A flood of discontent

A swag of letters over two days in the Australian (links and extracts below) decrying ABC's biased current affairs coverage. One doubts that anyone at Ultimo is listening and that anything constructive will be done to resolve the issue.

December 8, 2012 ABC's bias is a sore that just keeps on running
Extracts below follow links for the complete letters

AS a spate of letters has shown this week, nobody does bias like the ABC. On many political issues -- from Israel, to warmist hype, to the US alliance, to gay marriage -- the broadcaster is utterly predictable in its leftist responses....

Notwithstanding the ABC's exclusive funding by the taxpayer, its pervasive bias is the sore that just keeps on running.

Brenton Minge
THERE has never been a time of greater need for the ABC -- which has profound influence with its ability to reach into every household -- to be held to account....
Stephen Turner

IN response to the gripes of letter writers complaining about public funding of the ABC, I do not much care for sport but my taxes help pay for sporting institutes, the Olympics and the Commonwealth Games. I did not support the invasion of Iraq, yet my taxes helped pay for that invasion.
At its best, the ABC enriches my life, it makes me laugh and it makes me think. Enjoy your sport and your wars and let me enjoy my ABC.
Anthony Yeates

BRIAN Pymont misses the point in his defence of the ABC (Letters, 7/12). Being funded by the Australian taxpayer, it has a duty to report for us all. This is why the likes of Barrie Cassidy deserve our condemnation for his Left bias. I guess it reflects the general Left leaning of the public service, especially when accountability is low on the priority scale.
Stig Falster

EACH Friday, I engage with some close friends in a brain teaser. This week we debated the question, who has more credibility: Barrie Cassidy or Mark Latham? We couldn't come to answer because we were unable to envisage a situation in which either had credibility.
Jonathan Whybird

December 7, ABC doesn't answer to commercial imperatives

...However, the ABC is funded by taxpayers under the condition it gives a balanced view for all. Clearly, I am not getting my money's worth.
Ivan Cope

...Now the ABC's news and current affairs has at last realised the purpose for which it was established - to balance any anti-government stance of the newspapers, and to play a support role in effecting social and cultural change. In my experience, there was always inherent sympathy within the organisation for the Left and great suspicion of conservatism and business.
Geoffrey Luck

...You can turn off Insiders, too, but you'll still have to pay for it.
Paul Yates

A FEW letter writers miss the point when it comes to ABC's left-wing bias. The ABC's mission is not to balance other media outlets but to provide content for all Australians.
The continued absence of any conservative voices among the hosts of its current affairs and local radio programs is a slap in the face to half of the Australian population that helps to pay for its existence.
Marc Hendrickx

Insiders, more like left siders

A bevy of letters in today's Australian putting forward a strong case for pro ALP bias at ABC's Insiders program. Ruth Bonetti has one of the best lines..."Insiders is an ABC Labor Party love-in." (See here for more- subscription required).

Recommended Reading: Our Biased broadcaster

ACM has some thoughts on our ABC under the banner ABC: institutionalised bias.
Recommended reading!

From ABC's Editorial Policy...

"The ABC has a statutory duty to ensure that the gathering and presentation of news and information is impartial according to the recognised standards of objective journalism." page 6

Of course when you hire activists for reporters those standards of objective journalism don't seem to matter that much.

Missing News 1 and 2

Missing News 1: The Australian notes some gaps in ABC's reporting: Story is everywhere, but Aunty keeps mum

Missing News 2: The Australian's Graham Lloyd reports "Climate claims on drought debunked". According to a paper published in Nature it seems that "DROUGHTS have not changed over the past 60 years and predictions that climate change will make them worse are exaggerated"
"Researchers from the US and Australia found models that had been developed to assess regional drought assistance were too simplistic to be used to predict the impact of climate change on drought."

Seems this news is too much for ABC's fragile audience to bear.
(Update...ABC play catch up.... Drought 'overestimated by faulty index'). Includes the classic line "But, as ever in climate change science, he acknowledges there are "huge question marks" over all of this." 
And I thought it was all settled! As ever if you want Yesterday's news tomorrow you can turn to the ABC.

While on Climate models, here's another report missing from ABC. Seems along with droughts, they also don't do so well in simulating cloud cover:

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 39, L20803, 6 PP., 2012

doi:10.1029/2012GL053153

How well do climate models simulate cloud vertical structure? A comparison between CALIPSO-GOCCP satellite observations and CMIP5 models

Key Points

• To evaluate the cloud vertical structure of models using CALIPSO satellite
• Five GCMs underestimate the total cloud cover at all latitudes except in Arctic
• Discrepancies are more pronounced in tropics and poles, and over continents

G. Cesana

Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique (LMD/IPSL), Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris, France

H. Chepfer

Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique (LMD/IPSL), Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris, France

The Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observation (CALIPSO) satellite provides robust and global direct measurements of the cloud vertical structure. The GCM-Oriented CALIPSO Cloud Product is used to evaluate the simulated clouds in five climate models using a lidar simulator.The total cloud cover is underestimated in all models (51% to 62% vs. 64% in observations) except in the Arctic. Continental cloud covers (at low, mid, high altitudes) are highly variable depending on the model. In the tropics, the top of deep convective clouds varies between 14 and 18 km in the models versus 16 km in the observations, and all models underestimate the low cloud amount (16% to 25%) compared to observations (29%). In the Arctic, the modeled low cloud amounts (37% to 57%) are slightly biased compared to observations (44%), and the models do not reproduce the observed seasonal variation.

Mildura Fire Risk - Not Hot off the press, not hotter, not drier

Updated below with a comparison of Mean days above 40 degrees for Mildura. Guess which era is higher?

Must be a slow news day. ABC report today under the somewhat startling headline "Study reveals 'increasing' Mildura fire risk" news of a study that was apparently first published online in April this year (see below). It seems this news is only half a year late, but as it's a "scary" climate change story I guess it's always worthwhile for ABC's activist reporters to get that scary catastrophist climate climate message out; no matter how old! I say apparently because thanks to ABC's extraordinarily "high" reporting standards no where in its brief report does the ABC name the study's title or apparently its authors. It does however have a scary quote from climate alarmist David Karoly. This appears to take the results of the study out of context, for the last line of the abstract of the study reads: "Although these trends are consistent with projected impacts of climate change on FFDI, this study cannot separate the influence of climate change, if any, with that of natural variability. "

In the article Karoly is reported saying: "It gets more extreme in Mildura, and I mean most people in Mildura know that yes it's been getting hotter, it's also been getting drier," he said.
This is used to suggest that there is an increase in risk. And that might be the case if you only look at recent data. If you take a longer view and the data is there for all to see. It seems a different story emerges.

So Hotter and Drier???

Hotter? Here's a compilation of Max temp data from the BOM website based on stations 76077 and 76031 extending from 1910 to 2010, they are combined at the same scale (there does not appear to be a continuously monitored site). 76077 is the post office,  76031 is at the airport about 15 km away). Note that the Max temperature for the period 1910-1940 (red) is higher than 1950-2010. So David, no it's actually not hotter over the long term! It seems that it was hotter overall, earlier last century.

Drier? The figure below is a compilation of rainfall from the same stations. Not that hard to spot the gap between the two, but if you look closely (you might have to click on the figure to enlarge) the mean over the period 1910-1940 (red line -266.6mm) is well below the mean over the period 1950-2010-293.1mm), so no David, not actually drier either, in fact overall, things were drier earlier last century.

The actual figures?: (updated to show figures from 1910)

Drier? From BOM: 

Mean Rainfall station 76077 1889-1949: 266.6mm
Mean Rainfall station 76031 1946-2011: 293.1mm

Hotter? From BOM 

Mean Max temp station 76077 1889-1949: 24.6 degrees C
(Note Mean Max Temp 1910-1949: 24.1 degrees C)

Mean Max temp station 76031 1946-2011: 23.8 degrees C

Mean Min temp station 76077 1889-1949: 10.4 degrees C
(Note Mean Max Temp 1910-1949: 10.5 degrees C)

Mean Min temp station 76031 1946-2011: 10.3 degrees C

Why 1910? according to BOM "Temperature data prior to 1910 should be used with extreme caution as many stations prior to that date used non-standard shelters." That is many sttaions were not yet equiped with the Stevenson Screens that would become standard. Reports from the Adelaide Register in the NLA's newspaper archive suggests a Stevenson Screen was at the Mildura PO in at least 17 January 1907. 

So given the climate was hotter and drier earlier last century I guess with respect to bushfires it was also riskier! So the elevator report actually is: Risk of bushfires in Mildura may return to levels last seen early last century!

Update: Here's a comparison thanks to BOM of days over 40 degrees between the Post Office site (76077-1889-1949) and the airport (76031-1946-2011). Once again when looking at long term trends the earlier data shows considerably more extreme weather:

When you mistakenly employ activists for reporters I guess it's fair to expect propaganda for news. 

Thanks to ABC's poor reporting we assume (and prepare to wear egg on our face) that this is the paper in question, not that it changes the issues with Karoly's alarmist take on the weather:

Changes in Australian fire weather between 1973 and 2010

1. Hamish Clarke^1,2,*, 
2. Christopher Lucas³,
3. Peter Smith¹

Article first published online: 11 APR 2012

DOI: 10.1002/joc.3480

Unfortunately access to more than the abstract requires a subscription, but here's the abstract:

Abstract

A data set of observed fire weather in Australia from 1973–2010 is analysed for trends using the McArthur Forest Fire Danger Index (FFDI). Annual cumulative FFDI, which integrates daily fire weather across the year, increased significantly at 16 of 38 stations. Annual 90th percentile FFDI increased significantly at 24 stations over the same period. None of the stations examined recorded a significant decrease in FFDI. There is an overall bias in the number of significant increases towards the southeast of the continent, while the largest trends occur in the interior of the continent and the smallest occur near the coast. The largest increases in seasonal FFDI occurred during spring and autumn, although with different spatial patterns, while summer recorded the fewest significant trends. These trends suggest increased fire weather conditions at many locations across Australia, due to both increased magnitude of FFDI and a lengthened fire season. Although these trends are consistent with projected impacts of climate change on FFDI, this study cannot separate the influence of climate change, if any, with that of natural variability. 

Lies of the Climate Commission: Part 13

A quick note to add to the growing list of the Climate Commission's misrepresentations of climate science.

The Climate Commission's Will Steffen tells ABC's AM audience "Climate change was a factor in several aspects of Sandy."

Meanwhile The Australian's Graham Lloyd reports: "AUSTRALIA'S Climate Commission has misrepresented data from the leading US meteorological bureau to highlight a link between climate change and the severity of Superstorm Sandy which this week crippled New York."

Definition of MISREPRESENT

1

: to give a false or misleading representation of usually with an intent to deceive or be unfair <misrepresented the facts>

More from that article...

...Dr Hoerling told US public radio in the aftermath of Sandy that ocean temperatures adjacent to the US eastern seaboard had been running several degrees higher than normal.

But he said the unusually warm waters were in areas where the background temperature was relatively cool. "So adding a few degrees Fahrenheit at that cool water temperature doesn't matter too much for the intensity of a hurricane," Dr Hoerling said.

Dr Hoerling is a research meteorologist, specialising in climate dynamics, in NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory located in Boulder, Colorado.

He is chairman of the US CLIVAR (Climate Variability) research program, has served as editor of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, and has published more than 50 scientific papers dealing with climate variability and change.

Late yesterday, Professor England conceded the sea-surface temperature highlighted in the Climate Commission document was not significant.

Sadly incompetence from the government's climate commissioners is something we are becoming all to familiar with.

FOI request turned down: Help Annabel!

ABC's Annabel Crabb recently lamented the lack of cooperation from the Public Service when it comes to releasing government documents. Perhaps she would be willing to assist me with an FOI request that has run into trouble?
It is with some irony (given that ABC are a member of the Right to Know Coalition) that today I received notification from the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, that in my FOI request for ABC documents it has sided with the ABC and rejected it. Readers may recall I had hoped to establish the nature of internal correspondence between ABC's Audience and Consumer Affairs branch and its news division over its reporting of purported death threats sent to climate scientists. It seemed to us on the evidence available that ACA had acted independently of ABC news in replying to us. Recall in May this year we wrote:

Dear  ABC,

ABC Audience and consumer affairs provided the following comment in reply to a complaint I made on 10 May at 9:21pm about missing news of the privacy commissioners findings on ANU death threat emails  "Audience and Consumer Affairs does not consider there is a case to correct the stories."  I received the reply from your Mr Maley at 10.39am on May 11. 

Mr Maley stated in his email that he had consulted ABC News   "In the interests of procedural fairness, we have also sought and considered material from ABC News." However at  May 11, 2012 09:06:07am, over an hour before his reply to me, ABC News posted the following story:FOI emails reveal threats to climate scientists. on its website (this story subsequently corrected on 21 May).

Can you please confirm whether there was in fact any consultation between ABC News and ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs. On face value it seems there was no consultation at all. How else do you explain the timing?

As ABC were not forthcoming we looked to FOI to provide correspondence between ACA and News that might reveal what occurred. So we requested:
-emails and phone records concerning a complaint I submitted to ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs on 10 May 2012; and

-copies of all emails and phone records between ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs and ABC News between the period 3 May 2012 to 6 June 2012 dealing with complaints or other issues stemming from a number of ABC news reports.

The information commissioner has sided with the ABC and ruled the documents are exempt from the provisions of the FOI act as they somehow relate to programming.


Given that the Federal Court has clearly found that "letters of complaint about the ABC's programs and responses to those complaints on the same subject as well as documents internal to the ABC on this subject" fall within the definition of program material, it would appear that the ABC's decision on your freedom of information request was correct. As such, without further explanation of why your request and the ABC's decision is not consistent with the view expressed by the Federal Court I must conclude that your application is lacking in substance. As such I intend to finalise your application for 1C review unless you provide me with reasons to reconsider this decision.


It seems ABC use this excuse to hide all its dirty linen and the Information Commissioner lacks the will to rule otherwise. Perhaps with the right lobbying and the election of a government interested in accountability, ABC might be forced to open its dark chamber. Until then perhaps ABC should remove itself from the right to know coalition.