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.]
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).
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
” 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
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…….)
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.
“[…] 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.
ABC’s interview with Martin Durkin was a despicable piece of Stalinist character assassination.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Very thorough. Have shared this with several firm ABC supporters. Looking forward to part two.
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?
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
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.
” 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.
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/07/climate-models-go-cold/
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.
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.
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
RE: sunderland steve says: April 10, 2011 at 2:23 am
Just a quickie: The link to your website does not work for me
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?
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!
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
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!!
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.
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.