The Australian is Anti-Science, it's a conclusion I'm reluctant to draw, but the accumulated evidence drives me to it.
the paper is becoming firmly anti-science (as all good conservatives must be these days, it seems), especially with respect to climate change.
Today they have an article based on a talk by superannuated economist Professor David Henderson saying the latest IPCC report is "alarmist", "mislead Western governments over rising temperatures".
"He urged business leaders to insist on 'evidence'" (presumably constrasted with the IPCC's data.
Professor Henderson said IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri was "alarmist" and his report "a heavily biased piece of speculative alarmism".
"It fails to take account of the profound uncertainties and gaps in knowledge," he said.
They also follow the misleading line "The IPCC's report concluded there was a 90 per cent chance that human activity caused global warming." This is misleading because the reports negotiabled word was "Likely" meaning at least 90% i.e. a few governments refused to accept greater than 95% as the agreed figure. For the gamblers and economists, 9:1 odds (90%) and 18:1 odds (94.8%) are very different, but the delusionists want to round them down to 9:1.
"... the paper is becoming firmly anti-science ..."
Even worse, the rag wants to be the arbiter of scientific rectitude.
Recall the hysterical editorial of January 19, dealing with the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists' advancing the Doomsday Clock, with the banner "Scientists turn back clock on progress".
It goes on to say "the resetting of the doomsday clock is symptomatic of a broader rejection of science and reason that is taking place across Western society."
To be fair, they did publish this rather good piece on climate change response recently:
Let's not forget either that Rupert has ALWAYS interfered in his papers' editorial stance and The Australian owes its existence to Rupert's leftie youth when he felt none of the state papers were left-wing enough.
Given that his children all seem more more politically progressive than him (which admittedly isn't difficult)one wonders if the traditional of proprietorial interference will continue when Rupert passes on- and how attitudes on the right and left will change if they do.
I'm sure if The Australian starts singing the praises of the ALP once again, the right wing and libertarian camps will be only to happy to insist that that's a perfectly fine and dandy use of the media.
The Australian has had its anti-science moments (they devoted far to much space to intelligent design creationism, but the Age did much worse). But with global warming they seem to have gone off the deep end completely. The rot had firmly set in back in January 2006 when they allowed Mark Steyn to claim scientists were guilty of fraud as well as repeating often debunked myths (my letter to the editor went upublished, surprise). From Tim's links apparently he's kept up this claim (and I didn't know he was a creationist, thanks for that info Tim, things make more sense now). Why this issue has caused a meltdown of reason, rather than say, stem cell research, is not clear to me.
"It goes on to say "the resetting of the doomsday clock is symptomatic of a broader rejection of science and reason that is taking place across Western society."
Yeah, that Steven Hawking and Freeman Dyson just hate teh science, so they do.
Christ, can they get any dumber?
And it continues. Today Janet Albrecthsen gets into the act trying to trash the Stern report (Why everyone suddly sat up when an economist got ito the act is beside the point). She references "The Stern Review: A Dual Critique" which has some of the usual denialists as authors.
She also writes "And the peer review process means drawing peers form the same global warming orthodoxy milleu as the authors". Lack of understanding of science, or science envy. I know not which.
Peer review... . I do not think these words mean what Janet Albrechtson thinks.
She probably thinks that's what Lord Monckton does.