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lead by Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit found methodological problems with the work, and the paper was subsequently withdrawn from publication to the embarrassment of the authors.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