Catalyst: climate religion and propaganda

Excellent essay detailing ABC's abuses of reason when it comes to climate coverage from Dr John Happs at Quadrant online....

The climate of bias at Their ABC

Conclusion...

Unfortunately, when it comes to reporting on climate change, Catalyst does not offer its audience balanced science. Neither does it offer good investigative journalism. What it does offer is climate religion and taxpayer-funded propaganda.

made to walk on broken glass

Op Ed in today's Australian compares the treatment of ABC's reportage of scientific papers that are for and against the ABC's Groupthink position on climate change. One group gets milk and honey, one group gets broken glass.

Original Text with links below:

The path to ABC coverage for climate heretics is paved with broken glass.

There’s no doubt that ABC has a problem when it comes to fair and balanced reporting on the issue of climate change. Around this time last year the ABC gave two prominent Australian climate researchers almost carte blanche access to its radio, TV and online networks to spruik a paper they had written that claimed recent temperatures in Australia were the warmist in a 1000 years. Researchers David Karoly and Joelle Gergis scored almost blanket coverage on ABC’s AM, Radio National’s Breakfast Program, Radio Australia,  ABC TV news, The Science Show. If was even tweeted by ABC Local Radio and was featured on ABC’s online website. None of these articles featured criticism from independent experts.

Gergis and Karoly’s paper was short lived. Online climate sceptics lead by Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit found methodological problems with the work, and the paper was subsequently withdrawn from publication to the embarrassment of the authors. The paper’s withdrawal was covered by News Limited and Fairfax press but was not covered by the ABC. The only mention by ABC was a brief editorial comment posted at the end of online articles. To our knowledge no formal correction was broadcast on ABC radio or TV.

For those who agree with the ABC’s vision of a nightmarish global warming future it seems the path to publicity and fame is paved with honey. However when you publish a paper that doesn’t fit the ABC’s entrenched position on Climate Change a different path awaits.  

The Australian recently reported on a new peer reviewed paper (CFCs 'are the real culprit in global warming', 3/6) that goes against the current consensus that global warming is caused mainly by CO2 emissions. The paper published in the International Journal of Modern Physics B by Canadian Physics Professor Qing-Bin Lu suggests interactions between CFCs and cosmic rays are the source of the polar ozone hole and global warming.  This appears a significant result worthy of media attention. Oddly ABC’s coverage of the paper by reporter Martin Cuddihy featured not the author of the paper, but IPCC author Dr David Karoly. In their article ABC seems to have thrown out section 4 of its Editorial Policies that deals with impartiality and diversity of perspectives. The ABC:

• did not interview the author of the paper or provide an opportunity for him to reply to criticism levelled against his work.
• ·         downplayed the credentials of Professor Lu and failed to include an interesting Australian link. It seems Professor Lu gained his PhD at the University of Newcastle.
• ·         Over emphasised the qualifications of critic Dr David Karoly, whose base degree is in mathematics, not climate science.
• ·         made fun of the paper by claiming "The paper has a rather wordy title". The paper is titled COSMIC-RAY-DRIVEN REACTION AND GREENHOUSE EFFECT OF HALOGENATED MOLECULES: CULPRITS FOR ATMOSPHERIC OZONE DEPLETION AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE.  19 words. Recent papers by ABC's critic, Dr David Karoly include this one: On the long-term context of the 1997-2009 'Big Dry' in South-Eastern Australia: insights from a 206-year multi-proxy rainfall reconstruction. 24 words! It is surely no surprise that some science articles have long titles but it seems ABC’s critic Dr Karoly wins the wordiness contest. How this relevant to the topic is beyond me.
• ·         did not question claims made by Dr Karoly that unfairly misrepresented of the content of an international science journal. Karoly states:  “It has been published in a journal which appears to not normally publish articles on climate change science”. A search of "climate change" in "International Journal of Modern Physics B" provides 25 results, "global warming" provides 27 results. Contrary to Dr Karoly’s claims it seems articles on climate change are quite normal in this journal.

ABC based its report on one heavily biased opinion. It didn’t even bother to speak with the author!

It’s been more than 3 years since former ABC Chairmen Maurice Newman pointed out ABC had a groupthink problem with its climate change coverage. It seems that ABC Managing Director has done absolutely nothing in those three years to address it. Sadly, based on Mr Scott’s recent performance in senate estimates defending the appointment of the partisan Russell Skelton as the ABC’s new fact checker I don’t have any hope his limp wristed management style will result in any change in ABC’s biased coverage. 

An exploration of Groupthink at the ABC

Update: see also Simon's comments at Australian Climate Madness. Simon's successful FOI request for ANU's emails sparked the current controversy.

The Australian has a series of articles in today's paper that examines the deleterious effects of "Groupthink" at the ABC.

In the first Chris Kenny delves into the way Groupthink has spread its tentacles through the ABC. There is a bright light however, exemplified by ABC reporters who work outside ABC's inner city Ultimo and Melbourne latte lines.

Groupthink takes over at national broadcaster

"Critics see the problem at the ABC as too much news judgment, opinion and perspective flowing in the same direction on a range of key issues. The ABC tends to favour an alarmist view on climate change, open borders approach on asylum-seekers, rights over responsibilities in indigenous affairs, antagonism towards Christianity but tolerance for Islam, reverence for the UN, animus towards the US, enthusiasm for gay marriage, suspicion about business and development, and deference to the green agenda. "

"Yet it can be argued that this "collection of low-lying tribes" - as one senior ABC journalist describes the organisation - acts as a counter to groupthink, ensuring that somewhere in the vast empire, always, dissent can flourish. And few would argue, for instance, that ABC regional radio stations aren't more entwined with their communities."

This blog gets a mention in the second article by Legal Affairs editor Chris Merritt. that discusses further issues surrounding reporting of the ANU "Death Threat" emails.

The world according to ABC has its own climate

"THE only uncontested lesson from the furore over the ABC's coverage of climate change is this: those inside the national broadcaster see the world very differently from their external critics."

"Everything else is the subject of deeply held views that are as polarised as they are sincere.

Alan Sunderland, head of policy at ABC news, gives every indication of being a reasonable man. But so does Marc Hendrickx, who runs the blog ABC News Watch. He has been left dumbfounded at what he sees as the national broadcaster's inability to accept that when it comes to climate change, the organisation is riddled with groupthink that diminishes its journalism on this subject.

Even when the ABC qualifies earlier reports on climate change - as it did this week - it does so in a way that Hendrickx believes is grudging and inadequate."

Our series of articles exploring aspects of ABC's reporting on Climate change can be found under the Climate coverage at the ABC page at the top right.

There's also a related piece in today's Australian by Christopher Booker about bias at the BBC mothership.
BBC's climate change scam

No doubt the Oz will carry contesting opinions on the above in next week's editions.

Sending Franks down the memory hole

Update below: 2/3/2012
In December last year ABC news (surprisingly) reported on the opinions climate scientist, Professor Stewart Franks, had on comments contained in a new batch of climategate emails. While the story titled "Leaked email confirms climate questions" has been censored, ABC having sent it down the memory hole, much of the content of the original  is preserved  in a post titled "IPCC too sullied to be credible" at Australian Climate Madness:

Stewart Franks says there is no evidence that carbon dioxide drives global warming and he blames the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for scaring people about a future climate catastrophe.
For the past decade Professor Franks has focussed his research on natural variability in climate as being the driver of extreme droughts and rain events, rather that CO2 emissions.
He says the emails from Kevin Trenberth from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, show fundamental flaws in their methodology, but the public is being kept in the dark.
Professor Franks says he believes the emails support his own argument that natural variability is responsible for warming.
“Now I’ve been criticised for talking about these modes that we’ve barely beginning to understand as somehow being some kind of a denier of climate change or a pure contrarian,” he said.a
“But it is really heartening to see that these scientists actually acknowledge and in fact one scientist went as far as to say ‘What if all the warming we actually see is just natural multi-decadal variability?’
“He then said, ‘They’ll probably kill us’.
“I think we do need an independent and judicial review of the evidence both for and against the likelihood of climate change beyond naturally catastrophic climate variability.
“I must say the IPCC is far too sullied by the leaks and some of the shenanigans that the emails show have be going on.
“It is now too sullied to be credible.”

There is no doubt that this is newsworthy, and it is a credit to ABC Newcastle for reporting on it.

Here's the reason ABC (Sydney?) give for removing the story. Posted to ABC News Corrections page on January 20 (thanks to an anonymous reader for alerting us to it) it reads as follows:

Climate emails

Posted Fri Jan 20, 2012 3:15pm AEDT

ABC Newcastle: This story published on December 5 was removed because it was in breach of the ABC requirements for balance and context. The story reported that a Newcastle University professor who rejects the science of climate change felt vindicated that leaked scientific emails “showed fundamental flaws in the methodology” of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  These were not balanced by comments in support of the science of climate change and the article did not associate the leaked emails with the ‘Climategate' emails of 2009.

To say that Franks "rejects the science of climate change" is a gross misrepresentation of his views and work in the field. One that apparently defames his reputation. Seems a correction and clarification, along with an apology is in order.

ABC have previously published numerous news reports and articles featuring the views of "alarmist" climate scientists that were not balanced by dissenting opinions (see this one for example - still waiting for it to be corrected).    Previously ABC News have also later updated stories to provide "balance" and :"context". Why was this not done in this case?

Over the past 2 years we have established a convincing case that ABC's coverage of climate change is biased, lacks balance and is tainted by a lack of judgement and lack of inquiry. Sadly to the detriment of its audience its coverage is characterised by environmental activism over natural journalistic scepticism. We are constantly told the "ABC takes no editorial stance", however it is clear that at its Sydney office at least, ABC have institutionalised and are actively supporting one side of the climate change debate, across all its platforms. Throwing journalistic integrity out the window it actively promotes the notion that an impending climate catastrophe is nigh. ABC's own chairman Maurice Newman identified Groupthink reporting on climate change as a major issue but was unable to do anything about it.

The above provides yet another clear example of how deeply institutionalised ABC's Groupthink culture is. It seems that not only are its activist reporters infected by Groupthink but it seems the culture extents to ABC's Audience and Consumer Affairs unit, according to the ABC: "The unit is separate and independent from ABC program areas." (yeah right!)

Here's a copy of our complaint about the correction:


Your correction posted 20/2/2012 reads as follows:
(http://www.abc.net.au/news/corrections/)


Climate emails
Posted Fri Jan 20, 2012 3:15pm AEDT
ABC Newcastle: This story published on December 5 was removed because it was in breach of the ABC requirements for balance and context. The story reported that a Newcastle University professor who rejects the science of climate change felt vindicated that leaked scientific emails “showed fundamental flaws in the methodology” of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  These were not balanced by comments in support of the science of climate change and the article did not associate the leaked emails with the ‘Climategate' emails of 2009.


The text  appears highly defamatory to Stewart Franks and totally misrepresents his views on climate science.


In regard to the reasons the story was pulled from ABC's archive. ABC have previously published news reports and articles featuring "alarmist" climate scientists that were not balanced by dissenting opinions (eg http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-01-22/scientists-find-evidence-antarctica-is-warming/2575846).    Previously ABC News have also later updated stories to provide "balance" and :"context". Why was this not done in this case - (for an example see http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com.au/2010/02/polar-bear-cannibalism-abc-provides.html). 
Publication of Stewart Franks opinion of the impact of the climategate emails was newsworthy and we congratulate ABC Newcastle for covering the story.


Please
1. Issue a public apology to Stewart Franks for misrepresenting his views on climate science and defaming his reputation as a scientist. He hardly "rejects the science of climate change"


2. Re-instate the story to ABC's online archive

Thanks again to an anonymous reader for noting the correction.


Update: 
ABC have thus far refused to restore the report to their archive. Our complaint to ACMA was turned down as it appears the story was not "broadcast".

Dear Mr Hendrickx

Thank you for your complaint to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) about material posted on, and removed from, the ABC News Online website. You allege a breach of the impartiality provisions of the ABC Code of Practice 2011.

While the ABC Code of Practice 2011 applies to ABC online content as well as to content broadcast on radio and television, the ACMA is able to investigate complaints about lack of impartiality in relation to ABC radio and television content only. Since your complaint is about online content, the ACMA is unable to assist you on this occasion.

The ACMA’s jurisdiction in relation to the internet is limited to the matters outlined athttp://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=PC_90103. Your complaint does not raise issues of this kind.

Yours sincerely

Broadcasting Investigations Section

Received 2/3/2012:

Lies of the Climate Commission: Part 2

ABC News were very quick to uncritically report on the release of the government's Climate Commission report titled  "The Critical Decade".One of the authors of the report, Climate Kommisar, Will Steffan has been shown to have problems conveying accurate information about climate science to the public (see Part 1 of this series).  As such we would expect ABC to be somewhat sceptical about claims made in the report. As an example take this statement on page 6 of the report dealing with recent temperature rises: "Figure 1 shows the global average temperature record from the late 19th century to the present. Over the last three decades, the rate of warming has been 0.17 °C per decade, a very high rate from a geological perspective."


Here's figure 1:


We added trend lines to the commission's graph to show the rate of temperature increase from 1970 through to the early 2000s is the same as that between 1910 and 1940. That is about 0.17 degrees C per decade. It seems that the rate of recent warming is not unprecedented even in the last 100 years. Speaking about the last 100 years as the climate commission itself notes:  "However, time series of at least three decades – and preferably much longer – are required to differentiate with confidence a long-term climatic trend from shorter term variability." So why with a 100 years of good data does the commission focus on the trend for the last 30 years? Just one climate cycle. Here's Figure 1 again with the trend for the last 100 years superimposed-this is about 3 climate cycles. The rate of warming, based on all the data shown, and not just a cherry picked portion, now is 0.07 degrees per decade. If this rate continues the average global temperature in 2100 will be around 1.4 degrees higher. Well below the 2 degree buffer.

Looking at the longer term the claim is demonstrably false-just take a look at the temperature record revealed by Greenland and Antarctic ice cores. Here's Greenland's temperature for the past 20,000 years courtesy of NOAA:

There appears to be no end to the confirmation bias, misinformation and alarm!

Where's Aunties Vigorous climate debate

Vigorous climate debate a plus

The Australian provides a stinging editorial on media coverage of climate change, damning rival newspaper The Age for its lack of balance in reporting climate change science. 

It concludes:

There was a time when The Age took a broader view of national debate rather than the narrow, monocultural outlook that has permeated its columns in recent years, which has tended to exclude more-mainstream opinion. It is not the media's role to play quasi-censor in an unfolding debate in which so much is at stake economically and socially.

It also works if you substitute "The Age" for "The ABC". Where's Aunties vigorous climate debate?

Making Mistakes. Climate coverage at the ABC Part 4

ABC claim the Keeling Curve is a measure of atmospheric Cobalt!

Groupthink, Sensationalism, Naive and Inept Journalism: Climate coverage at the ABC.

Part 4 Making Mistakes

Last of a four part series looking at climate reporting at the ABC.

Proving bias and lack of balance is a difficult proposition when the goal posts are constantly shifted by ABC’s complaints department; however demonstrating basic errors of fact is less open to interpretation and hence easier to prove.

A Climate Time Lie

To coincide with the Copenhagen Climate Conference in December 2009 ABC Online released "A Journey through climate history". This glitzy presentation was "developed to show key events in the climatic history of the planet". The presentation was promoted heavily on ABC’s News home page and still features prominently. It was produced in-house with some unspecified involvement from the Climate Change Research Centre (CCRC) at the University of New South Wales.

13 basic scientific errors were identified in the presentation along with numerous mistakes that suggested a review of the content was warranted. ABC made 7 corrections to the presentation. A subsequent Independent Complaints Review Panel report found against claims of bias on a number of the timeline pages. An independent review of the content was never undertaken and now 30 additional errors have been identified and raised with the ABC for action. The most telling of these probably being ABC’s (and presumably the CCRC’s) confusion between the chemical symbols for Cobalt (Co) and Carbon Dioxide (CO₂). Hence in its defective timeline ABC blame Cobalt for ocean acidification, the enhanced greenhouse effect and suggest the world is endeavouring to sequester Cobalt underground. It also seems the Keeling curve is not a measure of carbon dioxide but of the rare Cobalt compound Co2 (see screenshot above)! One hopes no schools are using the timeline, lest a generation be mislead over the chemistry of Cobalt. There is also confusion between paleoanthropologists and archaeologists; confusion between the roles of geology and archaeology; along with software glitches that reveal an infinitely old universe, and numerous spelling and grammatical mistakes. "Riddled with errors" is an understatement.

ABC NEWS WATCH posts on ABC’s Journey through climate history can be found at A Climate Time Lie.

Polar Bear Cannibalism: ABC provides a correction

istockphoto's faked polar bear-someone else's mistake

ABC HEADLINE: "Climate change driving polar bears to cannibalism"

ABC REPORTED: The report claimed climate change is driving polar bears to cannibalism based on reports from un-mentioned scientists.
THE COMPLAINT: A very quick web search of peer reviewed science reveals that cannibalism is normal among polar bears and is not due to global warming. In fact it can be associated with increased numbers of bears putting pressure on the food supply. Please issue a correction of this report that gives a false impression of the reasons for cannibalism among polar bears.

This was a piece of reporting so bad it required ABC editors two bites of the cherry to repair. ABC issued this advice: On December 5, in an article about the melting of Hudson Bay sea ice in Canada, the ABC used the heading that climate change was “driving polar bears to cannibalism”. The story explained that the sea ice which the bears need to walk across when hunting, was not appearing until weeks later than usual. This means the bears had a shortage of food and there had been cases reported of the bears eating cubs for food. The ABC acknowledges that polar bears are not necessarily driven towards cannibalism because of climate change; this claim should have been attributed to conservationists. The heading has been changed to: “Climate change drives polar bears to cannibalism, conservationists say”. Also, the story did not include sufficient balance and reaction of an Inuit spokesman to the cannibalism claims was added to the story.

The editorial notes at the end of the current version read:

Editor's note (December 23): The headline on this story has been changed to make it clear that conservationists are saying climate change is driving polar bears to cannibalism. On February 9, the reaction of an Inuit spokesman to the cannibalism claims was added to the story.

 Here’s how a professional news organisation covered the story:

Climate change ‘ forcing polar bears to become cannibals’

But Inuit leaders have dismissed the idea, saying that it is a normal occurrence totally unconnected with global warming.

Still it’s not as bad as a report on a heatwave in Rio that was so bad ABC expurgated it in its entirety from the ABC News Archive.

Kingsley Amis stated “Laziness has become the chief characteristic of journalism, displacing incompetence”. It’s vice-versa at the ABC.

Conclusion

In summary, yes Auntie’s climate change coverage has been biased, but the evidence does not support Clive Hamilton’s claims of a right wing conspiracy, just bias born from plain old fashioned sensationalism, naivety and incompetence, skewed by ABC’s Groupthink culture that misrepresents the scientific debate about climate change. We expect more from the ABC because they have sold themselves as Australia’s premier news service; however increasingly it seems the product is failing to live up to the sales pitch.


The complete essay now available HERE

Aunty is mistaken not malicious

Groupthink, Sensationalism, Naive and Inept Journalism: Climate coverage at the ABC. An edited version now featuring in The Australian under the headline "Aunty is mistaken but not malicious."

For the complete essay:

Groupthink, Sensationalism, Naive and Inept Journalism: Climate coverage at the ABC- Part 1.

Cherry picking the science. Climate coverage at the ABC Part 2

Putting faith in Authority. Climate coverage at the ABC Part 3

Part 4 " Making Mistakes" released on Thursday

Putting faith in Authority. Climate coverage at the ABC Part 3

Groupthink, Sensationalism, Naive and Inept Journalism: Climate coverage at the ABC.

Part 3: Putting faith in Authority

Part3 of a four part series looking at climate reporting at the ABC.

ABC’s editorial guidelines 5.2.2 (f) state: Be questioning. Serve the public interest by investigating issues affecting society and individuals. One interpretation of this clause would be “don’t be naive”. When ABC seeks comment from authorities it seems in some cases very little work goes into verifying the claims that are made. Prior to the politicization of climate science this was arguably a fair call, experts should know what they are talking about, however things have changed significantly over the last few decades, and the motives of experts and authorities alike are not as pure as they once were. Just because they wear a sheriff’s badge doesn’t necessarily mean they are on the side of the good guys.

Half truths in hot weather story

One example is a recent story 2010 on track to be hottest year. The story featured an interview with Bureau of Meteorology climatologist Dr David Jones in which Dr Jones listed a number of weather events that he considered were “uncharacteristic”. However, on closer examination it turns out that these weather events were not unprecedented. It’s a shame ABC’s reporter did not take the 30 minutes or so required to verify Dr Jones claims, instead the ABC let a number of half truths be promulgated, misleading its audience in the process. These included the following:

Half truth: “We actually got into the low 50s for parts of the Middle East and Pakistan a couple of weeks back”

Truth: Parts of the Middle East and Pakistan record temperatures into the low 50’s pretty much every year[1].

Half truth: Beijing the other day just fell short of 41.

Truth: The recorded temperature was 40.3 (104.5F)[2], and no where near historical highs of up to 46.1C (115F)[3].

Half truth: We're seeing 40s right up and down the US eastern seaboard.

Truth: What an exaggeration! Apparently 40 reported at just one location.[4]

Mt Everest melting! But who says it's so?

In early June I requested ABC substantiate claims it made in its report borrowed from the BBC titled, Melting ice making Everest climbs dangerous, that: "Studies show temperatures are rising faster at Mount Everest than in the rest of South Asia." We requested ABC provide details of the studies. ABC replied with the following:
Received 2 August 2010
"On receipt of your complaint, we have investigated whether it could be established that a significant error had been made that warranted correction, as required by section 5.2.2(c)(ii) of the ABC’s Editorial Policies. Audience and Consumer Affairs note that studies do appear to show temperatures are rising faster at Mount Everest than in the rest of South Asia, as illustrated in Table 10.2 of the Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007:  http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/contents.html. In view of this, we are unable to conclude that a significant error has been made which warrants correction. However, should you have specific further information which you feel is relevant to our decision on this point, we would be happy to consider it."

Once again ABC put its faith in the IPCC and did not bother to check the source. We sent ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs the following reply:

“The ABC report states: "Studies show temperatures are rising faster at Mount Everest than in the rest of South Asia." You have now provided the IPCC table 10.2 as a reference for this information, however for South Asia this table indicates temperature rise in Sri Lanka at "2°C increase per year in central highlands " while the annual increase for the Himalaya is given as "0.09°C per year in Himalayas". Clearly the values for Sri Lanka greatly exceed those of the Himalaya, and Sri Lanka, not the Himalaya, is the area where temperatures are rising faster in South Asia. Clearly both trends are also worthy of further journalistic inquiry for if continued both would greatly exceed IPCC forecasts.”

It seems that the IPCC table 10.2 contains a number of errors, worthy of their own headline. These are summarised below but have been dealt with in more detail at ABC News Watch and in a post on Watts Up With That. 

Errors in Table 10.2 IPCC Working Group 2 report

1. Table 10.2 indicates that warming in the Himalaya is 0.09º C.yr-1 however warming citing for Si Lanka is 2°C increase per year in central highlands. On the IPCC’s figures the ABC and BBC claim does not stack up.
2. IPCC provide the incorrect reference to back their figure for the Himalayas. They cite two conference papers and one peer reviewed paper that related to precipitation, not temperature. The correct reference is found to be: Shrestha, Arun B.; Wake, Cameron P.; Mayewski, Paul A.; Dibb, Jack E., 1999. Maximum Temperature Trends in the Himalaya and Its Vicinity: An Analysis Based on Temperature Records from Nepal for the Period 1971–94. Journal of Climate, 9/1/99, Vol. 12 Issue 9 pp:2775-2786.
3. The references for the Sri Lankan Temperatures are not from peer reviewed journals, they relate to precipitation, not temperature.
4. The figure quoted for the Himalaya is the winter trend, not the annual trend. The annual trend is 0.057 º C.yr-1.
5. The highest annual trend for Nepal cited in Shrestha et al., 1999 is 0.09º C.yr-1 for the Trans-Himalaya (an area that excludes Mt Everest).
5. The basis of the Himalayan trends (Shrestha et al 1999) is just 6 weather stations. The average trend of 5 of these stations dating back to the 1960s is (Max/Min) 0.013º C.yr-1, much less than the 0.057º C.yr-1. All five of these stations are located in the eastern Himalaya.

6. The trend cited for Sri Lankan is incorrect and was brought up in the review of IPCC AR4 WGII.

We have passed this on to the IPCC for comment but have not yet received a reply.

To the ABC’s credit they spent considerable time investigating the matter. Remarkably this was undertaken by ABC's complaints division and not by ABC News. In the end ABC amended the report and added the following note: "Editor's note (September 1, 2010): A reference to studies of climate in the Himalayas has been removed from this story because the ABC was not able to verify its source." However the damage had been done.

Sadly, it is now necessary to treat statements by authorities, some climate scientists, and press releases from some university departments with the same cynicism as those of politicians and government departments. While published papers are necessarily restrained in their conclusions, as they need to pass peer review, the same level of rigour does not apply to IPCC reports, press releases and public comments, and in these, some scientists apply liberal coats of varnish to bolster somewhat tepid claims and hide somewhat shonky science. Astute journalists can see through the gloss. It seems ABC needs to employ some of these sceptical journalists to balance its current crop of gullible reporters.

A list of posts by ABC NEWS WATCH reporting on ABC climate change stories where more questions could have been asked can be found HERE.

Groupthink, Sensationalism, Naive and Inept Journalism: Climate coverage at the ABC- Part 1.
Cherry picking the science. Climate coverage at the ABC Part 2

Next: Part 4 Making Mistakes

---

[1]  For Saudi Arabia: “The average summer temperature is about 45° C, but readings of up to 54° C are not unusual.” http://www.weatheronline.co.uk/reports/climate/Saudi-Arabia.htm

[2] http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/photo/2010-07/05/content_10067517.htm

[3] http://newspapers.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/10727070

[4] http://www.hindustantimes.com/America-sizzles-as-heat-wave-hits-East-Coast/Article1-568636.aspx

Cherry picking the science. Climate coverage at the ABC Part 2

Groupthink, Sensationalism, Naive and Inept Journalism: Climate coverage at the ABC.

Part 2 Cherry picking the science.

Part 2 of a four part series looking at climate reporting at the ABC.

A recent report by the Australian National Academy of Science rightly indicates that climate science is an amalgam of various scientific disciplines including geology, physics, mathematics, chemistry and biology. The amount of time and money spent on climate research spread across so many disciplines ensures the output in the form of peer reviewed papers published in scientific journals is overwhelming. Even those in the business find it hard to keep up with the deluge. With such rich pickings judging which research is newsworthy is a subjective decision. In this case Auntie’s bias is most obvious in those stories that have gone unreported. Two examples from recent weeks, and many more missed over the last few years indicate that there are some real problems with ABC’s nose for news.

Missing news: Link between Vic Bushfires and dangerous anthropogenic global warming busted

When Victoria experienced its horrific bushfires last year Clive Hamilton was quick to attribute the disaster to man made global warming. He recently repeated the claims in an article in The Australian. However a peer reviewed study[1] accepted for publication in the journal Weather, Climate and Society has found: “There are relationships between normalised building damage and the El Niño-Southern Oscillation and Indian Ocean Dipole phenomena, but there is no discernable evidence that the normalised data is being influenced by climate change due to the emission of greenhouse gases.” For some strange reason ABC News, Science and Environment did not consider the story newsworthy, amazing considering the subject, the findings and the authors. Instead of reporting on this important study, ABC provided a report with the alarming headline "UN climate scientists link Russia, Pakistan calamities". The necessary peer reviewed studies to support this assertion have not been undertaken and preliminary reports by the US NOAA, not covered by the ABC, indicate the event in Russia was linked to an infrequent natural weather event: “The extreme surface warmth over western Russia during July and early August is mostly a product of the strong and persistent blocking high….The indications are that the current blocking event is intrinsic to the natural variability of summer climate in this region, a region which has a climatological vulnerability to blocking and associated heat waves (e.g., 1960, 1972, 1988).”  In regard to Pakistan, the Indus River floods every year at around the same time and the disaster has more to do with bad governance and a lack of natural disaster planning than climate change.

Missing News: Hockey Stick smashed (yet again), McIntyre and McKitrick vindicated

In the same week ABC missed news about what caused Victoria’s Bushfires they also missed another study that once and for all smashed the infamous Hockey Stick Graph to pieces.

Anyone following the climate debate in recent years will be familiar with the Hockey Stick Graph and the debate surrounding its veracity. The IPCC have built a case that recent temperature rises are unprecedented over the past 2000 years, but if this is not the case and similar warming occurred in the recent past, say during the Medieval Warm Period due solely to natural causes, then a major plank of the IPCC’s case for alarming anthropogenic global warming is shredded. With the recent publication of a paper in the Annals of Statistics[2] the ABC have missed an opportunity to report on one such shredding. In the paper, statisticians Blakeley McShane and Abraham Wyner found “Climate scientists have greatly underestimated the uncertainty of proxy based reconstructions and hence have been overconfident in their models.” Concluding about the Hockey Stick: “the evidence for a “long-handled” hockey stick is lacking in the data.” This concurs with previous published studies[3] that also showed the Hockey Stick to be fundamentally flawed; somehow ABC missed covering these papers as well. That ABC News and Science divisions completely ignored this new study reflects poorly on their capacity to recognise significant develops in science as they arise. The Hockey Stick is broken, but ABC denies its audience the evidence, so it lives on like a Zombie.

Looking over ABC’s missing climate science stories brings the following quote by Karl Popper to mind:

“Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve”

A selection of ABC’s missing news stories can be found at “Missing News”.

Next: Part 3 Putting faith in Authority

---

[1] Crompton, R. P., K. J. McAneney, K. Chen, R. A. Pielke Jr., and K. Haynes, 2010 (in press): Influence of Location, Population and Climate on Building Damage and Fatalities due to Australian Bushfire: 1925-2009. Weather, Climate and Society

[2] A statistical analysis of Multiple Temperature proxies: Are reconstructions of surface temperatures over the last 1000 years reliable" by McShane and Wyner  in the Annals of Applied Statistics

[3] For instance ABC never reported on McIntyre S. and McKitrick R., 2005. Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance. GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 32, L03710, doi:10.1029/2004GL021750, 2005

Groupthink, Sensationalism, Naive and Inept Journalism: Climate coverage at the ABC- Part 1.

Groupthink, Sensationalism, Naive and Inept Journalism: Climate coverage at the ABC- Part 1.

This is part one of a four part series looking at Climate coverage at the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

On ABC’s opinion site The Drum, so called “Public Intellectual” Clive Hamilton suggests the ABC has been infested by a nest of climate “deniers”. According to Clive, Auntie has handed editorial control of her climate change coverage to a bunch of extremists from the far right. It’s a pity he forgot to provide any evidence to back his claims. Even the most superficial look under Auntie’s skirt reveals nothing to substantiate the right wing conspiracy alluded to, just everyday sensationalism, along with plenty of examples of naive and inept journalism, operating under an umbrella of Groupthink in which Auntie’s reporters have closed their eyes to the on-going scientific debate raging around them.

Auntie’s main problem is not opinion sites like The DRUM that has given Clive Hamilton a handy megaphone, and also posted a range of views from climate experts and non-experts alike; even finding room for my pieces on Mr Gore, Prince Tim and the Climate Dementors. THE DRUM is a side show, the main problem is Auntie’s news and science reporting that continues to let its loyal audience down.

It does this in a number of ways. Firstly the natural inclination of the media, particularly government sponsored news agencies, to favour alarm over calm, results in stories with screeching headlines such as Oceans on brink of mass extinction: study, or Climate check-up 'screams world is warming' getting prominence over less sensationalist stories such as Is climate change new (and bad)? ABC looks at the science through its Groupthink looking glass, cherry picking those science stories that can be beaten up to provide the scariest headlines that agree with its reporters alarming world view. The considered restraint of sceptical scientists simply does not attract as much attention, and all too often news of their less sensational findings end up on the copy room floor.

Secondly, certain ABC reporters seem to be suffering from Stockholm Syndrome when it comes to interviewing scientists promoting climate alarm. They appear so besotted they are failing to properly scrutinize experts and authoritative documents like IPCC assessments and government reports. They put their faith in authority without bothering to properly verify the facts, the way journalists did in the good old days. In doing so they act as echo chambers spreading misconceptions and exaggerations in the process.

Thirdly, bias in ABC climate reporting is not so much due to a grand conspiracy of misguided amateurish environmental activists acting as reporters, though it seems many now walk the corridors of ABC’s head office, but stems from ineptitude. As Napoleon Bonaparte suggested “Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.”

Over the next 3 posts we will examine each of these points in more detail starting with Cherry picking the science in part 2.