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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Prof. Carter’s book is excellent and should be read by our legislators cover to cover.
I can only add to the recommends for Prof. Carter’s book.
It is one of the must-reads.
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.
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.
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:
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.
____________________________________
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.
“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.
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.
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).
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
Heck for ‘bias’ ABC can’t hold a candle to ‘our’ BBC….
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.
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?
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
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.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifRhxufyHbw&w=480&h=390%5D
Fortunately they didn’t have the guts to keep it online. Redirected to ABC Science Climate Change page.
http://www.planetslayer.com
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.