Thursday, 14 October 2010

Unbalanced Broadcasters ABC√ and BBC?

A few short months ago, chairman of the ABC, Maurice Newman, said his team had displayed a group-think on Man-made global warming (AGW) (I believe he said "climate change" but I'm sure he meant AGW)
"He warned ABC staffers that he would not tolerate anyone suppressing information, citing the fact that a BBC science correspondent knew for a month before the scandal broke of damaging emails at the University of East Anglia in Britain highlighting the politicised nature of climate science but did not report them."

NEWS WATCH (ABC) has several reports showing that his team has failed.

 Where's Aunties Vigorous climate debate

"Missing -"pseudoscientific fraud"

 

In fact, the staff retaliated from their boss and said that they had their own position on climate change. In other words, they had decided to ignore the ABC's Editorial Policy.

The Editorial Policies are freely available to all staff and understanding of it is essential for all who have editorial responsibility for ABC content.  A copy of the Editorial Policies and the ABC’s Code of Practice can be downloaded from this page.

So, Although the Chairman asked his journalarmists to adhere to the ABC's code of Practice, they not only ignored him but actually did the opposite.

Now, this week the BBC is following suit.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/8060211/BBC-told-to-ensure-balance-on-climate-change.html

That article makes a major mistake by the time it was two words into the article: Climate change
Sceptics...

It is so hard to get this point home but the history is:

1) Man- Made ( or Anthropogenic) Global Warming AGW morphed into

2) Global Warming - and when the warming stalled 

3) Climate Change.

Us- AGW Sceptics -  looked at the science of AGW and found it wanting so

1)  we were AGW sceptics;   and then the man-made was dropped so they began calling us

2)  Global Warming Sceptics -at that time, warming was still happening so we weren't GW Sceptics;

3) Climate Change:  A misnomer -we believe climate changes, their religion does not.
When Michael Mann et al produced the Hockey Stick Graph, it was an attempt to show that Climate hadn't changed for 1000 years until man started using fossil fuel. In other words, it was an attempt to show that Climate doesn't change and so the true Climate Change Sceptics are the Alarmists. The AGW sceptics bellieve that Climate Changes, that Climate has always changed.

Back to the BBC.

From the link above, we learn that the BEEB is no different from the ABC:

"The BBC has been repeatedly accused of bias in its reporting of climate change issues."

Well, we will have to wait and see if the BBC is more successful in getting even-handed reporting regarding the AGW hypothesis.

From the ABC's example, I don't think so!













Water plan is commonsense underallocated

Letter to the editor by Leon Ashby, President, The Climate Sceptics

Dear sir / madam
The Murray Darling basin plan is not scientifically sound.
Its basic assumptions on the environment are wrong. There is no CO2 caused climate change.
Rainfall and temperature vary naturally, but with floods and the Murray now flowing nicely, the rhetoric about a devastating dry future continues daily.
The planning needed by our governments is to have bigger and deeper dams built along with water diversions from Northern Australia (where 6 times the Murray Darling average flow runs out to sea each year.)
Australia's rainfall records show cyclical patterns of greater and lesser rainfall in approximately 11 year and 22 year cycles. In wetter years the Murray Darling is not overallocated.
Instead our politicians and beauracrats are commonsense underallocated. Most of them do not have minds flexible enough to find ways to solve these issues without reducing peoples water allocations and destroying small rural towns.
Blind Freddie could see we could pipe water from Lake Argyle to the Murray Darling for under $5 billion .
We could build and pipe water from a Bradfield type scheme in North Qld for under $4 billion, but instead of these ideas our leaders destroy rural communities in a $4-6 billion water buyback scheme.
Where is the sense in that? To me it looks like deliberate gradualism to destroy our primary industries.

Leon Ashby
President The Climate Sceptics