Missing News: climategate 2

In their recent reply to our questions about sending Prof Stewart Franks down the memory hole the head of ABC Audience and Consumer affairs states:
"The broader story of the release of a second tranche of climate-related emails had not been covered by ABC News as it was judged less newsworthy than other events. "


Here's how the BBC covered the story:
'New release' of climate emails
A new batch of emails and other documents from the University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climatic Research Unit has been released on the internet.

Here's New Scientist:
Climategate 2: Hacked emails released

Here are some of those events that ABC considered more newsworthy, from ABC's news archive from late November 2011 (CHIEF, HOLD THE FRONT PAGE!)

Teen arrested over muck-up day pranks
By Jessica Nairn
Posted Wed Nov 23, 2011 9:09am AEDT
Police are cautioning Canberra students against potentially illegal end of year muck-up activities after the arrest of a teenager.

Clooney, Ronaldo called up in Berlusconi sex trial
Posted Wed Nov 23, 2011 11:01pm AEDT
An Italian court has ruled George Clooney and Cristiano Ronaldo can be called as witnesses in Silvio Berlusconi's trial for having sex with an underage prostitute.

Wheatley fined for third drink driving offence
By Margaret Paul
Posted Wed Nov 23, 2011 10:12am AEDT | Updated Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:15pm AEDT
Music manager Glenn Wheatley has been fined $600 and had his licence cancelled for a year, after pleading guilty to drink-driving in the Melbourne Magistrates' Court.

Work underway to eliminate traffic blackspot
Posted Wed Nov 23, 2011 9:54am AEDT | Updated Wed Nov 23, 2011 10:07am AEDT
Work on a new bridge and earthworks have begun as part of a major upgrade to eliminate a traffic blackspot on the New South Wales far south coast.

Students want council to buy old backpacker site
By Allyson Horn
Posted Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:46pm AEDT
A group of Alice Springs high school students is petitioning the Town Council to buy the Melanka's site and turn it into a community park.

Missing News: Memory Hole and Climategate two

ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs provide the following response regarding their defamatory description of Professor Stewart Franks (see Sending Franks down the memory hole) and in doing so admit to missing one of the biggest news stories of 2011.

Received from ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs 17/2/2012
I refer to your email of 15 February 2012 regarding an item published on ABC News's Corrections and Clarifications page.  You complained that the item was highly defamatory and inaccurate.  Claims of defamation are outside the remit of Audience and Consumer Affairs; if you wish to pursue this matter you will need to direct your correspondence to ABC Legal.  My response below is confined to your complaint of inaccuracy.
On receipt of your complaint, ABC News agreed that the original correction had been poorly worded and should be changed.  The correction was amended, both in relation to the views of the professor and the basis for removal of the original story.  In view of this prompt and appropriate action, I regard this matter as resolved.
You also asked why the article was not amended rather than removed.  The story was the work of the ABC's Newcastle newsroom, who covered it on the basis that it provided an interesting local angle on an international story, ie the leaked or hacked climate emails. However, as it turns out, having covered the so-called 'climate-gate' emails when the first tranche of emails was disclosed in 2009, ABC News did not return to the international story in late 2011 as other competing stories were judged more deserving of coverage.  This unfortunately left the Newcastle story to stand alone.  By the time ABC News had their attention directed to the story in late January 2012, the news agenda had moved on.  ABC News concluded that removal of the story was the appropriate course of action in these circumstances.
The ABC is satisfied that no further action on this matter is warranted.
Yours sincerely,
Head, Audience and Consumer Affairs


ABC NEWS WATCH respond

K,
Thanks for your prompt response and correcting the slander. I have forwarded it on to Professor Franks.

The reasons you provide for the story's removal however are unsatisfactory. Which matters were judged more deserving? Can ABC News provide some examples.

Regards
Marc

Reply from ABC

Dear Mr Hendrickx,
A broad sample of the stories covered by ABC News at that time is available on the ABC website.

Yours sincerely,
Head, Audience and Consumer Affairs

We attempted to look over ABC's News archive for late November 2011, but unfortunately it's currently not providing any links - we let them know.

The corrected correction reads as follows:

Climate emails

Posted Fri Jan 20, 2012 3:15pm AEDT | Updated Thu Feb 16, 2012 10:12am AEDT

ABC Newcastle: This story published on December 5 was removed because it was in breach of ABC editorial requirements. The story reported that a Newcastle University professor who questions aspects of climate change science felt vindicated that leaked scientific emails “showed fundamental flaws in the methodology” of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  These were not balanced by other views on this subject and the article did not associate the leaked emails with the Climategate emails of 2009.

ABC's explanation above indicates ABC entirely missed one of the major stories of 2011. Given the article apparently represents ABC's only news coverage of climategate2 we have suggested ABC's reluctance to salvage the article is due to bias. 

Sent to ABC:

Looking over your response once more I hardly think ABC's poor reporting should be the cause for removing the article from ABC's archive. Based on your statement below "ABC News did not return to the international story in

late 2011" It seems this story constituted the entirety of ABC's coverage of the second batch of climategate emails. 

As I pointed out in my complaint ABC have previously "salvaged" news articles that were initially not up to standard. See the polar bear report from 2009 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-12-05/climate-change-drives-polar-bears-to-cannibalism/1170372 (see also HERE). Given the high profile nature of the climategate story, its absence otherwise from ABC's news coverage and the previous precedents of ABC News salvaging articles; the only reason I can think of for ABC's reluctance to undertake this task is one of bias, and this a charge I now make. 

As this is a new complaint I ask ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs to investigate the matter.


Update: Off to ACMA we go:


From ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs, 20/2/2011:

My original response to you explained why the story you referred to was removed rather than updated.  The broader story of the release of a second tranche of climate-related emails had not been covered by ABC News as it was judged less newsworthy than other events.  This is a legitimate decision for a news organisation to make; it does not provide prima facie evidence of bias.  As I have already addressed the substance of your complaint, I decline to investigate this matter further.

I have also seen your additional complaint (C6535-12) referring to the News Archive for 2011.  I have not been able to replicate your experience of broken links and suggest you try the site again.

Yours sincerely,

Head, Audience and Consumer Affairs

Oh, score Plus 1

A wake up call at The Conversation

ABC affiliate The Conversation have posted an article by climate commissioner Lesley Hughes titled "Australians can’t ignore the health impacts of climate change".

I added the following comment...

In the climate commission's latest report I note that the section on mosquito borne diseases does not reference the work of epidemiologist Paul Reiter. Wonder why? Perhaps Lesley Hughes or co-author Tony McMichael would care to explain.

Here's Paul's background from wiki...
Paul Reiter is a professor of medical entomology at the Pasteur Institute in the city of Paris[citation needed], France. He is a member of the World Health Organization Expert Advisory Committee on Vector Biology and Control[citation needed]. He was an employee of the Center for Disease Control (Dengue Branch) for 22 years[citation needed]. He is a Fellow of the Royal Entomological Society[citation needed]. He is a specialist in the natural history, epidemiology and control of mosquito-borne diseases such as dengue fever, West Nile Virus, and malaria.[1]

Lesley's co-author Tony McMichael had this to say about Paul in one of the recently released climategate emails dating from 2002. To Mike Hulme...

Mike,
You've probably already had colourful comment from Sari and Jonathan. Paul Reiter is, in my view, smart, confrontative and inflexible. He has been leading the charge of the (mostly US) professionally-affronted field epidemiologists, who think:
1. That if IPCC says that climate change is likely to affect VBD transmissibility, then it is also saying that this is happening already; and
2. That if climate is invoked as a causal influence, then it seems that the silly IPCC epidemiologists don't understand that there are a few other influences that are more important.
Paul's documentation that, historically, malaria was often more serious in Europe during relatively cooler times is very interesting - but is essentially irrelevant for the second reason above. Those historical times also coincided with other major shifts in social, economic, nutritional and political circumstances.
Well, it helps to keep us on our toes.
Tony

For the context see the rest of this email http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/4931.txt, and the civil email from Reiter to Hulme that prompted the response.
http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/3691.txt

Based on the omission of Paul Reiter's work from the commission's report it seems the so called consensus being promulgated by the climate commission has little to do with scientific evidence and more to do with maintaining Groupthinking networks, ego and undeserved reputations. Lesley Hughes suggests the report is a wake up call, I think Richard Feynman would have called it Cargo cult science.

Lies of the Climate Commission part 9-the cargo cult continues

The government's climate propaganda unit, its climate commission, has released a new report on the Health Impacts of Climate Change.
The report was written by Lesley Hughes and epidemiologist Tony McMichael and reviewed by the Commission's uncritical reviewers.

Tony McMichael features in a Climate gate email exchange (see below) with Mike Hulme commenting about the work of respected epidemiologist Paul Reiter. According to his Wikipedia entry Paul Reiter is a specialist in the natural history, epidemiology and control of mosquito-borne diseases such as dengue fever, West Nile Virus, and malaria. He has been critical of the IPCC process. In a 2005 statement to the UK Select Committee on Economic Affairs Reiter outlined problems with the IPCC health assessments and concluded: The natural history of mosquito-borne diseases is complex, and the interplay of climate, ecology, mosquito biology, and many other factors defies simplistic analysis. The recent resurgence of many of these diseases is a major cause for concern, but it is facile to attribute this resurgence to climate change, or to use models based on temperature to "predict" future prevalence. In my opinion, the IPCC has done a disservice to society by relying on "experts" who have little or no knowledge of the subject, and allowing them to make authoritative pronouncements that are not based on sound science. In truth, the principal determinants of transmission of malaria and many other mosquito-borne diseases are politics, economics and human activities. A creative and organized application of resources is urgently required to control these diseases, regardless of future climate change. 
Despite his expertise, surprisingly no work by Reiter was cited in the climate commission's  report on Climate change and health. The commission has presented only one side of a complex argument.
The lies of omission are the greatest lies of all. The commission's report is another example of cargo cult science in action. It is clear that the commission has no intention of fulfilling its charter to Explain the science of climate change and the impacts on Australia. It is purely a political body. I have no doubt the ABC in its coverage of this report will once again fail in their duty to ask the hard questions.

From the Climategate emails (note I have trimmed the email addresses and phone numbers)
http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/4931.txt

cc: 
date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 04:23:10 +1000
from: "Tony McMichael" 
subject: RIF: Paul Reiter
to: "Mike Hulme" , "Sari Kovats" 

Mike,
 
You've probably already had colourful comment from Sari and Jonathan.  Paul Reiter is, in my view, smart, confrontative and inflexible. He has been leading the charge of the (mostly US) professionally-affronted field epidemiologists, who think:
 
1. That if IPCC says that climate change is likely to affect VBD transmissibility, then it is also saying that this is happening already; and
 
2. That if climate is invoked as a causal influence, then it seems that the silly IPCC epidemiologists don't understand that there are a few other influences that are more important.
 
Paul's documentation that, historically, malaria was often more serious in Europe during relatively cooler times is very interesting - but is essentially irrelevant for the second reason above. Those historical times also coincided with other major shifts in social, economic, nutritional and political circumstances.
 
Well, it helps to keep us on our toes.
 
Tony
 -----Messaggio originale----- 
 Da: Mike Hulme [mailto:m.hulme@xxx.xx.xx] 
 Inviato: ven 21/06/2002 1.25 
 A: Tony McMichael; patz@xxx.xx.xx; Sari Kovats 
 Cc: 
 Oggetto: Paul Reiter
Tony, Jonathan, Sari,
 
 I engaged in robust conversation with Paul Reiter last night at an
 Institute of Ideas debate on climate change - he is clearly very unhappy
 about the IPCC health chapter and contributed to the public debate a rather
 dismissive comment about IPCC in general as a process of 'citizens science'.
 I've not come cross the guy before.  Is there something I need to know?

 Mike

Hulme's inquiry followed this email from Paul Reiter that explains some issues related to human health and climate change (note the difference in tone from Reiter). 

http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/3691.txt
date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 15:33:49 -0400
from: Paul Reiter 
subject: Climate change and mosquitoborne disease
to: m.hulme@xxx.xx.xx
Dear Mike,

Enjoyed meeting you last week.

Attached are a couple of papers I mentioned.  The review in 
Environmental Health Perspectives is the most comprehensive.

As an example of the sort of thing I tried to explain to you, try the 
paper by Harvell in Science, June 21.  I have never heard of any of 
the authors, yet they write with authority on dengue and malaria.

I ran the bit on bird malaria past my Director, Duane Gubler. He 
worked on bird malaria in Hawaii in the 1960s.  Even then it was a 
major cause of death in wild birds.  He agreed: there is no reason to 
believe that climate change has been relevant in recent years.

Then there is the bit in the Conclusions: The most detectable effects 
of directional climate warming on disease relate to geographic range 
expansion of pathogens such as Rift Valley fever, dengue ...

I assure you, there is absolutely no evidence for either.  RVF shows 
no change in range.  Pandemics of dengue (and yellow fever) were once 
common in the USA and Europe.  The first epidemic of dengue ever 
described was in Pennsylvania in 1780 (it was colder then!) and the 
disease occurred as far north as Boston.  YF has been transmitted in 
Dublin and Swansea.  Dengue has expanded in range since the 
1950s-60s, when there was a major effort to eliminate the vector by 
DDT treatments.  As the vector has returned, so has the virus.

So, as I tried to explain, in my field there is a lamentable 
dissemination of unsubstantiated statements that are not supported by 
any observations.

In answer to your questions re the IPCC: I dont make comments on the 
climatology, but if the statements are in any way of the same ilk as 
those in my field, then I think the situation is lamentable.

Hope we get a chance to discuss some more.

Best wishes

Paul

Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Reiter_clim_chge_mos_dis.PDF"

Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Shakespeare.pdf"
_________________________________
Paul Reiter
CDC West Nile Project
Harvard School of Public Health
_________________________________

McMichael reveals his political leanings as he responds to a request to lobby the Australian Government about the IPCC head.

http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/0453.txt

date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 18:37:24 +1000
from: "Tony McMichael" 
subject: RE: Bob Watson
to: "Mike Hulme" , "Andy Haines" 

Andy and Mike,

I plan to speak with Ian Noble about this this evening. Ian has good political connections here (but remember, ours is routinely the first government to endorse whatever Bush says/does on climate change!). 

I will be meeting with the Acting Director of the Australian Greenhouse Office next week, and will explore a bit further.

Tony 

Prof. A.J. McMichael
Director, National Centre for Epidemiology & Population Health
Australian National University
Canberra
ACT 0200
AUSTRALIA
Website: http://nceph.anu.edu.au/


-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Hulme [mailto:m.hulme@xxx.xx.xx]
Sent: 08 April, 2002 6:33 PM
To: Andy Haines; Tony McMichael
Subject: Re: Bob Watson


Andy/Tony,

I have followed the news, and seen a copy of the February 2001 memo from 
Exxon to Bush that started this thing rolling.

I take a rather relaxed view of this.  Watson does not have an unalienable 
right to chair IPCC and a change may be good anyway.  Pauchari from TERI in 
India, anyway, seems unlikely to me to 'let USA off the hook'.  The 
upsetting thing of course is the lobbying by Exxon and the giving way to it 
by Bush, but we have known this all along is a problem with the Bush 
administration.

Susan Solomon who is likely to end up chairing WGI from the USA is a top 
quality scientist and will let the 'science speak loud and clear' I believe.

The outcome of all this should be known after the Geneva Plenary in 10 days 
time.

All the best,

Mike


At 19:56 05/04/02 +0100, Andy Haines wrote:
>Dear both,
>
>You will no doubt have seen the news about the intention of the Bush
>administration not to support Bob in his role as chair of IPCC
>apparently as a result of lobbying by Exxon Mobil. Tony , can you lobby
>the Australian govt and major scientific bodies in Australia to express
>their concern about and opposition to this action? Mike , I will contact
>Ian Gibson and Robert May but you may have other suggestions
>
>
>Regards
>
>Andy

Missing News: Climategate 2.0

We wonder if ABC will provide any substantive coverage this time around, they  largely missed the first installment.
See
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0/

Mainstream coverage via BBC:

'New release' of climate emails 

ABC's climategate

Gavin Atkins look at ABC's failure to cover the CRU email scandal:
How Australia's ABC missed Climategate

"But, astonishingly, what was quite possibly the biggest story of 2009 was not reported at all on the main 7pm bulletin of the ABC television news."

Whitewashing the whitewash

Update: Reply received 9 June 2010 -see below
ABC HEADLINE:  "Second inquiry clears Climategate scientists" ABC online 15 April,2010
ABC REPORTED: ABC post a Reuters report ("Inquiry clears climate scientists in email row") about results of the Oxburgh Inquiry into British Climate Scientists from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. The first sentence is changed to begin with "Another inquiry..."
THE COMPLAINT: Section 5.2.2 (f) of ABC's Editorial Policy states: Be questioning. Serve the public interest by investigating issues affecting society and individuals.
ABC has failed in its duty to serve the public interest in its coverage of the Oxburgh Inquiry by not reporting on:
1. Affiliations of members of the Assessment Panel that are indicative of strong conflict of interest.
Chair: Prof Ron Oxburgh FRS (Lord Oxburgh of Liverpool): Honorary President of the UK Carbon Capture and Storage Association  and member of Climate Change Capitals advisory board. Lord Oxburgh has stated: "You can't slip a piece of paper between David King [the government's chief science adviser who said climate change was a bigger threat than terrorism] and me on this position." Guardian 17 June, 2004.
Prof Kerry Emanuel, Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Co-author on a paper with Climategate scientist Michael Mann.
Prof Lisa Graumlich, University of Arizona. Co-author of a paper with Malcolm Hughes published in the proceedings of a NATO workshop – edited by Phil Jones, whose scientific output was the subject of the panel's inquiry. Malcolm Hughes has published with Michael Mann and Phil Jones (Mann, M.E.,Raymond S. Bradley, Malcolm K. Hughes, and Philip D. Jones (1998). "Global Temperature Patterns". Science 280: 2027.)


2. Content of the report compared to the aims of the inquiry, which were to provide "an independent assessment of CRU's key publications in the areas which have been most subject to comment." (CRU press release 22 March, 2010). The list of references is just 11 CRU papers, five on tree rings, six on CRUTEM. Notably missing from the “sample” are key papers on 1000-year reconstructions: for instance:

Jones, P. D., K. R. Briffa, T. P. Barnett, and S. F. B. Tett, High-resolution palaeclimatic records for the last millennium: Interpretation, integration and camparison with General Circulation Model control-run temperatures, The Holocene, 8, 455– 471, 1998. 

Mann M. E. and Jones, P. D., 2003. Global surface temperatures over the past two millennia GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 30, NO. 15, 1820, doi:10.1029/2003GL017814, 2003 

Jones and Mann 2004.

Mann M. E. and Jones, P. D., 2004.CLIMATE OVER PAST MILLENNIA. Reviews of Geophysics, 42

As Steve McIntyre indicates:
Update 9.40 am. The Daily Telegraph reports:
"Professor Hand did say that “inappropriate methods” were used by a separate university to draw up the infamous “hockey stick” graph showing the rise in global temperatures over more than 1,000 years."
Uh, memo to Oxburgh. CRU produced its own hockey stick graphs in Jones et al 1998, Mann and Jones 2003, for example. For some reason, Oxburgh and his associates regrettably neglected to consider these articles.

3. No analysis of the reports brevity (5 pages) or speed of production: 3 weeks from announcement to report; and whether this constitutes an appropriate response to the serious allegations raised by the Climategate emails or a "Whitewash".

4. Failure to elaborate on criticism in the report about the Unit's handling of statistics made by Prof David Hand,for instance as reported by New Scientist.

The report fails to live up to ABC's commitment for quality journalism.


Here's how the UK Telegraph covered the same story:  'Hockey stick' graph was exaggerated
with commentary by Gerard Warner "Climategate: CRU whiter than – er – whitewash, as world laughs at AGW scam apologists"

OUTCOME:reply received 9 June 2010

Thank you for your email of 15 April concerning the ABC News Online story “Second inquiry clears Climategate scientists”, published that day. Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding.

In keeping with ABC complaint handling procedures, your concerns have been considered by Audience and Consumer Affairs, a unit separate to and independent from ABC program areas. In light of your concerns, we have assessed the story against provision 5.2.2(f) of the ABC’s Editorial Policies, which requires staff be questioning in news and current affairs content and serve the public interest by investigating issues affecting society and individuals. In the interests of procedural fairness, we have also sought and considered material from ABC News.

The story in question highlighted the fact that the inquiry set up by University of East Anglia to investigate the methods used by the Climatic Research Unit had cleared the Unit of wrongdoing, finding no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice. The story also reported that the inquiry had been critical of the way the Unit had handled statistics and recommended that it work with professional statisticians in future. Criticism of the inquiry was also cited, with the inclusion of comments from the Director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, Dr Benny Peiser, who described the inquiry as “rushed and superficial” and suggested the panel had not done a proper job.

ABC News have advised that they considered the focus of the story, which was from wire agency partner Reuters, to be newsworthy and in the public interest. They note that one of the main allegations made against the Climatic Research Unit was the dishonest use of scientific data; accordingly, ABC News consider it was reasonable for this aspect to be highlighted in a story that focussed on the inquiry panel’s findings. This matter was itself highlighted in both the introduction and conclusion of the panel’s report: http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/SAP.

ABC News does acknowledge that the story could have provided some details about the credentials of those appointed to the panel, and the range of reports and publications considered by the inquiry. However, they do not consider that, in the context of a story that focussed on the report’s findings, this was absolutely necessary or constituted a serious omission. Instead, ABC News believe the story presented a fair account of the panel’s findings, as outlined in its report dated 12 April, and some of the criticisms of the inquiry made by others.

In respect to the other coverage of the story to which you refer, ABC News acknowledges that the UK’s Telegraph newspaper chose to highlight a different aspect of the story, concentrating on the panel’s criticism of the Unit’s use of statistical tools and methods. ABC News appreciate that this is also a legitimate line of coverage, and believes this demonstrates that different journalists will focus on different news points in the same story. As noted above, the panel’s criticisms of the Unit’s statistical methodology was mentioned in the story published by the ABC.

You also refer to articles published online by the Telegraph newspaper and New Scientist magazine that reported on criticisms expressed by Professor David Hand about papers by other parties, including a 1998 paper by Professor Mann of Pennsylvania State University that included the “hockey stick” graph. This was not part of the inquiry or panel report about the Climatic Research Unit to which the ABC story pertained. Accordingly, ABC News do not consider it was necessary or relevant to mention in the story.

The other articles to which you refer, by Telegraph commentator Gerald Warner and the Global Warming Policy Foundation’s Stephen McIntyre, were online blog entries providing commentary and opinion on the story rather than news reportage. Again, we note that the ABC’s online news story in question included comments critical of the inquiry, including those of the Global Warming Policy Foundation’s Director, Dr Peiser.

On review, Audience and Consumer Affairs are satisfied that the ABC News Online story, “Second inquiry clears Climategate scientists”, was in keeping with the relevant ABC editorial standards. We believe the story was newsworthy and provided a fair and accurate account of the inquiry panel’s findings, which was the focus of the story. While we note you believe other aspects of the story, or related matters covered by other media outlets, should have been included, we cannot agree that their omission constituted a breach of provision 5.2.2(f) of the ABC’s Editorial Policies. Nonetheless, please be assured that your comments have been noted by ABC News.

Finally, it is worth noting that ABC News Online is not a dedicated climate change journal, but a general news services. While ABC News Online endeavours to provide coverage of climate change on a newsworthy basis, this does not mean, nor require, that all stories or perspectives will be reported. As you may appreciate, coverage and publications presented by other outlets and organisations, particularly those with specialist interests and audiences such as New Scientist and the Global Warming Policy Foundation, would no doubt reflect their editorial scope and focus.

Thank you again for taking the time to write. For your reference, copies of the ABC’s Code of Practice and Editorial Policies are available at: http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/charter.htm.

Yours sincerely

Audience & Consumer Affairs

COMMENT: Lack of questioning by the media assists in whitewashing the whitewash.

ABC claims CLIMATEGATE emails were leaked

Updated 18/3/2010-reply received from ABC-see below-see also UPDATE


ABC HEADLINE: "Climate Science alive and well, say experts" posted on ABC online February 21, 2010


ABC REPORTED: ABC reported (no reporter credit provided) on comments by a number of scientists on the current state of climate science following the identification of errors in key IPCC reports and revelations contained in emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. The report mentioned:


"Climate change sceptics seized on a leak of thousands of emails and other documents from researchers at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Britain, which appeared to show scientists saying global warming was not as serious as previously thought."


THE COMPLAINT: ABC NEWS WATCH understands the investigation into the release of emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia is still in progress (see HERE for example) and it is not yet possible to confirm that the emails were "leaked". If ABC have inside information that suggests the emails were indeed "leaked" and not hacked perhaps they should pass it on to the relevant authorities.


OUTCOME: Reply received 18/3/2010

Thank you for your email regarding the ABC News online report Climate science alive and well, say experts.

Your concerns have been investigated by Audience and Consumer Affairs, a unit which is separate to and independent of program making areas within the ABC.  We have reviewed the broadcast, assessed it against the ABC’s editorial standards and sought and considered material provided by ABC News. 

Audience and Consumer Affairs is satisfied that the use of the word “leaked” to describe the dissemination of the emails is accurate and in keeping with section 5.2.2(c) of the ABC Editorial Policies.  Whether or not the police investigation concludes that the email system was hacked, it is a fact that the emails were leaked without the authors’ knowledge or consent.

Your comments have been noted.

COMMENT: Use of the adjective "alleged" in cases where the facts are unknown can help reduce misleading statements. 
ABC Editorial Policy 5.2.2: Staff must also observe the following principles:
(a) The ABC takes no editorial stand in its programming.
(b) Avoid conflicts of interest.
(c) Be accurate.
(i) Every reasonable effort, in the circumstances, must be made to
ensure that the factual content of news and current affairs is accurate
and in context.
(ii) The ABC will not hesitate to admit and correct a significant error when
it is established that one has been made. When a correction is
necessary, it will be made in an appropriate manner as soon as
reasonably practicable.

Jones' BBC Interview missing in action-reports no warming since 1995

UPDATE 22/3/2010 see outcome below and comments HERE
ABC'S MISSING HEADLINE: 'CLIMATEGATE' expert Jones says Medieval Warm Period debate not settled", or "UEA climate scientist, Phil Jones, admits current warming is not unprecedented". "Climate scientists claims no statistically significant warming since 1995"


Here is the BBC headline from 13/2/2010: 'Climategate expert Jones says data not well organised'


ABC DID NOT REPORT: As of 14/2/2010 7:45 am ABC has not reported on the BBC interview with University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit Director Dr Phil Jones. The interview was conducted by the BBC's environment analyst  Roger Harrabin.  Dr Jones is at the centre of the 'Climategate' scandal in which over 1000 emails and numerous data files and reports were leaked (or hacked) and posted on the internet in November 2009. The BBC report of the interview can be found HERE, and the interview questions and Dr Jones' response can be found HERE. Dr Jones makes several revelations regarding climate science including: No statistically significant warming since 1995.
Debate over Medieval Warm Period not settled.
The rates of warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were statistically identical 
Cooling from January 2002 is not statistically significant but has occurred (-0.12C per decade)
Says the debate is not over!


THE COMPLAINT: ABC claims to be Australia's most trusted, independent source of news. News should be reported in a timely manner. Why has this report not been reported on? If by the time this complaint is received a report has been made, why did the ABC take so long to report on it? 
Can the ABC please provide a report on this important interview so Australian audiences without access to BBC can be informed of the significant revelations in Dr Jones' interview. 


OUTCOME: 22/3/2010:

Thank you for your emails of 14 February and 17 March 2010.

Section 5.2.2(d) of the ABC Editorial Policies states that editorial judgements are based on news values.   What is, or is not, considered newsworthy is a decision made at the discretion of ABC News editorial managers, based on their considerable editorial experience.

ABC News Online is not a specialist website reporting only on the topic of climate science and not every development or aspect of the issue will be reported on the site.  ABC News editorial managers will continue to assess stories on this subject on their merits.

The ABC Editorial Policies are available online at the attached link; http://abc.net.au/corp/pubs/edpols.htm

Please be assured that your comments have been duly noted.


COMMENT: News is only News for so long. Non reporting of certain news items can be considered as bias.