Uncategorized

Yes, we have a truth emergency

As Spectator Australia went to press, ABC chair Ita Buttrose smacked down the staff’s proposal to defy the ABC’s impartiality charter and put a hype overlay across climate reporting.

“It was one of those ideas that is not going to happen,”  she said.

Asked by ABC radio presenter David Bevan why the idea won’t get-up, she replied: “Because the ABC leadership team and managing director (David Anderson) have thought otherwise”.

23 November 2019

Last Monday the Australian described ABC journos organising a ‘solutions journalism’ approach to what they call the ‘climate crisis’. This bureau of propaganda, or in their words, ‘brains trust’, would be a management/staff overlay putting special hype on ABC climate coverage.

Melbourne producer/presenter Barbara Heggen bulk-emailed for support and got plenty: ‘A fabulous idea’, ‘I’m keen’, ‘Great idea’. Management response is awaited but the email says it all about ABC journos’ mindset and contempt for their chartered impartiality.

 

TO OBLIGE MY EDITOR I’D BE GRATEFUL IF YOU’D CLICK HERE FOR THE ORIGINAL!

Monday was also the tenth anniversary of Climategate, the bulk leaking of emails among IPCC-leading climate scientists confessing how they were exaggerating global warming. The University of East Anglia’s climate guru Phil Jones casually wrote that the now-ballyhooed 2 degree Celsius tipping point on warming had been ‘plucked out of thin air’. Today’s ABC would censor such revelations.

ABC policy already censors views contrary to the orthodoxy that by 2050 or 2100 humanity will be broiled by fossil fuel emissions. The last nod to objectivity was by ABC chair Jim Spigelman in 2013. He’s a former NSW chief justice and if you ask me, a bit of a sceptic. Suspicious of his reporters’ gullibility, he whistled up a quality audit of ABC science coverage, saying: ‘What I believe needs most work, is to develop our capacity to appropriately challenge scientists, not least those whose work is distributed by press release from organisations with a vested interest in favorable publicity. I would hope we can further develop the scientific literacy of our news and current affairs staff. In this… we must go beyond PR handouts, or what has been called “churnalism”.’

He felt the need to add that he was ‘not a climate sceptic’ which in ABC-land is a bit like insisting, ‘I am not a cannibal’. Sadly the science audit was neither independent nor public. It was chaired by Professor Fiona Stanley – she was the lead signatory to the greenies’ ‘Monster Climate Petition’ of 2014, which began with ‘My great-great-grandchildren ask me in dreams, what did you do while the planet was plundered? What did you do when the earth was unravelling?’. Another science audit panelist (I’m not making this up) was Media Watch’s Jonathan Holmes. This secret report, according to management, found that the ABC’s science coverage was terrific and the ABC was fulfilling its charter obligations of impartiality very well, thank you for asking.

Concurrently, managing director Mark Scott told Senate Estimates that the ABC should ‘follow the weight of evidence’ or ‘consensus’. If sceptics were to be broadcast, ‘they should be robustly questioned, just as the climate scientists are robustly questioned’.

Has anyone ever seen a warmist ‘robustly questioned’ on the ABC? About that time, ABC guru Robyn Williams had Harvard fabulist Naomi Oreskes on his Science Show. She wanted to frighten climate-apathetic families with her forecasts that global warming would kill their pet pups and kittens in 2023. Williams, a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Science, agreed: ‘Yes, not only because it’s an animal but it’s local. You see, one criticism of the scientists is they’re always talking about global things… And so if you are looking at your village, your animals, your fields, your park, your kids, and the scientists are talking about a small world that you know, than it makes a greater impact, doesn’t it?’ Oreskes: ‘Well, exactly. It was about bringing it literally home, literally into your home, your family, your pet, the dog or cat that you love who is your faithful and trusted companion.’

Over at the BBC, climate guidelines derive from ‘28-gate’, a pure fraud. The BBC Trust adopted recommendations from an outside panel of what it called ‘28 best scientific experts’. Because the science was settled, dissent should be suppressed, they said. The BBC complied by infusing green lines into BBC output everywhere from science to comedy. When a pensioner in Wales FOI’d for names of the 28, two pricey BBC barristers and four lawyers fought disclosure for years. Sure enough, the 28 experts included only two climate scientists (and only one other scientist) amid a majority of green activists (two from Greenpeace), vested-interest business people and even an odd bod from the US embassy.

A year ago the BBC’s director of news Fran Unsworth further emailed staff, ‘To achieve impartiality you do not need to include outright deniers of climate change, in the same way you would not have someone denying that Manchester United won 2-0 last Saturday. The referee has spoken.’ (Amusingly, Manchester won on Sunday, not Saturday).

Warming advocacy and censorship by the media is now on steroids.

More than 250 news outlets worldwide have signed on to Covering Climate Now, ‘a project to improve coverage of the emergency’. They dedicated a week last September to hyping warming in synchrony with a UN climate confab.

The Guardian and a rabble of other media have switched to using the terms ‘climate emergency, crisis or breakdown’ and ‘global heating’. Guardian editor-in-chief, Katharine Viner ruled to her troops, ‘The phrase “climate change” sounds rather passive and gentle when what scientists are talking about is a catastrophe for humanity.’

Misha Ketchell, editor of the university and taxpayer-funded Conversation announced in September a ban on all sceptic comments and sceptics themselves: ‘Climate change deniers are dangerous – they don’t deserve a place on our site. Not only will we be removing their comments, we’ll be locking their accounts.’ This was on a site mast-headed, ‘We believe in the free flow of information.’ The same day he ran a Tim Flannery piece libeling sceptics as child predators.

Dr Andy Pitman, Director of UNSW Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes, last June denied any link between drought and climate change, which prima facie makes things wetter. ‘Now, that may not be what you read in the newspapers,’ he warned, in a weird outbreak of candour. He thus scuttled the illogic that climate change is fuelling the bushfires. Paul Barry’s effort on Media Watch to spin away Pitman’s view was in line with staff’s ‘solutions journalism.’

We do have a truth emergency. The truth’s dull reading but here goes. The warming trend in the monthly HadCRUT4 global temperature series from January 2000 to last April was 0.0156 degrees Celsius per year or a mere 1.56 degree C per century. Exclude the freak 2015-16 el Nino and the trend drops to 1.32 degree C per century. Spin that away, ABC colleagues!

9 thoughts on “Yes, we have a truth emergency

  1. Australians have spent billions subsidising windmills/solar panels/ paying govt depts to push out spin each week that we are doomed..
    All of that must have lowered the amount of bushfires we have had so far right?
    So…reductio ad absurdum…
    If the climate drones say “no”..then the $ was a waste of time.
    So they have to say “yes”..
    Then following that line of idiocy..more solar panels and windmills will lessen the chance of bushfires…
    Which is the unspoken line of the ABC here…
    Why in gods name does know one ever call them out on this madness in public.
    And lets play another game.
    How many of the “journalists” in the ABC are off the grid and dont use cars..or airplanes?
    Probably ..less than 1%…
    Which makes them hypocrites of the vilest order..once again..why does no one call them out live on this ?

    Like

  2. There is a slight but measurable increase in global rainfall. I calculated this from over 70,000 stations daily precipitation records in GHCN-Daily. On average land surfaces are getting about 1mm per month more rainfall today then they were getting between 1961 and 1990. That should be compared with a global average monthly rainfall on land surfaces of 82.5mm/month. So that is a 1.2% increase.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. It is a 1.2% increase in monthly rainfall averaged over land. In other words you would expect average rainfall across all land surfaces to be 82.5mm per month. However this has increased to 83.7mm per month.

    If you think about it ocean evaporation depends on surface temperature via the Clausius Claperyon equation. More evaporation means slightly more clouds and therefore slightly more rain. More rain is of net benefit for agriculture. Alarmists will say this also means more extreme weather but that is not an obvious conclusion either.

    Like

  4. @Clive

    Sorry, I misread your first comment where you clearly spelled out 1.2%…

    If the +1.2% is also true of arid areas, then there is some evidence against increasing frequency or level of drought. There is of course the increased PET in the debit column, but countering that, the more efficient use of water by plants under higher concentrations of CO2.

    Like

  5. Slightly off topic but just to remind everyone that censorship at “The Conversation” continues unabated. In response to a piece https://theconversation.com/the-five-corrupt-pillars-of-climate-change-denial-122893, which is as bad as it sounds, I posted the following comment, which was immediately flagged and removed. I recorded a screenshot of the original post in anticipation of it being moderated.

    Wow – with a heading including the word corrupt, its obvious we are not reading a balanced piece. Surprising that so many commentators think this is a good or excellent article.

    1. Science denial – attacks straw men arguments that very few believe. Author claims that models have remained consistent over 30 years by referencing his own 2013 single author policy piece which has been cited only 19 times.

    2. Economic Denial – references opinions about the Stern report rather than discussing DICE/FUND and other work by real economists which put the impact of climate change in context – ie. likely welfare loss of between 1 – 10 % GDP over the next 50 – 100 years, primarily in poor countries, probably at the low end of the estimates.

    3. Humanitarian Denial – attempts to make an argument about heat deaths by referencing a weather website?! The actual data on the health impact of climate change show it is hardly measurable (< 0.5%) compared to the burden of disease being over 10 % for other air and water pollution, and BOD 15 % and rising for lifestyle conditions such as diabetes.

    4. Political Denial – Climate Change is a political issue so how can anyone deny that.

    5. Crisis Denial – “why are we allowing the people with the most privilege and power to convince us ….” The author should look in the mirror – why are academics allowed to publish flawed, emotionally charged pieces which fail to deal with evidence. For a more reasoned opinion piece see:
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/11/25/why-everything-they-say-about-climate-change-is-wrong/#3807f04f12d6

    Like

  6. I see BBC has this small story on the 6pm news – https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-50613678

    “8,000 Falkirk homes face days without gas in sub-zero temperatures.
    Electric heaters and cookers were being offered to elderly or sick customers, and those with young children.
    Temperatures in the Falkirk area were barely above freezing for much of Sunday and were forecast to fall to minus 2C overnight.
    Falkirk Council said schools may have to close on Monday and it would be working with SGN to care for vulnerable people affected”

    so sorry for the people affected because I know from living near there how cold you get at -2.

    I could say more, but as that great green thinker Bill McKibben says “Connect the Dots”

    handy link here from Thursday, March 22, 2012 – “http://www.thegreenmarketoracle.com/2012/03/bill-mckibben-on-connect-dots.html”

    what!!! not even 1 comment on Bill’s post – must be something wrong with my browser?

    Like

  7. DF, what amused me was that in the Ten O’clock News the story of the poor Scots freezing with the lack of gas supplies came immediately after an item with David Shukman pushing warming alarmism.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: