ABC's flawed DT reporting Part 2

Australian Climate Madness has an update on ABC's flawed death threat reports.
It seems the story has been updated somewhat, with the following editorial comment added to one of its stories:
UPDATE (May 21^st) The release of these emails under Freedom of Information followed reports last year that ANU scientists had received death threats. Climate change sceptics have claimed that the released emails contradict suggestions that any death threats were received, but a spokesperson for the ANU says the university is standing by its claims that death threats were received. Questions have also been raised about whether one of the released emails did, in fact, constitute a threat to use a gun, with a person involved in the kangaroo culling program claiming the comments were made by him, and were in no way intended as a threat.

We asked Alan Sunderland over the weekend (ABC's Head of News Policy) what happened to a similar story ABC posted on May 16 that also claimed:
that released emails " include an email describing a physical threat to use a gun against an academic because the conference participant reportedly disagreed with the climate change research."  (The released emails and subsequent reporting shows this is utter BS).

Here's Alan's response received this evening (Thanks Alan):

As far as I can tell, based on advice from Radio Australia, the story wasn't pulled, but it may have been affected by a technical glitch as there are currently some problems with elements of the Radio Australia redesigned site.

Certainly, the same story appears to have been posted to two different places on the Radio Australia site:-

http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/2012-05-11/climate-scientist-abuse-emails-released/941900
http://www.radioaustralianews.net.au/stories/201205/3500473.htm

The first one has been up continuously; the second one seems to have a broken link at the moment. But in one place or another, the story remained live on the RA site, as it did on our main site.

Furthermore, in the light of the ongoing controversy over elements of the details, and the contested views put forward about aspects of the story, it has now been updated to provide further information.

The fundamental point, however, remains the same: the ANU reported a year ago that it had received death threats and other abusive and/or threatening messages, and they have confirmed that they stand by this despite the release of the recent emails. 

As ACM point out it seems those "Sceptics" include privacy commissioner Timothy Pilgrim!

Score +1

Cyclone forecast a BOM

The 2011-2012 cyclone season came to a close in April. In October last year the Bureau of Meteorology issued its forecast for the 2011-2012 season. ABC provided some coverage (Here and Here)  focusing closely on forecasts for NW Australia. Here's BOM's forecast from last year:

2011-12 Australian Tropical Cyclone Season Outlook

Summary: Above average tropical cyclone activity likely for the Australian region this season

The outlook favours the following scenarios for the coming season:

• The whole Australian Region has an 80% chance of having more than the long-term average number of cyclones. The long-term average is twelve.
• The Western Region has a 65% chance of observing above average number of tropical cyclones, where the long-term average is seven.
• The North-western Sub-region has a 60% chance of above average number of tropical cyclones. The long-term average is five.
• The Northern Region has a 60% chance of above average number of tropical cyclones, where the long-term average is two or three cyclones.
• The Eastern Region has a 65% chance of observing above average number of tropical cyclones, where the long-term average is three or four.

Table 1 Forecast values for the 2011/12 Seasonal Outlook for Tropical Cyclones (TCs) for the four main tropical cyclone regions and the north western sub-region.

Region Chance of above average tropical cyclone activity Long-term average Forecast skill Australian region 80% 12 Very high Western region 65% 7 Moderate North-western sub-region 60% 5 Moderate Eastern region 65% 4 Moderate Northern region 60% 3 Low

BOM forecast the number of cyclones in all regions should have been above the long term average. It rated its forecast skill as "Very High". How did it play out???? Here's a map showing tracks of cyclones affecting the Australian region for the forecast period based on reports by the Darwin Regional Specialised Meterological Centre (links to monthly reports below).

Figure 1 Cyclone tracks for 2011-2012 cyclone season

Here's a summary table for Australia as a whole and each region:

Table 2 Actual cyclone numbers for the 2011/12 Tropical Cyclone Season. 

Region	Difference from (Average)	Reported Cyclone Numbers	Forecast skill
Australian region	-4 (12)	8	Poor
Western region	-2 (7)	5	Poor
North-western sub-region	-2 (5)	3	Poor
Eastern region	-2 (4)	2	Poor
Northern region	-2 (3)	1	Poor

Links to monthly BOM reports.

Nov 2011 No Cyclones  in Australian region (5°S-40°S, 90°E-160°E) 

Dec 2012 3 Cyclones in Australian region (5°S-40°S, 90°E-160°E) 0 NW region Alenga, Grant, Fina
Jan 2012 2 Cyclones in Australian region (5°S-40°S, 90°E-160°E) 2 NW region Heidi, Iggy
Feb 2012 1 Cyclone in Australian region (5°S-40°S, 90°E-160°E) 0 NW region Jasmine
March 2012 2 Cyclones  in Australian region (5°S-40°S, 90°E-160°E) 1 NW region Lua, Koji-Joni
April 2012 0 Cyclones  in Australian region (5°S-40°S, 90°E-160°E) 
Total for season: 8 in Australian region (5°S-40°S, 90°E-160°E) 


Seasonal forecasts are news, but the outcome of those forecasts are news also, especially when the forecast skill is so poor. For the 2011-2012 cyclone season Australia's premier meteorological institute predicted an 80% chance that cyclones would exceed the long term average (12). The actual number of cyclones (8) was 33% below the long term average. Missed it by that much!

Wikipedia also have a post HERE with similar numbers. 

ABC's flawed DT reporting

In The AUSTRALIAN  today:
ABC 'climate death threats' reports undermined

"THE accuracy of the ABC's reporting on climate change has been called into question by an activist who uncovered documentary evidence that undermines one of the national broadcaster's most sensational reports on the subject.

Climate change blogger Simon Turnill told The Weekend Australian the contents of 11 emails he uncovered using the Freedom of Information Act were at odds with last year's ABC report that death threats had been made against climate scientists at the Australian National University.

Then, when the ABC reported on the contents of those emails after they were uncovered, it did so in a manner that he regarded as being incomplete. The ABC neglected to include the key fact that there was no evidence in those emails of death threats at ANU, contrary to previous ABC reports. Mr Turnill said he was disappointed but not surprised because he believed the ABC's approach to climate change "toes the consensus line" and anyone who challenged the orthodoxy received short shrift."

MEANWHILE MORE DECEPTIVE REPORTS
Here's an example of how ABC were reporting the so called death threats this week, (this is after they were released!):
Climate scientist abuse emails released

According to the ABC the emails " include an email describing a physical threat to use a gun against an academic because the conference participant reportedly disagreed with the climate change research." 

This is Bullshit! The story has now removed from ABC's website following our request for more information, so I guess ABC agree.

We asked head of policy for news, Alan Sunderland for an explanation

Hi Alan, 

I note that the article posted on the Radio Australia website on May 16 titled "Climate scientist abuse emails released" in which claims were made (falsely) that released emails " include an email describing a physical threat to use a gun against an academic because the conference participant reportedly disagreed with the climate change research." has been removed from ABC's website. To my knowledge ABC have not provided an on air, or online correction to the false claims made in this report. Is it the ABC's intention to allow these errors to go uncorrected with no apology provided to those falsely implicated?

Can you also please explain why the article was removed and an editorial note was not simply added. I was hoping to link to the article as another example of misrepresentation by the ABC on this issue but it's no longer there.  I don't suppose you are able to provide a copy of the full text.

Regards

Marc Hendrickx

ABC NEWS WATCH

Lies of the Climate Commission Part 11

We note ABC has once again breathlessly reported on the pronouncements of our Klimate Kommissar's latest report, this one is on NSW.

Cover of the Climate Commission's latest report showing the 10 people in NSW currently supported by the state's renewable energy output. Based on the image the report also predicts a bright future for western NSW with climate change bringing forests and mountains you can ride bikes down!  It also seems Hay will one day be linked to Sydney via the worlds largest corridor! 

The report contains errors, is un-necessarily alarmist, heavily biased, contains distortions and misrepresentations, cherry picks data, fails to take historical extremes into account and relies significantly on the grey literature. Everything you would expect from a political document?

Here are some examples of the above:

Distortion Figure 2-only shows the high end of projections, why not show the full range of model outputs?

Cherry Picking: Box 2 Heat records continue to be set! The highest temperature in 2009 was 46.8 in Menindee in western NSW (site of future forests). The commission fail to state that the state's highest temperature remains 49.7 degrees in Menindee on January 10, 1939. Menindee also holds the 4th highest temperature, 48.6 degrees on 11 January 1939. The top 5 all occur prior 1973. Box 2 also describes the dreaded Nov 2009 heatwave that saw the monthly maximum temperature in Bathurst 7.8 degrees above the average. Odd that the climate commission did not mention the January 1960 heatwave (see HERE for previous discussions). This saw the average monthly temperature in Hillston for January 1960 8.1 degrees above the long term average!

Misrepresentation: Figure 6 is purported to be a bushfire in the Morton National Park. The photo is sourced from Flickr. A quick check shows the photo was taken on March 29, 2009. Note the climate commission have conveniently trimmed the photo to exclude the unburnt area across the road. It seems this photo is of a controlled burn! This was undertaken in the area by NPWS in March 2009. Why does the Climate commission show a man made fire? Bushfires did occur in Morton National Park in January of 2009, why not show a picture from that actual bushfire?

Historical extremes: Box 4 - Single storm event causes major disruption in Sydney. The Climate commission decides on 8 March 2012. Seems more severe damage done many times over by single storms in the past. Here are a few historical reports from an era when atmospheric CO2 was lower. Swamped with numerous reported storm events we just looked at a few reports in the Sydney Morning Herald between January and March 1936:
TERRIFIC STORMS. Lightning Strikes Camp. TWO MEN KILLED. Fireball Creates Havoc at Liverpool. HOUSEROOFS CARRIED AWAY.11 January 1936
STORM. WIDESPREAD AREA. Rain and Wind Havoc AFTER HOTTEST DAY. 17 January 1936
HEAT WAVE Sweeps the State. COOL CHANGE LIKELY TO-DAY.29 January 1936
THUNDERSTORM. BREAKS OVER SYDNEY. HAIL AND DRENCHING RAIN. 10 February 1936
SYDNEY STORM 11 February 1936
RAINSTORMS OVER SYDNEY. Heavy Damage. 9 March 1936
FLOODS In South Areas. BOATS IN STREETS. Blockages on Rail and Road. 16 March 1936

More cherry picking Box 5 Hunter region storms 2007. The commission reports that the 2007 storms in the Hunter Region caused 10 deaths and 6000 evacuations. Rainfall over Maitland in June that year 392.3mm (BOM Station 61388). Seems much worse has affected the Hunter when CO2 levels were lower... June 1950 554.2 mm (BOM Station 61034-about 2 km from 61388). This provided headlines such as these:
Flood Losses Estimated At Millions 28 June 1950
9,000 NOW HOMELESS IN FLOODS GREAT AREAS SUBMERGED Losses Of Stock "Enormous" 26 June 1950
"Colossal" Damage To N.S.W. Roads By Floods, Experts Say 23 June 1950
HEAVY COAL LOSS THREATENED; CESSNOCK CUT OFF 22 June 1950
MORE FLOOD REFUGEES Maitland Still Tense 21 June 1950
400 MORE FLOOD REFUGEES Warning At Maitland 20 June 1950
RACE IN FLOODS WITH DYING BABY 19 June 1950

The Climate Commission once again caught playing politics with the truth.

Update Warwick Hughes has more on the Commission's misrepresentation of the Sydney regional temperature data HERE. Extract below.

To sum up how the Climate Commission has been misleading.
[1] Shortening the Sydney trend to censor out periods warmer than they want you to know about.
[2] Failing to find the well known Richmond RAAF data – which comprehensively ruins their storyline.
[3] Leaving a large gap in their Paramatta trend circa 1978 which they should have known was concealing a peak comparable to the last few years. Keeping their storyline intact again.[4] Making all manner of scaremongering statements about heatwaves based on 1,2 & 3..

Snooze button

Taking a WEB from the blog for a while. Make sure you check out Gerard Henderson's Media Watch Dog on Fridays for regular news about the ABC.

cheers
Marc

Death threat beat up

We covered ABC's headline from June 4 2011: Death threats sent to top climate scientists in the following post: Death threats a beat up

Report in today's Australian Newspaper confirms early suspicions: Climate scientists' claims of email death threats go up in smoke
"CLAIMS that some of Australia's leading climate change scientists were subjected to death threats as part of a vicious and unrelenting email campaign have been debunked by the Privacy Commissioner."
How long will it take ABC to provide an update?

Congratulations to Simon Turnill for persisting with an FOI request that lifted the covers on these exaggerated claims. Congratulations also to the Privacy Commissioner, Timothy Pilgrim who according to The Australian "was called in to adjudicate on a Freedom of Information application in relation to Fairfax and ABC reports last June alleging that Australian National University climate change researchers were facing the ongoing campaign and had been moved to "more secure buildings" following explicit threats.
In a six-page ruling made last week, Mr Pilgrim found that 10 of 11 documents, all emails, "do not contain threats to kill" and the other "could be regarded as intimidating and at its highest perhaps alluding to a threat".

If only our own FOI requests met with similar success!



Update: The Catallaxy Files asks a tough question: The other point to consider is whether the ABC reported (ed-reporter)  read the emails before writing the story. If so, why were they reported as being death-threats and if not, why not?

Investigation 2755-The Embedded Journalist Part 3

ACMA have provided a ruling about our complaint regarding Tony Eastley's lack of objectivity and conflict of interest in an interview last year with Climate Commissioner Lesley Hughes. Eastley was employed by the climate commission last year, to MC a meeting. He did not declare this at any stage in the interview.

ACMA were unable to rule on Tony Eastley's undeclared conflict of interest related to the interview stating: 

"The complainant submitted that Mr EastIey's previous engagement, on a one-off basis as a master of ceremony, was not declared during the interview and led to a conflict of interest. This matter does not raise any issues of compliance with the Code and relates to the ABC's Editorial Policies, therefore the matter is outside the  jurisdiction."


It is in error here as ABC's Editorial Policies are the source of its Code, and therefore ACMA should be able to scrutinise ABC's Editorial Policies. ABC states: The ABC Editorial Policies set out the ABC's self-regulatory standards and how the Corporation enforces them. They are also the source for the ABC Code of Practice, which the ABC notifies to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).

It also did not uphold our complaint of bias and lack of partiality in the interview, stating:

"The ACMA notes the complainant's concerns that alternate questions could have been pursued, such as mosquito borne diseases. However, it is the ACMA‘s view that the matters covered in the interview were appropriate given the duration of the report and the nature and type of program AM purports to be (ED: a mouth piece for associates of the host). Furthermore, the ACMA considers that neither the direction of the interview nor any comments made by the interviewer represented a bias or prejudice against the interviewee, and that the presenter conducted the interview with due impartiality."

The full report should be available soon from the ACMA website (HERE).

It seems ABC's journalist are free to work for external organisations and then interview members of these organisations without bothering to inform its audience, in complete contravention of its rules regarding conflict of interest. ACMA the toothless media regulator finds this is okay!

One wonders what ACMA's response would be if Eastley had been engaged as an MC, lets say by the Heartland Institute to MC one of its climate change conferences, and he then gave a soft interview of its President? According to ACMA this would be okay as well.