Sad to see it come to this.

Comment left at The Science Show...

"Still waiting on Robyn to have a no nonsense, rational discussion with some of the major players about climate sensitivity and the growing disparity between climate models and observations. Might I suggest Pitman, England and Karoly versus Lindzen, Curry, and Pielke (Snr). It is growing increasingly obvious to anyone following the scientific discourse that the models are running on the hot side and it seems the called Luke Warmers are on the verge of being proven correct.

Unfortunately all we continue to hear from the Science show is personal smear, ridicule and abuse, and from non-scientist activists to boot.

It is truly sad to see such a great radio institution demean itself in such a way. But I guess when you are losing an argument it's all you have left."

science show thumbs its nose at the IPCC

Unchallenged comment on this week's program that featured an alarming story about Matsungan Island (off northern Bouganville):

"Given scientific sea level rise predictions on the order of 1 to 2m this century...."

1 to 2m? hang on....

Just what did the IPCC say in 2007?

Figure 10.33. Projections and uncertainties (5 to 95% ranges) of global average sea level rise and its components in 2090 to 2099 (relative to 1980 to 1999) for the six SRES marker scenarios. The projected sea level rise assumes that the part of the present-day ice sheet mass imbalance that is due to recent ice flow acceleration will persist unchanged. It does not include the contribution shown from scaled-up ice sheet discharge, which is an alternative possibility. It is also possible that the present imbalance might be transient, in which case the projected sea level rise is reduced by 0.02 m. It must be emphasized that we cannot assess the likelihood of any of these three alternatives, which are presented as illustrative. The state of understanding prevents a best estimate from being made.

What regional tide gauges say...

Still an improvement. Recall dear Robyn feels a rise of 100m is a real possibility...

Andrew Bolt: I ask you, Robyn, 100 metres in the next century...do you really think that?

Robyn Williams: It is possible, yes. The increase of melting that they've noticed in Greenland and the amount that we've seen from the western part of Antarctica, if those increases of three times the expected rate continue, it will be huge, but the question...

Andrew Bolt: I'm scared that you think that because the latest studies in Greenland suggest that little spurt of warming that you base some of this has stopped, and it just depresses me that someone like me, I come on...I haven't said anything here that's wild or anything, I get the grilling, but someone like Tim Flannery is treated like God and made Australian of the Year for saying the most absurd things that are laughed at, even by climatologists.

UPDATE The photo the ABC use to accompany their piece comes from a 2008 report put out by World vision. Readers may be familiar with the image that appears on page 54.The appearance of Ursus Bogus a sure sign of propaganda in action.

ursus bogus

Missing views: the Lewandowsky affair

Ben Pile at Spiked Online has an interesting essay about the flawed research behind recent attempts to smear climate sceptics as conspiracy theorists. The author of the flawed research, Stephen Lewandowsky, was recently "grilled" by ABC's Science Guru Robyn Williams. This is how Robyn introduced the story:
"What if I told you that paedophilia is good for children, or that asbestos is an excellent inhalant for those with asthma?" 

How positively Charming! Somehow Robyn missed the mistakes that Ben Pile outlines in detail in his essay, and this is someone ABC thinks is competent to present a Science Show (ed. perhaps those brain cells rusting with age?). The problems with Lewandowsky's research were widely covered on the internet (see Climate Audit) but somehow this important news failed to make the ABC's News Desk.

An extract...

A culture of intransigence has developed in the shadow of the compact between politics and science, which can be seen in the Lewandowsky affair in microcosm. Lewandowsky’s work unwittingly demonstrates that what is passed off as peer reviewed and published ‘science’, even in today’s world, is no more scientific than the worst ramblings of the least qualified and nuttiest climate change denier on the internet. It looks like science, certainly, but the product only survives a superficial inspection. The only difference being the institutional muscle that Lewandowsky has access to, but which unhinged climate change deniers do not. The object of the professor’s study is really his own refusal to debate with his lessers.

ABC: our gutter press

The Australian compares ABC's standards to the APC. Guess which organisation's standards remain in the gutter?

ABC sets lower standards bar
BY:NICK LEYS
From:The Australian
December 20, 2012 12:00AM

DRAWING comparisons to pedophiles to attack your opponents is acceptable under the ABC complaints process - held up as the ideal model by media inquiry head Ray Finkelstein - but has been ruled out of order by the newspapers' existing regulatory body.

Mr Finkelstein recommended in his government-commissioned review of the media industry earlier this year that the self-regulatory Australian Press Council should be overhauled in line with the ABC model.

But two decisions this week reveal the APC is tougher on commentators who compare opponents with pedophiles.

Rest HERE and while there also read the editorial: The ABC lets itself off the hook

Maurice our hero

Former ABC Chairmen Maurice Newman on irrational comparisons made by climate catastrophist Robyn Williams in today's Australian. Three cheers for Maurice!

ABC clique in control of climate

LAST month in this newspaper, I wrote an irreverent piece, "Losing Their Religion As Evidence Cools Off", illustrating how the global warming establishment was like a religion, replete with the structure, scripture and financial resources required to promote a faith-based movement and how it is losing disciples as the truth wears off.

I don't know about other readers, but at the ABC, for those with the religion it hit a nerve.

On November 24, Robyn Williams intoned to his audience on ABC's The Science Show, "if I told you that pedophilia is good for children, or asbestos is an excellent inhalant for those with asthma, or, that smoking crack is a normal part and a healthy one of teenage life, you'd rightly find it outrageous. Similar statements are coming out of inexpert mouths again and again, distorting the science". My article was given as an example of an anti-scientific position.

Really? Questioning climate science is like advocating pedophilia, abetting mesothelioma and pushing drugs to teenagers? Well yes, according to the ABC's science man. Stephan Lewandowsky, a guest on the program, asserted that those with a free market background were, according to his research, more likely to be sceptical of science. As well as climate science, "they are also rejecting the link between smoking and lung cancer; they are rejecting the link between HIV and AIDS", the professor said. Happily, it was extremely difficult to detect people on the "Left side of politics who are rejecting scientific evidence".

Read the rest at the Oz.

The Heartland Documents: Cargo Cult journalism on The Science Show

The following complaint has been lodged with the ABC about a report on The Science Show titled:
EXPOSING THE HEARTLAND INSTITUTE
Lodged via ABC's complaint contact page, 11/3/2012.

In a discussion about activist scientist Peter Gleick's actions in stealing documents from the Heartland Institute by an email deception Robyn Williams states:
"Peter Gleick actually his clever trick was to confirm by pretending to be someone else that some papers that somehow got into his hands were in fact the same ones he got from from the Heartland Institute by these other means so that they would confirm that they were real."
This is (presumably) based on a statement made by Peter Gleick on his Huffington post blog where he admitted being responsible for the theft of the Heartland documents.
In that post Gleick states: "At the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute's climate program strategy. It contained information about their funders and the Institute's apparent efforts to muddy public understanding about climate science and policy. I do not know the source of that original document but assumed it was sent to me because of my past exchanges with Heartland and because I was named in it.
Given the potential impact however, I attempted to confirm the accuracy of the information in this document. In an effort to do so, and in a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics, I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else's name. The materials the Heartland Institute sent to me confirmed many of the facts in the original document, including especially their 2012 fundraising strategy and budget."
The document that Gleick allegedly "received" was in fact a fake, and significant speculation surrounds the authorship of the document. This was not well covered by the program and only mentioned in passing by the interviewee.
A fact not mentioned by Robyn Williams is that considerable evidence points to Gleick himself being the author (of the faked strategy document). The alleged motivation being to besmirch the Heartland Institute after documents he obtained illegally turned out to be rather banal. This paints the theft, or "trick" as Robyn Williams painfully describes it, in a rather different light.
While it may be factually correct to state the events as suggested by Gleick (though the source of Robyn's statement is not provided) it is remiss of The Science Show not to provide its listeners with the full facts as they are currently known. The story is highly contested and the full truth may only arise out of legal action that may yet be taken in the USA.
The report lacks accuracy as a result, and breaches ABC's editorial policy.