Sunday, 29 April 2012

Climate Change - What the ABC edited out

Rose and Minchin (ABC)
The curiously titled Australian ABC programme "I Can Change Your Mind About Climate" was seriously edited to skew toward the alarmist hoax on the man-made global warming debate.. They edited out the science from the sceptics' side and actually showed no science from the alarmists' side.

Even the panel discussion after the video was skewed. As the UK Telegraph reports:
Oddly, however, on the Q & A panel show that followed, in which, naturally, sceptics were outnumbered three to one, it (James Lovelock's recanting) barely rated a mention.
Here was the scientist hailed as the godfather of the modern environmental movement admitting that he had over-egged the pudding on global warming.
The doomsday merchant who wrote in 2006: "Billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable" has allowed the evidence to change his mind. Hallelujah.
The Global Warming Policy Foundation also reports the omission by the MSM of a startling news story, the retreat of James Lovelock:
True to form, the overwhelming majority of press outlets failed to report the juiciest global-warming gossip of the week — a change of heart on the issue by one of the world’s most celebrated environmentalists. Also true to form, the press failed to report the most profound science story of the week — a startling theory that not only absolves humans of blame in global warming but sheds light on another taboo subject: shortcomings in Darwin’s theory of evolution.
Unlike their coverage of the political establishment or the corporate establishment, journalists will rarely be skeptical of the scientific establishment. Perhaps these ­unskeptical journalists don’t question scientists out of a belief that scientists’ pronouncements are free of the self-interest that taints politicians or corporations. Or perhaps these journalists, who are themselves rarely scientifically literate, blindly accept the views of scientific authority figures because they lack the training to assess rival views. Or perhaps these journalists fear being subjected to ridicule if they buck politically correct views. Whatever the reasons for journalistic deference to dogma in science, the victim is the information-consuming public, which at best is kept in the dark, at worst is duped.

A Poll on the ABC site that was showing 55% dismissive before the programme aired was taken down and re-started from zero after the programme. It is still showing - at the time of going to blog - 52% dismissive.

There is one question which asks:

and TCS blog answered extremely important. However, their analysis came up with:

PhDs Jo Nova and David Evans were severely edited. Both were on the alarmist side until they studied the data and realised that the sceptics were right.

On the ABC's skewing, Jo writes here:
In the interview we were on a mission to show the evidence the ABC won’t show — and of course, true to form, the ABC did exactly that, and didn’t show it. As David often points out, the mainstream media have never shown this data anywhere in the world, ever, even though it is extremely relevant, from mankind’s best and latest instruments, from impeccable sources, and is publicly available. Not to mention that billions of dollars of public policies depend on getting this right either.
David corrects the record with a series of you-tube presentations.

and the second

1 comment:

  1. Our ABC our Propaganda or if you prefer Absolute Bloody Crap.


All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!