Update Comma Butterfly

We received the reply below from ABC Audience & Consumer Affairs in regard to our complaint about ABC reporting that indicated "the comma butterfly was able to make the leap from central England to Edinburgh, a distance of about 220 kilometres, in two decades."
 The report did not clarify that the Comma Butterfly was previously common in Scotland, for instance: 

The Comma is known to have a very dynamic range in the UK. It was known in eastern Scotland in the early-19th century being found as far north as Fife and Alloa, Clackmannanshire in the east but it was absent in western Scotland. After 1850, the Comma was in decline with the last 19th century record being for Denholm, the Borders in 1868.

 http://www.southwestscotland-butterflies.org.uk/species/butterflies/comma.shtml

Seems ABC do not understand the concept of "context"..from its editorial policy...
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."

Here's the reply received today.let you be the judge. One wonders why the original report did not attempt to get in touch with the authors of the study for clarification. ABC-Cargo cult journalism in action...

Thank you for your email regarding the ABC Science story 'Wildlife responding fast to climate change'. I am sorry for the delay in responding to you.

I understand you believe the statement in the story "But the comma butterfly was able to make the leap from central England to Edinburgh, a distance of about 220 kilometres, in two decades" misrepresented factual information because the story did not mention that the range of the comma butterfly has previously included Scotland.

In light of your concerns, Audience & Consumer Affairs has reviewed this statement, within the context of the story, and assessed its adherence to standards 2.1 and 2.2 in the ABC Editorial Policies. These standards state as follows:

"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."

I understand the story was sourced from Reuters. ABC Innovation has advised that the statement to which you refer was based on a quote from Dr David Roy, head of the Biological Records Centre in the UK and co-author of the paper the story reported on. The quote appeared in a press release about the paper. I am advised that ABC Innovation verified the accuracy of the statement by checking it against the press release and the paper itself, although there was no direct reference to the comma butterfly in the paper or supplementary material. Additionally, I understand ABC Innovation relied on Dr Roy's relevant expertise in this area.

Following receipt of your complaint, ABC Innovation contacted Dr Roy about the issue you raised. According to Dr Roy, the statement was about the recent expansion of the distribution of the comma butterfly in recent decades, and not the historical distribution of the species. Dr Roy has advised that while it is true that the comma butterfly covered much of England and Wales, plus scattered localities in Scotland (as far north as Fife) in the early nineteenth century, it was absent from Scotland for more than a century (estimated to be since c.1870). I understand Dr Roy's quote in the press release, which formed the basis of the statement, reported the re-expansion of the species since the ~1980s.

On review, having regard to the steps taken by ABC Innovation and the relatively incidental nature of the statement within the context of the story, Audience & Consumer Affairs is satisfied that reasonable efforts were made to ensure that it was accurate and presented in context. Furthermore, given the information subsequently provided by Dr Roy, we are satisfied that the content was not presented in a way that was likely to materially mislead the audience. Accordingly, the requirements of standards 2.1 and 2.2 were met.

Nonetheless, please be assured that your comments have been noted and conveyed to ABC Innovation management so that relevant staff are aware of your concerns. Thank you for taking the time to write.

Yours sincerely
SM
ABC Audience & Consumer Affairs

ABC snowball Alpine report

ACM have some questions for ABC news....

ABC's spin on Alpine catchment report

Following on from the “no snow by 2050″ story earlier today, the ABC gleefully reports more doom and gloom on the state of the alpine catchments. Perhaps they thought nobody would check:

SIMON SANTOW (ABC World Today): Sixty per cent of the 235 catchments are rated poor to moderate – most are declining.(source)

See the real picture at ACM.

Looking over the report it seems ABC did not question the dodgy method that was used to come up with the assessment. The summary report states:

“The assessment was based on judgments from individuals and not by quantitative data and systematic survey and this was an important limitation. In addition, no field survey or ground truthing was completed.” (from p.21) Source is here (9MB PDF).
Best not to let the facts get in the way of a good scare story.

Nothing abnormal about NT fires

ABC claim that "An abnormal amount of carbon is being released into the atmosphere from wildfires raging across Central Australia." (I'm guessing they are referring to Carbon dioxide).

This is a gross distortion of the facts. Firstly the scientist interviewed for the story clearly indicates the current bushfires are part of a natural cycle. 

"Dr Ashley Sparrow from the CSIRO laboratory in Alice Springs says it is an example of the boom-and-bust ecosystem in the Red Centre at work.

He says spectacular wet years are always followed by a growth spurt of grasses and scrubs, then a significant bushfire season and the release of massive quantities of carbon dioxide."

So it seems that there is nothing  "abnormal" about the amount of carbon dioxide being released. 

Secondly the briefest check of historical newspaper archives reveals numerous instances of significant fires in the past. 

For instance:
State bushfires checked: Huge NT blaze. The Sydney Morning Herald Thursday 25 October 1951

Bushfire Havoc in two states and NT. The West Australian Thursday 25 October 1951

Huge Bushfires in the NT.  Advocate Wednesday 12 May 1948

So nothing "abnormal" about large bush fires in the NT.

It seems the only thing "abnormal" is ABC's distortion of the facts.

Challenge to Marius Benson

In an opinion piece on ABC's The Drum ABC journalist Marius Benson (who apparently has interviewed quite a number of Australian Prime Ministers) makes the following claim:

"There is an overwhelming consensus among scientists working in the field of climate that the planet is warming and that the human-generated increase in concentration of C02 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is contributing to that warming. There is no major national scientific body which dissents from that view. All major scientific bodies - the CSIRO here, Britain's Royal Society, the AAAS in the United States and others - share the view.

Dissent comes from a small minority of scientists working on climate..."

I don't know of a single scientist, not one, who would argue against the statement: "...the planet is warming and that the human-generated increase in concentration of C02 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is contributing to that warming."


The loose statement Benson uses to define the consensus for climate change includes all the scientists I know of that are often derided on the ABC as "sceptics" or "deniers". The debate on the science is much more sophisticated than this. Marius may have interviewed a lot of PM's but it is clear from this cliche ridden article he knows little of the current scientific debate in climate science.

  

So here's a challenge to Marius Benson. Name one of those scientists (and provide a link to the evidence). Just one!

Further into his piece Marius quotes the great Richard Feynman: "In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong... That's all there is to it."


As an exercise in science we suggest Marius compare IPCC model projections for global temperature with current measured temperature trends and put the result to the Feynman test. He might be surprised at the outcome.

Errors in the Oh zone

Updated below

The first sentence of ABC's alarming report on a hole in the ozone layer above the Arctic reads:
"A hole formed in the ozone layer above the Arctic in the 2010-11 northern winter, for the first time on record."


AM's Climate Commission Groupie TONY EASTLEY states: Scientists have uncovered the first hole to form in the ozone layer above the Arctic.

AM's LEXI METHERELL: In the stratosphere above the Antarctic, a hole has developed in the ozone layer every winter since the 1980s and this year, for the first time on record, one has formed above the Arctic.

While the "hole" certainly appears to be the largest and perhaps "deepest" in recent records, it is plainly not the "First" as the following articles reveal:
Arctic Ozone Hole Is Confirmed But Less Severe Than Antarctic's‎ March 17 1990 Deseret News

"Scientists have confirmed suspicions that an ozone hole recently developed over the north pole that was similar to but less severe that a previously detected hole over the South Pole."

Ozone Hole easing August 19. 1987 The Pittsburgh Press

"A Norwegian scientist who detected an ozone "hole" last year over this remote Arctic region says the atmosphere apparently has recovered."

Studies confirm 2nd ozone `hole' December 25. 1987 Chicago Sun Times 

"BREMERHAVEN, West Germany Scientists here have found evidence that confirms fears of a second hole developing in the Earth's ozone layer, this time over the arctic."

And from the ABC's 2003 story "Earth's Ozone layer begins to repair itself", the following:

"In the 1980s, scientists detected for the first time an ozone hole forming over Antarctica each August, eventually breaking up by December or January. Another hole was discovered over the Arctic - both regions vulnerable to ozone damage."

We have requested the ABC correct their factual error.

UPDATE 27/10/2011
ABC's reply, received October 27:

Thank you for your email of October 3 concerning the story “Hole in ozone forms above Arctic”

As your correspondence raised concerns of a lack of accuracy, your email was referred to Audience and Consumer Affairs for consideration and response. The unit is separate and independent from ABC program areas and is responsible for investigating complaints alleging a broadcast or publication was in contravention of the ABC's editorial standards. In light of your concerns, we have reviewed the story and assessed it against the ABC’s editorial requirements for accuracy, as outlined in section 2.1 of the ABC’s Editorial Policies: http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/edpols.htm. In the interests of procedural fairness, we have also sought and considered material from ABC News.

The story stated that the hole in the ozone layer formed recently over the Arctic was the first to be formed. This was incorrect; the story should have reported that it was the first hole in the ozone layer above the Arctic that is comparable in size to those that have formed over the Antarctic.

ABC News apologises for the error. It has been corrected on both the online news site and on the AM site. Editor’s notes have also been published.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-03/hole-in-ozone-forms-above-arctic/3206356

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2011/s3330625.htm

Thank you for taking the time to write; your feedback is appreciated.

SCORE +1

Missing News: Malaria Climate links

ABC's reporting on purported links between climate change and malaria appear skewed in one direction:
Here's their last three headlines that link Malaria and Climate change.
Climate change impact on malaria questioned May 26, 2010
Study finds climate change, malaria spread link  February 16, 2009
Temperature spikes key to malaria spread 18 February 2009

The emphasis in these cases is in supporting the alarmist side of the debate. Just as well other news services are present to provide balance to ABC's skewed climate coverage.

Now a new paper the ABC have not reported on,  finds that  "This research suggests that, while climate change is expected to have many serious impacts, other factors including medical interventions appear to be more important in determining the incidence of malaria."

peer review alive and well despite the best efforts of a few.

ABC News have yet to provide any coverage of the resignation of the editor in chief from the journal Remote Sensing, they did however publish my take on the issue at The Drum. You'll need to read to the end in order to appreciate the meaning of title that reads  "Peer review is dead, long live blog review". Part of the argument can be summed up by the comics below.

IPCC ROUTE THROUGH PEER REVIEW (ABOVE)

SCEPTICS ROUTE THROUGH PEER REVIEW (BELOW)

apologies to original artist "NICK"

Here's the opening salvo of the article...
In January 2009, Nature splashed its front cover with the results of a new study titled 'Warming of the Antarctic ice-sheet surface since the 1957 International Geophysical Year'.
The article was accompanied by a glowing editorial from Nature and was widely reported on in the media.
A very short time after the paper was published, a number of factual errors were found in the paper, along with significant issues with the methodology used to obtain the surprising results. The errors and the methodological problems were reported and discussed by climate change blogs Watts Up With That, The Air Vent, Climate Audit and Real Climate.
Imagine if at this stage Nature's editor in chief looked at the reported blog commentary and decided the journal had published a paper, which while it had gone through the normal peer review processes, based on some of the blog commentary, was basically fundamentally flawed and should not have been published.
Furthermore, the original reviewers may have shared some of the climate alarm notions of the authors, bringing the veracity of the original review into question. Media coverage alsosensationalised aspects of the results. The editor in chief is so embarrassed by the publication of the erroneous paper, he decides to resign.
Update 22/9 Jeff at The Air Vent has some great graphics that contrast Steig et al 2009 Antarctic temps with the corrected temps of  O'Donnell et al 2010, quite startling! See HERE

Update 28/9 Roger Pielke Jnr reports on more irregularities with the peer review process at GRL.