Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt has got the science on climate change wrong before. For instance, back in 2006, Jeff Severinghaus, Professor of Geosciences at the University of California, San Diego told Crikey “At the very least I would like it to go on record that Bolt’s abuse of my science is not done with my approval.”
But that didn’t stop Lateline from giving him air time on the subject last night.
Contained in the Lateline report about the hacked emails that were nicked from the Climatic Research Unit of the UK’s University of East Anglia last week and spread all about the web was Bolt’s take on what it all meant:
“Obviously some of the world’s top climate scientist, ones most involved in developing this theory, involved in a massive collusion stretching from America to Britain in trying dodge, fiddle with data, destroy data when others try to check it, sceptics try to check it,” says Bolt.
Here’s a snippet of Bolt’s measured comments from the many posts he’s devoted to the subject on his blog, which is presumably why Lateline felt him qualified to represent the ‘sceptics’ :
Surely these emails can’t be genuine. Surely the world’s most prominent alarmist scientists aren’t secretly exchanging emails like this, admitting privately they can’t find the warming they’ve been so loudly predicting?…
This has to be a forgery, surely. Because if it isn’t, we’re about to see the unpicking of a huge scandal.
Feel the drool.
Apparently the producers of Lateline thought it fitting to give this kind of considered commentary oxygen.
This kind of thing has been labelled the bias of balance (thanks @Lumo) by some: an overcorrection of sorts in which pundits are given airtime simply because they represent an opposing view, not because they know what they’re talking about.
Ross Gelbspan spent 31-years as a reporter and editor. He argues in his books The Heat Is On and Boiling Point that a “failed application of the ethical standard of balanced reporting on issues of fact has contributed to inadequate U.S. press coverage of global warming.”
An item dating back to 2004 on the Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) website acknowledges that the journalistic norm of balanced reporting is considered one of the traditional pillars of good journalism. But:
“By giving equal time to opposing views, the major mainstream newspapers significantly downplayed scientific understanding of the role humans play in global warming. Certainly there is a need to represent multiple viewpoints, but when generally agreed-upon scientific findings are presented side-by-side with the viewpoints of a handful of skeptics, readers are poorly served.”
What’s the internal directive for ABC staffers when it comes to reporting climate science and the politics of climate science? Is it to commission well informed experts on the subject, or to pursue the secret ingredient of news that journalists are taught to seek out: conflict? Because that might work for politics, but it doesn’t work for science.
There IS a distinction between reporting the science of climate change, and commenting on the politics of it. Everyone is entitled to an opinion on that, however unqualified it is, and Bolt’s theory on the significance of these emails is a point of view that shouldn’t be censored.
But if Lateline is seeking to shed light on the issue, that won’t achieve it by interviewing Bolt.
Climate science is neither left wing or right wing. There’s no pro or anti in this discussion, and the reportage surrounding it has to dig deeper and think more intelligently. None of us are climate scientists, but that doesn’t mean we can get away with relying on soundbites.
Airing the Great Global Warming Swindle was a low point for the ABC’s coverage of climate science. Can we please move on?
32 Comments
What a classic no shame leftist rant.
A criticism of Lateline ………..from the left!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Onya Soph!
Jamesk , have you forgot to take those red tablets again ?
James only ever takes the blue pill.
Soph, have you taken a look at the overwhelming public response against this ETS? This is not just about Andrew Bolt. Almost every other columnist/journalist has been saying conflicting things about this ETS because we have ALL been feed a pack of lies.
Andrew Bolt alone is not able to generate the outrage that is being expressed in the Australian community over this complete farce that is being forced on us.
The Rudd labor government has kept the details and the truth about the ETS and associated matters very secret and has repeatedly refused to provide details or to answer direct questions when confronted. He has made a complete mockery of anyone who tries to challenge him on these issues. He and his cohorts have repeatedly thrown statistics at us but won’t enter into a public debate or provide anyone with answers to the conflicting data that is being presented.
Now he is trying to bribe and FORCE the ETS through parliament (so is Malcolm Turnbull) without any regard for public opinion or without offering any explanation to the public who are very angry and up in arms over the whole matter.
It is Kevin Rudds responsibility to be transparent and honest with the Australian public but he completely avoids doing so.
This ETS is only part of a much bigger and far more sinister plan to merge Australia with the emerging European Union Government who are now stating openly that they will be the One World Government. Communism!!
NOTE: AUSTRALIAS MINERALS AND RESOURCES ARE A VERY VALUABLE COMODITY ON THE WORLD MARKET AND THAT’S ONE OF THE THINGS THE EU WANT TO COMPLETELY CONTROL.
If you don’t believe me, get on the European Union’s website and listen to the recently appointed (NOT ELECTED) EU president’s, Herman Von Rompuy’s acceptance speech. He was appointed this month on the 19/11/2009.
The Copenhagen treaty to be held early in December 2009 is to ratify the Lisbon Treaty. This is why Kevin Rudd is pushing so hard to get this ETS happening and to enable him to sign Australia’s right to control their own domestic issues over to this One World Government. Even if things aren’t resolved at Copenhagen there is talk that the EU will meet again at a later date to deal with this issue.
Before you criticise what I am saying, do your homework. This is REALLY happening.
Also very interesting to listen to: Lord Monckton’s talk on climate change, historic interview with Aaron Russo.
What an absurd argument Sophie. One of the primary defences for climate scientists who have been “wrong” on the effects of climate change is that the data is always changing – so why is Bolt singled out for special attention for one “error” three years ago when other scientists repeatedly make spectacular blunders without left-wing criticism? One only has to look at the amount of Lateline airtime that is given to professsional fear monger Tim Flannery despite making some absolute howlers eg Adelaide’s dams would be empty by 2009 (they are compeletely full), Sydney’s by 2007 (two-thirds full), the ice caps are melting so fast that the seas would lap the roofs of “an eight-storey building” (the IPCC says at worst the seas will rise this century by 59cm) etc etc etc…
Where is the criticism of Flannery’s regular Lateline appearanes? Some of the balance you preach would be nice, Sophie.
JamesK, typical whining whingey right wing nutjob..just like the fruitcakes that post on the mediawatch forum pretending they’ve never seen a self-critical segment on the ABC itself. Bolt is directly responsible for these dingbats. They see something that makes their political goggles uncomfortable and start whining like little babies. waaah
Sophie
Absolutely spot on. To ‘balance’ Bolt you would need the equivalent of some raving neo marxist lunatic in army fatigues and red beret. The fact that crazies like Bolt get mainstream media oxygen is testimony to how unhealthily to the right we have drifted and how hopelessly spineless the ABC have become following 12 years of political abuse from Howard and his cronies. The fact that Bolt and Ackerman regularly get the ‘special chair’ on the insiders is testimony enough to that. In a more civilised society he’d be confined to standing on a soap box in a park spraying spit at the pigeons..
Let Bolt rant on about post modernism and political correctness and all those other eye popping obsessions of his, its vaguely comical… but don’t let him near vitally important matters like global warming where some kind of cursory adherence to the facts are vital.
I thought the same. I don’t know if the emails are real or not but for lateline to wheel out Bolt and then have Tim Flannery on alone and uncontested seemed a waste, either investigate and report or don’t. I thought the producers from 3AW had taken over with the softballs. “Here’s a bad example of the opposition to our arguement and just in case you still aren’t convinced here’s our guy to lecture unopposed.”
Heathdon, is it just me or does it look like someone has been feeding happy pills to Flannery? He seems overly optimistic and happy for a bloke that said Australia can’t sustain a population of over 12 million… Kruddy still hard at work putting his opponents in pocket?
Regarding the article, I think it raises a very vaild point, surely the public deserves the right to both sides of an argument but can’t they do a bit better than the likes of Bolt?
“…simply because they represent an opposing view, not because they know what they’re talking about…”
Remind us again ‘Sophie’ of Tim Flannery’s qualifications in discussing Climate Science?
I’m sure his signifcant shareholding in Geodynamics makes him a neutral conversant on alternative energy issues too.
“…Airing the Great Global Warming Swindle was a low point for the ABC’s coverage of climate science…?
You’ve just contradicted yourself. Well done.
Why is Al Gore’s factually misleading and shrill ‘documentary’ allowed to be discussed at length – and without contest – on the national broadcaster but TGGWS -which contained commentary from respected climate scientists is dismissed as a ‘low point’?
Someone one once wrote that if all the idiots in the world had wings the sky would be black. The climate debate proves it.
Its now so wrought with the psycho pathologies, tortured logic and loopy political conspiracy theories of the great unhinged that its almost comical. Despite all the scientific evidence on the table supporting man made climate change, we just get a continual recycled parade of the same old slack jawed simpleton rubbish from the ‘sceptics’.
Dear challenged folk – there is no debate in the scientific community when 98% of all climate scientists believe in the one thing. Do you think that indicates something, has the whole scientific discipline been infiltrated by a one world government cable as julieh so sadly rants or do you think it more likely that you’re a neuron or two short in the thinking department. God spare us!
MDM,
You’re right, flannery’s qualifications are about on par with Ian Plimer’s, and he makes some mistakes because of that.
But compared to you and your ignorant ravings he’s a sage.
@Sean
Before Colombus how many of the experts thought the world was flat? More than 98%? Where did you get the 98%? Or is that just a number pulled out of the ether to make you believe your as smart as you think you are? If you are so sure then argue with facts and not names or assumptions please.
perhaps one as intelligent as yourself meant cabal?
The delusionists among you need to understand that the Copenhagen Diagnosis (http://copenhagendiagnosis.org/executive_summary.html) published today shows how current climate observations are generally tracking towards the worst case scenarios arising from the IPCC models.
It’s hard to argue against that without exposing yourself as a paranoid nutjob with a political agenda.
Sigh. The email hack is a total beat-up based on a context-less misunderstanding of informal personal communications.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack-context/
http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2009/11/fighting-bad-science.html
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/hack/
Thanks Heathdon
At least you can spell. Not sure about your logic though. A group of people a long time ago got something wrong, therefore climate science is wrong. Mmmm with logic like that i can see why you’re on the sceptics side.
Science has progressed a bit since the time of Colombus – Have you not noticed? There’s a bit more rigor involved these days and they tend to get it right more often. You should get off andrew bolt’s blog and check the science thing out sometime. THey use big words, and graphs and usually get the spelling right too.
I think you’re the one with tickets on yourself. The onus is on you to provide the ‘facts’ since you’re the one challenging the overwhelming scientific consensus. I could refer you on to any number of scientific papers written by people with lots of letters after their name. I’m not pretentious enough to take on people who devote their life to researching climate change.
If you’ve knocked a credible theory up in your back shed then lets have it…You’re gonna be famous. If on the other hand you’re just loaded up with the same old hackneyed discredited rubbish propagated by the oil industry, Ian Pilmer and bolt etc then I’d rather you saved it for them. You can talk in tongues together.
98% was based on a recent survey…it was covered in Crikey recently. I’ll leave you to find it. The normal accepted view is that its ‘over 90%. Are you a ‘sceptic’ on that one too?
Actually, the earth was known to be round long before columbus. The Babylonians calculated its circumference quite accurately for example.
Myth Busted.
Firstly Kdkd myth not busted. I was referencing that the held belief at the time was that the earth was flat not whether it is or not isn’t the point.
Sean
A group of people a long time ago were wrong and so a group of people could, read could, be wrong now. Just because the majority believe it doesn’t necessarily make it true. That was my point.
I am not on the sceptics side I am just against anybody who says they are right, won’t provide proof, apart from its accepted and if you don’t agree its not because we haven’t made our case its because your not smart enough, and resorts to name calling.
Science has changed really you mean they don’t use leeches anymore? You say they get it right more often but they are not infallible. I just don’t follow blindly, not my way, sorry about that.
You could refer me to any number of papers but why would you? Not like your tryimng to prove anything. I’m not pretentious to take on people to do anything but back up what they say to my understanding, if I don’t understand then they need to work on their explanation or accept that not everybody is going to agree with them. Could you accept that or would the name calling begin again?
My theory goes like this. Trees process carbon dioxide into oxygen. Humans process oxygen into carbon dioxide.
The above is what I believe to be true.
The following is what I believe but am unsure of.
Humanity is over producing carbon and the trees that we have not cut down can not process it quick enough. This carbon is rising and destroying the ozone layer which is insulation for the earth. As this insulation disappears the earth warms. We need to reduce our carbon output or grow more trees and hope the ozone layer can renew.
The reason I am not sure about the second part is as I have stated before. Why do we continue with jet flight? Their is no way for trees to absorb carbon which is burnt in the upper atmosphere before it destroys the ozone.
That is why I am considered a sceptic because I would rather see the phasing out of non millitary jet powered flight first and consider the results before charging into schemes so we can be seen to be doing something.
Sorry if you have misjudged me I hope I misjudged you.
I am sceptical about accepted views and anything to do with science without evidence.
I am sceptical of stats for the same reason.
Sorry about that.
I only took a swing at your spelling because your were pronouncing your intelligence by abusing everybody else and then you go and make that error.
Looking forward to your response on the jet flight especially as I have posed this question nbefore and no believer has had a response.
I don’t read Andrew Bolt’s blog but at least that’s the worst name you had to resort to this time.
Heathdon #18
I think colombus and his mob were perfectly aware the earth was round, but that they didn’t think there was an enormous land mass in the way. Onto the meat.
People frequently confuse climate change with ozone depletion. However, they are essentially completely independent processes. So your statement:
“The reason I am not sure about the second part is as I have stated before. Why do we continue with jet flight? Their is no way for trees to absorb carbon which is burnt in the upper atmosphere before it destroys the ozone.”
This makes no sense.
Next along, regarding statistics. It’s easy to lie with statistics, but generally such lies are obvious to the statistically literate. One of the climate delusionals favourites is to have a completely inappropriately scaled x and/or y axis on a graph. Statistics have a flipside though as well. For example using statistical tools you can demonstrate that co2 is associated with [1] about 25% of the warming in the early 20th century, but between 75% and 95% of the observed warming in the late 20th century/early 21st century.
[1] note the careful use of the word is associated with. It’s only when we understand the chemistry theory behind greenhouse gasses that we understand that this relationship is almost certainly causal.
Heathdon
“Just because the majority believe it, doesn’t necessarily make it true” you say. With respect thats an observation that I’d expect my 5 year old to come out with.
I won’t grapple with your jet theory or the fact that you seem to be saying that you don’t agree with things you don’t understand…
Suffice to say that a lot of people are getting tired of being bombarded with folksy everyman logic and psuedo science in an area thats not accessible to folksy everyman logic.
There’s a lot of nasty self serving political agenda’s at play cloaked in mad science and, given the gravity of the issue, I think its starting to wear a lot of people down. So sorry if i’ give offense.
Heathdon # 18,
I’m no scientist but I think your confused. Carbon dioxide and ozone are both greenhouse gasses. .
My understanding is that aerosols were complicit in the destruction of the ozone layer, masking the effects of climate change for a time. Once a concerted effort to reduce aerosols and save the ozone layer started to take effect, the masking effect of aerosols faded.
Sean, kdkd and chris
You(Sean) asked me what I think I told you. Thank you for responding reasonably.
kdkd: People frequently confuse climate change with ozone depletion. However, they are essentially completely independent processes.
I was unaware of this. Perhaps if I put it in the context of “ifburning fossil fuels cause global warming by destroying the upper atmosphere but can be absorbed by trees then why do we burn fossil fuels in the upper atmosphere?Hopefully that makes more sense. What I meant regarding stats is that i never believe a stat without knowing the details of the survey. I’m picky with that. Nothing to do with the stats regarding global warming specifically
Sean: sorry just to dig. If your five year old said it and he was right then it wouldn’t matter how old he was.
Do you agree with things you don’t understand or do you try to understand them before agreeing. Me personally its the latter.
Sorry if you don’t like what other people say, its a free country.Plenty of things I don’t like hearing.
In regard to the wearing down I understand how frustrating it must be when you believe something and the person you are discussing with wont just accept what you know to be true but some of us are like that. I think the self serving political agendas are definitely at play in Canberra but who would bother in a web comments thread. Were not changing the world.
Chris
OK I’ am going to show my ignorance by asking in relation to what you said about the aerosols reduction. What do you think is the first thing we should reduce now? coal fired power? oil refining? I’m not trying to be smart I honestly think in that way. What needs to stop first what is causing the most damage? Not stop everything and then rebuild.
The reason I go on about jet power is that I believe that this could be fazed out the easiest. telecommunications and electric flight should be able to cover most routes. It will take longer to travel but so what.
Heathdon,
The problem with airplanes is that they are very energy intensive, so their per kilometer fuel burn is quite high. This is compounded by the increasing use of air travel, and the increasing popularity of even more fuel inefficient short haul plane trips. Given the life span of co2 in the atmosphere is somewhere between 100 and 1000 years (I can’t remember the exact figure), the point of emission is essentially irellevant, as it only takes a decade or so for the atmosphere to mix completely (again I can’t remember the exact figure).
So it’s the emissions intensity of air travel that’s the main problem, with the location where the emissions occur being a secondary problem. The David Suzuki Foundation has some useful information, although I wouldn’t be 100% sure that the exact figures are correct: http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/What_You_Can_Do/air_travel.asp
So according to this if we phased out air travel, it might result in a 5% decrease in emissions. Better off going for the big guys like coal fired power stations, and diesel shipping to start with, and getting the other stuff under control once we’ve attacked the low hanging fruit.
Aircraft contrails have also been implicated in (the somewhat contentious) “Global Dimming” – the effect of aerosol and particulate matter reflecting sunlight back into space during the day and retaining heat during the night. One data set that supports the Global Dimming theorey is the reduction in Pan Evaporation rates around the world.
One theorey holds that Global Dimming is that it has been a factor that has actually masked or slowed Global Warming rates. The downside of this is that it also has the effect of reducing rainfall – less water is evaporated during the day and the clouds that are formed are formed from less water vapour.
Whether the theorey stands up or not, it does show that the climate is an immensley complex system “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
One problem in a debate between people who support global warming science and those who don’t is that the science is complicated and most of the people discussing it are not scientists or across all of the science. Throw in political ideology and preconceptions and the chances of a rational debate are pretty low.
It is very hard to argue that the world is flat – not just because of the riduculous amount of evidence that it is round, but because there are very short and simple ways to demonstrate its shape.
Global warming science is at the other end of the spectrum. It is complicated, there are many competing effects, and data is more subject to scatter and unexplained unusual results. Despite this, scientists have been able to put together a very strong scientific case for Global warming, but it is not a one line case, it relies on unnumerable papers and studies. This is not bad science it is just the nature of the topic.
Unfortunately it makes it easy for people with strong beliefs or vested interests to cherry pick data and theories and come up with psuedo-scientific arguments that either over-estimate Global warming or deny its validity altogether.
In the absence of decent rational debate in the mainstream, the electorate’s views will continue to be shaped not by science but by vitriolic exchanges such as this one, the main body of scientific knowledge will carry little weight and policy making will continue to ignore the good scientific work which has been done.
Hopefully as the broader community becomes more knowledgeable about the uncontested basics they will be more able to recognise the unsupported drivel from both the global warming denialists as well as the extreme green end of the commentators. Then maybe we will see good policy from the politicians would rather follow than lead the country.
Madness is to think of too many things in succession too fast or of one thing too exclusively! Far Left,warming alarmist,scaremongering religious nutjobs are obsessed with Global Warming and have gone like our Prime Minister…Insane! The Planet is 4 billion years old, it has gone through a lot worse than what us puny humans can do to it, we’re just a fly that mother nature will swat whenever she feels like it and leave no trace of our existence afterward. How long have we been here? 200,000 years? Industrialisation less than 200? Oh yeah we have done a lot of damage, Bollocks we have! Bolt is the only journo with enough guts to expose this fraud.
kdkd
Thanks for some food for thought.
As someone educated in the sciences I have been searching for words to adequately describe what I have observed in the media: the distinction between the reporting of climate change and its politics. Thank you for such a clear argument.
When the media starts giving those like Bolt, Minchin and Tuckey air time….we know we are in a dire situation. None of them deserve a mike near their mouths.
“When the media starts giving those like Bolt, Minchin and Tuckey air time…”
The media loves a car crash. That’s it in a nutcase.
I would like to be regarded as a citizen who genuinely has his country’s best interests at heart. When Al Gore and others first presented their proposition that the planet is heating up, polar caps are melting etc … it was a doomsday scenario. It made sense because the rate of industrial and economic development is increasing at a rate that is going off the scale.
Comparing the time span of human development with the age of the earth (4+ billion years) it certainly would be alarming if it could be shown that global indicators reflect degradation ONLY during this latter part of our human experience. It would be a sure sign that we humans are paying for our excess thirst for lifestyles that are contributing to this degradation.
However my research so far suggests that the earth has been hotter countless times before. In fact it gets warmer at very regular intervals. There is sound scientific data supporting this. One such site is: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
I am more persuaded by the notion that we are coming to the end of a regular global period of warmth and that at some time in the distant future the world will quite naturally slide back into an ICE AGE. The proposition put by this scientific opinion is that CO2 plays a very small part in global warming … and that other regular recurring factors are the main reasons.
Based on this, world governments could at least initiate some worthwhile projects to balance our CO2 generation. The first would be to invest in reafforestation and coupled with this, harvest at least some of the fresh water that ends up in the sea. Notice I said “some” because river systems certainly need regular flushing for ecological and marine regeneration reasons. And of course, above all, start planning for a time when the earth will naturally get colder!