The ABC's AM radio show had a story on the record temperatures in 2010 and chose to let Bob Carter to spout falsehoods without any challenge. They didn't even ask him about his frequent claims that world had been cooling for a decade. Gareth Renowden has the details.
It's interesting to see how unbalanced the so-called ABC 'balance' is. I don't see homeopaths presenting the alternative viewpoint on The Health Show. Nor are creationists regularly featured in order to debunk those crazy paleontologists whenever a new fossil is found.
EoR: Yes, but the (Howard-appointed) chair of the board is on record as a denialist, so it is hardly surprising that the minions toe the party line. It is going to take a while to clear the Rupertarians out of the wainscotting. Slainte
That Maurice Newman is a denialist is well known. The real question is, why hasn't Gillard done anything about him?
>*The real question is, why hasn't Gillard done anything about him?*
Gillard faces a partisan and monoplised press. Gillard is in a comparable position to Obama. The media they answer to has an asymetrical response to action percieved to be either side of the political spectrum.
Gillard (like Obama) face an unceasing campaign if she moves anywhere near the opposite direction of previous rightwing governments.
While the ABC are mandated to provide "fair" coverage, Murdoch's employees behave unbalanced and partisan.
BTW, does anyone know what stage Chris Mitchell's threatened law suit against Julie P (the Tweeting Journalism Accademic) is going? Did Mitchell put that one down the memory hole?
Could you blokes hold a conversation without using the word denialist?
Sure you know what it means?
When this is what's happening with temperature, who are the denialists?
And here's a close look at that last little bit courtesy of Phil Jones.
I'm sure you all remember him.
Drongo, would that be a version of Easterbrook's graph that you're using there? Might wanna take another look at it here..
please send your feedback to http://www.abc.net.au/rn/comments/default.htm
and ask for a reply. Maybe if they get enough comments on "Bob Carter" they'll realize its not wise to use him. I put these questions to them:-
My questions are:
1) why, as a supposedly reputable news organization, would ABC use a unreliable commentator as Bob Carter for a news item on climate.
2) Why make yourselves look ridiculous to those who understand the science when there are many world-recognized experts in the field here in Australia (try ANU, Uni Melbourne or CSIRO for example)?
3) Is it ABC policy to always follow a news item with an contrary view, no matter how debunked? e.g. must a story of travelling around the world be followed by a flat-earther denying it, or an astronomical story followed by someone claiming the sun goes around the earth or a story on moon landings followed by claims it never happened or so on and so on. It is not "balance" to follow a news item with nonsense when the news item refers to scientific measurements of many organizations across the globe.
I look forward to your reply or even better, an acknowledgment that a news report is not the place for ill-considered, erroneous opinions."
I'm still waiting my reply but have been allocated the reference number C2796-11.
After allowing the catastrophists free rein particularly on the recent floods for the last few weeks [not to mention for the last few years on droughts], "our" Auntie finally decides that a bit of "balance" as per the regs may be due, lets a sceptic get a word in edgewise and you lot scream "unbalanced", "denialist" etc.
What a one-eyed bunch!
So what exactly is the significance of changes in ice core temperatures in Greenland? Sometimes it was warmer and sometimes it was colder there. So what? spangled drongo, what do you think you are proving?
AM should have used the opportunity to remind Prof Carter of this little gem:
How the hell he is still employed in an academic capacity is beyond me.
Read a litte more:
Your link accused Easterbrook of making errors that were partly their own. But maybe you already knew that.
Time for spangled drongo to have a thread of his/her own?
Sean's link in #8 has this link to what Richard Alley has to say about using GISP2 data:
"...So, using GISP2 data to argue against global warming is, well, stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible..."
He was just ahead of his time.
More than you can say for Jimmy Hansen.
@10 strangled dingo: Auntie finally decides that a bit of "balance" as per the regs may be due
Righto then. What would you suggest as "balance" to that arch leftist Dr. Norman Swann and his doom-laden scaremongering on the "alleged" perils of poor diet and lack of exercise and their correlation with heart disease? Having a McDonalds' PR spokesman on to provide a "counter-argument"? Who would you suggest the ABC use to "balance" the obviously one-sided views of that puppet of the Communist movement Robyn Williams on solar system exploration? An astrologer? A medium? Someone who claims to have been abducted by Plutonians in a past life?
And, (last question, I promise) why pick one of the most distinctive and beautiful birds of north-eastern Australia Dicrurus bracteatus as your nom-de-bullshit? Were you (vainly) hoping some of its allure would rub off on you?
"So what exactly is the significance of changes in ice core temperatures"
Wasn't that where Fat AL started it all?
Drongo [skewers himself](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/abcs_am_mislead_listeners.php#c…) again:
>*When this is what's happening with temperature, who are the denialists?*
Um, [you are drongo](http://hot-topic.co.nz/easterbrooks-wrong-again/). Or Easterbrook is and your happy to follow a denialist and spread his misinformation.
I notice you didn't pause to reflect on the false claims in your chart before posting Easterbrooks sudden shift of the goal posts, a shift made when the fraudulent nature of his data was exposed.
What is your opinion of the way Easterbrook changes his claim from [here](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/28/2010âwhere-does-it-fit-in-the-war…), to [here](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/24/easterbrook-on-the-magnitude-of-g…).
Are you happy to be lead by someone who gets things soo wrong and never corrects his gross errors?
He was so wrong that he needed to include the chagne from the last ice age to justify his new goal shift claim of :
>*that the magnitude of global warming experienced during the past century is insignificant compared to the magnitude of the profound natural climate reversals over the past 25,000 years*
So the rise in temperature of the last 150 years is of such an unprecidented nature that Easterbrooks need to go back to the last full blown iceage to find an anomally that exceeds it. Not a strong point for his side. Wouldn't you agree Drongo?
strangled dingo @ 16, you must have accidentally truncated the data series at 2000 in the link in your post when you obviously meant to end it at 2010, the most recent date for which HADCRUT has data. I know what a stickler you are for correct data, so here it is:
You don't think Carter's a bit more credible than Fat AL?
Drongos cherry pick is [the bit in red](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/to:2010/trend/pl…)
Look at this chart then read [this quote](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/open_thread_58.php#comment-3157…) cited by Drongo earlier:
>*Propagandists, on the other hand, carefully select only the data that might agree with their theory and dutifully ignore any data that disagrees with it*
Gee I think you're onto something there Drongo - that [Wood For Trees graph](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:2011/compress…) shows no sign of a rising trend since 1970.
That trend is as flat as a pancake.
Well, OK, as flat as a whole bunch of pancakes stacked in the shape of a giant staircase.
strangled dingo @21: You don't think Carter's a bit more credible than Fat AL?
Bwahaha!!! I take it that's a rhetorical question.
IMO it's about time we had Gore's Corollary to Godwin's Law, which states that the first person to mention "Al Gore" and "fat" in the same post loses.
SteveC BTW, ending a series at 2010 in WFT actually ends the data [at Jan 2010](http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:2010/compress…). You can get the current data by entering no end date or all of 2010 data by [entering 2011](http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:2011/compress…)
Nice [work](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/abcs_am_mislead_listeners.php#c…) Gaz!
SD: it's a sad world indeed where a politician like Al Gore has more credibility than a geology professor like Bob Carter. Yep, it IS a sad world...
Carter does add new meaning to the term "mad scientist".
Hey Spangled Drongo (@20):
I was err, ummm, just wondering why you chose in your woodfortrees link to use totally different trend plotting techniques for 1970-2000 (where your graph keeps rising) and 1998-2010 (where your graph flatlines).
Just, aaah, wondering. That's all. Call it curiosity.
Oh yeah. Forgot to mention I replotted it using consistent constraints on all plots. Looks markedly different, I must say. You're not deliberately trying to....ummmm....let's say "fudge" the data to show what you want, are you?
>Time for spangled drongo to have a thread of his/her own?
I think a community bin Ã la RealClimate's "The Bore Hole" is a better idea. This gives less individual recognition to disruptive or off topic comments.
@25 jakerman, thanks, point taken, I wasn't aware of the year end date.
@ Mike 28 I'm sure strangled dingo must've done that accidentally...
Shinsko @29: Excellent suggestion.
I agree with [Shinsko's suggestion](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/abcs_am_mislead_listeners.php#c…).
May I humbly submit several possible titles for any such thread? In keeping with the homonymous Deltoid, I like "The Sphincter", and almost as much "The Hyperbolic Conoid".
They both decsribe aspects of the denialist mind.
A drongo took my baybee! I thought the silly old denialist already had his own thread. When did he escape Tim? Perhaps the recent floods have covered the vaunted (and unchanging) local mean sea level at his survivalist bunker in S. QLD.
EoR @#1 "I don't see homeopaths...Nor are creationists"
Up to here, though, with fundamentalist Gaia buddies peddling CAGW junk science, EoR!
A denialist is someone with pre-conceived views who will not change their minds no matter how much data come in. This is especially true of scientists, many of whom have shifted their views of AGW being a 'doomsday myth' to 'its natural'. A few may grudgingly finally admit that humans are the main cause of the recent warming, but then they'll argue that its too late or costly to do anything about it except to adapt. In each of their scenarios its business-as-usual.
Their views are often closely allied with a political ideology that sees government regulations as a 'threat' to unfettered freedom, hence their unwillingness to say that we ought to do something about the problem.
I think this simple description defines many of the denialists quite well.
Graham, I'll file your comment under *'name calling and no evidence'*, along with a trash bin full of anti science claims.
MEREDITH GRIFFITHS: Professor Carter says the last 150 years have been among the coolest in the past 10,000 years of the Earth's history.
So, Doltoids, where was he wrong?
How come you never hear a Satanist giving the other side of this God/Devil debate?
Or, when there's been horrific murder, someone saying why it's good to kill people?
There are plenty of places that these people who otherwise bend over backwards (or forwards) to "show both sides" fail to even hint at another side to the story.
> After allowing the catastrophists free rein
You mean those petty Pandoras proclaiming that the stone age would result from AGW mitigation? Those spineless screamers who state this is the communist takeover of the world? Those craven cardboard cutouts that state that this is an attempt by the first world to take wealth from the third world or (with no seeming friction between the groups), a plan to send all the first world's wealth to the third world?
you mean THOSE catastrophists?
Its nice to see Sprinkler Dayglo treading the straw in his usuall pattern. I'd forgotten his wild swings at logic and evidence so its fun to see that he can still play.
> MEREDITH GRIFFITHS: Professor Carter says the last 150 years have been among the coolest in the past 10,000 years of the Earth's history.
She was holding the graph upside-down, strangled dingo.
It's the warmest in the past 10,000 years.
>MEREDITH GRIFFITHS: Professor Carter says the last 150 years have been among the coolest in the past 10,000 years of the Earth's history.
>So, Doltoids, where was he wrong?
Well, if it's the same graph as you linked to earlier, he's wrong because the last data point in it was 1855, and therefore can tell you absolutely nothing about the last 150 years.
>MEREDITH GRIFFITHS: Professor Carter says the last 150 years have been among the coolest in the past 10,000 years of the Earth's history.
Drongo (oblivious to the evidence he's been linked to) asks:
>*So, Doltoids, where was he wrong?*
He's wrong to claim that the last 150 years are among coolest. The last 150 include a range of temperatures that represent a near vertical line on the GISP 2 chart, the later part of which is in the warmer scale, only exceed for a [small fraction of the last 10,000 years](http://hot-topic.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/GISP210klarge.png).
It would be accurate instead to describe the data as follows: **Compared to the last 10,000 years, the last 150 years shows dramatic change in temperature, moving from a period of relatively low temperatures to a relatively high temperatures, exceeded only by a faction of the data from the last 10,000 years.**
And BTW Easterbrook's claim ignores more than half the available data by ignoring Antarctic ice cores as well as glacial ice records.
What has lead to this latest outbreak of drong-itis?
I think I need to get my eyesight tested, Michael. I didn't see the "r" after the "d" there for a bit.
Still, it's appropriate.
I'd guess this will turn out to be another Curtain sock puppet.
*Professor Carter says the last 150 years have been among the coolest in the past 10,000 years of the Earth's history*
What Carter doesn't say is that its not the actual mean surface temperature that is necessarily the most important factor but the rate of change from a given mean. And of course this is what concerns most scientists, with the exception of a few outliers such as Carter, who IMO as someone with the relevant expertise in ecology lacks the pedigree to be able to evaluate the rapid current warming on complex adaptive (ecological) systems and on the species and genetically disntinct populations that make them up (or else he is being deliberately deceptive, take your pick). Sure, it was warmer during the Mesozoic Era and at other times in the Earth's history, and the extant biota were adapted to that. But, given the deterministic system of the planet's climate control systems, external forcings that lead to rapid changes (within the context of deep time) are of profound concern.
Carter is therefore being disingenuous, in my view, by making such a flippant remark. But, then again, denialists are masters at this kind of thing. Drongo's inability to discern such a dumb remark says a lot about what he/she knows about determinism versus stochasicity and the role of scale. A: Not much.
Well, well, well.
Lest anyone be fooled that the Oz has any credibility left at all (even after publishing Mike Steketee's article, I present to you, [Lord Monckton, first duke of idiocy](http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/earths-climate…) back again.
I'd like to say something like "He's back and he's badder", but I'm afraid it t'aint true. It's the same old crap. Recycled, useless verbiage, debunked, refuted and refudiated a million times. Nothing to see here... move along. But if you're blood pressure is too low, or you find your faith in humanity a little too high for it's own good, then have a gander at the comments. I saw them. I can't unsee them.
Tim, could we get an "Australian's war on science part 8 bizzilion" going?
"It would be accurate instead to describe the data as follows: Compared to the last 10,000 years, the last 150 years shows dramatic change in temperature, moving from a period of relatively low temperatures to a relatively high temperatures, exceeded only by a faction of the data from the last 10,000 years."
Can I help you there Janet?
Could the word you are looking for to describe that 0.7c rise over those 150 years possibly be "UNPRECEDENTED"?
>*Can I help you there Janet?
Could the word you are looking for to describe that 0.7c rise over those 150 years possibly be "UNPRECEDENTED"?*
Not if your looking at the GISP2 data you linked to, the rise in temperature in Greenland has been 1.4 degrees over the past 150 years(polar amplification).
So drongo, when are you going to correct all the errors you've made in this thread? Are you satisfied with Easterbrook's error bomb and run approach? Do you feel embarressed having regurgiated his falsehoods? Do you feel cheated that he didn't correct his false claims, leading you to repeat his errors?
Are you going to change your approach given your exposure to the consequences of following Easterbrook?
jackerman, the problem with being an idiot is you're always the last one to know, so please leave spanked dingo alone.
Mind you, I'm thinking that this isn't a Curtain puppet but our old donkey "sunspot". All it would need to confirm is a posting of weather as proof climate is cooling.
Re drongo's request for "UNPRECEDENTED" warming, the current rise in Greenland is unprecedented in the last 3000 years and is still rising.
The unprecedented nature of the global 0.8 deg rise in the last 150 years would be better judged by a data set with boarder spatial coverage than Greenland alone. As it is well known that extremes in smaller regions are smoothed out by variations over the globe.
I.e. combine it with [Vostok data](http://i49.tinypic.com/2ym604h.jpg). And wouldn't you know it, the GISP2 peak 3300 years (BP) corresponds with a Vostok down turn and is thus countered. And likewise 7,000 years (BP) the peak in Greenland is opposed by a downturn in Vostock. So little joy for denialists in combining the two data sets.
Then we also need to account for polar amplification.
Wow, I agree that many of these denialists seem alike. I also agree that Drongo has some elements more like Spotty than Curtin. But I don't think Drongo is Spotty (not enough link spam and Spotty was way too wed to tiny urls).
Its just they all need to practice the same intellectual bankruptcy to maintain the denial.
I'm assuming it's the 'spangled drongo' from Jennifer Marohasy's old joint. The rhetoric seems familiarly vapid.
There was a recent visit here by the other Marohasy dead-ender, Graeme Bird, so maybe something has flushed them out from under their rocks - the floods perhaps?......or rising sea levels??
Equal hottest year on record is the biggest denialist call to arms since Climategate. They know it is their mission to spread disinformation at any outlet who dare publish this scientific fact.
Cross-posted from Gareth's place:
"Could someone please invite Bob Carter here to defend his BS (Bad science and , well you knowâ¦).
Not up for it Carter? Happy to let some groupies do it for you? Come on, it is one thing to pull the wool over the eyes of a radio hostâ try selling your BS to some scientists and informed citizens.
Carter, are you out there?"
Given that Wrongo Drongo seems incapable of understanding that a single location on the Nerang estuary isn't a definitive proxy of the world's oceans, it may be a bit much to expect him to comprehend that the top of the Greenland Icecap is not representative of global temperatures. Nonetheless, what is likely a vain hope he isn't suffering from terminal D-K, here are some links that may help:
If Carter's getting his recent trash from Easterbrook...
Carter actually said this in 2009?
"First, there has been no recent global warming in the common meaning of the term, for world average temperature has cooled for the last ten years. Furthermore, since 1940 the earth has warmed for nineteen years and cooled for forty-nine, the overall result being that global average temperature is now about the same as it was in 1940."
What tripe. This reminds me of what Energy Secretary Stephen Chu said regarding skeptics...
"If you look at the climate sceptics, I would have to say honestly, what standard are they being held to? Itâs very asymmetric. They get to say anything they want."
Indeed. Where's the accountability? If the world was devoted to reason, the Bob Carters would be laughed off the stage quickly, but it seems the more lies they tell, the more they get promoted.
I don't get the obsession with the past of the denialists. What exactly is their point?
If they're trying to show that the climate is noisy, we already know that and unless they're assuming changes to the climate are purely random, in other words without cause, then they have to show the current change in global climate has the same cause(s) as previous changes. Can they do that?
LB thanks [for that](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/abcs_am_mislead_listeners.php#c…). Its a chart that Easterbrook would be intimate with given he's [doctored it](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/06/don_easterbrook_caught_in_a_li…).
Get the picture Drongo? Carter is wrong and basing his false claims of fraudster like the work of Easterbrook. We could be generous to Carter and conclude he is suffering serious confirmation bias. Or we could conclude he's totally incompetent or maliciously fraudulent like Easterbrook.
Gary @ 59;
They know the cause of any observed change - always the same explanation;
I think it is entirely proper that the ABC provides a platform enabling denialists the opportunity to express their view about AGW, its consequences and related matters.
What I object to is that these opportunities are usually conducted by interviewers who display such an abysmal lack of scientific knowledge that they are unable, or unwilling, to question even the most outrageous comments made by the person being interviewed.
The ABC, indeed all media, have an obligation to provide interviewers and commentators who are well informed and are willing to challenge statements that conflict with empirical facts. Failure to do so denies the âbalanceâ they claim to seek.
If the ABC genuinely wishes to achieve balance, why not appoint an interviewer who is well versed in climate science but a denier of AGW and its effects. He/she could then interview a climate scientist who believes in that field of science?
Then again, I doubt that the result would achieve âbalanceâ. We have already seen what happens when scientist confronts denialist (Lambert v Monckton) and its not a pretty sight â at least not from the point of view of a denialist.
Time for spangled drongo to have a thread of his/her own?
Good idea. We could call it /dev/null ...
Or perhaps given the avian reference we could call it The Pick of the Crop. Those wishing to regurgitate semi-digested pap to beings willing to swallow anything could go there, even if they weren't twits.
In the spirit of Mike Pope's comment, the ABC should, when providing a platform for extremists like Carter, correct the record when misinformation is discovered. AM should now run follow-up exposing the incorrect factual nature of Carters claims.
Fran @ 64: Pick of the Crop
I was going to suggest cloaca?, but I'll pay that :)
Nominations are now open:
Why didn't ABC ask their science unit, who has covered Carter's misrepresentations before
Robyn Williams gets threats daily from deniers because he presents science. It has me stonkered why the 'news' department feeds the nutters.
Now guys - go easy on my mate Spanglers. He's not a bad looking bird. http://birdsinbackyards.net/species/Dicrurus-bracteatus
And his distribution perhaps maps the distribution of faux sceptics quite well - although no cluster on our Perth denier friends?
One should note about this species " The Spangled Drongo is noisy and conspicuous, usually active, and frequently aggressive to other species"
> I don't get the obsession with the past of the denialists.
That's NOTHING, Gary. What will REALLY put a noodle in your noggin is how the denialist will believe paleoclimate can tell us the MWP was warmer than now and that the Vostock cores show an 800 year lag, but at the same timeCANNOT tell us that the planet in the past would be too cool with a climate sensitivity below about 2C/doubling.
They use the same data. But it can only tell us that AGW is false.
Not wanted on the ABC's 'discussion' boards - my little Australia Day tribute to the ABC's 'coverage' of climate change:
Australians all, let us rejoice,
We've finally wrecked our land:
Our golden soil is stained with oil -
It also stains your hand.
With flood and fire watch us expire
It's not that strange: it's climate change
Destroyed Australia Fair.
The culprit's in your mirror now:
Destroyed Australia Fair.
We're worthy of this outcome, true,
We listened to deniers...
Who claimed no need for things to do,
A stinking pack of liars!
They crowded on the ABC
(Which kept them on the air):
Then melting ice and rushing floods
Destroyed Australia Fair.
The culprit's in your mirror now:
Destroyed Australia Fair.
Since 1998 we've had three warm years - 1998, 2005 and 2010 - and each of those years is associated with an El Nino event which causes or is related to the warming.
I had sometimes speculated that when the next record warm years with an El Nino came, denialists like Carter would suddenly know all about El Nino. Well, he's done one better than that. The fact that there wasn't much net El Nino effect, if any, on 2010 and none in 2005 is no problem. He just tells a bare-faced lie and claims El Nino influenced those year's temperatures.
Isn't "spangled drongo" a venereal disease?
>*Isn't "spangled drongo" a venereal disease?*
You might be confusing the [spangled drongo](http://www.google.com.au/images?q=spangled+drongo&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=…), with its relative the [Speckled Cock](http://www.coturnixcorner.com/website/index.php?option=com_content&view…)
Have you checked how Global Warming is doing?
Whereas Globalwarmingsceptic OTOH:
Showing the way as usual!
It's one thing to spout nonsense but when it comes to the real thing just remember where to put your money.
You doltoids just don't appreciate how much I worry about you.
New word for the AGW debate lexicon: Lysenkarthyism.
> You doltoids just don't appreciate how much I worry about you.
concern duly noted.
I don't think a reader gets the full appreciation of Drongo's input wihtout seeing this thread along side [this one](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/open_thread_58.php#comment-3169…).
Drongo, you went really quiet for a while then changed the topic to horse after I asked [these questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/abcs_am_mislead_listeners.php#c…).
Do you care to answer them now?
>So drongo, when are you going to correct all the errors you've made in this thread? Are you satisfied with Easterbrook's error bomb and run approach? Do you feel embarressed having regurgiated his falsehoods? Do you feel cheated that he didn't correct his false claims, leading you to repeat his errors?
>Are you going to change your approach given your exposure to the consequences of following Easterbrook?
I guess your non-response or sudden interest in horse racing is also an answer. Prehaps the races are good alternative to repeating Easterbrooks claims?
strangled dingo @77: You doltoids just don't appreciate how much I worry about you.
Do you know, I think that's possibly the truest thing you've written so far :)
Maybe that was "spangled dongle"!
Sorry for the OT, but for those of you who do not already know:
Pat Michaels could be in deep doodoo.
Yes, I'm particularly worried about you stevie.
It is about time. What also worries me that his organisation, the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, produces educational material:
The thought of young, impressionable minds being fed his kind of ideological clap-trap is quite frightening.
Hank @67, thanks for that link to Shewonk.
When I get time I'll read more there, but for now I have to say I love Denialist Chum. So chumpy you can carve it :)
strangled dingo @ 85, I'm touched by your concern. OTOH anyone who belives that unrecorded anomalies in river levels at a Gold Coast canal estate disprove climate change is simply "touched".
You misspelt "idiot" Steve.
Of course, it could be misanthropy rather than idiocy.
Error correction. Apologies, I got a little confused between Pat Michaels and Art Robinson. Michaels is part of the Cato Institute's band of merry misinformers and has nothing do with OISM (apart from a similar modus operandi).
Ah, but I did enjoy -
One caution Â do not use this curriculum unless you are willing for your children to be academically more learned than you.
They might even be able to construct grammatical sentences!
If you want the answer to halting global warming and solving the energy crisis you need to have a look at this pithy You Tube video
Pleasehelp to promote it on the net.
Time to wake up to the reality, ladies and gentlemen.
It's not your abc.
It's not our abc.
It's THEIR abc.
@bruced way back at number 8
I've played this game a few times with the ABC.
I've also complained about the use of that other avuncular idiot out of Adelaide, and how his views are at odds with reality.
What I got back was "the story was within editorial guidelines". So truth is not part of the guidelines.
However it might be an interesting exercise to play a tag team game on all these deceptive climate stories , which seem to be frequent in the regional stations... to issue a complaint on every one... forcing a reply from the complaints department UNTIL maybe they decide to change those "editorial guidelines".
Maybe make it a new campaign alongside the Oz war on science. The ABC - our quest for "truth" and the rejection of KNOWN falsehood.
Just received this reply from the ABC:
>Thank you for your email of January 25 concerning an AM story, which included an interview with Professor Bob Carter.
>As your correspondence raised concerns in relation to accuracy, your email was referred to Audience and Consumer Affairs for consideration and response. The unit is separate and independent from ABC program areas and is responsible for investigating complaints alleging a broadcast or publication was in contravention of the ABC's editorial standards. In light of your concerns, we have reviewed the broadcast and assessed it against the ABCâs editorial requirements for accuracy and balance in news and current affairs content, as outlined in section 5.2.2 (c) of the ABCâs Editorial Policies: http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/edpols.htm. In the interests of procedural fairness, we have also sought and considered material from ABC News.
>The genesis of the story was the announcement by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) that 2010 was one of the three hottest years globally since records began. Michel Jarraud, the secretary-general of the WMO, went further and claimed that these new statistics should silence those who don't believe that greenhouse gases are changing the world's climate. He said âThe sceptical position, it's untenable.â
>While the basic facts about the temperature measurements are not disputed, the conclusion that they put to rest the public debate about anthropogenic global warming is not universally accepted. The ABC reports a significant amount of climate science across its programs but it also has a responsibility to present all principal relevant positions in what is an important public debate.
>Bob Carter is a prominent Australian believer in the sceptical position. Although his beliefs are controversial, he is a qualified scientist, an adjunct research professor in the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University and the University of Adelaide South Australia. He is an influential voice in the public debate. He was a logical person to interview to see whether Michel Jarraudâs conclusions were accepted by sceptics and if not, why not.
In relation to accuracy, as noted above, the verifiable facts about temperature measurements in 2010 were not disputed by Bob Carter in this report. His contribution was one of interpretation, analysis and opinion. The ABC certainly does not accept his analysis and the conclusions he draws from the data are certainly debatable but it is not a breach of the accuracy provisions of the Editorial Policies to report controversial opinions.
>His opinions were well balanced by those of Michel Jarraud.
Accordingly, while noting your concerns, Audience and Consumer Affairs are satisfied the broadcast was in keeping with the ABCâs editorial standards for accuracy and balance. Nonetheless, please be assured that your comments have been noted and conveyed to ABC News management.
Thank you for taking the time to write; your feedback is appreciated. For your reference, a copy of the ABC Code of Practice is available at: http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/documents/200806_codeofpractice-revised….
>Should you be dissatisfied with this response to your complaint, the avenues of review which may be available to you are outlined at section 7. Please note that the ABC is making changes to its self-regulatory arrangements in 2011 and the Complaints Review Executive and Independent Complaints Review Panel will be discontinued on a date to be announced. Should you wish to pursue your complaint with either of these bodies, please do so within 14 days. Your opportunity to seek review from the Australian Communications and Media Authority will be unaffected by these changes.
>For more information about the changes the ABC is making to its self-regulatory framework, please refer to the report available here - http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/documents/review_of_the_abc_self_regula….
>Audience & Consumer Affairs
Of all the things we can blame on the "sceptics", here is another, courtesy of our ABC.
We have now come to the point that it is possible to describe someone as a
"believer in the sceptical position".
They want to ruin our language as well as our planet.
Gaz - quite, what the hell exactly is a "believer in the sceptical position"? Sceptic Lite? More flummery from "their" ABC.
>*Bob Carter is a prominent Australian believer in the sceptical position*
At least this is more accurate than calling him a "sceptic".
Believer in _the_ sceptical position.
At last it can be told. It's the sun. It's not happening. CO2 is plant food. It's not so bad. It's natural. It's cooling. It's not us. It's a cycle.
Which sceptical position is _the_ sceptical position?
If the ABC knows the answer, it should tell us.
adelady @100 "Which sceptical position is the sceptical position?"
Why Dr. Curry and her "uncertainties". Who else? :)
> His opinions were well balanced by those of Michel Jarraud.
Uh, so if I claim that Murdoch rogers babies on national TV, as long as someone else says he doesn't and never has, my opinion has been well balanced and there's nothing to complain about.
Would that be about the size of it?