ABC in the News Round up 3

This week ABC provide a case study in biased reporting, provide free publicity to activists, provide no one to join Amanda, and more...

Part 1. Case study in biased reporting.
An Op Ed in The Australian compares reporting of stories pro and against the climate consensus with predictable results. The elevator version: if you are pro - "here are the keys to Ultimo". If you are against - "there's the cross we will nail you to and no wishy washy ed policy will spare you, you denier scum bag". Seems the limp wristed management style of MD Mark Scott has done nothing in the last 3 years to balance the bias of his staff. 0/10 Mr Scott.

Part 2: Environmental beat ups for the week
This photo essay and free add and promotion for The Climate Institute (now that would seem to be a problem for the ABC's Editorial Policies-see section 11!) is replete with factual errors and misrepresentations. It's this weeks winner! The photo's by climate change activist Michael Hall.
We have provided some alternate captions to a few of them:

Another lame attempt to link extreme weather to CO2.

Bird coleslaw anyone?

Part 2a. A close second was this report by ABC's Caddie Brain. Caddie left her brain at home when she wrote it. It covered a recent report that based health projections on "CSIRO climate models that indicate that remote parts of Australia could be up to 7 degrees hotter by 2100."
7 degrees! a little alarmist perhaps? And how reliable are those models? Let's see Caddie...Hint note the difference between the models and observations. Now view this Feynman video. "If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong; that's all there is to it!"

Part 3: Spot the conservative presenter. No change from last week.
1. Amanda Vanstone on Counterpoint

Part 4: Some bananas stay forever. 
Seems B1 and B2 will get the axe a month short of 21 years. In the meantime those other ABC fruits: Clarke and Dawe plod through year 25. What colour tie will Brian wear this week?

Part 5: Your taxes at work. See Part 2a. Your taxes paid for crap models, crap analysis and crap reporting. That's one big load of crap.

Part 6: Missing News:
Some local science goes unreported:
New research suggests seaweed species may adapt to higher temperatures

The ability of Hormosira banksii, commonly known as Neptune’s necklace, to tolerate higher temperatures suggests that this habitat-forming alga has an intrinsic capacity to cope with climate change.

Part 7: Moth balled
ABC's web pages are a hive of broken links and lost information, like the "earth" page which provides Google Earth links to news from July 2011. Now that's innovation for you!


Part 8: Sucker of the week. SARAH CLARKE for not asking a single question of activist Bill McKibben that would suggest she had completed a degree or cadetship in journalism. Well done Sarah you win this weeks GULLIBUL.

That's Sarah on the Left (of course)

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. 

Professor Lu, climate change and a Breach of Section 4

Update: more on this coming. ABC did not even bother to interview the author Professor Lu before broadcasting its woeful report. Professor Lu has written to ABC management to raise issues with the reporting.

The one sided story.
ABC's AM program breaches section 4 of the ABC's Editorial polices in reporting on a recently released peer reviewed paper that challenges the consensus on climate change (no surprise there!). According to section 4 "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."Apparently:  the ABC is guided by these hallmarks of impartiality:
• a balance that follows the weight of evidence;
• fair treatment;
• open-mindedness; and
• opportunities over time for principal relevant perspectives on matters of contention to be expressed.

ABC's woeful reporting did the following:

• Misrepresented the qualifications and experience of the paper's author "The Waterloo research is by Professor Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, biology and chemistry at Waterloo's Faculty of Science. " Professor Lu is a Physicist, and ABC neglected to include an interesting Australian link. It seems Professor Lu gained his PhD at the University of Newcastle.
• Did not interview the author of the paper or provide an opportunity for him to reply to criticism leveled against his work.
• Made light of the paper "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 critique, professional climate nag 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! No surprise that some science articles have long titles but it seems Dr Karoly wins the wordiness contest. 
• Allows for the misrepresentation 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. Seems articles on climate change are quite normal in this journal.
• ABC provided only one heavily biased opinion.
• In the transcript Miss spells Karoly as "Kaoly"

So ABC did NOT allow for balance, fair treatment, open mindedness or any opportunity for reply. Case closed. 

STOP PRESS: Professor Lu quickly responds to some questions:

Dear Mr. Hendrickx,

Thank you for your drawing my attention to the ABC news report on my recent work on global warming. I just read the radio conversation and Dr. David Karoly's criticisms on my paper.

Here are my brief answers to your questions:

Q: "Do you have any comments regarding Dr Karoly's criticism of your paper?"

A: From reading Dr. Karoly's comments, unfortunately, it seems obvious that he did not read my recent paper published in IJMPB, not even the abstract of my paper.  For example, he argues "That prediction is wrong and is based purely on the global warming influence of chlorofluorocarbons. The replacement chemicals for chlorofluorocarbons are hydrofluorocarbons, which are used as refrigerants, have already got as large a greenhouse influence as the reductions in the chlorofluorocarbons. And, in fact, the global warming influence of these chemicals, the hydrofluorocarbons, is already growing more rapidly than the reductions in chlorofluorocarbons."  This criticism is quite wrong, as the greenhouse effect of hydrofluorocarbons (HCFCs) is included in my results presented in my paper and can be easily seen even at the abstract "Then natural and anthropogenic contributions to these phenomena are examined in detail and separated well through in-depth statistical analyses of comprehensive measured datasets of quantities, including cosmic rays (CRs), total solar irradiance, sunspot number, halogenated gases (CFCs, CCl₄ and HCFCs), CO₂, total O₃, lower stratospheric temperatures and global surface temperatures."

He mentioned the IPCC models to criticize my work. But in my paper, I do point out the key assumption in the IPCC models, namely using a logarithm relationship to calculate the radiative force of CO2 with CO2 concentration, does not agree with the observations and is wrong.  Otherwise, there is no major difference in maths between IPCC models and my calculations.  Of course, there are significant differences in physics.  And that is why I published my paper in a Physics journal.  And one can find this in the last paragraph of my paper: "This study also shows that correct understandings of the basic physics of cosmic ray radiation and the Earth blackbody radiation as well as their interactions with human-made molecules are required for revealing the fundamental mechanisms underlying the ozone hole and global climate change.  When these understandings are presented with observations objectively, it is feasible to reach consensuses on these scientific issues of global concern."

Since he is a professor, I believe that Dr. Karoly is a scientist; I would wish that he would have given his criticisms in a scientific rather than political way. Perhaps he was too busy and did not get enough time to read my paper before he made the comments.

To save my time, I think I'll stop there for this question.  

Q: "Do you think ABC's story is a fair representation of your work."

A: Absolutely, I do not think the ABC's story gave a fair presentation of my work.

Q: "Do you regard your treatment by the ABC as fair?"

A: I would not be too concerned about what they said about my work.  I am quite confident of my findings.

One point I would like to add:  I received my PhD from the University of Newcastle. I have been very grateful, and very much appreciated the opportunities and scholarships provided to me from the Australian Government and the University of Newcastle during my study there (1993-1996).  I very hope that the best and wisest decisions are made by the Government and people in Australia.

I am also cc this email to my former PhD supervisor, Professor John O'Connor, in the University of Newcastle.

Thank you, and with my best wishes to Australian Government and people there,

Qing-Bin Lu

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. 

Gergis Update

ABC is yet to formally cover news that a paper it widely reported on and promoted was flawed and withdrawn from publication by its authors. The only mention that the paper was withdrawn is in editorial notes posted discretely at the end of articles such as this one: EDITOR'S NOTE: Since this story was originally broadcast, errors have been identified in aspects of the data processing which may affect the results of this study. As a result, publication has been delayed and the research has been withdrawn from online publication. Professor Karoly says the data will be recalculated, peer reviewed and published in due course.

They provide the following response to a query we made regarding missing editorial notes from a number of ABC reports, including one on its ITunes site.

Thank you for your email of 21 June. I apologise for the delay in responding; it took a little longer to sort out iTunes than it should have. The segment on the Radio National website now has a prominent editor’s note and the podcast is no longer available on iTunes.

At this stage, neither Radio nor News propose to do any further broadcasts or stories on the subject. If or when the scientists re-release their research, the story will be reassessed in the normal way taking account of editorial priorities at the time.

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

Audience & Consumer Affairs

Received 19/7/2012

Score +1

Karoly-no expert

Reposted from Andrew Bolts Blog...

Associate Professor Stewart Franks of Newcastle University writes to the ABC to protest its repeated use of an alarmist who may say what it wants to hear, but is not actually an expert:

Dear Mr Uhlmann

I would like to protest the repeated interviews with Prof David Karoly with regard to the Queensland floods.

Since 2003, I have published a number of papers in the top-ranked international peer-reviewed literature regarding the role of La Nina in dictating Eastern Australian floods.

There has been no evidence of CO2 in affecting these entirely natural processes, irrespective of their devastating nature.

Why is it then, that someone without any publication nor insight in this key area of concern for Australia is repeatedly called upon to offer his personal speculation on this topic?

This is not a new problem with Prof. Karoly.

In 2003, he published, under the auspices of the WWF, a report that claimed that elevated air tempertatures, due to CO2, exacerbated the MDB drought. To quote…

‘...the higher temperatures caused a marked increase in evaporation rates, which sped up the loss of soil moisture and the drying of vegetation and watercourses. This is the first drought in Australia where the impact of human-induced global warming can be clearly observed...’

The problem with this is that Prof Karoly had confused cause and effect.

During a drought, moisture is limited. The sun shines on the land surface, and as moisture is limited, evaporation is constrained, and consequently the bulk of the sun’s energy goes into surface heating which itself leads to higher air temperatures.  This effect can be as much as 8-10 degrees celsius.

This is a common confusion made by those who have not studied the interaction of the land surface hydrology and atmosphere, as Prof. Karoly has not.

Undoubtably Prof Karoly has expertise but not in the area of hydrology or indeed in many other areas on which the ABC repeatedly calls on him for ‘expert’ comment.

Could I please ask that you cast your net a little wider in seeking expertise?  These issues are too important for the media commont to be the sole domain of commited environmental advocates.  Surely objective journalism also requires objective science?

Sincere best wishes,

A/Prof Stewart W. Franks
Dean of Students

And to Karoly himself, this email: 

David

Your comments on the role of CO2 in the Qld floods are speculative at best, immensely damaging at worst.

When will you accept that CO2 is not the answer to everything?  When will you decline an interview for the lack of your insight?

Have you not learnt from your physically incorrect speculation about temperature and evaporation during the MDB drought? Do you have no shame to have confused cause and effect in such a brazen and public manner?

Is it enough for you that your pronouncements sound correct, irrespective of science?  Have you learnt nothing?

You are arguably the best example of the corruption of the IPCC process, and the bullshit that academia has sunk to.

Shame on you

Stewart

Franks was interviewed by the ABC’s PM program, as was Karoly, on the alleged affect of man-made warming on the floods.  The alarmist’s opinion was broadcast, and the expert’s was not.

See Andrew Bolts blog for more

This letter in today's Sydney Morning Herald is also of relevance:

Kevin Orr (Letters, January 12) attempts to link the floods with global warming, however an overview of historical floods in the Brisbane basin compiled by the Bureau of Meteorology indicates these extreme events, due to a combination of an intense La Nina and the cool phase of the interdecadal Pacific oscillation, have happened before and will happen again.

The increased likelihood of major flooding occurring during the coincidence of these weather events was predicted by Stewart Franks, Anthony Kiem and Danielle Verdon in their paper Climate Variability in the Land of Fire and Flooding Rain.

As these climatic events can be detected several months before their peak, Franks et al showed the opportunity exists to use climate variability insights to more accurately predict the chance of climate related emergencies in the coming season or year.

If governments had listened to their practical advice rather than its alarmist climate advisers we would have been better prepared for this latest crisis.

Marc Hendrickx

See also

Is a Meteorologist a Drought Expert?

 http://nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/01/13/is-a-meteorologist-a-drought-expert/

Link to paper by Franks et al: Climate variability in the land of fire and flooding rain

Link to BOM historical compilation:KNOWN FLOODS IN THE BRISBANE & BREMER RIVER BASIN