Maurice Newman, the former chairman of the ABC, has responded (
link) to claims by the presenter of the (UN)Science show, Robyn Williams that Newman's Opinion piece
"Losing Their Religion As Evidence Cools Off" was an example of an anti-scientific position.
".....climate prophecies need to be distant enough to make them hard to challenge yet sufficiently close to generate urgent action.
So when in 1969 Paul Ehrlich claimed because of global cooling it
was an even-money bet whether England would survive until the year 2000,
he could not immediately be proven wrong. After all, this was a cooling
period.
Unfortunately for him, England is still inhabited and
his predictions are still remembered. Ehrlich is now a warmist. Like a
good stock analyst, when the company doesn't perform as you thought,
better to change the recommendation from a sell to a buy, than admit you
were wrong."
Surely, Alarmists' prophecies like Paul Ehrlich's above are examples of an anti-scientific position.
In March 2010, when Mr Newman, then ABC Chairman, addressed ABC Journalists in a speech titled "Trust is the future of the ABC" -
Climate change is a further example of group-think where contrary views have not been tolerated
he was criticised by Christopher Warren, the Federal Secretary of the Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance who
interpreted Mr Newman’s remarks as an attempt to influence the ABC’s line on climate change.
He also had other critics:
Jonathan Holmes, the presenter of Media Watch, was so angry "he could
not concentrate". He found it an inappropriate forum for such remarks. I
was interviewed by PM and teased as to whether I was a "climate change
denier or not as obvious as that?" As a further censure, that night Tony
Jones read a statement on Lateline saying: "Tonight, ABC management
responded to Mr Newman's speech, saying it stands by the integrity of
its journalists and its processes."
Journalistic integrity?
Encouraging the leadership to achieve higher standards is to question
its integrity? Surely wanting to improve performance is an elementary
objective for any organisation, but rather than take on board the
challenges I outlined, management decided to put a distance between us.
Regular readers of this blog will be aware of the flaws in the Alarmists' propaganda and the IPCC's discredited "science."
Mr Newman finishes his latest piece:
As a taxpayer-funded organisation, the ABC shouldn't even have a view
on global warming. What it does have is a duty to all Australians to
broadcast honestly the best available evidence on both sides of the
argument so that we can make up our own minds. This is not happening.
I
retain a deep affection for the ABC. But, like the BBC, there are signs
that a small but powerful group has captured the corporation, at least
on climate change.
It is up to the board and management to rectify this.
