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.
The way that creepy guy on the Media Show laboriously re-worked the interview with Tim ‘Ghost Metropolis’ Flannery was excruciating.
Everyone here knows what it feels like to think of exactly the right put-down/retort but after the moment has passed!
We’re all grown ups of course…and we KNOW the moment has passed. Unlike the folk at the Media Show who thought they could get the moment back and fix it.
The Warmists have been re-writing history for so long; editing the time-lines, deleting the awkward facts that they simply didn’t realize that when you start re-writing history that’s too fresh…people notice.
Kevin Rudd, PM at the time, gave the ‘free to air tv channels’ $a 270 million (or thereabouts) bonus, above their regular allowance. This was their fee for their support in this matter.
I also adhere to the theory that ABC like BBC has it’s pension funds heavily invested in ‘green energy’ stocks…oh dear.
I first saw Bob’s presentation that is on the web about four years ago and loved his irreverant manner.
“Is it warming or is’nt it?…it depends…and you are thinking?…. you smart assed….”
What a way to open up a debate!!
Having emialed him some time later I am now lucky enough to exchange emails on a regular basis…he is a top bloke as we say in the UK.
The AGW crowd are in so much trouble they are desperate and that is why they are becoming more and more irrational.
“ferd berple says: April 10, 2011 at 8:40 am
We travelled by boat around the world and our only news source was short wave radio. The difference in how news on the exact same story is reported in different countries is amazing.”
Ferd, I can testify to that also. I lived continuously in SE Asia some decades ago when various western nations were actively trying to direct the course of history there. Often witnessing the very events that Radio Australia, Voice of America and the BBC would report on, each broadcasters bias became so blatantly obvious as they tried to pursue their individual agendas.
It was bad enough that they were trying to influence opinion in the countries concerned, but I felt the worst was that they were treating the citizens of their own countries, who provided their funding, with so much contempt in that they were not being allowed to receive the unbiased reporting that journalists have a moral obligation to deliver.
ABC and the BBC have always broadcast against the interest of the people. An elite group who think and talk top down runs them both. The climate change hoax is just one of many topics and examples.
I grew up in Liverpool, UK. We had only 2 radio stations both the BBC, they tolerated a minimum amount of rock and pop music to keep the rabble under control and broadcast endless Classical music. Then in the early 60’s came the Pirate Radio stations. It was an incredible gift from Radio Caroline and Radio London and those great Canadian DJ’s, to all the people in the UK and Europe too. We felt liberated and proud to be English, everybody was glue to the radio day and night and remember this was at the height of the British music invasion of the world the Beatles, the Stones Etc….!
Well the UK Labour (the two faced working mans party) Government couldn’t have that, they sent armed navy vessels stuffed with solders and invade the Pirate Radio station Ships in intentional waters, arrested and shut them down, cheered with glee on by the BBC crowd so it was back to the captive BBC crap again (Socialism in action)
It was a disgrace to put it F#*@ur momisugly mildly, against the will of 90+% of the people in England, Ireland, Scotland and lots of Europe who desire to listen to their own music of choice not the elitist BBC broadcasting hours of fiddling in the heather or classical music to sooth the little urchins and savage working man.
What’s My Point?
Simple the Elitist ABC, BBC, CBC and all the other publicly finance broadcasting media are still filled to the rafters with elitist clowns all pumping the same we no best socialist/progressive crap, like AGW doom and gloom alarmism. These Publicly owned corporations only ever operate to suit there taste, there beliefs and the public be dammed it’s always been that way.
We should de-fund them and let them stand on their own feet for a change!!!
By the way I now like classical music and play all most any kind of music today!
charles nelson says: April 10, 2011 at 2:22 pm
“The way that creepy guy on the Media Show laboriously re-worked the interview with Tim ‘Ghost Metropolis’ Flannery was excruciating”
Charles, can you please refer to Flannery by his proper name which of course is Tim “Flim Flam” Flannery. It rolls off the tongue so much easier.
No shame.
Re: #Bob Fernley-Jones says:
April 10, 2011 at 3:31 am
RE: Marion says: April 10, 2011 at 2:34 am
I’m deeply shocked at what you say about scaring our kids, (this specific is news to me), and I need to study it more.
Yours sincerely, horrified
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Re: Molly Daveson says:
April 10, 2011 at 12:54 pm
In relation to Marion’s comment regarding the ABC programme “Planetslayer”, and the fact that the children are encouraged to use a calculator to see when they should die because they have used up their share of CO2. Why has this fact not been given media attention from the commercial TV and Radio stations. Why aren’t our politicians jumping up and down about this. Does this insidious programme have any bearing on our high youth suicide rate?
””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””’
Totally agree and am very concerned that our children have been subjected to this.
As far as I can tell it was available from early 2003 to mid 2008? when Liberal Senator Fifield complained to ABC managing director Mark Scott who said the ABC would review the content of the site.
http://www.news.com.au/technology/abc-website-tells-kids-when-they-should-die/story-e6frfro0-1111116454821
Radio interview on ABC Radio Brisbane –
http://www.mitchfifield.com/news/default.asp?action=article&ID=1
The utter hypocrisy displayed is incredible especially when you consider the sort of consumerism that was displayed at the Copenhagen Climate Summit
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6736517/Copenhagen-climate-summit-1200-limos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html
But far more worrying than that is the effect it may have had on children particularly when you consider the case of James Lee.
“Police marksmen shot dead a lone gunman carrying a bomb who had taken three employees hostage at the headquarters of the Discovery Channel near Washington DC…The suspect, James Lee, 43, had previously served two weeks in jail after staging a protest against the channel’s supposed lack of commitment to protecting the environment. …. When Lee organised a protest outside the same building in February 2008, he issued a six-page set of demands to Discovery, saying the channel “must broadcast to the world their commitment to save the planet….At his trial, he said he became committed to that cause after being laid off from his job in San Diego. He said he had been inspired by “Ishmael,” a novel by environmentalist Daniel Quinn and by former Vice President Al Gore’s documentary “An Inconvenient Truth”. A lengthy posting on Lee’s website said Discovery and its affiliates should stop “encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infants…Instead, he said, the channel should broadcast “programs encouraging human sterilization and infertility.” “Civilization must be exposed for the filth it is,” reads the site. “Saving the Planet means saving what’s left of the non-human Wildlife by decreasing the Human population. That means stopping the human race from breeding any more disgusting human babies!” it says. ”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7976513/Gunman-shot-after-taking-hostages-at-Discovery-Channel-headquarters.html
(Sep 2010)
The Al Gore film was shown in many of our schools.
And then in October 2010 we get the 10:10 video
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/10/enemys-true-face.html
Yet it is individuals who promote this sort of thing that are trying to villify Professor Carter for whom most free-thinking people have the utmost respect.
Rob Arnold, you wrote:
I agree entirely about the great worth of Bob Carter’s book and the deplorable standards of the ABC. I am, however, disappointed that radio journalist Alan Jones is traduced. The writer should be aware that Mr. Jones is a generally well-informed opponent of CAGW and an effective anti-carbon tax campaigner.
Actually, I was surprised how ill-informed Jonathon Holmes was in critiquing the various shock jocks, and how well-informed his targets were. Alan Jones was however alleged to say:
The anthro-number generally agreed is ~28% or ~30%, and I don’t think 0.001% would be right even if he meant it as a percentage of total carbon in the biosphere carbon cycle, which is massive. I saw no other problems in what else was alleged of the shock jocks.
Of course Holmes and Jones have had big conflicts over social and political matters in the past.
Google “You should die at age 9.3” shows about 296 results.
Someone should be sacked for allowing kids to see that.
The two books by Carter and Plimer under discussion here, have hundreds of references. If the reader disagrees with the discussions or conclusions of the author on a topic, he or she is challenged to read the relevant references and decide honestly if the author has interpreted the work correctly. If this is not done, the critics should remain silent. This should keep these critics busy for a long time.
The ABC is one of the most bias broadcasting organisations in the Western World. It’s mantra essentially is ‘indoctrination’, and by listening to just a few hours on their radio and looking at the behaviour of compares on TV shows such as Q&A, its blatently obvious to see.
As a scientist myself, I am utterly embarressed by Robyn Williams’ show on ABC Radio, and refuse to listen to him any more. Some of the ABC Broadcast is tantamount to ‘State Radio’ that the Soviets once did and other totalitarian regimes still employ.
I love how Karoly typically just plays the man and makes wild statements himself, without providing one ounce of evidence. Par for the course I guess!!
RE: berniel says: April 10, 2011 at 5:56 am
When it comes to comment rejection on the Science Show blog, I had one rejected which didn’t seem to break the rules on the blog. It was more benign than yours and short. Puzzled, I enquired why, and learned that Williams may not even read the comments, let alone edit. I persisted with the producer, and he referred it to Audience and Consumer Affairs (A&CA) at: Corporate_Affairs10.ABC@abc.net.au; (The complaints unit)
The following ruling from A&CA produced a different document which was a bit of a surprise to put it mildly….. See section 4.
I don’t think your comment stood a chance with those sarcasms etc, like; smarty pants.
I’ve had several later comments rejected; all benign; and have a feeling of excommunication. It is also annoying that no acknowledgment or explanation is given even with multiple postings and follow-up
http://www.abc.net.au/conditions.htm
Every effort should be made to our politicians to privatize all media, then competition would encourage diversity of opinion. Of course, the left, by being so close to socialism, will be totally uncomfortable with this. Taxpayers should not have to put up with propaganda from any political persuasion.
Disclosure: I stopped watching any ABC, SBS programs once I was on the internet and got satellite television. It was almost too easy to find the truth.
Oh yea, think that’s bad.
I can not describe my feelings about this without being snipped. It is unbelievable, but if you loook there it is.
From the Canadain Broadcasting Corporation, to help people to learn to speak English.
Start with page 8.
“Learning English with CBC
Listening Lessons for Intermediate Students Based on the podcast “Manitoba This Week” Broadcast date: May 10, 2008”
http://www.cbc.ca/manitoba/eal/lessons/may10s_2008.pdf
We look forward to a link to Deltoid, and Carter’s coherent engagement with the many, many, geophysicists here Up Over who think him the funniest thing since Dame Edna.
Re Douglas says:
April 10, 2011 at 12:57 pm
“Richard says: April 10, 2011 at 6:38 am
[“Media Watch also asserted that Professor Carter is not a climate scientist, but a mere marine geologist”——-As a geology graduate (albeit one who dropped sedimentology and marine geochemistry ASAP, so I wouldn’t second guess Professor Carter) I see this as the most egregious dishonest of Media Watch, to imply that a climate scientist knows more about this issue than a marine geologist.]
—————————————————————————-
Richard. Yes true. This is the old ‘appeal to higher authority’ trick to dismiss anyone at all. Whether ‘qualified ‘or not.
It stinks because it refuses to engage in the arguments presented.”
Douglas, doesn’t appeal to higher authority express philosophical approval for
“The Divine Right of Kings”?
Christopher Hanley, you wrote in part:
The ABC has been criticized by its own chairman for its one-sided presentation of ‘climate change’, describing it as “group think”.
Here is the relevant extract from his long address to ABC staff:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/maurice-newman-speech/story-e6frg996-1225839427099
However, reportedly, Jonathon Holmes, the host of Media Watch et al strongly objected to this, and Mark Scott, the Managing Director whom is also Editor-in-Chief, (beyond control of the Chairman), “dampened the flames”.
Ho hum, I would really like to chat confidentially with Chris Uhlmann over this topic as elaborated on my website:
http://bobfjones.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/the-7-30-report-responds-to-ross-garnaut/
Oh what the heck;
Perhaps I should add to my last comment that the ABC Chairman continued in his address to staff with:
I bought a copy of Bob Carter’s book, and I’ve read it. It is an excellent summary of climate science and climate people. I found it a really good read. Very helpful indeed. I highly recommend it.
I’m curious does anyone know how much money Karoly has recieved in government grants for his pro-agw research?
I came across one grant for $1.9 million in 2006 but haven’t been able to find any documentation of other sums.
The new Premier of New South Wales refused an interview with an old journeyman, Kerry O’Brien of the ABC. I did a 4 Corners program with this fellow in th elate 1980s and he told a story that he had been warned was not correct, most emphatically. So I never did another interview with KOB and told my staff to also avoid.
Today there were many suggestions that Conservative Parties in Australia should boycott not just an occasional offensive journalist, but the whole ABC. Let the chickens come home to roost.
Re: Bob Fernley-Jones says:
April 11, 2011 at 1:07 am
Hi Bob,
I would just like to clarify one of the statements made by the ABC chairman which seems to be a commonly held (and in my opinion mistaken) belief that the CRU emails (in their released entirity) were known to Paul Hudson one month before the story broke.
ABC Chairman –
“As you would expect, as Chairman of a public broadcaster, I followed with interest the announcement by the BBC Trust that it would carry out a review of the accuracy and impartiality of the BBC’s coverage of science. It came after a year in which online science bloggers continued to raise concerns about mainstream media coverage.
A contributing factor for the review was the revelation that the CRU emails were known to Paul Hudson, the BBC climate correspondent one month before the story broke – but not reported at the time. While disturbing, it is heartening to know that the BBC takes quality control seriously”.
Paul had explained on his blog shortly after Climategate broke that “As you may know, some of the e-mails that were released last week directly involved me and one of my previous blogs, ‘Whatever happened to global warming ?’
These took the form of complaints about its content, and I was copied in to them at the time. Complaints and criticisms of output are an every day part of life, and as such were nothing out of the ordinary. However I felt that seeing there was an ongoing debate as to the authenticity of the hacked e-mails, I was duty bound to point out that as I had read the original e-mails, then at least these were authentic, although of course I cannot vouch for the authenticity of the others”.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/11/climategate-what-next.shtml
which may have caused some confusion.
Paul, as he blogged, had authored a piece that was considered to be somewhat ‘sceptical’ by the Alarmist side and had been receiving a lot of flak on line because of it. The ‘scientists’ became aware as is evident in the Climategate emails and Michael Mann stated :
“extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.
We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what’s up here?”
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1049&filename=1255352444.txt
It is apparent that Mann did indeed contact someone in the BBC (possibly Richard Black) who then in turn sent on to Paul Hudson a string of emails in which he was mentioned (ie these ONLY). ie Paul did not receive all the CRU mails released in November but was simply copied in on an email in which he was mentioned specifically presumably to make him aware of the displeasure of the Climate fraternity.
When Climategate broke there was a lot of conjecture as to whether the emails were in fact genuine. Paul Hudson had come forward to testify that he had been copied in to one of the strings of emails and could testify that these particular emails were genuine although obviously unable to vouch for the others.
It is unfortunate that one of the less ‘alarmist’ of the BBC journalists has received so much condemnation, mistakenly in my opinion, which should rather have been directed at the journalists who do actually push the CAGW mantra such as Black and Harrabin.
After all it is not usual that we are able to read a reasonably balanced piece on the BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/10/whatever-happened-to-global-wa.shtml
and Paul is to be congragulated for having the courage to write it.
I refer to Bob Fernley-Jones response to my comment concerning Alan Jones. I did say that he was “generally well informed on CAGW” and do not deny that he made an error of fact regarding the anthropomorphic carbon dioxide contribution. I do not wish to nit-pick but as Jack and Michael in Sydney have pointed out, Mr. Jones makes a stirling contribution to the cause as anyone can here for themselves by listening to the podcast of Mr. Jones interviewing Bob Carter on 2GB on 15 March 2011.
Also I would point out that Bob Carter in his book at page 82 suggests that 4% is a good figure for the contribution made by humans and fossil fuels to current atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, rather less than the 28-30% figure you give.
Rob Arnold, Reur April 11, 2011 at 7:07 am :
1) As I said, I was surprised how well-informed the shock jocks were on AGW; apart from the one mistake by Alan Jones, and BTW, it might be interesting to know what he said in full, in case the context was relevant. Jonathon Holmes the ill-informed attacker/presenter should apologise, and I intend to follow-up on this.
2) When I wrote the following, it was for a prevailing simplistic view:
The anthro-number generally agreed is ~28% or ~30%, and I don’t think 0.001% would be right even if he meant it as a percentage of total carbon in the biosphere carbon cycle, which is massive.
The number ~28% to ~30%, is the amount by which atmospheric CO2 is simplistically claimed to have increased since before the industrial revolution, based on controversial ice-core data and splicing of modern recent measurements. Bob Carter explains rather eloquently in his book, (page 80 is a good start), that it is all rather complicated, and Segalstad and others have come-up with much lower numbers. (all well cited amongst the 354 references). The vast CO2 flux cycle such as in-and-out of the oceans is not yet fully understood.
Bob in Castlemaine wrote in part:
Yes indeed Bob, in the case of the ABC, it is via Act of Parliament per the ABC Act. However, the ABC translates it into its self regulatory policies that have permitted programmes such as the Science Show to be blatantly biased providing that somewhere else, sometime, across the ABC platform there is what they claim is an opposing view, even if it is on a different sub-topic given to a different audience.
However, effective 13/April/2011 there are new ABC policies and Code of Practice that on the surface appear to offer improvements. These have to be tested of course.
Oddly, on my recent enquiry to the ACMA (the external appeal authority) they explained that they could not rule on ABC infringements of the law, but only on their internal translation of that law as described in their Code of Practice, that Code being a poor condensation of their Editorial Policies! (prior to 13/April)