WUWT readers may remember Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg from when I had a tussle with him during my speaking tour in Australia in Brisbane. Then, the good professor thought his opinion so important, that he disrupted the meeting and hogged the microphone. However, we let him talk, and he had the audience for several minutes. I am disappointed though, as he didn’t have the courtesy to introduce himself to me afterwards, though the webmaster for his climateshifts blog, John Bruno, did.
Ove is making waves again, this time on Australia’s ABC Stateline program.
Malcolm Roberts writes in an email to me an outline of the complaints, which I’m reproducing here. While I don’t share all of his opinions [Mr. Roberts], I’m sure that Ove would insist that everyone be heard, such as we allowed him to do in Brisbane in June. Mr. Roberts says he will be fully accountable for his statements below, and that’s something I respect. Even though my first encounter with him was less than professional, I’ll be courteous and say up front that Dr. Hoegh-Guldberg will also have the opportunity to post a response here, should he wish to. – Anthony
=======================================================
Federal MP’s, Friends:
Politicians and journalists who believe that humans caused global warming are invited to read accompanying specific data. Then take action to protect yourself because there’s solid proof you’re being fed nonsense and you’re politically, professionally and personally exposed.
Global warming sceptics can sit back in amusement and relax.
The confused and the fence sitters can find clarity, reassurance and freedom.
Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg is copied on this e-mail because one of the principles by which I try to live is to say only about people what I’m prepared to say to them personally.
I lodged formal complaints last week about his comments on the Australian government’s ABC-TV program ‘Stateline’ broadcast Friday, October 29, 2010. Complaints were lodged with (1) the University of Queensland Senate, (2) ABC-TV Audience and Consumer Affairs, and (3) the professor himself.
Despite having read many wild, unscientific and unfounded claims by fomenters of climate alarm, I feel stunned, annoyed and saddened by the Professor’s wild claims contradicting real-world science. His statements on ‘Stateline’ fail to meet needs for integrity, accuracy and responsibility.
Attached are PDF copies of my complaints and supporting material including ABC-TV’s ‘Stateline’ transcript with my responses.
Included are specific data that expose the professor’s sweeping, vague and emotive claims as false and/or contradicting real-world science. Use my solid, scientific data to draw your own conclusions.
Unlike the professor, I provide links and references you can check for yourself.
eg, despite failing to provide data, the transcript and his Global Change Institute’s web site imply dramatically rising sea levels. Yet actual Maritime Safety Queensland measurements show Australia’s annual sea level rise in the last 15 years is 0.3 millimetre. At this rate, in 100 years the total rise will be 3.0cm, around one inch.
I’m accountable for my statements. If Professor Hoegh-Guldberg provides specific, scientifically measured real-world evidence that global warming was due to human production of CO2 I will send that to this e-mail’s recipients.
Do you want to understand how climate alarm has been fabricated and spread? Read the interview transcript and watch the interview via the link provided.
Typical of climate alarm—spurious, unscientific, false assertions:
Much of Professor Hoegh-Guldberg’s statements on ‘Stateline’ is typical of what I’ve seen as the unscientific and unfounded spread of climate alarm contrary to real-world science. The many falsities and/or irresponsible actions of alarmists misrepresenting Nature and humanity typically include:
1. relying on falsities and unsubstantiated, unscientific claims that contradict real-world science. Professor Hoegh-Guldberg’s fanciful claims lead me to conclude he seems ignorant of basic aspects of his own field of marine science;
2. briefing parliamentarians by posing as experts yet lacking qualifications in climateology. Prof Hoegh-Guldberg is a biologist not a meteorologist or climatologist;
3. lacking real-world evidence. Eight months ago I first asked Prof Hoegh-Guldberg for scientifically measured real-world evidence of human global warming. He provided no such evidence. There is no scientifically measured real-world evidence that human production of CO2 warmed Earth;
4. using emotive ‘sound bites’ falsely claiming catastrophic damage to Aussie environmental icons such as the Great Barrier Reef (that experts agree is thriving), Daintree rainforest mists, Kakadu, Bondi Beach, ………;
5. relying on and citing UN IPCC reports even though I previously provided Prof Hoegh-Guldberg solid figures—obtained from the UN IPCC itself—proving that UN IPCC reports are fraudulently fabricated on falsities and not scientifically peer-reviewed. The UN IPCC corrupted and bypassed peer-review. Key UN IPCC claims are based on work of ‘scientists’ who prevent scrutiny of their raw data. That’s not science, it’s uninformed and biased advocacy;
6. demonstrating ignorance of the scientific process and misunderstanding of science itself. From what I’ve seen the professor fails to understand what is meant by a causal relationship. He has no real-world scientific evidence of causation;
7. smearing—and without grounds discrediting people—who disagree with alarmist views even when those people may simply be questioning the lack of sound reasoning and the use of many, naked contradictions by fomenters of climate alarm;
8. relying on the global warming ‘industry’ to attract funding;
9. failing or refusing to declare their own financial interests yet implying sceptics are driven by vested interests;
10. cornering politicians to accept falsities by plundering politicians’ ignorance of science and reluctance to publicly question alarmists posing as ‘experts’. It’s clear that many politicians feel ‘trapped’ even though ‘experts’ lack scientific evidence and fail to declare financial interests;
11. bulldozing journalists by taking advantage of journalists’ ignorance of science and their apparent reluctance to scrutinise people falsely posing as ‘experts’. Journalists often fail to challenge experts’ conflicts of financial interest;
12. claiming the high moral ground yet failing to understand core moral issues while making recommendations detrimental to the environment and humanity. Please refer to my comments on the ABC-TV transcript;
These are only some of the many tricks used by the UN IPCC and UNEP.
Prof Hoegh-Guldberg is not alone in spreading falsities:
Included in my submission to the UQ and the ABC, are copies of e-mails exchanged with Prof Hoegh-Guldberg last March. The thread of my e-mail of March 07, 2010 includes discussion with Professor Karoly. He failed to provide any scientifically measured real-world evidence of human causation of global warming.
Professor Karoly is the UN IPCC Lead Author of Chapter 12 of the UN IPCC’s 2001 Report. That chapter is the sole chapter attributing human causation of global warming.
He is a UN IPCC Reviewing Editor of the equivalent chapter (No.9) of the UN IPCC’s latest Report (2007) attributing warming to human production of CO2.
Thus he’s a senior UN IPCC ‘scientist’ twice responsible for the chapter claiming warming and attributing it to human production of CO2. Yet he cannot provide specific scientifically measured real-world evidence of human global warming.
McLean’s presentation of the UN IPCC’s own figures expose Professor Karoly as part of a close-knit cabal of computer modellers responsible for the 2007 Report’s chapter 9. It seems many of the authors had vested financial interests associated with computer modelling. Parliamentary records show that in 2006 Professor Karoly received $1.9 million in research funds from the government to research quote ‘detection and attribution of climate change’.
Yet by then we were told the science had long ago been ‘settled’.
Please refer to McLean’s works that can be accessed on www.conscious.com.au. The first four of McLean’s works at this site cannot be sensibly refuted since they merely present UN IPCC data on the UN PCC’s own reporting processes. The data was obtained from the UN IPCC.
In addition, note in the e-mail thread that Prof Karoly apparently erred in stating the UN IPCC’s purpose.
It seems Professor Karoly is a meteorologist who now puts his faith in unvalidated computer models to predict future climate. Yet the UN IPCC itself admits low and very low levels of understanding for more than 80% of the factors supposedly driving its radiative back-warming supposition.
Over a period of just 12 years, the unvalidated models’ projections have already been wildly inaccurate yet we’re expected to believe projections for 100 years.
Why does Professor Karoly cast aspersions on internationally renowned Professor Fred Singer whose qualifications AND practical experience in the real-world span many disciplines of science, climate and ecology? Professor Singer is an accomplished and esteemed scientist whose administrative and scientific accomplishments can be seen in the accompanying e-mail of March 7th, 2010. He is a person of the real-world, not the virtual.
In my experience true scientists rely on data. From what I’ve seen, playing the man rather than the ball seems to be a tactic for those lacking scientific evidence.
Professor Karoly is copied on this e-mail. If he provides specific, scientifically measured real-world evidence that global warming was due to human production of CO2 I will send that to this e-mail’s recipients.
There is no evidence of human global warming:
This e-mail illustrates just a few of the many methods used to spin the false claim that humans caused global warming. That falsity is being perpetrated despite complete lack of any evidence of human causation and despite much evidence to the contrary showing that cooling, warming, cooling cycles are natural.
In 1995 UN IPCC scientists reported five times that there was no evidence of human warming. Yet UN IPCC politicians reported to national governments and media, quote: “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate”.
The scientific conclusion that there is no evidence of human global warming has been repeated many times since by UN IPCC scientists. Please refer to UN IPCC Expert Reviewer, PhD scientist Dr Vincent Gray who reviewed all four UN IPCC reports—1991, 1995, 2001, 2007. He says there’s no evidence anywhere. www.conscious.com.au
Why pay our money to politicians, academics, ABC journalists for them to fleece us?
Do you find it ironic that academics, politicians and ABC journalists are funded by our taxes and are working—knowingly or in ignorance—to promote false grounds for taxing us more heavily?
Some politicians have integrity and courage. How likely is it though that any other politician will rise to question this waste of taxpayer funds on the ABC and academia?
The USA has spent 80 billion dollars on global warming over the last 30 years. International estimates reach 100 billion dollars. Despite this massive funding, global warming ‘research’ has found no real-world scientific evidence showing humans caused global warming.
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/massive-climate-funding-exposed/
and
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf
Imagine the humanitarian and environmental benefits if we’d spent that money on real science addressing such real-world issues such as HIV-AIDS or cancer or water quality or malnutrition or any of the real issues listed by the World Health Organisation.
Instead, UN power brokers enlisted academics, journalists, politicians and NGO’s to drive a gravy-train purportedly chasing Nature’s trace gas essential for all life on Earth while pushing carbon taxes.
The ABC Board tried to foster responsibility in journalists
Last March, ABC Board Chairman, Mr. Maurice Newman challenged ABC staff to adopt a spirit of inquiry. He made it clear in his address to staff that failure of any media organisation to be independent, objective and diligent brings consequences that will damage the organisation they cherish. The logic is clear: when journalists are seen to be biased or lacking in diligence, their audience loses trust and abandons them.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/maurice-newman-speech/story-e6frg996-1225839427099
Although some ABC journalists won’t fulfil their responsibility to Australia, will they recognise their responsibility for their ABC’s future?
I doubt collusion is rife. Yet unfounded climate alarm graphically demonstrates how a lack of journalistic courage to challenge ‘accepted’ mis-perceptions combines with group-think to spread nonsense.
We are reliably informed federal cabinet includes climate sceptics. Yet will any ALP-Greens politicians hold Prof Hoegh-Guldberg accountable?
Will any Liberals hold the professor accountable?
It’s too easy for politicians to blow our money rather than ask questions that risk incurring journalistic wrath in the electorate.
Yet courageous politicians of integrity do exist
Senator Fielding personally did his due diligence independently at his own cost. Then when Senator Penny Wong and Australia’s Chief Scientist failed to provide him with any proof of human causation, Senator Fielding made a calm, rational, objective decision against taxing people on carbon. He retains his integrity.
Former NSW ALP state Treasurer Michael Costa is known for his strength of character in saying what he thinks. He too publicly stated climate alarm was unfounded. Although he’s no longer in ALP government, he retains his integrity.
Liberal Dennis Jensen, a physicist, has been outspoken in opposing the climate scam. Cory Bernardi, Barnaby Joyce and other Coalition senators speak out publicly despite being diluted by the Coalition’s public policy nonsensically reinforcing the myth that humans caused global warming. Thus, some Coalition members retain their integrity.
These politicians are in touch with Nature and know parliament is being fed Climate Rubbish and Alarmist Propaganda—crap—by ill-informed and weak journalists and ‘scientists’ peddling alarm to fuel the gravy train.
Meanwhile my wife and I use savings and sell assets to fund our own research and writing. We pay capital gains tax when selling assets to fund our effort to protect our kids’ future. Our taxes pay salaries of weak politicians too timid to hold ‘experts’ and journalists accountable. It’s easier for them to meekly toe the party line and irresponsibly waste our money than to pluck up the courage to ask basic questions.
Why are Aussies paying politicians salaries for abdicating government to spin doctors and journalists?
That’s one of many reasons why so many Aussies are disenchanted with gutless politicians cocooned in Canberra failing to do their due diligence. Instead of protecting us from UN fraud, they’re making us targets.
If not us and a few honest politicians, who will hold academics, politicians and the ABC accountable?
The dark green lie: it’s Either-Or.
Yet reality is: it’s Neither-Both
Greens relentlessly scream that humans are evil, uncaring, greedy, irresponsible, guilty. Yet they ironically tap our inherent human care for our planet by using emotive sound bites to foster guilt and fear.
They falsely and fearfully proclaim our choice is: either our way of life and civilisation OR our environment.
Please refer to my comments on the ABC-TV transcript. History, economics and science show human care coupled with modern science’s technology produces massive environmental benefits.
Our civilisation depends on the environment AND the environment depends on our civilisation. Both are mutually supportive. If one fails, both fail. It’s not Either-Or, it’s Neither-Both.
Both! For the environment’s sake we need to continue enjoying and improving our lifestyle. We need to help those currently trapped in totalitarianism or poverty to gain the humanitarian and ecological benefits of our lifestyle. Sustainability enables people to live a prosperous life.
History and the world today show the greatest threats to the environment are ignorance and poverty. The greatest environmental disasters are in nations wracked by poverty or government control.
The reality is that when people have sufficient economic wealth AND awareness they take action to protect the environment. How many major real environmental threats in developed nations can you name that once identified have not been addressed or are not being addressed?
There’s no need to feel guilty about human civilisation’s major advances. Be proud of them.
Don’t let science be corrupted. That simply breeds ignorance, the environment’s enemy.
Stop the lie that humans are evil for seeking a better life with greater security, ease, comfort, health, longer life spans, wealth and choices—freedom.
Don’t wait for politicians to catch up with reality. Don’t wait for academic ‘experts’ to replace their ivory tower computer models with measurements of Nature and science in the real-world.
It’s your money they’re blowing, your future being destroyed. It’s Earth’s natural environment threatened by the ignorance of media-proclaimed experts and media-fueled ego’s.
Please reclaim our country. Please stand up to protect choice—freedom.
Malcolm Roberts
BE (Hons), MBA (Chicago)
Fellow AICD, MAIM, MAusIMM, MAME (USA), MIMM (UK), Fellow ASQ (USA, Aust)
Pullenvale QLD
And here are supporting documents (PDF):
“Ove is making waves again, this time on Australia’s ABC Stateline program.”
Funny, i took it for ABC Stalin program first…
Good on him for standing up but I would remove some of the emotional language and condense it if possible.
Michael
“Formal complaint” is misleading. It is often used in place of formal charge, in the legal sense. I would classify this as closer to a diatribe.
So? There is nothing stopping other Australians from issuing similar complaints using language they believe is more temperate. Let him communicate the way he wants to communicate,, and you communicate the way you want to communicate. Between everyone’s efforts, surely there will be a tone some people can agree upon. Worst case, is leaving the man to stand alone with nothing but backbiters instead of support.
Love it and the “protect yourself” approach …
Don’t let science be corrupted. That simply breeds ignorance, the environment’s enemy.
What science?, what ignorance?, that sounds like a psychological projection of one’s own and not yet consciously recognized faults.
Environment’s enemy?.. Excuse me: May I ask you what do you mean by environment?
A social one, of mutual grooming and caressing, a nice political one, a big profits one,or what?
The gravy train is running on time and still at full speed here in Oz. But I wouldn’t get as excited as Mr Roberts, I mean who watches “Stateline’ anyway. It’s all about New South Wales state issues and it’s one of the most boring programs put out by the ABC.
As for the ABC, well their on track with their AGW message, although I notice the messages are becoming less since Rudd (the ex Prime Minister) was replaced.
I found the article to be quite interesting. It appears to be accurate. The “emotional” language appears to come from Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg .
I LOVE IT. More power to his writing arm.
Although I agree with most of his statements, this is the type of document that is almost guaranteed to close ears and eyes. Ranting and overt emotional appeals are “epic fail”.
This past year “we” have managed to expose the naked emperor to many, many who actually count. Instead of continuing to try to get attention, now it’s time to calmly explain things to those whose attention “we” have.
Meanwhile, I found this rant/complaint/breathless recounting to be quite entertaining 🙂 And really, it doesn’t need to be thrown out, it needs some cleaning up.
nobody in there right mind would take notice of anything the abc said there all too far to the left
Anthony,
Most of what you say here is not much different than can be said about a whole host of the supposed scientists involved in the AGW scam. Not that it should not be said but it is nothing new, either. I suppose that if this buffoon had stuck his thumb in my eye during a sparing match I would have done the same. Also, this post is a pretty well thought out generic summary of much of what is wrong with AGW theory in general.
Keep up the fight. At some point the general populace will catch on. I fear for our children, however, as they continue to be indoctrinated.
I found the complaint long on histrionics and short on facts. Even Michael Mann writes better rubbish than this.
Sounds like ABC should change their acronim meaning to – “Anthropogenic Broadcasting Commission”
Kangaroos and Global Warming, the dangers their unstoppable reproduction because of increasing temperatures
Another possible line of research for bored to death Aussie New Age Professors.
While I do not dispute the facts as presented in the email, I agree this is not a formal complaint. A formal complaint is one that would require an investigation by parliament, or a prosecutor or the professor’s university. As far as I can see, there is no formal charge of academic misconduct such as falsifying, truncating or destroying data or failing to present a failed verification statistic – all of which deserve formal complaints and formal investigations.
REPLY: This is what he calls it in his letter, but I digress, I’ll amend the title to simply complaint – Anthony
Can anyone at the ABC read? This complaint will fall on deaf ears, because no-one who should read it will do so.
Can anyone at the ABC think? This complaint will be dismissed because it demonstrates a need to think.
When will the media ask for facts?
The guy needs to chill out and then reframe his complaint in a calmer state of mind. Right now he’s coming across like another Mann, Romm, Hansen etc.
What is it about Australia and batty professors? They also have a Flannery (http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/?tag=tim-flannery) and a Lewandowsky (http://joannenova.com.au/2010/11/the-death-of-reason-at-uwa/. Suitable characters to generate vigorous boos from the audience in a pantomime or hearty laughs in a light opera. Oh for a Gilbert & Sullivan piece on their shenanigans!
This is not a formal complaint. It is a rant. In pre-internet days it would have been in green ink, in capitals and heavily underlined. Someone should have told him this would be an embarrassment to those in the sceptic community who try to argue rationally.
Good on Malcolm Roberts for responding in such detail to Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg’s overly emotive statements. The sensible questioning side of this debate needs knowledgable people like Mr Roberts who are prepared to directly challenge emotive Alarmists like the Professor.
I’m looking forward to reading the Professor’s response here on WUWT however its most likely that the good Professor (similar to ALL his Warmist/Alarmist colleagues) will simply continue to bluster from afar rather than debate the issues directly to a vast and likely mostly knowledgeable audience like here on WUWT.
And to be fair to the good Professor, any direct debate seems an impossible task when he can’t produce any hard evidence to support his emotive allegations of human caused catastrophic global warming.
Malcolm,
First, I’d like to say, I agree with most you have to say. Thanks, it needs stating. However, I winced throughout the posting.
The reason? You stated, “4. using emotive ‘sound bites’…..”, yet, in your introductory paragraph, you use, “I feel stunned, annoyed and saddened by…” and the tone and tenor continues throughout. It isn’t that I disagree, I do agree, and I believe the emotional response is well justified. However, it is difficult to justify criticizing their emotional pleas while using emotive counters. Perhaps it is simply a matter of style, or perhaps it wasn’t intentionally written in this manner. (I often fall victim to my own emotions while intending to write a well thought, reasoned assertion or rebut.)
I know that it is, at times, difficult to see, but, I believe the skeptics have turned the corner and are now winning the great debate. I believe now is the time to become more paternal and mocking while engaging alarmists as opposed to being reactionary. Of course, were they to bring new information, the skeptic community could and should react, but as it is now, they just keep recycling the same blatherings they’ve used in the last decade. Most have been reasonably refuted. At least to my satisfaction and I would imagine you have most of the same rebuts at your disposal. Having read your links provided, I see that it is the case. Perhaps it would be beneficial to your purposes to include some of the well reasoned rebuts to general CAGW claims(or at least a short summary with links) in your post as opposed to the general sweeping statements. I hope this little critique helps.
Best wishes,
James
Stateline is a TV program with limited coverage because each State and Territory has its own version about locat issues. So only New South Wales has been subjected to the views expressed by the Professor. NSW is not Australia. Lots of us live elsewhere. However, I still hear on the ABC’s programs the old ‘the science is settled’ and ‘the debate is over’ mantras, ad nauseum, often inserted into ‘news’ broadcasts. The alarmist bias is common to the MSM and the ABC reiterates it.
I bet he feels better now he’s got that off his chest!
Meanwhile my wife and I use savings and sell assets to fund our own research and writing.
————-
Silly old twit wasting his money.
I would condense this down to:
People who agree with my preconceived ideas are smart and have integrity.
People who don’t agree with my preconceived useas are corrupt and incompetent.
By the way, if memory serves, the mucho integrity senator fielding was kicked out by his electorate, his party was funded by some small business men, the money dried up and it became bankrupt.
Watch out for strong genes….
“Ove Hoegh-Guldberg a Danish statesman, theologian and professor of eloquence.
Høeg-Guldberg wrote several theological and historical works, especially denouncing religious freethinkers.
Hoegh-Guldberg played a major role in the conspiracy against Struensee, the kings doctor and political advisor, and was also the only non-lawyer in the commission judge who sentenced Struensee to death. The following year he appointed to the cabinet secretary and became the Danish government’s real leader.
He succeeded in abolishing the reforms ealier goverments had completed and put development too on hold.
Ove Hoegh-Guldberg was born first September 1731 in Horsens, Denmark and died in 1808”
This is the message:
“There is no evidence of human global warming.”
After spending $80 billion trying to find evidence of AGW, even the U.N. admits that it can’t find any.
That puts AGW alarmists on the spot: put up or shut up. Without evidence AGW isn’t science, it is only a belief system. A very expensive belief system.
LazyTeenager says:
November 15, 2010 at 2:31 pm
Meanwhile my wife and I use savings and sell assets to fund our own research and writing.
————-
Silly old twit wasting his money.
I would condense this down to:
People who agree with my preconceived ideas are smart and have integrity.
People who don’t agree with my preconceived useas are corrupt and incompetent.
=====================================
Thank you for your comment Lazyteenager. It reinforces everything that is wrong with your side of the debate.
I can undestand the need to chill….. now.
I’ve been called all sorts of names and it takes a thick skin to be calm when called a ‘climate change denier’ (or a lot worse) by green eco activist, (usually with degrees in media studies or similar.)
Every time, the alarmism is challenged, sceptical scientists receive abuse. Sometimes a passionate argument back, will challenge unthinking groupthink, to make a pause, and listen..
Or maybe not.
Thank you Malcolm Roberts for having the courage to put so clearly the case against Climate Alarmism. I absolutely agree. Well said!
Emotion is a powerful weapon and has been employed to a very great extent by the Alarmist camp, those who think their nonsense can be defeated by the use of factual evidence alone are sadly mistaken.
Sure… repetition, emotion and length detract from this complaint, despite factual content.
Unlike the Climate juggernaut gravy train, the majority of sceptics seem to operate mostly alone without review, after hours and using our own money. How many of us have attended a conference in an exotic place lately to bounce ideas?
It is exhausting and it is difficult to remain objective and measured against some of the outrageous spin and lies of alleged expert Alarmists year in and year out, while it falls on deaf ears. I don’t know how the likes of Steve McIntyre do it.
It seems Malcolm Roberts has just had enough, and I sympathize. Our tax-funded ABC, is an outrageously biased organization – even according to its chairman. It is not helped by the likes of Robin Williams, a formely respected Science journalist and broadcaster, who now sadly will be remembered only as a rabid Climate Catastrophist, based on his many diatribes of his own against Denialists.
Nevertheless, it is only common sense that we should all have a friend read and edit any official leters we send to ensure maximum impact.
This is a rant, pure and simple. Whether or not Mr. Roberts has any accurate points (in my _personal_ opinion, he does not, but that’s another story), the tone is extremely poor, and will lead to Mr. Roberts being dismissed as a crank.
This is unfortunate. I think he’s sabotaging his own arguments.
Journalist and blogger Tim Blair summed up the “scientists” who foment fear of environmental catastrophe to gain funding as “green collar criminals”.
Ove Hoegh-Guldberg has been pushing “the reef will be destroyed imminently” for years now. He’s just disgusting.
So, in some peoples view, this complaint by Malcolm Roberts wasn’t drafted to your liking. So what ?
The bottom line is, the idiotic, unsubstantiated scientific bullsh*t blown into politicians ears by the likes of “Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg” “ Tim Flannery” et al , does have an impact on our lives.
e.g. from Malcoms ABC pdf.
JESSICA van VONDEREN: Queensland MPs also received some
disturbing reading material this week a report outlining the
impact of climate change on Queensland. Sea levels are rising
faster than expected and there are predictions for more frequent
severe weather events. The outlook for the Great Barrier Reef is
grim too. One of the experts in the field is Professor Ove Hoegh-
Guldberg. I caught up with him at Parliament, where he also
briefed MPs on the latest climate science.
After the report to Queensland politicians we get this in our local press :-
IN A CRUSHING blow to the Fraser Coast, plans for an $800 million redevelopment of Urangan Harbour have been shelved due to current economic conditions.
LINK:-
http://www.frasercoastchronicle.com.au/story/2010/10/27/800m-project-stalled-urangan-boat-harbour-plan/
My insider in the Queensland Government, informs me that the underlying reason these plans have been put on hold was because of “climate change” and “sea level rise”. It seems that no one has the guts to come out and say what is going on behind closed doors, but will come out with a “cover all” reason, “due to current economic conditions”.
And more wasted millions from our government, “Fraser Coast Emergency Action Guide”. Sure, there is some good information contained within the guide, but friends within the State Emergency Service (SES) tell me it was motivated by the fear of “climate change” and “rising sea levels”. Guess what the result of this fear campaign has had on the values beach front properties in Queensland.
See:- http:// http://www.frasercoast.qld.gov.au and click on “view emergency information”
Every time I switch the bloody TV on, I get some rat bag going on about, “because of climate change, expect the frequency and severity of tropical thunder storms in South East Queensland to increase this summer !”. and “We expect, because of climate change, 6 or 7 major tropical cyclones to cross the Queensland coast this season”.
And the statement that really gets up me is “The VAST majority of Australians want something done about climate change.”
Again, the insidious lies continually fed to politicians by the likes of Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, does have an effect on our lives, and I’ve had enough. I agree totally with Malcolm Roberts, even though some here think he could have done it better.
I seem to recall there was a fairly recent report saying that the Great Barrier Reef was thriving but so far can’t find it
I did find this article from the Australian dated April 07, 2007
THE Great Barrier Reef – one of the natural wonders of the world – could be gone in 20 years unless global warming was slowed, scientists warned last night.
FORCE OF NATURE Effect of climate change on Australia*
2020: Biodiversity drops in Kakadu wetlands, Queensland wet tropics, Great Barrier Reef, southwest Australia, sub-Antarctic islands and alpine national parks
2030-50: Yearly coral bleaching on Great Barrier Reef
2050: Ski season drops by 15-100 days
2050: Flows into Murray-Darling Basin fall by 10 to 25 per cent
2100: Coastal sea levels rise 18cm to 59cm
* If temperatures rise by 1.1C – 6.4C by the end of the century
Source: IPCC “With 1C to 2C warming it’s stuffed up, and with 3C it’s gone, through widespread coral bleaching,” Australian climate change expert Geoff Love said from Brussels, where he attended this week’s meeting of the UN and World Meteorological Association’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
I found that article through http://aefweb.info/articles61.html
Peter Ridd
On Line Opinion, 19 July 2007
Those of you who watched the ABC’s presentation of The Great Global Warming Swindle might not have been convinced by the arguments challenging the conventional wisdom that carbon dioxide is responsible for global warming. However, it should be apparent that scientists and politicians such as Al Gore, who have been telling us that the science is unquestionable on this issue, have been stretching the truth. It seems that there are some good reasons to believe that we may have been swindled.
Closer to home, there is a swindle by scientists, politicians and most green organisations regarding the health of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR). We are told that the reef is a third of the way to ecological extinction, is being smothered by sediments, is polluted by nutrients and pesticides, and is being cooked by global warming. Some scientists and organisations give the reef only a couple of decades before it is finished.
There’s also a link to an article in the Australian also dated 2007 which refers to a new study by Scientists from the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) which indicates that the corals are more tolerant to rising waters temperatures than first thought by most people.
THE Great Barrier Reef may be much better suited to surviving climate change and warmer conditions than previously thought.
Researchers in north Queensland have found many corals contain microscopic algae that protect them from temperature fluctuations.
The study by the Australian Institute of Marine Science in Townsville, which clashes with the work of many coral experts who have long claimed the reef is doomed by climate change, used DNA analysis to show many corals stored several types of algae that kicked in to provide nutrients when temperatures increased.
So there’s no consensus on whether or not AGW is happening (unless you accept totally the credibility of the IPCC) and if it is there’s no consensus on what will happen to coral reefs if it is
As a matter of interest I believe this is the ‘disturbing reading’ to which the ABC Stateline report refers http://www.climatechange.qld.gov.au/pdf/climate-change-in-queensland-2010.pdf
Key messages on p 16 are:
CO2 emissions grew 3.4 per cent per year between 2000 and 2008, a growth
more than triple that experienced during the 1990s. Increases in CO2 in the
atmosphere and oceans have resulted in:
• 14 of the past 15 years being the warmest since records began in 1880
• 2009 was the fifth warmest year (1998 was the warmest) in the 160 years
of global instrumental temperature records
• global average temperature increasing by about 0.75 °C since 1900
• increased melting of permafrost releasing greenhouse gases into
the atmosphere
• increased frequency of temperature extremes such as hot days and hot nights
• more frequent heatwaves
• extreme rainfall events with a greater number of severe tropical cyclones
• increased flooding associated with sea level rise and storm surges
• more severe droughts and bushfires
• increased ocean acidification disrupting marine ecosystems.
Guldberg et al 2007 is relied upon a number of times in that report
As to whether the sea level is rising this is my favourite
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf
Claim that sea level rising is a total fraud
Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner is the head of the Paleogeophysics and
Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden.
He is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission
on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and
leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project. Dr. Mörner has
been studying the sea level and its effects on coastal areas for
some 35 years.
I have to agree with previous critics of Roberts’ style. I doubt he will get far within the ABC. But I do agree with what he is trying to say. And the exercise highlights the dilemma of the realists: it is time there was a respectable, co-ordinated voice of an organisation for their side in Oz. Individuals paying their own money in the present scatter-gun approach are not very effective. But an organisation funded collectively that way, with appropriate safeguards against being “shills of big oil/coal” might do the trick.
I’ve made three separate complaints on ABC radio’s “The Science Show”, which shows blatant bias towards catastrophic AGW, and insulting attacks on sceptics and so-on. In some initial return Emails, I get the feeling that their independent “complaints Unit” is busy and possibly understaffed. Also, they have admitted that for any scientific issues, they would need to refer them to the non-independent ABC’s science team. Given these probable limitations, I think that Malcolm Roberts’ rather exuberant complaint is too large; such that it may be a turn-off to the “Complaints Unit”. However, there is some useful stuff in there, that may help me with my existing complaints:
1) The Chairman of the Board made a long speech last March, from which, briefly:
“…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…”
…More significantly, we see too how media have failed us by not being rigorous and questioning enough, resulting in many misrepresentations taking too long to be discovered. We have seen so often that the time of greatest certainty is, in fact, the time to be most sceptical…
…At the ABC, I believe we must reenergise the spirit of enquiry. Be dynamic and challenging – to look for contrary points of view, to ensure that the maverick voice will not be silenced. There should be no public perception that there is such a thing as an “ABC view” – we must be neither believers nor atheists but agnostics who acknowledge people have a right to make up their own minds…
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/maurice-newman-speech/story-e6frg996-1225839427099
2) The complaint Stateline programme was viewed in Queensland on 29 October and is clearly contentious, and questioning by the interviewer apparently lacked any knowledge of the scientific claims made by the professor. Although the current ABC code of practice is a bit vague, I believe it should require that a balancing Stateline programme should follow. That has not yet occurred in the following two weeks.
I’ll be making enquiries on these two points
I saw ‘ol Ove on the news again the other night, performing to a room of at least 10 people. ‘The reef will be ruined’, he cried, clutching his heart, tears forming and looking to the sky. ‘We have to do something now! Before it is too late!’. Some dowdy looking woman by his side, uncomfortable with the sensation of taking her Birkenstocks off and combing her hair nodded sagely in agreement. They really need some more photogenic spokespeople for this charade. Surely a C-List soapie star could be hustled up from somewhere and shown in a bikini on a coral atoll?
The rest of the crowd yawned and checked their watches. This familiar routine has been going on for 20 years or more. I guess someone listened and funded him for another couple of years. Meanwhile, back in the Coral sea, the Coral polyps continued their busy work of the past millenia, building coral day by day by day.
The whole spot got a couple of minutes on the 6 oclock news, but you can tell that even the reporters are losing enthusiasm for this. I mean, there are Qantas planes with engine trouble. Now that’s a scare you can really get the viewers in with.
The facts baby, just gimme the facts – and cut out the C..R..A..P.
Agree with many others. This starts well but then runs off the rails and just becomes a rant.
You can hardly expect to demolish global warming theory as emotional alarmism if your argument is also full of emotional content.
Most people recognise that the ABC has a well ingrained leftist culture that has daily been pushing the global warming theory for decades. But they are still obliged to answer legitimate complaint.
Please make this job difficult for them by making your case full of icy cold water tight statements of fact highlighting those made by their “experts” that are not.
And then ask them to explain. And do not give them ANYTHING else that allows them to claim that the whole thing is just a fuming rant.
I certainly know that Robert’s complaint against ABC bias is with merit. But like many others here I doubt that his rhetorical style is useful. It’s wrong for rational skepticism to use the same morally outraged tone that the Alarmists employ. Alarmists would love to lower debate to a shouting match, since the evidence is against them.
Why won’t believers in the CAGW hypothesis ever debate skeptics? Why haven’t the deep pockets of environmentalism ever dragged evil CO2 polluters into court? Because they know they will lose in a forum where fact by fact is exposed to the light of public scrutiny. The only arguments left for CAGW are based on emotional appeals and various kinds of propaganda techniques. Skeptical science must not lose focus on directly exposing the evidence to the light of dispassionate reason.
No need to get down in the mud with them. We do have the facts on our side.
So instead of shouting about CAGW being a fraud we should simply, calmly, rationally lay out the evidence point by point and keep repeating the evidence. No moralizing accusations are necessary. Repeat the evidence. Then repeat it again. Calmly. We are already winning the public debate. We should expect the Alarmist media to try to derail the debate into irrational invective and resist the urge to match them tit for tat.
Roberts should re-write his complaint as a reasonable rebuttal, this time as an outline point by rational point why Prof Ove Hoegh-Guldberg is wrong and the ABC bias.
Don’t tell us. Show us.
I believe this is the alarming report to which the ABC program refers
http://www.allvoices.com/s/event-7290860/aHR0cDovL2NhbmFkYWZyZWVwcmVzcy5jb20vaW5kZXgucGhwL2FydGljbGUvMjk3NzU=
Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2007 is referred to a number of times in connection to the Great Barrier Reef
The report has quite a lot to say about the effects of global warming on the health of the reef (calcification rates reduced due to ocean acidification) and sea level rises the latter projected to be up to 0.05 metres by 2070 is projected for the east coast of Australia due to the strengthening of the East Australian Current (CSIRO & BoM 2007)
Summary of climate projections for 2050 are listed on page 32 so far as is relevant to Hoegh-Guldberg
1 more regular bleaching
and mortality of corals of
the Great Barrier Reef due
to increased temperature
2 increased acidification of
sea water and resultant
decrease in coral
growth and coral reef
maintenance
3 increased spread of
disease (e.g. malaria,
dengue) due to more
favourable conditions
for vectors
4 flooding, erosion and
damage to infrastructure
associated with sea level
rise/increased storm
surge
Malcolm has a number of rebuttals to the health of the reef issue and Prof Carter says in ‘Climate the Counter Consensus’ “both the sea level and ocean acidification scares are environmental exaggerations” (p113) Prof Carter is a geologist specializing in palaeontology, stratigraphy, marine geology, and environmental science. I can’t find a bio for Prof Hoegh-Guldberg
Is the sea level rising – My favourite expert on sea levels is Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner the head of the Paleogeophysics and
Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden.
He is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission
on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and
leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project. Dr. Mörner has
been studying the sea level and its effects on coastal areas for
some 35 years.
See his article Claim that Sea Level is rising is a Total Fraud http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf
So to believe what was said on the ABC one has to accept the credibility of the IPCC and computer modelling and I don’t accept either
As an Australian who tunes into the ABC I too am sickened by science programs and the brilliant and humane Philip Adams when they espouse the alarmist viewpoint.
As a lifetime ALP supporter I am dismayed when I hear the erudite and clever Julia Gillard, the energetic and compassionate Kevin Rudd and the very straight Greg Combet talk about the desirability of combating human caused climate change. I admire the stand that Malcolm Turnbull took on the Republic and he is to me sadly compromised when he talks in the same vein
I am thoroughly jacked off.
I too get emotional.
I want to do something about this nonsense.
And I believe that passionate advocacy is required. Most people understand little of the science and those who understand least, and are least interested in getting at the truth are the AGW advocates. Don’t expect that this argument will be won or that you will turn people around with calm and rational discourse.
I am with Malcolm Roberts on this.
I made another comment because my first one got lost; but now it’s reappeared and the second comment has got lost (which is good because it was a rehash of the first one)
But one thing I would like to add is to believe what was said on the ABC one has to accept the credibility of the IPCC and computer modelling CGM’s and I don’t accept either
So good on you Malcolm
A biologist ? No wonder he is so lost. I remember as a TA having to tutor these people in general and organic chemistry – not the sharpest people when it comes to the physical sciences. Of course, they do not take any upper-level physics or pchem classes to understand thermodynamics and they end up doing basic undergraduate errors like talking a Teff from something other than a blackbody. He is dismissed.
“erudite and clever” “energetic and compassionate”
I’m not rolling on the floor,but I’m enjoying the joke.
Yesterday,watching a PBS program on Wolverines,particularly in Glacier National
Park, near the end of an intriguing and well-made documentary, the obligatory:
“The Wolverines are going to diiiieee!!! The glaciers are melting, melting! whatta
world whatta worrld!”
I get real tired of this. Never mind the fact that Wolverines are being discovered
in their old haunts after years of absence.
This is plainly a kook’s rant. Why on Earth would you bother publish this???
[But, then again, why should we bother be bothered by others complaining about a “kook’s rant” ? 8<) Robt
Isn't all data important?]
A brilliant piece of work. I would only have added that believers in the “precautionary principle” should concern themselves first with more likely dangers, like Cthulhu getting mad and eating us all for dessert.
I was at the Brisbane meeting and the disruptions were (imho) deliberately rude and untrue. I think Anthony and Prof Carter were magnificent in their courtesy and restraint in the face of outrageous behaviour.
Thank you Anthony for the pleasure of meeting you in person and getting a lesson in how real gentlemen handle even the most offensive of situations.
I have also complained to the ABC about its ‘science’ coverage, regarding claims that various islands north of Australia are about to be overwhelmed by the rising sea due to global warming. I specified a report about the Cartaret Group, some of which certainly are sinking, but because of tectonic plate movements, a long acknowledged phenomenon.
I did not even get a reply. These claims continue to pop up on the ABC from time to time. While I agree that Malcolm Roberts’ style is on the florid side, it is easy to understand how he became as frustrated as he obviously is.
Ref johanna says:
November 15, 2010 at 10:49 pm
I have also complained to the ABC….I did not even get a reply.
……………………………
johanna pls check:
http://www.abc.net.au/contact/complaints_process.htm
which amongst other things says:
WHO RESPONDS TO MY COMPLAINTS AND WHEN?
Your letter or email will be considered by ABC Audience & Consumer Affairs. If your complaint is about a matter of personal taste or preference, Audience & Consumer Affairs will ask the manager responsible for the program to provide you with a response.
If your complaint raises a serious editorial issue – such as factual inaccuracy, lack of balance, or inappropriate content – your complaint will be investigated by Audience & Consumer Affairs.
Audience & Consumer Affairs will notify the manager with editorial responsibility for the program of your complaint and ask for their comments. Audience & Consumer Affairs will consider these comments and where necessary, review tapes, transcripts and related material. We will also take into account the ABC’s Charter, the ABC’s Code of Practice and ABC Editorial Policies.
Once this process is complete, you will receive a written response to your letter or email, explaining the ABC’s conclusion. The ABC aims to respond to all complaints within 4 weeks of receipt. If a considered response cannot be provided quickly, an acknowledgement will be sent.
If your complaint is upheld, the ABC will openly admit its error. If it is not upheld, our reply will clearly set out the reasons.
……………………………….
As mentioned before Johanna, the ABC is obliged to acknowledge all legitimate complaints. Hence my advise previously, make them short, sharp, factual and to the point. Don’t suffocate them in emotive padding. And do not give up if you think you have a case.
I noticed that both Robyn Williams and Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, are involved in the organisation and presentation tour of Naomi Oreske who is promoting her conspiracy by Big Tobacco, linked to Big Oil, and her linking of Climate change sceptics to the conspiracy
Quote
by Australian Science Communicators
Naomi rolls back the rug on a dark corner of the American scientific community, showing how ideology and corporate interests, aided by a too-compliant media, have skewed public understanding of the some of the most pressing issues of our time, including climate change.
Sydney When: Monday, 15 November, 6.00 – 8.00pm. Where: University of New South Wales, Law Theatre (Law Building) RSVP: No booking required. Presented by: Climate Change Research Centre and Faculty of Arts & Social Science (Prof. Oreskes will be introduced by Robyn Williams, Presenter of the ABC’s The Science Show.)
Brisbane When: Tuesday, 16 November, 5.30 – 6.30pm. Where: University of Queensland, Abel Smith Lecture Theatre, St Lucia. RSVP: http://gci.uq.edu.au/naomi-oreskes Presented by: The Global Change Institute. (Prof. Oreskes will be introduced by Prof. Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Director of the Global Change Institute. Merchants of Doubt will be available for purchase.)
Melbourne When: Wednesday, 17 November, 5.45 – 7.00pm. Where: Experimedia, The State Library of Victoria, 328 Swanston St, Melbourne. RSVP: No booking required. Presented by: The Monash Sustainability Institute & The Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute. (Prof. Oreskes will be introduced by Prof. David Karoly, MSSI, with Q&A moderated by Prof. Dave Griggs, MSI. Merchants of Doubt will be available for purchase before the lecture, with signing and sales afterwards.)
Adelaide When: Thursday, 18 November, 6.00 – 7.30pm. Where: The Science Exchange, 55 Exchange Place, Adelaide. RSVP: http://www.riaus.org.au/events/2010/11/18/merchants_of_doubt.jsp Presented by: RIAus
Interesting to see that conspiracy theories replace science that should speak for itself, perhaps Anthony or Professor Bob Carter should attend Oves little gig and grab the microphone and point out some facts including reading the complete test of the Jason rebuttal re the supposed conspiracy.
Rebuttal to Oreskes nice conspiracy position.
From Times Online
November 1, 2008
A response to “Jason and the Secret Climate Change War”
From Nicolas Nierenberg, Victoria Tschinkel, Walter Tschinkel
and see how politely Bob is treated and allowed to state His point of view. Twould be a delicious to see. Perhaps we might get the actual live debate we all want to see in Australia!
King of Cool said:
As mentioned before Johanna, the ABC is obliged to acknowledge all legitimate complaints. Hence my advise previously, make them short, sharp, factual and to the point. Don’t suffocate them in emotive padding. And do not give up if you think you have a case.
————————————————————————————-
Thanks, King of Cool. I assure you that there is nothing long winded or emotive about my writing style. I provided citatations regarding the sinking of the Carterets.
I can only conclude that my complaint was deemed to be in the category of opinion, not factual error, and therefore did not require investigation under the complaints procedure.
After reading the recent wuwt post about a brave individual’s lengthy battle with the UK’s Ofcom (broadcasting regulator) concerning An Inconvenient Truth, I do feel that we need to be feeling strong to take on this kind of Kafkaesque thinking. If a regulator can seriously assert that the subject matter of AIT does not concern public policy, anything is possible.
Good luck trying to get the ABC to listen to anyone to the right of Engels or Marx.
No matter how bad you all may have thought the ABC was or is until you listen to this unbelievable recording of breathtaking arrogance, hubris and contempt you can’t understand how helpless we feel in Australia.
We pay for this ****.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/bigideas/stories/2010/3057366.htm
By the way… climateshifts blog seems to have been hacked.
I tend to think that Malcolm Roberts’ tone of complaint is appropriate.
Perhaps he understands that one cannot reason with the unreasonable and adapts the tone to the listener. If one is trying to communicate with an audience, it must be in a fashion to which they are receptive.
Reasonable argument is entirely opaque to those mired in irrational belief.
My tuppence worth. I only realised there was an argument about this when a passionate supporter set up a discussion, and I wondered why he’d need to do that if there wasn’t an alternative view worth getting passionate against…
I’ve calmed down a lot now, it was catching.
Those skeptical of the CAGW theory in Australia are turning public support away from the fearmongering pollies and enviros. Skeptics are doing so precisely because their arguments are clear, rational, evidence-based and calmly presented in contrast to the fire-and-brimstone moral superiority of the Green true believers who argue from authority and indignation. The green message is–If only the stupid, greedy Aussies would stop driving cars, living in the suburbs, use the right lightbulbs and stop buying so much stuff then we fashionably righteous people could save the planet.
People aren’t stupid. Yet the ABC and the green lobby assume they are. They believe they can tell a lie one day and if caught out the next, they just move along and figure people are too stupid to remember. They believe that the memory-impaired public will respond more to fear and vilification than reason and evidence.
They’re wrong.
The biggest revelation about Climategate for many Australians wasn’t that the science was shonky, but that the ABC was exposed as delusional biased by not reporting on the Climategate scandal.
The partisan weasels who pass as professional journalists at the ABC thought the Australian people were too stupid to read about Climategate for themselves on the Internet. Australians did just that and wondered why their tax payer funded national broadcaster chose to not inform the public of the biggest environmental scandal of century.
In fact, the first the ABC mentioned Climategate was to let us know that an inquiry had vindicated the CRU scientists of any wrongdoing. How the weasels at ABC figured their viewing public would have any idea what they were on about is a mystery.
Today the ABC continues to dig the grave for their credibility deeper every time they air alarmist propaganda as they continue to ignore skeptical counterpoints.
Yet actual Maritime Safety Queensland measurements show Australia’s annual sea level rise in the last 15 years is 0.3 millimetre. At this rate, in 100 years the total rise will be 3.0cm, around one inch.
Tch. 0.3 mm in 15 years amounts to 0.1 mm per 5 years. “At this rate”, then, in 100 years the total rise will be 20 x 0.1 = 2.0 mm = 0.2 cm, not 3.0 cm and much less than an inch. A simple rule to live by: when correcting someone else’s arithmetic, double-check your own. (Now hopefully nobody here has to fix mine…)
R Craigen.
Sorry to correct you.
¨Tch. 0.3 mm in 15 years¨.
Ah Ah.
ANNUAL sea level rise in the last 15 years is .03mm
Hence 30mm or 3cm in 100 years.
David;
Lost it, did you?
0.03 mm????
0.03 mm x 100 = 3 mm.
3 mm = 1/8 ”
Of course, you typo’d.
The quote is actually 0.3 mm annual.
= 0.03 cm.
X 100 years = 3 cm.
~= 1.2 ”
So your result is about right, though you stumbled along the way. 😀
Marc Hendrickx at his site;
http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com/
puts in a few complaints to our ABC.