Investigation 2681

Dear Mr Hendrickx,

Thank you for your email in response to the outcome of Investigation 2681. There is no formal right to have the ACMA review its decision in this matter under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, but we can make some observations about your concerns.

You have queried why the ACMA did not consider the outcome of a 2007 UK  High Court decision concerning the accuracy of Al Gore’s film.

This aspect of the investigation concerned the statements made by the presenter of the ABC’s program,Background Briefing on commentary by Lord Monckton on a particular statement by Al Gore. The focus here was on the accuracy of the presenter’s statement, assessed against the ABC Code of Practice.

The ACMA consulted the scientific paper to which Al Gore and Lord Monckton’s statements referred.   As noted in the investigation report, the research findings could have led to either of the interpretations in dispute, but the material facts were presented in context.

Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth was not the subject of the investigation, and therefore the UK decision concerning Al Gore was not taken into the assessment of the material broadcast, against the ABC Code.

The ACMA considers that it took relevant considerations into account.

If you remain dissatisfied with the way in which the ACMA has handled this matter, you may make a complaint to the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman - http://www.ombudsman.gov.au/

Regards,

Broadcasting Investigations Section

ACMA: into the looking glass

Image from Wollongong Library-South Coast Road, NSW  circa 1880

(Reality at right)

The very lengthy response from ACMA in regard to our complaint about ABC's factual errors and weak reporting in its Background Briefing story on Lord Monckton brought back memories of a disagreement I had a few years back with a librarian over the orientation of a photo I had printed from a historical negative. The photo printed was a mirror image of reality; the print having been taken from the negative turned upside down, hence reversing the image. When I pointed out the mistake, showing a recent photo of the same location, which I was extremely familiar with, complete with exactly the same features, but reversed, there was a blank response and flat out denial of the evidence presented. No point in arguing with some people.
It appears this is also the case with ACMA's report, and with the ABC in regard to their broadcast. However....

Here again are a few of the substantive points:
1. Death of four Polar Bears. In the broadcast Lord Monckton pointed to errors made by Al Gore in his movie "An Inconvenient Truth" about the deaths of four polar bears in the Arctic. Monckton pointed to a paper (Monnett and Gleason 2006-see full ref below) about the deaths of four polar bears that indicating the bears drowned in a storm. Monckton described the deaths thus "They drowned because there was a big storm with high winds and high waves and they got swamped.” ABC claimed the deaths of the four Polar bears in the Arctic was due to them being "drowned because of there was less sea ice for them to rest on because of climate change." The paper on which this was based reported that the particular bears in question "drowned during a period of high winds and correspondingly rough sea conditions between 10 and 13 September 2004. No other deleterious environmental conditions were present that might have led to the deaths of those polar bears.” 
ACMA acting in "Quincy" mode claim the bears "died from exhaustion due to the extra exertion of swimming in turbulent seas for longer distances." (We note no autopsy was performed on the bears in question)

A UK judge who found 9 other errors in Al Gore's movie agreed with Monckton's view:

Justice Burton:  Mr Gore says: “A new scientific study shows that for the first time they are finding polar bears that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before.” The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm. That is not to say that there may not in the future be drowning-related deaths of polar bears if the trend continues.

In an interview (see page 35) to do with an investigation of potential scientific misconduct, the author of the very paper in question, Charles Monnett, puts the deaths down to: "Um, this paper is very narrow in that it only focuses on the swimming and drowning and what, and what we thought was related to it, in other words, a storm."

The paper in question was reviewed by "Um, Lisa Rotterman, my wife". (To quote Media Watch's Jonathan Holmes “so much for peer review”.)

We referred ACMA to this transcript but it appears it was never looked at. Somewhat surprising given the time for the investigation was over 6 months.

Monnett, C., and J. S. Gleason, 2006. Observations of mortality associated with extended open-water swimming by polar bears in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Polar Biology, 29, 681-687.

2. Sea Level Rise: ABC claimed Lord Monckton made erroneous claims about sea level. The facts show otherwise. ACMA didn't even bother to check the relevant section of the IPCC report "ACMA does not consider it necessary to consult the relevant IPCC literature in this instance". In six months it didn't think to check the facts. Again here's what Justice Burton had to say about the matter: "This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call'. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and over, millennia, so that the Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus."

Along with not looking at the IPCC report it seems ACMA's investigator didn't even bother to consider the only relevant judgement on the issue. The question of competence comes to mind.

3. On the question of bias. When alarmists such as Al Gore receive the same critical scrutiny from the ABC as sceptics I'll put aside the issue. Until then, sadly for public journalism, the balance it tipped is favour of ABC's alarmist groupthink position.

In its report, ACMA placed great emphasis on the opinion of an ordinary listener. Seems an ordinary UK Judge was able to see through Al Gore's spin in much the same way as Lord Monckton did. And what of you dear reader? Based on the above, and ACMA's report, what do you make of the evidence provided? 

Which reality do we live in?

ACMA finding on the Lord Monckton Roadshow

ACMA have (finally) sent us their report into our complaint about ABC's broadcast The Lord Monckton Roadshow. The full report should be available soon from the ACMA website (probably HERE). I'll update the link when it appears.
Report now up...download from HERE.
Here's the summary:

In relation to the broadcast of Background Briefing - The Lord Monckton Roadshow on 17 July 2011, the ABC: 
~ did not breach Standards 2.1 and 2.2 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011; and 
~ did not breach Standards 4.1 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011.

The first section of the report to page 8 (out of 22) dealing with Polar Bear issues is provided below, cut and pasted from the PDF-(there may be a few transcription errors). We note there is no mention or comment by ACMA whatsoever of the findings we raised of a 2007 UK High Court case brought by Stuart Dimmock against the accuracy of Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth, Justice Burton concluded, after examining the film and scientific literature, that Gore committed nine counts of scientific inaccuracy.
On Polar bears he concludes:
Justice Burton:  Mr Gore says: "A new scientific study shows that for the first time they are finding polar bears that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before.” The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm. That is not to say that there may not in the future be drowning-related deaths of polar bears if the trend continues.


Seems that we are all climate scientists now, judges, former politicians, journalists and arbitrators of the media included. Post modernism rules supreme. I'll endeavour to provide a more detailed commentary in the next few days.  I'm so looking forward to Background Briefing's broadcast of the "The Al Gore Roadshow" next time he pays a visit.

The complaint

On 8 September 2011, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the  ACMA) received a complaint concerning the program, Background Briefing - The Lord Monckton Roadshow broadcast on 17 July 2011 on radio station 2RN - ABC Radio National.
The complainant alleged that the broadcast made inaccurate allegations relating to Lord Monckton and other climate change sceptics; and ‘lacked balance and objectivity’.
The complainant was not satisfied with the response received from the ABC and referred the matter to the ACMA for consideration.
The Complaint; the ABC's response; and the complainants referral to the ACMA, are set out at Attachment A.
The complaint has been investigated in accordance with standards 2.1 (factual accuracy), 2.2 (misleading factual content), 4.1 (impartial presentation of news and information) of the ABC Code of Practice 2011 (the Code).

The program 

Background Briefing is a 1 hour current affairs program broadcast on Sundays at 8 am on ABC Radio National (2RN). The program is described on the station website as follows:

Radio National's agenda-setting current affairs radio documentary program. It varies from 
week to week in style and content, sometimes doing straight investigative journalism, 
sometimes exploring important ideas or social issues in on-the-road documentary style. 
You will  profiles of politicians, analysis of behind-the-scenes issues that shape 
society, and sometimes an exploration of an idea - or perhaps a murder. Many 
Background Briefing program makers are senior journalists, several of whom have won 
major awards. Many others come through the unit to make just one or two programs. 


The Lord Monckton Roadshow broadcast on 17 July reported on the Australian tour of well-known climate change sceptìc Lord Monckton between 4 and 22 July 2011, in the wake of the Australian Federal Government’s announcement of details of the proposed carbon tax. The broadcast was reported by ABC reporter Wendy Carlisle, and largely dealt with the debating tactics of Lord Monckton in delivering a series of talks on climate change issues including an address to an anti carbon tax rally.

The station website contains the following description:
The Scottish peer Lord Monckton has been raising hell against the carbon tax in barnstorming rallies and public meetings around the country. But just who is Lord Monckton and who are the forces behind him? Chief amongst them a mysterious group called the Galileo Movement and mining magnate and now media player Gina Rinehart. 
Reporter Wendy Carlisle.


The broadcast included the viewpoints from the following speakers:
Lord Christopher Monckton - British politician and climate change sceptic.
Mr Case Smit- Galileo Movement co-founder, introduced in the program as ‘the Noosa retiree who organised the first [Lord Monckton Australian] tour.
Professor Naomi Oreskes - introduced in the program as a ‘former exploration geologist with Western Mining Corporation'.
Mr Alan Jones [Archival]  2GB Radio talkback presenter.
Ms Joanne Nova - Australian science presenter, writer, speaker, and author of The Skeptic’s Handbook.
Mr Malcolm Roberts - Engineer- Introduces Lord Monckton at the rally.
Mr David Archibald - Australian based scientist and climate change sceptic.
Professor Timothy Ball [archival in interview with Alan Jones] - Climate scientist
Mr Wes Allen - introduced in the program as a ‘GP from the Tweed Shire’ and ‘climate change sceptic' referred to the ABC for interview by a representative of the Galileo movement.
Ms Wendy Carlisle - ABC Journalist.
Comments from the crowd at the anti carbon tax rally
A full transcript of the 50 minute broadcast can be found at:  http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/the-lord-monckton-roadshow/2923400 , extracts of which are referred to in the report where relevant.

Assessment 

The assessment is based on:
Audio recording of the broadcast of 17 July 2011 provided by the ABC;
Submissions provided by the ABC and the complainant;
Article entitled Observation of mortality associated with extended open-water swimming by polar bears in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea - Charles Monnett - Jeffrey S. Gleason - Provided to the ACMA by the Complainant on 6 l\/larch 2012; and
The publication /PCC Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis - Chapter 5 page 409 (available at
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/the-lord-monckton-roadshow/2923400).

Other sources consulted are identified where relevant.

‘Ordinary, reasonable’ listener test

In assessing content against the Code, the ACMA considers the meaning conveyed by the relevant material. This is assessed according to the understanding of an ‘ordinary, reasonable' listener.  Australian Courts have considered an ‘ordinary, reasonable’ reader (or listener or viewer) to be:
A person of fair average intelligence, who is neither perverse, nor morbid or suspicious of mind, nor avid for scandal. That person does not live in an ivory tower, but can and does read between the lines in the light of that person’s general knowledge and experience of worldly affairs“.

The ACMA considers the natural, ordinary meaning of the language, context, tenor, tone, inferences that may be drawn, and in the case of factual material, relevant omissions (if any).

Once this test has been applied to ascertain the meaning of the broadcast material, it is for the ACMA to determine whether there has been a breach of the Code.

Issue 1: Accuracy 

Relevant provision
Standards
2.1 Make reasonable efforts to ensure that material facts are accurate and presented in context.
2.2 Do not present factual content in a way that will materially mislead the audience. In some cases, this may require appropriate labels or other explanatory information.

ABC submission 

In addition to the correspondence between the ABC and the complainant, the ABC made further submissions received by the ACMA on 14 November 201  These are set out at Attachment B.

Finding

The ABC did not breach standards 2.1 and 2.2 of the Code.

Reasons

In determining whether or not a statement or material complained of was compliant with the ABC’s obligations under Standards 2.1 and 2.2 ofthe Code, the ACMA generally has regard to the considerations set out at Attachment C.

The broadcast was about Lord Monckton’s tour of Australia in 2011 and the key focus of it (as described on the ABC website) was how ‘he is raising hell against the carbon tax in barnstorming rallies and public meetings around the country’.
The ABC in its submissions (refer Attachment B) described the program’s context to be ‘the debating style used by some opponents of the Federal Governments proposed carbon tax, in particular Lord Monckton’s style’. It added:
The substance [of the program] was not the science of climate change per se. Having regard to the criteria (listed in section 2.6 of the Procedures), the Managing Director took the view that neither this particular Background Briefing program nor complaints arising from it were occasions for detailed enquiry into the science of climate change.
Although the context of the program was the debating style of Lord Monckton, it contained a number of factual assertions about his and others’ approach to climate science and the carbon tax.
The complainant alleges that the following statements were incorrect:

Statement 1 

The first factual error alleged by the complainant was the statement:
The scientific paper Lord Monckton cites does not say that the polar bears drowned because of a big storm. 
The segment replayed a part of Lord Monckton’s speech at the rally during which he referred to a film made by Al Gore entitled ‘An inconvenient Truth’. Lord Monckton alleged that Al Gore, during that film, wrongly cited a particular scientific paper:
Well here are the polar bears we mentioned earlier, and Gore for once actually cites a scientific paper. He cites it wrong, of course, but he does cite it. And what he says is a scientific study shows for the first time they’re finding polar bears that have drowned swimming long distances to  the ice. And so here is the actual map from the paper.
Four dead polar bears,... And what have we got, in fact? Four dead polar bears. Did any of these polar bears, according to the paper he was quoting, die because they were trying to find the ice...’? No. They died because there was a big storm with high winds and high waves, and they got swamped.

The reporter then said:
The scientitic paper Lord Monckton cites does not say that the polar bears drowned because of a big storm. The paper suggests that the polar bears most likely drowned because there was less sea ice for them to seek refuge on because of climate change, and that the drowned polar bears could be statistically significant. The paper goes on to say ‘We further suggest that drowning-related deaths of polar bears may increase in the future if the observed trend of regression of pack-ice and/or longer open water periods continues’.

The complaint, as the ACMA understands it, is that Lord Monckton correctly cited that paper
In the ABC’s response to the complainant (refer Attachment A), it argued:
ln relation to the various references by Al Gore, Lord Monckton and Background Briefing to the issue of drowned polar bears, the Managing Director did not regard it as proportionate in the circumstances to go into the detail. Noting that specialist literature is open to varying interpretations by specialists and non­specia|ists, and that both in public presentations such as Lord Monckton’s and in journalism such as Background briefing - specialist literature must necessarily by tightly compressed, the Managing Director
concluded that the program did not breach the accuracy standard in the ABC Code of Practice.

The ACMA considers that the ordinary, reasonable listener would have understood the relevant statement as a statement of fact - it was an inference of a factual nature, reasoned from observed facts. The language, tenor and tone used are unequivocal and conclusive.

Although climate change is a contentious subject, the clear message was that Lord Monckton isrepresented, or inaccurately cited, a published scientific finding.

The ACMA has assessed the statement against standard 2.1 of the Code, taking into account the relevant article.

The context of the article is clear from the Abstract which refers to the polar bears having ‘presumably’ rowned and speculates that mortalities were due to off-shore swimming during late-ice (or mild ice) years, given the energetic demand placed on individual bears engaged in long-distance swimming. It also suggests that drowning related deaths may increase if the observed trend of regression of pack ice and/or
longer open water periods continues.

Under the heading ‘Discussion’ the paper contains the following [Emphasis added by the  ACMA]
To our knowledge we report here the first observations of polar bears floating dead offshore and presumed drowned while making apparent long-distance movements in open water. Polar bears are considered strong swimmers but they have rarely been observed swimming far from ice or land.

The discussion continues with: Our observations suggest that polar bears swimming in open water near Kaktovik drowned during a period of high winds and correspondingly rough sea conditions ...no other deleterious environmental conditions were present that might have led to the deaths of those polar bears.


It noted that ‘if data [the four deaths] are simply spatially extrapolated, bear deaths during a period of high winds in 2004 may have been significant’.
And then it stated:
High mortality in 2004 was more likely related to extreme and metabolically demanding conditions, such as high sea states associated with stormy weather. As previously discussed, there is some indication that such conditions may become more common in the future Open water conditions where ice is virtually absent in August and September are expected to increase if Arctic air temperatures continue to rise... and thus swimming polar bears would be more at risk of encountering unfavourable conditions (i.e. high sea states and increased winds). Presumably, in the future, more time and energy will be allocated to swimming due to increased distances among floes... 
Our count of dead polar bears related to the 2004 windstorm almost certainly represents an underestimate of the actual number of the polar bears affected. Swimming and floating polar bears are difficult to see from the survey’s standard 457 m altitude even under ideal conditions. Also, some bears that drowned may have sunk or drifted outside the study area. 


Other bears may have suffered sublethal effects and later succumbed due to exhaustion or inspiration of sea water as a result of swimming long distances in rough seas.

It concludes:
Minimizing and discouraging anthropogenic effects that encourage bears to remain or aggregate on shore as annual shorefast ice melts and pack ice recedes could ultimately reduce the risk of drowning. 

The content of the article was scientific in nature using detail and terms that would not easily be absorbed by a reader with no scientific background. Without adjudicating on the science and the conclusions of the study, in the  view, the relevant paper contained findings that could have led to either of the interpretations at dispute. The ABC itself submitted ‘specialist literature is open to varying interpretations by specialists
and non-specialists...’

The article does discuss the storms referred to by Lord l\/lonckton, which is consistent with some of his remarks but it does not suggest that the bears drowned because they ‘got swamped’, or were overwhelmed by storm water, as he inferred. Rather they died from exhaustion due to the extra exertion of swimming in turbulent seas and for longer distances.

However, consistent with Al Gore and the reporter’s statements, the article notes that such deaths will be likely to increase in the future due to the regression of ice.

ln light of this, and given the ABC was aware of the possibility of varying interpretations, it was not accurate to state, unequivocally, that the ‘paper did not say that the polar bears died because of a storm’. lt might have been more accurate for the reporter to have said that the paper did not say the polar bears died because they got swamped in a storm.

However, given that the article was, on the Whole, concerned with the likely increase of polar bear deaths because of the impact of receding ice caused by global Warming, the  ACMA is satisfied that the material facts were accurate and presented in context.

As outlined abovelv the context of the program is the debating style of Climate change sceptics, and the ordinary, reasonable listener would have understood the message of the statement to be that Lord Monckton misrepresented, or inaccurately cited, a published scientific finding. Contextually, it would have been apparent to the ordinary, reasonable listener that part of the nature of Lord Monckton’s debating style was to use the ambiguity of the literature to his benefit so as to discredit Al Gore, and create doubt.

ln all the circumstances, the ACMA is not satisfied that the fact was material in this context or would have been materially misleading.
Accordingly, the ABC did not breach standards 2.1 and 2.2 of the Code in relation to this statement.

Backward briefing: a case of foot in mouth UPDATE

(Beware, this is a fairly long post.) In July ABC's Wendy Carlisle made a number of factual errors in a report on Lord Christopher Monckton. We raised a complaint with the ABC over these. We also suggested that Ms Carlisle's objectivity was severely compromised due to her emotional entanglement with her subject, and as a result the report lacked balance. The following is a summary of our complaint and ABC's reply. Oddly it seems ABC's managing director has become directly involved and has chosen to employ "director's privilege" to avoid dealing with the factual errors in the broadcast. We are somewhat mystified that this matter required his attention, and it seems ABC have taken unusual steps to avoid admitting they are wrong. In owning up to their mistakes it seems ABC people will need to grow thicker skins.
In the broadcast we hear two claims made by Lord Monckton about aspects of climate science, about polar bears and about sea level rise. In attempting to refute these claims Ms Carlisle misrepresents the facts in both cases. As the claims made by Ms Carlisle are incorrect we expect ABC will apologise for the following statement made by Ms Carlisle in the report: "And the show continued like this for another 50 minutes, with Lord Monckton repeatedly misconstruing the scientific evidence." Based on Ms Carlisle's errors it appears the opposite is true, and it is Ms Carlisle and the ABC who are guilty of misconstruing the scientific evidence.
ABC's editorial policy in regard to accuracy and factual information is quite clear, factual errors require correction.
In regard to accuracy ABC states:

2.1 Make reasonable efforts to ensure that material facts are accurate and presented in context.
2.2 Do not present factual content in a way that will materially mislead the audience. In some cases, this may require appropriate labels or other explanatory information.
In regard to making corrections:

A commitment to accuracy includes a willingness to correct errors and clarify ambiguous or otherwise misleading information.  Swift correction can reduce harmful reliance on inaccurate information, especially given content can be quickly, widely and permanently disseminated.
Corrections and clarifications can contribute to achieving fairness and impartiality.
Standards
3.1 Acknowledge and correct or clarify, in an appropriate manner as soon as reasonably practicable:
a). significant material errors that are readily apparent or have been demonstrated; or
b). information that is likely to significantly and materially mislead.


We have now passed this on to the ACMA for further action.

The complaint (sent 18/7/2011)

Factual errors

#1  Four Polar Bears drowned due to Global Warming

In the program Wendy Carlisle states:
The scientific paper Lord Monckton cites does not say that the polar bears drowned because of a big storm. The paper suggests that the polar bears most likely drowned because there was less sea ice for them to seek refuge on because of climate change, and that the drowned polar bears could be statistically significant.

This is what the paper in question states about the polar bear deaths in relation to climate change:Monnett, C., and J. S. Gleason, 2006. Observations of mortality associated with extended open-water swimming by polar bears in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Polar Biology, 29, 681-687.
Although a number of published papers have discussed implications of climate change on polar bears (e.g., Stirling and Derocher 1993; Stirling et al. 1999;Norris et al. 2002; Stirling 2002; Derocher et al. 2004), to date, mortality due to swimming has not been identified as an associated risk. Evaluations of future population dynamics and the significance of sources of human-related and natural mortality in polar bears may need to consider this previously unidentified source of natural mortality which may be significant in some years (e.g., mild-ice or late-ice) and may become important in the future if Arctic pack ice continues to regress. from page 686.

While future deaths may be possible it is clear the paper does not claim the deaths in question were due to climate change but instead due to storms: Our observations suggest that polar bears swimming in open water near Kaktovik drowned during a period of high winds and correspondingly rough sea conditions between 10 and 13 September 2004. No other deleterious environmental conditions were present that might have led to the deaths of those polar bears. P.684

There is also the decision by a Justice of the UK High Court on this specific issue.
In a 2007 UK High Court case brought by Stuart Dimmock against the accuracy of Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth, Justice Burton concluded, after examining the film and scientific literature, that Gore committed nine counts of scientific inaccuracy.
On Polar bears he concludes:
Justice Burton:  Mr Gore says: "A new scientific study shows that for the first time they are finding polar bears that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before.” The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm. That is not to say that there may not in the future be drowning-related deaths of polar bears if the trend continues.

Factual error #2 Melting Greenland raising sea levels
Lord Monckton: “As Al Gore says in his movie that because of the melting of two ice sheets Greenland and the West Antarctic, sea level will rise by 20 feet imminently. But in fact, the IPCC says that because of those two ice fields the amount of contribution to sea level rise will be over the whole of the next 100 years 6 cm which is 2.5 inches, not 610 cm which is 20 feet. So there is a 100 fold exaggeration.”
Then Ms Carlisle comments:
Ms Carlisle: “On this occasion, …..Lord Monckton’s assertion that the UN’s Climate Change panel that the sea will rise by 6 cm this century is pure fiction, According to Chapter 5 of its report on sea levels the sea is expected to rise by between 20 and 50 cm this century”.
The Facts:

Al Gore alleged a sea level rise of 7 meters due just to the melting of Greenland and West Antarctic sheet. Lord Monckton’s retorts that from IPCC data, the expected contribution of sea level rise from melting of Greenland and West Antarctic sheet alone, works out to be only 6cm, therefore a 100 fold exaggeration. Ms Carlisle claims the IPCC AR4 report states a much higher sea level rise of 20 to 50cm, yes, but this figure is from all causes of sea level rise, namely thermal expansion (17-28 cm), the melting of glaciers and ice caps (10-12 cm), in addition to the loss of ice from the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets.

Climatology at University of Winnipeg

In discussion with Tim Ball Reporter Wendy Carlisle states: No, Background Briefing received that information from the university itself. In email correspondence, which we'll post on our website, the university says, 'there is not and never has been a department of climatology'.'

In fact the correspondence spoke of a "program" rather than a department. Ms Carlisle has misrepresented what was stated in the correspondence, we repeat below.
"Wendy. Dr. Ball was a Professor in our Geography Department until 1996. We have never had a Climatology program. Any correspondence the University may have had with Dr. Ball is confidential.
I trust this responds to your query. "
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/documents/bbg_20110717_hurley_email.pdf
A search of the web archives reveals that U. Winnipeg Department of geography indeed offered the following "climatology" courses in 1999 which seems to contradict statements received from the University. Perhaps the ABC could have spent a little more time investigating this to clarify the facts to its audience.
PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY COURSES
http://web.archive.org/web/19990209145331/http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/~geograph/Courses/geog2.htm
2205/6 CLIMATOLOGY (Le3,La2) The course expands upon the information introduced in the climate half of Physical Geography 1200/6. The first half of the course will review and elaborate upon the global pattern and fundamental mechanisms of climate. The second half will examine meso- and microclimates, including topics such as bioclimatology, agroclimatology, urban climatology, and applied climatology. Students with standing in 2205/3 cannot receive credit for 2205/6. Prerequisite: 1200/6 or 1201/3 and 1202/3. Corequisite: Introductory Statistics advisable.
2206/3 WORLD CLIMATOLOGY (Le3) This course examines the fundamental mechanisms of macro-scale climates and surveys the distribution of climates across the surface of the Earth. Issues related to global climate change and modelling will be introduced. Prerequisite: 1200/6, or 23:1201/3 and 23:1202/3. Restrictions: Students with standing in 2205/6 cannot receive credit for 2206/3.
2207/3 PHYSICAL CLIMATOLOGY (Le3,La2) This course examines the micro-scale and meso-scale processes by which energy and mass are transferred between the Earth and the atmosphere. The spatio-temporal characteristics of these processes are used to study climates and climate variability. Applications in bioclimatology, agroclimatology, and urban climatology will be discussed. The labs provide an introduction to the use of computers in the analyses of climatological data and the modelling of climatic processes. Prerequisite: 23:2206/3. Restrictions: Students with standing in 2201/6 cannot receive credit for 2207/3
3206/3 SYNOPTIC CLIMATOLOGY (Le3) This course examines the relationship between atmospheric circulation systems (at the surface and in the upper atmosphere) and weather and climate at the surface. The nature of atmospheric circulation variability and teleconnections is discussed and used to explain climatic anomalies such as El Ninos, droughts, and floods. Prerequisite: 2210/3.

Balance

In the course of the program it was clear that reporter Wendy Carlisle felt she was being intimidated by crowds attending Lord Monckton's talks and protest rally's the resulting broadcast is hopelessly compromised as a result of Wendy Carlisle's emotional entanglement with her subject and as a result lacked balance and objectivity.

ABC's reply: 8/9/2011 (with some comments by me in bold )
Thank you for your emails regarding the edition of Background Briefing broadcast on Radio National on 17 and 19 July 2011. Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding to you.

Under section 2.2 of the ABC Complaints Handling Procedures the Managing Director, who is also Editor-in-Chief, can determine matters as he thinks fit (Ed. Why would the MD waste his time getting personally involved in a complaint???) . In the case of the Background Briefing program to which you refer, the Managing Director took the view that the program was not an occasion for detailed enquiry into the science of climate change. (Ed Ms Carlisle, who is not a climate scientist, makes some specific claims about the science that are shown to be false, clearly it forms an important part of the report, and reflects on the lack of scientific credibility Ms Carlisle implies of Lord Monckton.) It follows that it would be disproportionate for the handling of complaints received about the program to become such an occasion. (Ed there were two specific items raised, that ABC require to correct, hardly requires a "detailed enquiry".)

The program established that the current debate in Australia over a proposed carbon tax was the context for its look at the style of debating used by some opponents of the proposed tax. Lord Monckton's style was examined in conjunction with his then current speaking tour of Australia. Others whose approaches were referred to included the Galileo movement patron Alan Jones, David Archibald, Professor Timothy Ball, Dr Wes Allen and Professor Fred Singer. Criticisms by Lord Monckton of the film 'An Inconvenient Truth' by former US Vice President Al Gore were referred to in the course of examining Lord Monckton's technique (Ed. I can find only one very mild criticism of Al Gore made by the reporter " Yes, Al Gore did overstate his case"). The program was not an assessment of the science of climate change, and it would be inappropriate for this response to embark on one. Nor was it appropriate to assess the program by reference to what it had omitted from amongst the many reactions to Al Gore's film. Those reactions have generated a vast amount of material. The program had a more specific focus than climate change per se.
 You have criticised the Background Briefing reporter, Wendy Carlisle. The Managing Director concluded that she had not been unduly aggressive or hostile towards Lord Monckton (Ed. this was not suggested in the complaint). Her questioning of him had been persistent and firm, but it had also been civil. She had not described Lord Monckton in terms as robust as his description of her to a crowd as an 'appalling woman'. (Ed. and being described as an 'appalling woman' would not have influenced her report and affected her objectivity???)
The Managing Director considered that some of the language used in the program would not have been understood by the audience as being literally applicable, much in the same way that Lord Monckton's presentation style employs techniques which a reasonable person would not take literally. For example, when Lord Monckton ridicules Al Gore's Tennessean accent Lord Monckton is not to be taken literally as suggesting that a person's accent affects the merit of what they are arguing. When Lord Monckton's asserts, as he did to at least one crowd, that the ABC now represents hallmarks of fascism exhibited in Germany in the 1930s, reasonable people do not take him literally. (It is noted, however, that the ABC reported this harsh criticism, both in its news coverage and in Background Briefing.) (Ed this is not relevant the complaint)
The ABC does not have concerns about the fact that Background Briefing applied scrutiny to the styles of debate of those examined in the program. As a seasoned media performer, Lord Monckton would reasonably expect media scrutiny. He also received opportunities to put his perspective on various ABC platforms during his recent Australian visit, as he did on his 2010 visit. On ABC television on 30 June Lateline covered the beginning of his tour. Lord Monckton's debate with Richard Dennis at the National Press Club was broadcast by ABC TV on 19 July. Lord Monckton appeared on ABC local radio in at least Sydney, Brisbane and in the Riverina, and there was considerable coverage online.(Ed this is not relevant the complaint)
In relation to the various references by Al Gore, Lord Monckton and Background Briefing to the issue of drowned polar bears, the Managing Director did not regard it as proportionate in the circumstances to go into the detail. Noting that specialist literature is open to varying interpretations by specialists and non-specialists, and that - both in public presentations such as Lord Monckton's and in journalism such as Background Briefing - specialist literature must necessarily be tightly compressed, the Managing Director concluded that the program did not breach the accuracy standard in the ABC Code of Practice (http://abc.net.au/corp/pubs/documents/codeofpractice2011.pdf). (Ed See above, the specific commentary by Ms Carlisle is demonstrably false-it appears ABC just can't stand admitting they are wrong!)
On the issue of sea level rise, the Managing Director concluded that the difference between Lord Monckton's account of Al Gore's treatment of the matter and the program's account was one of degree. Both thought Al Gore had overstated his case. Their different calculations of the degree to which he had done so were based on different readings of work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published in 2007. The Managing Director concluded that the program acted reasonably in citing the IPCC in the way it did. The program and responses to it were not the occasion for an enquiry into the detail of varying interpretations of predictions about sea level rises over the next 100 years and it would be disproportionate to embark on such an enquiry in this context. (Ed what utter rubbish. Ms Carlisle asserts that Lord Monckton's interpretation is "pure fiction", when the opposite is true. )
 The Managing Director concluded that there was, in the context of this matter, little to be gained from attempting to distinguish shades of meaning between the terms climatology 'department' and climatology 'program' in relation to the uses of those terms by the program, Dr Timothy Ball and the University of Winnipeg. The program acted reasonably in checking directly with the University of Winnipeg. (Ed. The facts are that climatology was taught by Prof Bell at the University of Winnipeg, a fact that is not made clear in the ABC report, which then unduly discredits Prof. Ball's reputation. In this context there is little doubt he would have been regarded at least informally as the Professor of Climatology.)
Your related email of 23 July asks for an explanation as to why one of the comments you posted to the Background Briefing message board was not published. This matter has been considered by Audience and Consumer Affairs and in doing so we sought feedback from Radio.
I note that the comment in question was as follows:
'Jo Nova, deconstructs Wendy Carlisle amateur journalism...see http://joannenova.com.au/2011/07/this-is-not-journalism-wendy-carlisle/
"It's not reporting. It's disguised PR. When Carlisle had evidence the skeptics have no financial interest and that this is a genuine grassroots movement she withheld it. When she had the chance to add in spurious slurs against distantly connected people she took every opportunity. She could have written about the science, but chose not too. The devastating missing hot spot argument was put to her five times, and the list of peer reviewed papers was sent to her (at her request), but at the end of it all she said "you don't use much peer reviewed science".'
Radio advise that '...the moderator made a judgement on the run about repetition on a comments board that was swelling fast with submissions, as she's perfectly entitled to do'. In the words of the moderator: 'Four days after the program went to air, we had had many criticising Wendy along these lines (and many praising her) and they were starting to get repetitive'.
The ABC's Conditions of Use (http://www.abc.net.au/conditions.htm) state that a contribution may be rejected on this basis. They state:
'4.3 All material published on the ABC's interactive services is at the ABC's sole discretion.
4.4 Your contribution may be edited, removed or not published if the ABC considers it to be: [...]
4.4.5 inappropriate, off topic, repetitive or vexatious. For example the ABC reserves the right to reject contributions that have been widely canvassed in the forum. It also reserves the right to reject contributions from participants who seek to dominate the discussion;'
By way of background, the moderation of message boards must comply with the principles and standards for editorial practice set out in the ABC's Editorial Policies. Of particular relevance, Section 9 of the Policies covers public access and participation and it is outlined in the principles for this section that:
"The ABC may establish conditions for participation with which participants are expected to comply, such as the ABC's Conditions of Use relating to users' interactivity on abc.net.au. The ABC will exercise appropriate oversight over participants' contributions, for example through appropriate moderation of its interactive services."
On review of the message board, we note that there were a significant number of posts to the board prior to 20 July which were critical of the program and of the reporter, Wendy Carlisle's approach. A number of posts by that time had also been in support of Jo Nova and had included links to Jo Nova's website, albeit not to the particular page that you submitted. (Ed. So it was not a repetition, it was an important link to criticism of the program from someone featured on it. I would have thought ABC's audience would have benefited from such inside knowledge, and alternate viewpoints...apparently not).
In any event I am of the view that it was acceptable for the moderator to reject your post in this instance under the Conditions of Use for the reason she offered. (Ed. No fresh air allowed in ABC's Groupthink echo chamber)
 Furthermore on review of the message board, and for the reasons outlined above, I am satisfied that the moderation complied with other relevant editorial requirements as follows.
 "4.5 Do not unduly favour one perspective over another."
 And
 "9.2 Opportunities to participate must be administered fairly and respectfully."
 Should you be dissatisfied with the ABC's response to those elements of your complaint which related to the broadcast of Background Briefing and its compliance with the ABC Code of Practice, you may be able to refer your complaint to the Australian Communications and Media Authority - www.acma.gov.au. (Ed and we have done so)
Yours sincerely,
KM
Head, Audience and Consumer Affairs

Backward briefing: a case of foot in mouth

ABC's Wendy Carlisle attempts to find holes in the sceptic's case that the effects of man made global warming are exaggerated and ends up with her foot in her mouth. She spends a lot of time attacking individuals and ignores the science. Amateur hour at its best. Her misconceptions on polar bears and sea level rise will go down in ABC factual error history. We look forward to ABC providing similar reports on Tim Flannery, Al Gore and Ross Garnaut.

Jo Nova, whose highly edited interview appears in the broadcast, thoroughly debunks the report...
This is not journalism, Wendy Carlisle
I’m sure Wendy Carlisle thinks she’s helping Australia. The awarded writer who calls herself a science journalist breaks laws of reason, makes a litany of careless errors, ambushes interviewees with false claims, and devoutly stares past hundreds of peer reviewed references as if they don’t exist. Yes, Anything but the evidence!
She thinks hunting through resumes of retired scientists is a good way to inform us about the need for a Carbon (sic) Tax.
It’s a wake up call ladies and gentlemen. This is the state of “science” at your ABCwhere polite discussion and meaningful research has been replaced with tabloid guttertalk.
The ABC is not part of the problem, it IS the problem.