Does anyone know anything about the alternative energy investments in the portfolio of the abc super fund?

  12. Michael in Sydney says:

    Hi

    I briefly read the intro so apologies if this is out of context.

    The intro said that one accusation was correct and that it was attributed to Alan Jones. It also said that he was one of the most notorious shock jocks. I really think this statement is incorrect. My second hand experience with Alan Jones is that he is a man of integrity who has a sense of justice and I would not wish that the wider community viewed him as a ‘shock jock’ when in fact he is a intelligent principled man.

    You draw your on conclusions based on your own investigations not someone else’s.

    Kind Regards

    Michael

  13. King of Cool says:

    You ain’t seen nuthin yet!

    Try browsing the ABC’s website, the Drum funded by all Australian taxpayers of which about half politically would be to the right of centre and the other half to the left (Australia had a hung Parliament after the last election and Labor was selected to form a government with the help of 3 Independents).

    Point One - Don’t let Labor fool you when they say they are the ELECTED government when they justify a carbon tax. They might be the legitimate government but they were not ELECTED. The recent State Election in NSW showed that now they do not represent public opinion when 2 of the successors to the Federal Independents were emphatically kicked out of Office. (The other one comes from Queensland. Their election is next year.)

    Point Two – Go to the ABC search engine and insert Climate Change and see what you come up with:

    http://search.abc.net.au/search/search.cgi?form=simple&num_ranks=20&collection=abcall&query=Climate+Change

    Reasonably balanced do you think? Probably is – if you think an elephant equals an ant on a see saw.

    But don’t worry, we still have the internet and WUWT and this makes up for a lot. And for Professor Bob Carter there is light at the end of the tunnel. Andrew Bolt is starting a new chat show on National TV Channel 10. Stay loose Bob.

  14. ” Its conclusions are inconsistent with any scientific assessment of climate change prepared by any major national or international scientific body, such as the US National Research Council, the British Royal Society, the Australian Academy of Science, or the IPCC. His claims of a counter-consensus on climate change based on sound science are wrong. Best wishes, David”

    I have to say that I find this convoluted thinking quite amusing, he is effectively arguing that a book that challenges the concensus must be wrong because it does’nt agree with the concensus!
    It must stem from the circular logic so often employed by the alarmist camp that because they are so convinced they are right that you by definition must be wrong.
    Your very opposition is, in their eyes, is proof absolute that you are wrong.

  15. Dr Anthony Fallone says:

    I’ve just tried to put this report on Facebook and been blocked as it being ‘abusive content’ or ‘spam’. Climate fascists at work on the social network, again.

  16. Marion says:

    It was the ABC too that brought the obnoxious ‘Planetslayer’ to Australian schools, approved by the government of course, to brainwash our children on the environmental agenda

    The cartoon aimed at younger children in primary schools where –

    “Greena invites children to use the website’s Greenhouse Calculator[6] to “find out what age you should die at so you don’t use more than your fair share of Earth’s resources.” This calculator helps children to determine how much of a “greenhouse pig” a person is by answering questions about how much the person spends and consumes. On the basis of these answers the calculator determines the person’s CO2 consumption, which is depicted by making the cartoon “greenhouse pig” look bigger, fatter, dirtier and angrier. When the child has answered the questions they are instructed to click on a skull and cross-bones symbol to find out when the person should die, depicted by having the pig explode in a bloody cartoon mess leaving only a pool of blood and a curly tail. For example, according to the calculator, the consumption of an “average Aussie pig” is 24.6 tonnes of CO2 per year. At this level, the calculator states:

    Based on the emissions from your greenhouse usage, you used up your share of the planet by the time you were 9.3 years old! … You should die at age 9.3. ”

    http://mises.org/daily/2997

    “Planet Slayer is an interactive website on ABC Online that uses humour combined with the facts to tells the shocking truth about how the environment is affected by the way we live and what we buy”.

    http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/media/s1001838.htm

    It seems to have a similar theme to the infamous 10:10 video.

  17. Paul R says:

    It’s such a shame that the ABC have disgraced themselves so totally in the CAGW hoax, their bias has been obvious and childlike and now they just preach to the choir of tame believers.
    What’s funny though is when a heretic manages to burst in and grab a bit of bandwidth like Jo Nova did with this article.

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/33114.html

  18. RE: sunderland steve says: April 10, 2011 at 2:23 am
    Just a quickie: The link to your website does not work for me

  19. Bob in Castlemaine says:

    Science is the poorer when Australia’s national broadcaster their ABC presents “100M+ sea level rise Robyn Williams” and mathematician turned all knowing “climate scientist” David Karoly as the font of all knowledge relating to the earths climate.
    But then I guess that is the way with the ideologues of the left that sadly, presently dominate our national broadcaster the ABC (antipodean love child of the BBC).
    Both of these organisations by the way have a legal obligation to provide balance in their news commentary?

  20. RE: Paul R says: April 10, 2011 at 2:57 am
    Oh come-on Paul, I’ve not had time to read it all, but Joanne Nova only attracted a mere 918 comments, not far short of a thousand in short time, before deciding to close it down. Ho hum!

  21. RE: Marion says: April 10, 2011 at 2:34 am
    I’m deeply shocked at what you say about scaring our kids, (this specific is news to me), and I need to study it more.
    Yours sincerely, horrified

  22. John R says:

    Here in Oz, Media Watch is a well known mouthpiece of the Socialist left. It is rarely “independent” , though it likes to pretend that it is. Funny how it lambasts journalists for not providing some balance, yet comes out with this very one sided rubbish. Where is their interview with Lindzen or McIntyre? Instead they produce Karoly!! A groveller to the IPCC orthodoxy. Cravenly cowering before the fraudulent altar of the “hockey stick”. I think that if Pauchari stopped suddenly they would need to retrieve poor David by his feet!!

  23. Lawrie Ayres says:

    We know the ABC is beyond biased and is now simply the propaganda arm of the Australian Labor Party. What is of more concern to me is that both our once premier scientific organisation, the CSIRO, and our Met, BoM, are so corrupted by the adherence to the AGW/CC hypothesis. That adherence has clouded their judgement and hence their advice to the government. Hence they were both way behind the eight ball predicting the wet year due to La Nina. They still adhere to the IPCC line in the latest “Climate Change Myths” and they still are predicting longer more severe droughts and fewer but more intense storms/cyclones. The last based on Yasi which strong though it was was still weaker than many before it. They have totally ignored the Satellite temp record and the ARGO data as well as still claiming increasing sea level rise. They are no longer scientific but are now advocates for government action on climate change.

    A cold winter might be helpful. A confession from Mike Mann under oath at Tim Ball’s court case might help as well. We all need to help Prof. ball fight this case. If every visitor in one month paid a dollar Tim could beat Mann to a pulp.

  24. cedarhill says:

    This all originates with the successful defamation and/or vilification of Robert Bork when nominated in 1987 to SCOTUS. It became a media campaign complete with the media asking the “some say” or quoting a person impervious to lawsuits, like Ted Kennedy speaking on the floor of the Senate. It’s success and furhter use as a tool of politics eventually led to, rumor has it, the Brits adding the term “borking” to the Oxford Dictionary around the start of this century.

    Borking is very, very difficult to successfully defend mostly because it’s directed at those that are casual news consumers. The intent is to move public opinion against the person. At the very least, it raises the dreaded “some say” for future interviews and articles to cast doubt. It’s a relentless campaign. All they need is one “some one”, no matter if completely fake, to press on with the campaign. The fact that this is still used tells you how difficult it is to counter or it would have disappeared.

    Two things come to mind for the science guys that don’t breath pol-sci.

    First, the Google “21 liars” initiative will sow all sorts of “some say” along with “many experts agree”. If the Left really wants to go after a person, it morphs over to even the rare unbiased journalist/interviewer that feels compelled to probe “the controversy”.

    Second. When granting or ambushed at the airport, treat every, and I do mean every, interview as hostile and be prepared to vigorously defend either yourself of, in this case, Bob Carter. You can count success by not seeing yourself on the news because they’ll just discard everything not matching their narrative.

    Oh, and at least ask to see the final edits of any non-live broadcast. If they don’t agree to you previewing it, then, for sure, skip it and decline. For live interviews, ask for and obtain a written list of persons appearing with you, their format and the areas they’ll be inquiring. If they refuse, skip it, it’s another set up.

    Most of all, vigorous defense. If you need to be discredited, you will be borked. You will be ridiculed. Who knows, you might even become a topic of Bill Maher or 60 Minutes. If you do, you may be nominated for the Borking Hall of Fame.

  25. Robertvdl says:

    Every day they become more dangerous and more evil. They know that they are losing ,that the real world is a different thing than computer models, that people wake up . The problem ? For them it’s live or dead. If nature proves them wrong they are out of work .They are like an animal driven in a corner.

    We are winning

  26. Christopher Hanley says:

    The ABC has been criticized by its own chairman for its one-sided presentation of ‘climate change’, describing it as “group think”.

    The current chairman Maurice Newman is the ‘Colonel Klink’ of that irredeemable organization.

  27. Jack says:

    100m ( sea rise) Williams backpedalled when the IPCC report came out saying 1m sea rise.
    Karoly is famous for regions in Australia will suffer drought and others will get rain. He should change his name to Homer Karoly. But along with Flannery, they convinced state government to build the desalination plants that are all rusting out from sea water or not finished. Flannery in particular is infamous for declaring Perth ( capital city of Western Australia) would become a ghost town by now because it would run out of water and that Brisbane ( Queensland) dams would never fill again. Then of course the Qld government built a desal plant that has been mothballed and altered the major mitigation dam into a storage dam for 2 reasons. 1 they found they could sell water at a much higher price if they kept a shortage as they were told was a permanent condition and 2 they believed Flannery’s prediction. Flannery of copped out after the rain by saying he only said it might not rain again.
    The big floods in Brisbane have been found to be caused by delayed release from the mitigation dam, because the altered conditions would not allow them to release sooner, even though they had huge warnings that big flows were coming in.
    Now the insurance companies are witholding payment – not all- because it seems the state government might be liable.
    What a mess these fools have caused . They strut Armani, but act busted gum boot.
    Alan Jones spends half his very heavy workload assisting charities for nothing, glad to do it. He coached the Australian rugby union team to an unprecedented Grand Slam. He has been labeled a shock jock because he interviews people of stature such as Lord Monckton on global warming. He has defended Australian farmers and country people against the rapacious green warmists trying to take even more water from farmers at the expense of reduced food growing and shutting down towns and schools.
    Unlike USA, Australia does not have or has very few permanent flowing rivers. Without dams and weirs , they would all go dry in times of drought. I ahve seen major rivers in Australia reduced to a chain of water holes. The greens claim they must have environmental flows . Flows that do not exist when the floods stop.
    THese days they use bogus climate models and apply their environmental flows to steal water from farmers.

  28. amicus curiae says:

    8c a day for ABC…
    I want my money back!
    williams is so biased it is beyond funny.
    he sledges both Carter and Plimer as often as possible, runs 99.9% pro agw items
    funny that Ian Plimer recieved Eureka awards for science books published and promoted by the same ABC.
    when copenhagen was happening the book show did a whole hour interviewing Stern on his climateterror book, when I rang to complain and ask for Ian Plimers book to get airtime I was told it was eninburgh special recording and they couldnt think about anything else right now as they had sooo much else to review. yeah, suuuure.
    EVERY show(exception being Counterpoint) finds a way to at least once if not more, drag climate into it, tonight the religion report was using Faith, to promote getting together to work for climate, the rural shows at one time were somewhat rational, now they are also unable to interview anyone without mentioning the effect of climate change , changing wrecking etc etc.
    The few rare times anyone who says no, climate has nothing to do with it, they get canned real fast.
    as for BoM and CSIRO, well whatever they now announce I would want to be seeing feeling whatever they tell me, as I would trust neither ever again without personally verifying it.
    Comment above mentioned ABC super etc, and yes! I also would be curious, I bet they are also into alternative investments and so pushing that to boost profits and retirement packages.
    Follow the Money alright.
    Seems the Drums got a goon squad that are following any comments, and then targeting any person or group web pages etc, its very obvious and very personal.
    odd how it’ ‘s ok when they do it?
    we’ve had to listen to their views for decades, yet no one is allowed to express any opposing view?
    the shock jock label? well sometimes that may be justified but in this case? hardly.

  29. Smokey says:

    cedarhill,

    Borking was used very successfully against Sara Palin.

    Within an hour of her nomination by McCain, the mainstream media was relaying talking points that had obviously been prepared in advance on every possible candidate. It ratcheted up relentlessly from there, and by the next day a friend of mine, who is totally non-political, was arguing passionately that Palin, the governor of Alaska, was unfit for national office. Trying to reason with her was like trying to reason with a TV broadcast.

    It’s a despicable Saul Alinsky tactic. It can be successfully countered, but if the target is unaware and naive, they’re toast. The same tactic is used to demonize “carbon,” and reason has little effect on an unwary public.

  30. John Marshall says:

    Prof. Carter’s book is excellent and should be read by our legislators cover to cover.

  31. Viv Evans says:

    I can only add to the recommends for Prof. Carter’s book.

    It is one of the must-reads.

  32. Speedy says:

    Not wishing to drop names, but I’ve had the great privelige of meeting Professor Rob Carter. Much as I was impressed with by this scientific knowledge, his integrity shone even more. It is impossible, to believe that, whatever he says, it is in discordance with his scientific and moral integrity.

    After his presentation, I went to congratulate him. In sharp contast to the self-praising heroes of the AGW crowd, he was out the back – drying the dishes!

    In his mind, the message is more important than the man – what a welcome relief from the Albert Gore’s et al of this world!!!

    I recommend his book – clear and concise and truthful. And diametrically opposed to anything you’ll get from the IPCC!

    Cheers,

    Speedy.

  33. ShrNfr says:

    This exemplifies my problem with the government funding of NPR. Please do not get me wrong. We (myself and my wife) were founding members of WGBH up here in Boston and we have the “xxxxx Family” cut into an arch in their new hq because of our donations. But when the government funds something that it then uses as political propaganda, I no longer get the choice to defund them or not. The difference between this sort of stuff and Germany in the late 30s is little or none. They should close down the BBC, the ABC, and no longer fund NPR with tax dollars.

  34. berniel says:

    Shortly after the Science Show interview with Richard Pearson (mentioned above) I submitted the below comment. It was not published. I submitted it again and it was not published.

    I emailed it to Williams asking:

    Can you investigate what might have happened to it. Most likely there was some delay or glitch (resubmitted just now). But I also want to be assured that this criticism of the way scientific information was presented in this piece was not pulled because it violated any ABC policy.

    Williams (whom I have always found to be a prompt and courteous correspondent) said that he will investigate with the site manager, but noted that he believed “there is less enthusiasm for invective rather than argument.”

    As I have posted many critical comments on the Science Show site without a hitch, I presumed that comments would only be moderated out where they violated ABC policy. This might be a policy against ‘invective,’ and so perhaps my comment was assessed as a violent or abusive attack. But Williams might also be suggestion that comments were selected for publication according to some ranking on merit (ie more or less ‘enthusiasm’). Does anyone know what the deal is here?

    _______________________________
    Comment submitted to the Science Show at:

    http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2011/3174037.htm

    A clever little package of innuendo and carefully perverted logic this one. Something for a high school clear-reasoning class to work on…if their teacher weren’t too concern to respect the global warming dogma.

    Consider: while the temperatures we have seen so far is not beyond the natural fluctuations in the recent past, we are now beginning to see temperatures that have not been experienced for 1 million years. Now pay attention kids: Is he saying that we have seen this extraordinary warming already, or is it only projected in the climate models? Listen carefully.

    Also listen carefully to the reasoning behind William’s assertion of an imminent mass extinction due to anthropogenic climate change. What status does Pearson give to the evidence for this? What is he referring to when he is says, and repeats: “We really just simple don’t understand”? Could he really be saying that the concern about mass extinction is based on…ignorance? Is this science? Is this the Science Show?

    And did you pick up this clever little bit of spin served up for those smarty pants attempting to think for themselves? They are thinking: if only by comparing the tropics with the poles, warmer wetter conditions seem to cause animals and plants to flourish. And if there is global warming now, then as there is of late a lot of water about – with our deserts in flood — it doesn’t seem this warming precludes wetting, despite previous alarm that global warming would cause a one-way trend to drought. And they might also be thinking: Isn’t CO2 plant food? Surely it is not all doom and gloom!?

    Ahh, but a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. It’s not that simple Mr Smarty Pants. In fact, it is so complex that even furrowed-browed scientist don’t understand. But what they do know is that booms can be followed by busts. So there you go, there is some gloom after all! And yes, although we are here maintaining ourselves impeccable as sober and reasonable scientists, personally we are concerned, very concerned. And, if we are scared, and you trust scientists, then you should be scared too.
    ____________________________________

  35. Rob Arnold says:

    I agree entirely about the great worth of Bob Carter’s book and the deplorable standards of the ABC. I am, however, disappointed that radio journalist Alan Jones is traduced. The writer should be aware that Mr. Jones is a generally well-informed opponent of CAGW and an effective anti-carbon tax campaigner.

  36. Richard says:

    “Media Watch also asserted that Professor Carter is not a climate scientist, but a mere marine geologist”

    Anyone who knows anything about science knows they have this the wrong way round. A marine geologist knows far more about climate variation (climate change implies it happens once; climate is continuously varying) than a mere climate “scientist”. For one they are at least in a mature branch of science, that accepts diversity of hypothesis. For another they are in a branch which has a perspective relevant to the age and variation of the Earth’s history.

    As a geology graduate (albeit one who dropped sedimentology and marine geochemistry ASAP, so I wouldn’t second guess Professor Carter) I see this as the most egregious dishonest of Media Watch, to imply that a climate scientist knows more about this issue than a marine geologist.

  37. ferd berple says:

    We travelled by boat around the world and our only news source was short wave radio. The difference in how news on the exact same story is reported in different countries is amazing. Night and day.

    If you rely on a single country to provide your news, you are not getting the facts. If you rely on a single news source within a country, you are getting propaganda.

  38. Robert C Taylor says:

    The CBC in Canada is just as bad. The CBC ‘science’ program is hosted by a blatant CAGW cheerleader, the CBC runs every doom and gloom environmental story they can get their hands on, publish almost nothing that is contary to CAGW dogma, and censor comments by readers which take issue with/expose their watermelon (green on the outside red on the inside) orthodoxy. Lord Lawson surely got it right when he said green is the new red.
    I have simply stopped watching CBC TV and going to its website. It is too depressing.
    As Canada is in the middle of general election I am praying for a majority Conservative government which is the only one (all the rest are on the left or far left) which would have the courage to defund or privatize the CBC (which is absolutely essential).

  39. Moira says:

    http://www.eap-journal.com/archive/v38_i2_03_carter.pdf

    My introduction to Bob Carter was in 2008 through this excellent article in Economic Analysis & Policy. It’s title is Knock, Knock: Where is the Evidence for Dangerous Human-Caused Global Warming?

  40. Patrick Davis says:

    ABC, what would you expect? I ignore any “political” or “science” broadcasts on ABC because they are, mostly, biased garbage. I watch ABC for things like “Full Metal Challenge”, “Black Books”, “Father Ted” and “QI”. The rest is politically biased rubbish just like the BBC.

  41. Wil says:

    Well, he interviewed David Suzuki huh? He’s our Canadian CBC left wing of a hard left wing CBC, government funded of course, zealot who on live interview, with the CBC of course, said anyone who didn’t support AGW aught to be jailed. Here in Canada the majority of us place David Suzuki, a biologists by trade now a left wing climate change High Priest of the Reverend Al Gore school of religiosity, somewhere between Foghorn Leghorn the Bugs Bunny character and Chicken Little the sky is falling in dude.

    Of course Australian Media Watch would interview Suzuki to attack Carter – Suzuki attacks everyone here in Canada who dare question his religion. However, like the rest of the AGW cowards they refuse to debate any of the Canadian skeptics on live television knowing he would be destroyed. And that alone makes Suzuki even more vicious attacking skeptics from a distance – the hall mark of the cowards.

  42. Annei says:

    Bob in Castlemaine says:
    April 10, 2011 at 3:06 am
    …..
    “But then I guess that is the way with the ideologues of the left that sadly, presently dominate our national broadcaster the ABC (antipodean love child of the BBC).
    Both of these organisations by the way have a legal obligation to provide balance in their news commentary?”

    ———-

    They have, but they don’t. They both sicken me.

  43. Douglas says:

    sunderland steve says: April 10, 2011 at 2:23 am
    [” Its conclusions are inconsistent with any scientific assessment of climate change ----Best wishes, David”

    I have to say that I find this convoluted thinking quite amusing, he is effectively arguing that a book that challenges the concensus must be wrong because it does’nt agree with the concensus!------It must stem from the circular logic so often employed by the alarmist camp that because they.
    Your very opposition is, in their eyes, is proof absolute that you are wrong.]
    ————————————————————————-
    Well spotted sunderland steve. And this is what they all rely upon – Consensus. The media and political hacks all rely on consensus or herd instinct – that’s expected. But since when was consensus a part of science? I thought that the advance of science depends upon question and challenge.

    Douglas

  44. kellys_eye says:

    Heck for ‘bias’ ABC can’t hold a candle to ‘our’ BBC….

  45. Luboš Motl says:

    I’ve met Bob Carter (and his wife) in Prague – and he is a great man, prominent scientist, and – by the way – an excellent speaker and presenter. I can’t review everything interesting that was said during his talk over there – there was a lot of it.

    Czech President Klaus was introducing his talk – and of course, our leader showed how important he was. A day earlier, Klaus said, Klaus was speaking to Julia Gillard in a meeting politicians and he told her that she should listen to Bob Carter, a special expert who lives in the same country. Bob Carter is so important, Klaus said, that even I – Vaclav Klaus – wrote a positive review of his book. :-)

    (Apologies to the Prague Castle for this amusingly sounding sentence, but I hope that I don’t distort Prof Klaus’s proposition too much haha.)

    Now, Prof Carter is acknowledged to be important because of the attacks by the climate worriers.

    I wish Bob Carter lots of smile and good nerves – especially because I consider him an example of the ultimate balanced mainstream Gentleman, and linking him to some extremist “shock jocks” is really insane. It just happens that in Australia and elsewhere, many people who should normally say reasonable things have gotten crazy, so the “shock jocks” – who should be the crazy ones in an ideal world that ours once resembled – become the representatives of the most sensible attitudes.

  46. Molly Daveson says:

    In relation to Marion’s comment regarding the ABC programme “Planetslayer”, and the fact that the children are encouraged to use a calculator to see when they should die because they have used up their share of CO2. Why has this fact not been given media attention from the commercial TV and Radio stations. Why aren’t our politicians jumping up and down about this. Does this insidious programme have any bearing on our high youth suicide rate?

  47. Douglas says:

    Richard says: April 10, 2011 at 6:38 am
    [“Media Watch also asserted that Professor Carter is not a climate scientist, but a mere marine geologist”-------As a geology graduate (albeit one who dropped sedimentology and marine geochemistry ASAP, so I wouldn’t second guess Professor Carter) I see this as the most egregious dishonest of Media Watch, to imply that a climate scientist knows more about this issue than a marine geologist.]
    —————————————————————————-
    Richard. Yes true. This is the old ‘appeal to higher authority’ trick to dismiss anyone at all. Whether ‘qualified ‘or not.

    It stinks because it refuses to engage in the arguments presented.

    Douglas

  48. sunderland steve says:
    April 10, 2011 at 2:23 am

    “Planet Slayer is an interactive website on ABC Online that uses humour combined with the facts to tells the shocking truth about how the environment is affected by the way we live and what we buy”.

    OMG. It’s true.

    Fortunately they didn’t have the guts to keep it online. Redirected to ABC Science Climate Change page.

    http://www.planetslayer.com

  49. DirkH says:

    Berényi Péter says:
    April 10, 2011 at 1:45 pm
    “[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifRhxufyHbw&w=480&h=390

    Thanks. Never had the chance to play it. These warmists sure love to blow kids and pigs up. Framing the debate and communicating their science, i think.

  50. charles nelson says:

    The way that creepy guy on the Media Show laboriously re-worked the interview with Tim ‘Ghost Metropolis’ Flannery was excruciating.
    Everyone here knows what it feels like to think of exactly the right put-down/retort but after the moment has passed!
    We’re all grown ups of course…and we KNOW the moment has passed. Unlike the folk at the Media Show who thought they could get the moment back and fix it.
    The Warmists have been re-writing history for so long; editing the time-lines, deleting the awkward facts that they simply didn’t realize that when you start re-writing history that’s too fresh…people notice.
    Kevin Rudd, PM at the time, gave the ‘free to air tv channels’ $a 270 million (or thereabouts) bonus, above their regular allowance. This was their fee for their support in this matter.
    I also adhere to the theory that ABC like BBC has it’s pension funds heavily invested in ‘green energy’ stocks…oh dear.

  51. Holbrook says:

    I first saw Bob’s presentation that is on the web about four years ago and loved his irreverant manner.
    “Is it warming or is’nt it?…it depends…and you are thinking?…. you smart assed….”
    What a way to open up a debate!!
    Having emialed him some time later I am now lucky enough to exchange emails on a regular basis…he is a top bloke as we say in the UK.

    The AGW crowd are in so much trouble they are desperate and that is why they are becoming more and more irrational.

  52. kalsel3294 says:

    “ferd berple says: April 10, 2011 at 8:40 am

    We travelled by boat around the world and our only news source was short wave radio. The difference in how news on the exact same story is reported in different countries is amazing.”

    Ferd, I can testify to that also. I lived continuously in SE Asia some decades ago when various western nations were actively trying to direct the course of history there. Often witnessing the very events that Radio Australia, Voice of America and the BBC would report on, each broadcasters bias became so blatantly obvious as they tried to pursue their individual agendas.
    It was bad enough that they were trying to influence opinion in the countries concerned, but I felt the worst was that they were treating the citizens of their own countries, who provided their funding, with so much contempt in that they were not being allowed to receive the unbiased reporting that journalists have a moral obligation to deliver.

  53. Ted says:

    ABC and the BBC have always broadcast against the interest of the people. An elite group who think and talk top down runs them both. The climate change hoax is just one of many topics and examples.

    I grew up in Liverpool, UK. We had only 2 radio stations both the BBC, they tolerated a minimum amount of rock and pop music to keep the rabble under control and broadcast endless Classical music. Then in the early 60’s came the Pirate Radio stations. It was an incredible gift from Radio Caroline and Radio London and those great Canadian DJ’s, to all the people in the UK and Europe too. We felt liberated and proud to be English, everybody was glue to the radio day and night and remember this was at the height of the British music invasion of the world the Beatles, the Stones Etc….!

    Well the UK Labour (the two faced working mans party) Government couldn’t have that, they sent armed navy vessels stuffed with solders and invade the Pirate Radio station Ships in intentional waters, arrested and shut them down, cheered with glee on by the BBC crowd so it was back to the captive BBC crap again (Socialism in action)

    It was a disgrace to put it F#*@ mildly, against the will of 90+% of the people in England, Ireland, Scotland and lots of Europe who desire to listen to their own music of choice not the elitist BBC broadcasting hours of fiddling in the heather or classical music to sooth the little urchins and savage working man.

    What’s My Point?

    Simple the Elitist ABC, BBC, CBC and all the other publicly finance broadcasting media are still filled to the rafters with elitist clowns all pumping the same we no best socialist/progressive crap, like AGW doom and gloom alarmism. These Publicly owned corporations only ever operate to suit there taste, there beliefs and the public be dammed it’s always been that way.

    We should de-fund them and let them stand on their own feet for a change!!!

    By the way I now like classical music and play all most any kind of music today!

  54. kalsel3294 says:

    charles nelson says: April 10, 2011 at 2:22 pm

    “The way that creepy guy on the Media Show laboriously re-worked the interview with Tim ‘Ghost Metropolis’ Flannery was excruciating”

    Charles, can you please refer to Flannery by his proper name which of course is Tim “Flim Flam” Flannery. It rolls off the tongue so much easier.

  55. Alex says:

    No shame.

  56. Marion says:

    Re: #Bob Fernley-Jones says:
    April 10, 2011 at 3:31 am
    RE: Marion says: April 10, 2011 at 2:34 am
    I’m deeply shocked at what you say about scaring our kids, (this specific is news to me), and I need to study it more.
    Yours sincerely, horrified
    ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
    Re: Molly Daveson says:
    April 10, 2011 at 12:54 pm
    In relation to Marion’s comment regarding the ABC programme “Planetslayer”, and the fact that the children are encouraged to use a calculator to see when they should die because they have used up their share of CO2. Why has this fact not been given media attention from the commercial TV and Radio stations. Why aren’t our politicians jumping up and down about this. Does this insidious programme have any bearing on our high youth suicide rate?
    ””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””’
    Totally agree and am very concerned that our children have been subjected to this.
    As far as I can tell it was available from early 2003 to mid 2008? when Liberal Senator Fifield complained to ABC managing director Mark Scott who said the ABC would review the content of the site.

    http://www.news.com.au/technology/abc-website-tells-kids-when-they-should-die/story-e6frfro0-1111116454821

    Radio interview on ABC Radio Brisbane –

    http://www.mitchfifield.com/news/default.asp?action=article&ID=1

    The utter hypocrisy displayed is incredible especially when you consider the sort of consumerism that was displayed at the Copenhagen Climate Summit

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6736517/Copenhagen-climate-summit-1200-limos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html

    But far more worrying than that is the effect it may have had on children particularly when you consider the case of James Lee.

    “Police marksmen shot dead a lone gunman carrying a bomb who had taken three employees hostage at the headquarters of the Discovery Channel near Washington DC…The suspect, James Lee, 43, had previously served two weeks in jail after staging a protest against the channel’s supposed lack of commitment to protecting the environment. …. When Lee organised a protest outside the same building in February 2008, he issued a six-page set of demands to Discovery, saying the channel “must broadcast to the world their commitment to save the planet….At his trial, he said he became committed to that cause after being laid off from his job in San Diego. He said he had been inspired by “Ishmael,” a novel by environmentalist Daniel Quinn and by former Vice President Al Gore’s documentary “An Inconvenient Truth”. A lengthy posting on Lee’s website said Discovery and its affiliates should stop “encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infants…Instead, he said, the channel should broadcast “programs encouraging human sterilization and infertility.” “Civilization must be exposed for the filth it is,” reads the site. “Saving the Planet means saving what’s left of the non-human Wildlife by decreasing the Human population. That means stopping the human race from breeding any more disgusting human babies!” it says. ”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7976513/Gunman-shot-after-taking-hostages-at-Discovery-Channel-headquarters.html

    (Sep 2010)

    The Al Gore film was shown in many of our schools.

    And then in October 2010 we get the 10:10 video

    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/10/enemys-true-face.html

    Yet it is individuals who promote this sort of thing that are trying to villify Professor Carter for whom most free-thinking people have the utmost respect.

  57. Rob Arnold, you wrote:
    I agree entirely about the great worth of Bob Carter’s book and the deplorable standards of the ABC. I am, however, disappointed that radio journalist Alan Jones is traduced. The writer should be aware that Mr. Jones is a generally well-informed opponent of CAGW and an effective anti-carbon tax campaigner.

    Actually, I was surprised how ill-informed Jonathon Holmes was in critiquing the various shock jocks, and how well-informed his targets were. Alan Jones was however alleged to say:

    Alan Jones: Nature produces nearly all of the carbon dioxide in the air. Human beings produce point 001 percent of the carbon dioxide in the air…
    — 2GB Sydney, The Alan Jones Breakfast Show, 15th March, 2011

    The anthro-number generally agreed is ~28% or ~30%, and I don’t think 0.001% would be right even if he meant it as a percentage of total carbon in the biosphere carbon cycle, which is massive. I saw no other problems in what else was alleged of the shock jocks.
    Of course Holmes and Jones have had big conflicts over social and political matters in the past.

  58. jaymam says:

    Google “You should die at age 9.3″ shows about 296 results.
    Someone should be sacked for allowing kids to see that.

  59. Paul80 says:

    The two books by Carter and Plimer under discussion here, have hundreds of references. If the reader disagrees with the discussions or conclusions of the author on a topic, he or she is challenged to read the relevant references and decide honestly if the author has interpreted the work correctly. If this is not done, the critics should remain silent. This should keep these critics busy for a long time.

  60. Cam (Melbourne, Australia) says:

    The ABC is one of the most bias broadcasting organisations in the Western World. It’s mantra essentially is ‘indoctrination’, and by listening to just a few hours on their radio and looking at the behaviour of compares on TV shows such as Q&A, its blatently obvious to see.

    As a scientist myself, I am utterly embarressed by Robyn Williams’ show on ABC Radio, and refuse to listen to him any more. Some of the ABC Broadcast is tantamount to ‘State Radio’ that the Soviets once did and other totalitarian regimes still employ.

    I love how Karoly typically just plays the man and makes wild statements himself, without providing one ounce of evidence. Par for the course I guess!!

  61. RE: berniel says: April 10, 2011 at 5:56 am
    When it comes to comment rejection on the Science Show blog, I had one rejected which didn’t seem to break the rules on the blog. It was more benign than yours and short. Puzzled, I enquired why, and learned that Williams may not even read the comments, let alone edit. I persisted with the producer, and he referred it to Audience and Consumer Affairs (A&CA) at: Corporate_Affairs10.ABC@abc.net.au; (The complaints unit)

    The following ruling from A&CA produced a different document which was a bit of a surprise to put it mildly….. See section 4.

    We note your concerns about your attempts to post a comment on the Science Show comments page as per your email to David Fischer on 23 November. We have reviewed the Science Show’s decision not to put your comment up. It is the case that The Science Show team are within their rights not to publish it. As stated in the Conditions of Use ( http://www.abc.net.au/conditions.htm ): “All material published on the ABC’s interactive services is at the ABC’s sole discretion.

    I don’t think your comment stood a chance with those sarcasms etc, like; smarty pants.

    I’ve had several later comments rejected; all benign; and have a feeling of excommunication. It is also annoying that no acknowledgment or explanation is given even with multiple postings and follow-up

    http://www.abc.net.au/conditions.htm

  62. Tom Harley says:

    Every effort should be made to our politicians to privatize all media, then competition would encourage diversity of opinion. Of course, the left, by being so close to socialism, will be totally uncomfortable with this. Taxpayers should not have to put up with propaganda from any political persuasion.
    Disclosure: I stopped watching any ABC, SBS programs once I was on the internet and got satellite television. It was almost too easy to find the truth.

  63. Andrew30 says:

    Oh yea, think that’s bad.
    I can not describe my feelings about this without being snipped. It is unbelievable, but if you loook there it is.
    From the Canadain Broadcasting Corporation, to help people to learn to speak English.
    Start with page 8.
    “Learning English with CBC
    Listening Lessons for Intermediate Students Based on the podcast “Manitoba This Week” Broadcast date: May 10, 2008″

    http://www.cbc.ca/manitoba/eal/lessons/may10s_2008.pdf

  64. Dacron Mather says:

    We look forward to a link to Deltoid, and Carter’s coherent engagement with the many, many, geophysicists here Up Over who think him the funniest thing since Dame Edna.

  65. Another Ian says:

    Re Douglas says:
    April 10, 2011 at 12:57 pm
    “Richard says: April 10, 2011 at 6:38 am
    [“Media Watch also asserted that Professor Carter is not a climate scientist, but a mere marine geologist”-------As a geology graduate (albeit one who dropped sedimentology and marine geochemistry ASAP, so I wouldn’t second guess Professor Carter) I see this as the most egregious dishonest of Media Watch, to imply that a climate scientist knows more about this issue than a marine geologist.]
    —————————————————————————-
    Richard. Yes true. This is the old ‘appeal to higher authority’ trick to dismiss anyone at all. Whether ‘qualified ‘or not.

    It stinks because it refuses to engage in the arguments presented.”

    Douglas, doesn’t appeal to higher authority express philosophical approval for

    “The Divine Right of Kings”?

  66. Christopher Hanley, you wrote in part:
    The ABC has been criticized by its own chairman for its one-sided presentation of ‘climate change’, describing it as “group think”.

    Here is the relevant extract from his long address to ABC staff:

    Climate change is a further example of group-think where contrary views have not been tolerated, and where those who express them have been labelled and mocked. In his ABC Online blog last October Chris Uhlmann wrote a piece called In praise of the sceptics. ‘“Climate science we are endlessly told is “settled”’ he wrote. “But to make the, perfectly reasonable, point that science is never settled risks being branded a “sceptic” or worse a “denier”…one of those words, like “racist”, which is deliberately designed to gag debate…You can be branded a denier if you accept the problem and question the solutions.”

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/maurice-newman-speech/story-e6frg996-1225839427099

    However, reportedly, Jonathon Holmes, the host of Media Watch et al strongly objected to this, and Mark Scott, the Managing Director whom is also Editor-in-Chief, (beyond control of the Chairman), “dampened the flames”.

    Ho hum, I would really like to chat confidentially with Chris Uhlmann over this topic as elaborated on my website:

    http://bobfjones.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/the-7-30-report-responds-to-ross-garnaut/

  67. Oh what the heck;
    Perhaps I should add to my last comment that the ABC Chairman continued in his address to staff with:

    This collective censorious approach succeeded in suppressing contrary views in the mainstream media, despite the fact that a growing number of distinguished scientists were challenging the conventional wisdom with alternative theories and peer reviewed research.

    Then came the sensational revelations of unprofessional conduct by some of the world’s most influential climatologists exposed by the hacked or leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Institute. This was followed by more evidence of dubious research and politicised advocacy contained in scientifically unsupported claims and errors in the IPCC 4th Assessment, including in the carefully vetted Synthesis Report. Questionable methods of analysis resulting in spurious temperature data have added further doubts on the underlying credibility of the science.

    The lack of moral and scientific integrity shown by the IPCC serves only to reduce clarity and increase confusion, disappoint believers and give fuel to doubters. It has frustrated policy makers, and as polling now shows, it has clearly weakened public belief in climate change and devalued respect for science in general.

    In defending the indefensible, Mr Gore, university vice-chancellors and those in the media, do a disservice to the scientific method and miss the point that no matter how noble your work, your first responsibility must always be to the truth.

    As you would expect, as Chairman of a public broadcaster, I followed with interest the announcement by the BBC Trust that it would carry out a review of the accuracy and impartiality of the BBC’s coverage of science. It came after a year in which online science bloggers continued to raise concerns about mainstream media coverage.
    A contributing factor for the review was the revelation that the CRU emails were known to Paul Hudson, the BBC climate correspondent one month before the story broke – but not reported at the time. While disturbing, it is heartening to know that the BBC takes quality control seriously.

    The Guardian noted “The moment climatology is sheltered from dispute its force begins to wane.” Which raises an important question for a media organisation: 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.

  68. Robin Pittwood says:

    I bought a copy of Bob Carter’s book, and I’ve read it. It is an excellent summary of climate science and climate people. I found it a really good read. Very helpful indeed. I highly recommend it.

  69. Speedy says:

    I’m curious does anyone know how much money Karoly has recieved in government grants for his pro-agw research?

    I came across one grant for $1.9 million in 2006 but haven’t been able to find any documentation of other sums.

  70. Geoff Sherrington says:

    The new Premier of New South Wales refused an interview with an old journeyman, Kerry O’Brien of the ABC. I did a 4 Corners program with this fellow in th elate 1980s and he told a story that he had been warned was not correct, most emphatically. So I never did another interview with KOB and told my staff to also avoid.

    Today there were many suggestions that Conservative Parties in Australia should boycott not just an occasional offensive journalist, but the whole ABC. Let the chickens come home to roost.

  71. Marion says:

    Re: Bob Fernley-Jones says:
    April 11, 2011 at 1:07 am

    Hi Bob,

    I would just like to clarify one of the statements made by the ABC chairman which seems to be a commonly held (and in my opinion mistaken) belief that the CRU emails (in their released entirity) were known to Paul Hudson one month before the story broke.

    ABC Chairman –
    “As you would expect, as Chairman of a public broadcaster, I followed with interest the announcement by the BBC Trust that it would carry out a review of the accuracy and impartiality of the BBC’s coverage of science. It came after a year in which online science bloggers continued to raise concerns about mainstream media coverage.
    A contributing factor for the review was the revelation that the CRU emails were known to Paul Hudson, the BBC climate correspondent one month before the story broke – but not reported at the time. While disturbing, it is heartening to know that the BBC takes quality control seriously”.

    Paul had explained on his blog shortly after Climategate broke that “As you may know, some of the e-mails that were released last week directly involved me and one of my previous blogs, ‘Whatever happened to global warming ?’
    These took the form of complaints about its content, and I was copied in to them at the time. Complaints and criticisms of output are an every day part of life, and as such were nothing out of the ordinary. However I felt that seeing there was an ongoing debate as to the authenticity of the hacked e-mails, I was duty bound to point out that as I had read the original e-mails, then at least these were authentic, although of course I cannot vouch for the authenticity of the others”.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/11/climategate-what-next.shtml

    which may have caused some confusion.

    Paul, as he blogged, had authored a piece that was considered to be somewhat ‘sceptical’ by the Alarmist side and had been receiving a lot of flak on line because of it. The ‘scientists’ became aware as is evident in the Climategate emails and Michael Mann stated :

    “extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.
    We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what’s up here?”

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1049&filename=1255352444.txt

    It is apparent that Mann did indeed contact someone in the BBC (possibly Richard Black) who then in turn sent on to Paul Hudson a string of emails in which he was mentioned (ie these ONLY). ie Paul did not receive all the CRU mails released in November but was simply copied in on an email in which he was mentioned specifically presumably to make him aware of the displeasure of the Climate fraternity.
    When Climategate broke there was a lot of conjecture as to whether the emails were in fact genuine. Paul Hudson had come forward to testify that he had been copied in to one of the strings of emails and could testify that these particular emails were genuine although obviously unable to vouch for the others.

    It is unfortunate that one of the less ‘alarmist’ of the BBC journalists has received so much condemnation, mistakenly in my opinion, which should rather have been directed at the journalists who do actually push the CAGW mantra such as Black and Harrabin.

    After all it is not usual that we are able to read a reasonably balanced piece on the BBC

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/10/whatever-happened-to-global-wa.shtml

    and Paul is to be congragulated for having the courage to write it.

  72. Rob Arnold says:

    I refer to Bob Fernley-Jones response to my comment concerning Alan Jones. I did say that he was “generally well informed on CAGW” and do not deny that he made an error of fact regarding the anthropomorphic carbon dioxide contribution. I do not wish to nit-pick but as Jack and Michael in Sydney have pointed out, Mr. Jones makes a stirling contribution to the cause as anyone can here for themselves by listening to the podcast of Mr. Jones interviewing Bob Carter on 2GB on 15 March 2011.
    Also I would point out that Bob Carter in his book at page 82 suggests that 4% is a good figure for the contribution made by humans and fossil fuels to current atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, rather less than the 28-30% figure you give.

  73. Rob Arnold, Reur April 11, 2011 at 7:07 am :

    1) As I said, I was surprised how well-informed the shock jocks were on AGW; apart from the one mistake by Alan Jones, and BTW, it might be interesting to know what he said in full, in case the context was relevant. Jonathon Holmes the ill-informed attacker/presenter should apologise, and I intend to follow-up on this.

    2) When I wrote the following, it was for a prevailing simplistic view:

    The anthro-number generally agreed is ~28% or ~30%, and I don’t think 0.001% would be right even if he meant it as a percentage of total carbon in the biosphere carbon cycle, which is massive.

    The number ~28% to ~30%, is the amount by which atmospheric CO2 is simplistically claimed to have increased since before the industrial revolution, based on controversial ice-core data and splicing of modern recent measurements. Bob Carter explains rather eloquently in his book, (page 80 is a good start), that it is all rather complicated, and Segalstad and others have come-up with much lower numbers. (all well cited amongst the 354 references). The vast CO2 flux cycle such as in-and-out of the oceans is not yet fully understood.

  74. Bob_FJ says:

    Bob in Castlemaine wrote in part:

    Science is the poorer when Australia’s national broadcaster their ABC presents “100M+ sea level rise Robyn Williams” and mathematician turned all knowing “climate scientist” David Karoly as the font of all knowledge relating to the earths climate…
    …Both of these organisations [ABC/BBC] by the way have a legal obligation to provide balance in their news commentary?

    Yes indeed Bob, in the case of the ABC, it is via Act of Parliament per the ABC Act. However, the ABC translates it into its self regulatory policies that have permitted programmes such as the Science Show to be blatantly biased providing that somewhere else, sometime, across the ABC platform there is what they claim is an opposing view, even if it is on a different sub-topic given to a different audience.

    However, effective 13/April/2011 there are new ABC policies and Code of Practice that on the surface appear to offer improvements. These have to be tested of course.

    Oddly, on my recent enquiry to the ACMA (the external appeal authority) they explained that they could not rule on ABC infringements of the law, but only on their internal translation of that law as described in their Code of Practice, that Code being a poor condensation of their Editorial Policies! (prior to 13/April)

  75. Gbees says:

    Karoly can be seen on then AYCC.ORG website in a video with the discredited fraudulent hockey stick graph in his presentation. Brain washing our young people. Why would anyone listen to him?

Comments are closed.