JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Books

Trump tells confidants US will leave Paris deal: ClimateDepot says it would be “victory for science”

Email just in from of Climate Depot

WASHINGTON – Multiple news agencies, including Reuters News, are now reporting that President Donald Trump has privately informed several officials in Washington DC that he intends to withdraw from the UN Paris climate pact.

Climate Depot’s Marc Morano statement: “A U.S. Clexit (Climate Exit from UN Paris Pact) would be a victory for science. Make no mistake, climate campaigners who tout UN agreements and EPA regulations as a way to control Earth’s temperature and storminess are guilty of belief in superstition.” 

Latest developments below.

Axios Scoop: Trump tells confidants U.S. will quit Paris climate deal

Image result for trump climate paris un

By Jonathan Swan & Amy Harder

President Trump has privately told multiple people, including EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, that he plans to leave the Paris agreement on climate change, according to three sources with direct knowledge.

Why this matters: Pulling out of Paris is the biggest thing Trump could to do unravel Obama’s climate policies. It also sends a stark and combative signal to the rest of the world that working with other nations on climate change isn’t a priority to the Trump administration. And pulling out threatens to unravel the ambition of the entire deal, given how integral former President Obama was in making it come together in the first place.

Caveat: Although Trump made it clear during the campaign and in multiple conversations before his overseas trip that he favored withdrawal, he has been known to abruptly change his mind — and often floats notions to gauge the reaction of friends and aides. On the trip, he spent many hours with Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, powerful advisers who back the deal.


Paris was always pointless

If the US is in or out of Paris, in a hundred years no one could tell by studying the weather.
Cost to reduce global temperatures, climate change, global warming, economics.

In a January 16, 2017 Prager U video titled, “The Paris Climate Agreement Won’t Change the Climate,” Bjorn Lomborg explains that “the agreement will cost a fortune, but do little to reduce global warming.” (Full transcript here)

“Using the same prediction model that the UN uses, I found that [Obama’s] power plan will accomplish almost nothing. Even if its cuts to carbon dioxide emissions are fully implemented – not just for the 14 years that the Paris agreement lasts, but for the rest of the century — the EPA’s Clean Power Plan would reduce the temperature increase in 2100 by just -.023 degrees Fahrenheit,” Lomborg explained.

“The actually promised emission reductions under the Paris agreement literally gets us just 1 percent of the way to the 2 degrees target,” he noted, adding “99% of what would be required is put off until after 2030.”

GDP figures in 2100 may tell a different story.

h/t Climate Depot

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.6/10 (60 votes cast)

Psst, who said scientists were getting rich? It’s bankers, renewable giants, the Green-machine and Al Gore

A Red Herring just flew through the Climate Change Gravy Train

Anthony Sharwood hopes to derail the killer argument about Golden Gravy Train:

Scientists Getting Filthy Rich On Climate Change? Here Are The Facts

This train has no gravy on it.

Get ready to rethink the role of carbon. Sharwood comes armed with facts like a non-quote from an anonymous climate scientist friend in Tasmania who says he’s only earning $80 k and who, “impressively”, said he’s in it for “love not money”. He reckons he could’ve been earning $200k in IT. (Not in Tasmania, buddy).

So forget radiative transfer and moist adiabatic lapse rates, science is now decided by the love test. Who loves science the most? Maybe the skeptics who are working for nothing, eh?

...

Sharwood and HuffPo naturally miss freight train of money.

One day when they learn to google, they’ll find that we skeptics don’t talk about  climate scientists getting “filthy rich”. We talk about Al Gore, about Global Bankers, and we talk about how GE took in $9b in revenue lsat year from renewable energy. We talk about  how global carbon markets turned over $176 billion in their heyday and  Global Renewable Energy investment reached $257 Billion.

We talk about estimates that the whole global climate change industry is worth about 1,500 billion a year.

As for poor Climate Scientists, no one said they were raking it in, but compared to the rest of the scientific industry, they get rock star treatment. What other branch of science gets two-week Olympic sized conferences each year, plus television interviews, red carpet awards, and documentaries?

And these guys are the ones who can’t predict anything. Wall Street doesn’t want those kind of modelers.

 When will Banks care about whales?

When they can trade whale-credits.

Banks, financial institutions, carbon trading.

Banks for “the environment”

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.5/10 (63 votes cast)

Sea level rise hysteria can be cured by looking at tide gauge data

Scaremonger photos of inundation abound in our national news this week. Famous foreshore parks are gone, islands disappear, houses, picnic areas, racecourses, golf courses — all submerged. The water rolls in over Sydney’s Circular Quay, Melbourne’s Docklands, Brisbane Airport, Hindmarsh Island — swamped. Rooned. Today its the satellite photo, tomorrow it’ll be computer generated streetscapes; coming soon, the underwater documentary: Swimming in the Opera House.

Sea level rise, Perth, Fremantle, Australia.

This is a mocked up satellite pic of Perth, WA projecting how much ground we will lose.

If you live in these future washed out zones, email me. I’ll buy your house.

Compare the forecast two metre rise, to actual Tide Gauge Data for Fremantle since 1900 (Fremantle has the second longest record of sea level change in the Southern Hemisphere):

Sea Level rise Fremantle, Perth, Australia.

Sea Level rise Fremantle, Perth, Australia shows about a 20cm rise in 110 years.

So there has been a 20cm rise or so in 100 years. But 200cm is coming. Yeah.  (For details of the way Sea Levels around Perth Coastline change see Chris Gillhams work.)

This slow rate of sea level rise is not just a west coast thing: Sydney’s sea levels are rising at just 6.5cm per century.

The model projections future rate of change is off the scale.

Here’s that current Fremantle trend with a projected 2 metre rise to 2100 added in:

Mean Sea Level, Fremantle, Model Projections, 2100.

A 20cm rise in one hundred years is 2mm per annum. If the forecasts are right that rate must rise immediately to 22mm pa, a tenfold increase.

As it happens, the tide gauge is sinking 2 – 4mm each year (20 -40cm a century).

PARTS of Perth are sinking because too much water is being extracted from the Perth Basin, making those areas more vulnerable to sea level rises.

Professor Will Featherstone said the gauge was sinking at about 2-4mm a year due to groundwater being extracted at a faster rate than it can be replenished, causing the land to subside.

Naturally Featherstone goes on to put in the politically correct caveat, which allows his inconvenient research to be published, but if taken literally, makes no sense at all.

“If the land is subsiding, then the rate of sea level rise measured by a tide gauge appears to be larger than it actually is, which seems to be the case at Fremantle,” he said.

“However this doesn’t mean that we are at a decreased risk of sea level rise, instead we could be at an increased risk, because the land itself is sinking.”

Obviously if the seas were rising due to CO2 then subsidence is “extra-bad”. But if most of the rise so far is due to something else, who cares, the cause and effect link is busted, no disaster is coming?

The big unasked question above: Do CO2 emissions cause Fremantle to sink?

If CO2 emissions are not pushing the port of Fremantle down into the crustal plate then most of the sea-level rise recorded at Fremantle has nothing to do with our emissions. Ergo, reducing or increasing emissions will not cause sea-level rise, nor prevent it, and the forecasts of a 2,000mm rise in the next 90 years are hyperbolic guesstimates based on skill-less models and should be treated accordingly.

At this point, I fully expect someone to say that CO2 emissions indirectly reduce rainfall in South West WA and thus cause people to suck up more groundwater, which drives the local subsidence. I defy anyone to find a climate model that can predict rainfall patterns globally with any measurable skill above random chance. The causal links in the chain between your car exhaust and Fremantle-sinking grow ever longer unto an improbable multi-step narrative that lacks observational support at every point.

Secondly, the real problem in WA is “streamflow” not “rainfall”. While rainfall has fallen, there is research suggesting the decrease has more to do with forest clearance than CO2 possilby thanks to the production of cloud seeding molecules. The point that matters here is not rainfall, but the streamflow reductions which vastly outstrip the loss of rainfall. Rainfall is down in SW WA from 700mm to 600mm. But streamflow has been savaged. Down from 330GL to just 50GL. Unpacking that is another long story, for another day…

Other related posts:

 

When the warmists are at it again,
Divide their predictions by ten,
Or just use common sense,
For a hundred years hence,
To gauge what sea-level is then.

– Ruairi

REFERENCE

Featherstone W. (2015) Nonlinear subsidence at Fremantle, a long-recording tide gauge in the Southern Hemisphere, Journal of Geophysical Research, DOI: 10.1002/2015JC011295

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.6/10 (77 votes cast)

Weekday unthreaded

Sorry I’ve been very distracted with other local events these last couple of days. Back soon!

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.2/10 (23 votes cast)

Another glorious solar scheme fails ignominiously, “fast clouds”, “rusty pipes”, dumb decisions

Another award winning solar project collapses: it was a $105 million dollar scheme. One company, Areva, lost about $50m and so did the taxpayer. Everything went wrong, management, planning, cheap poor quality steel from China, industrial dispute that left 80% of the pipes rusting on a dock. Three thousand solar reflectors are sitting unused in what was a potato paddock in Dalby. Nobody wants to buy them. They’re obviously worthless. CS Energy is state owned power utility, and it spent $50m but pulled to pin to save wasting another $50m.

In 2011 Julia Gillard raved about how it was going to save 35,000 tons of carbon.

“Ms Gillard says the project could be one of many under the new carbon tax scheme.

“With the clean-energy future I want for our nation, I want it to be a norm,” she said.”

Fans of renewables will cite the management problems as the reason for the failure, not some inherent problem with solar. But the “Clean Energy Culture” is the problem  — the same pathetic, uninformed and corrupt decision-making that subsidizes solar so unnecessarily also creates the same dud decisions in management, legal, and industrial relations. The environment that makes a complicated, uneconomic project look appealing because it might change storms a hundred years from now is the kind of culture that piles up toxic Green Tape, buys crappy steel, and can’t accomplish something as simple as getting pipes off a flooded dock. And that was six years ago and we are just hearing about it now thanks to the Clean Energy Media Brain.

‘Fast-moving clouds’: How CS Energy’s Kogan Creek Solar Boost project failed

It was supposed to supply cheaper, greener energy to up to 5000 homes but after six years and tens of millions of dollars, a cutting-edge solar energy project has produced nothing other than a large taxpayer-funded pile of scrap.

Only 5000 homes?  That’s $20,000 per house which doesn’t sound like “cheap” electricity.  Solar is so dismal that even bulk solar power in the sunniest spot in the world was going to take years to break even — and that’s if it worked.

Three thousand solar panels sit unused on a concrete pad after the pioneering Kogan Creek Solar Boost project was shelved due to rusting pipes and “rapidly moving clouds”.

Those are $100m pipes?

A veteran project manager with 30 years’ experience, Mr Canham detailed a litany of planning, management and communication failures, compounded by the “aggressive” management style of Areva Solar’s US-based executives.

Mr Canham said pipes had rusted when they were left uncollected at the Port of Brisbane during the 2011 floods because of a dispute between Areva and shipping company DHL. As a result only 20 per cent of them were useable.

Funds came from the Queensland Government’s Carbon Reduction Program  and a Commonwealth agency, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA).

Typically, when people waste other people’s money, they don’t care much:

“ARENA never came to the site,” he said.

“They were supposed to come every three months. They were really into this solar thing and they never came once.

“With the state government – the same thing. Never saw anyone.”

Gave the prize a bit too soon, maybe?

The technology’s inventor, Australian scientist Dr David Mills, in 2014 received an Order Of Australia for his work on solar power from the Abbott government.

 David Evans points out the media bias as pro-solar hype is yet again followed by silence:

Here’s what the article, in the left-leaning Sydney Morning Herald, doesn’t say: Another catastrophic failure in green energy and public money destroyed.

Did the ABC report it? I’ve searched their news website for “Kogan Crek solar” and found only an article from 2014 on the technical hitches being encountered, a 2009 article on the 600 jobs being created by solar power, a 2011 opinion piece extolling renewables, a 2011 article “Gillard spruiks massive solar power project”, and a 2010 article on climate and energy. No mention that it had failed, as far as I can see, let alone the headline articles about a catastrophic failure of a government-financed solar plant.

Since 1970 or so, one hyped solar project after another has been announced in awed terms. But when they flat-line, crickets.

h/t Andrew, Dave B, OriginalSteve.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.8/10 (126 votes cast)

ACMA, media watchdog, says lies by omission at the ABC are OK

Media Bias, voting behaviour of journalists.This story of Beliaik’s is making waves, cross-posted already at Catallaxy. Through letters and FOI’s he shows that the ABC won’t publish expert stories that don’t fit their personal political beliefs (specifically on climate and corals), and that the main industry “watchdog” is such a puppet they don’t even mind.

In February Beliaik tipped off the ABC about breaking news that showed the Karl et al “pausebuster paper” was hyped, broke rules. A former NOAA scientist (Bates) was blowing the whistle on unapproved key datasets, which weren’t archived properly. He also talked about how the key software had conveniently disappeared when the one sole computer it was on, crashed.  Unlike other leading news services around the world, the ABC didn’t report this, even though they had pushed the Karl paper when it came out. Effectively, they hid the counter story from their audience.

When he complained to the ABC the first thing they mentioned was that the story wasn’t covered by other media in Australia. Now I thought the point of a $1b public broadcaster was to cover important things other media don’t, but the ABC (which is the only media outlet here with a dedicated science unit) won’t report on corruption in climate science. Quite probably, other media would have reported it if the ABC had led the way. Can we get that billion dollars back, thanks?

Tellingly, the geniuses at the ABC also effectively claimed that they knew more than Dr Bates and could dismiss his opinion.

Here iJohn Bates bio:

John Bates, Ph.D. in Meteorology, spent the last 14 years of his career at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center (now NCEI) as a Principal Scientist, where he served as a Supervisory Meteorologist until 2012. He won the NOAA Administrator’s Award 2004 for “outstanding administration and leadership in developing a new division to meet the challenges to NOAA in the area of climate applications related to remotely sensed data”. He was awarded a U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal in 2014 for visionary work in the acquisition, production, and preservation of climate data records (CDRs).

So faced with an expert whistleblower the ABC found a couple of scientists who disagreed, and then admitted  that their job was to robotically repeat what government funded scientists say without question:

Overall, the ABC’s coverage reflects the weight of scientific opinion in this area, which favours the view that global warming is happening and that human activity contributes to this warming. 

So if the government employs 99% believers in a bizarre theory that we can control the weather and they produce meaningless, incompetent and repetitive papers, with code that “disappeared” you won’t hear about it from the ABC. Remind me what we pay them for?

Beliaik reported the ABC to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) whose core reason for existing, they say,  is ” Making media and communications work for all Australians”. 

You might think our publicly funded broadcaster might not be “working” for all Australians if it won’t publish stories telling views that fit with half the population, but you’d be wrong. According to Beliaik that “ACMA ruled that I can’t complain about something that didn’t happen.” Thus lies by omission, and selective, biased editing, is permitted by a network of government funded agencies. It starts with scientists being funded to find a crisis, who selectively don’t publish inconvenient papers. Then that bias is spread by a media outlet that won’t publish expert whistleblower complaints. Then that bias is protected by a media regulator that, by definition, will never rule against overt, unarguable bias by the public broadcaster.

I say whatever we pay ACMA, we want that back too.

– Jo

PS: ACMA Budget here, is that $108m, see p79?

 

________________________________

TheirABC, diverse views and the FOI Act

Guest post by Beliaik

When is it OK for our national broadcaster to thumb its nose at its own code of practice?  The obvious answer is never, but we know it happens routinely.  So what can the common worker-drone do about it?  Not much, but we can at least try to use existing legislation to draw attention to the more egregious examples.

One such attempt is described here.  Settle back, this is lengthy.

With the ‘splodey-headed ABC-luvvies  fairly busy being maximally outraged by the US citizenry’s choice for their highest public office, it seemed a good time to try and sink the slipper into them over their second most-passionately held world view – our unfolding ”climate disaster” – and their deranged reporting of it.

The story begins back in February when I thought to tip TheirABC off about the breaking story of the NOAA whistle blower, Dr John Bates.  Here’s what I sent…

G’day ABC news tips department

I read the following article with interest, but can find no reference to it on the ABC. Given the numerous articles featuring NOAA on your website, I wonder if you will feature it soon?

https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/

The NOAA whistleblower has been big news across the blogosphere and since the ABC never shows stories that counter the global warming narrative I thought it was time you proved your critics wrong.  Here’s another link to it.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/04/bombshell-noaa-whistleblower-says-karl-et-al-pausebuster-paper-was-hyped-broke-procedures/

It has already broken in the British media, here…

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html#reader-comments

And in the US media here …

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/05/whistle-blower-global-warming-data-manipulated-paris-conference/

… and here …

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/06/delingpole-noaa-scandal-gives-trump-the-perfect-excuse-to-drain-the-climate-swamp/

Everyone has the internet with them everywhere these days, so bias in some issues can be quite visible in terms of non-reporting.  Please show your lack of bias so those who feel the ABC should be sold off to private enterprise might be placated for a while.

I look forward to your early response on the matter.  You don’t want to wait until after the POTUS tweets on it do you?  Really?

Needless to say, they didn’t cover the John Bates story, even though I tipped them off twice more.

The next step was a complaint to TheirABC’s complaints department…

Subject: Failure to cover the NOAA whistleblower reveals the ABC’s refusal to show both sides of the global warming debate

Your Comments: The ABC claims to provide balanced news and editorials – you tell us that all the time!  Why then, has there been such a pointed failure to cover the material provided by whistleblower and retired NOAA climate expert John Bates?

John Bates wrote of this on renowned climate scientist Judith Curry’s blog – here – https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/ – that

“A NOAA NCEI supervisor remarked how it was eye-opening to watch Karl work the co-authors, mostly subtly but sometimes not, pushing choices to emphasize warming. Gradually, in the months after K15 came out, the evidence kept mounting that Tom Karl constantly had his ‘thumb on the scale’—in the documentation, scientific choices, and release of datasets—in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.”

Later John Bates says this, “So, in every aspect of the preparation and release of the datasets leading into K15, we find Tom Karl’s thumb on the scale pushing for, and often insisting on, decisions that maximize warming and minimize documentation.”

He also says, “I also raised concerns about bias; here we apparently see Tom Karl’s thumb on the scale in terms of the methodologies and procedures used in this publication.”

A reasonable person would find it quite newsworthy that such an eminent figure has come forward to accuse the former director of NOAA of “putting his thumb on the scale” but it has not been covered by the ABC…  Why?

While climate alarm is last on most people’s list of worries, it sucks up a disproportionate amount of our taxes and your air-time – so why won’t you cover something that helps shed light on what we climate sceptics have been saying for years?

You can’t say you didn’t know because I tipped you off on 7/2, 8/2 and 9/2/16 – and I can provide copies of the acknowledgement emails if you’d like.

I look forward to your early reply.

Naturally the luvvies were having none of that!  Here’s their reply…

 Thank you for your email.

Your complaint has been considered by Audience and Consumer Affairs, a unit which is separate to and independent of content making areas within the ABC. Our role is to review and, where appropriate, investigate complaints alleging that ABC content has breached the ABC’s editorial standards. These standards are explained in our Code of Practice which is available here -http://about.abc.net.au/reports-publications/code-of-practice/.

You have complained that a failure to report recent Dr John Bates’ criticisms of Dr Tom Karl’s 2015 climate study is evidence of ABC bias.

We note that this story received relatively little coverage in major media in Australia.  According to a report published by Associated Press, Dr Bates subsequently stated in an interview that there was ‘no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious’; another study has since confirmed the Karl calculations; and the journal that originally published the Karl research has rejected the allegation that it was rushed to print.  In our view, the ABC’s lack of coverage of this story does not demonstrate a lack of impartiality, but rather a fair and reasonable assessment of its news value.

The ABC has provided extensive and ongoing coverage of issues relating to climate change across a range of programs and genres, presenting a range of different perspectives.  Overall, the ABC’s coverage reflects the weight of scientific opinion in this area, which favours the view that global warming is happening and that human activity contributes to this warming.  This approach does not, of itself, indicate an undue favouritism for a particular perspective.  Rather, it is consistent with the concept of ‘a balance that follows the weight of evidence’, which is identified in the ABC’s editorial standards as one of the hallmarks of impartiality.

Thank you for giving the ABC the opportunity to respond to your concerns.

Because I work to a system of creating maximum cognitive dissonance in the minds of leftarded journalists, the next step was a formal complaint to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).  Leaving out the somewhat tedious detail, ACMA ruled that I can’t complain about something that didn’t happen.  Who knew?

Fair enough, then, obviously it was time to complain about articles that did get published.  The first complaint was about a News24 interview.

Complaint re interview on ABC TV News24 – Breach of code of practice

Program time    0951 and again at 1044 (Queensland time, not fake time)

Program date    16/03/2017

Subject                Alarming story about coral bleaching being caused by CO2 emissions

Interviewee – Prof Andrew Baird from JCU

Interviewer – Kathryn Robinson

G’day

This morning Kathryn Robinson interviewed a coral scientist whose livelihood depends on him finding alarming stories about the reef.

Every question and comment from your interviewer fed into the global warming alarmist narrative and not one single remark referenced the sceptical side of this issue.

JCU’s pompously named “ARC Centre of Excellence in Coral Reef Studies” have never been able to answer quite simple questions from the sceptical side.  See Julian Tomlinson’s editorial from today’s Cairns Post – attached – to support this.

Kathryn might have asked how the claimed process of man-made carbon dioxide emissions suspended in the atmosphere and emitting down-welling long-wave infrared back-radiation are able to heat the micro-millimetre-thin surface layer of the sea without the phase change of water immediately re-releasing that heat energy as water vapour – but she didn’t.

Kathryn didn’t ask Professor Baird if he was aware that infrared radiation will not penetrate water – (which is why infrared firefighting cameras are useless in searching a waterway for a submerged person).  It would’ve have been informative to be aware of the limitations of a marine ecologist’s knowledge of physics.

Kathryn didn’t ask what other sources of heat may have warmed water in the Coral Sea other than the alleged CO2 greenhouse effect – for which zero empirical evidence has ever been put forward.

Kathryn didn’t ask about the influence of the recent El Nino event on Coral Sea temperatures – an entirely natural cycle with no connection to humans burning fossil fuels.

The bleached areas of the GBR are bathed by the South Equatorial Current, which is heated by sea-floor volcanicity in the Vanuatu-Solomons region – which has some of the world’s most active and spectacular volcanoes.  But Kathryn didn’t ask about heat from that source.

The Vanuatu-Solomons volcanic zone has many sea-floor hydrothermal vents that release sulphur compounds that are toxic to the microorganisms that are the basis of the reef’s food chain; but Kathryn didn’t ask about those compounds affecting the coral.

Oxybenzone, an ingredient in many sunscreens worn by reef researchers and tourists alike, is highly toxic to coral, even in minute quantities.  But Kathryn didn’t ask about its effect on coral either.

Coral is the ultimate survivor from the past 400 million years of ever-changing climate, but Kathryn didn’t ask why it should suddenly be so sensitive to minor water temperature changes.

The ability of coral to expel and replace symbionts is an evolutionary superpower that other species can only dream of, but Kathryn didn’t ask about that.

Kathryn didn’t ask how come coral can live in waters much hotter than ours, such as the Middle-East, and much colder as well, like New Zealand.  Not even how coral seem to be OK in blazing hot sun at low tide, either in shallow, easily-heated pools or exposed to the air.  Nor how the same species thrive in slightly deeper water where it’s colder.

The interview didn’t stray to water quality, but the ARC Centre of Excellence in Coral Reef Studies were completely unaware a coral reef could live happily under the permanent mud-plume of the Amazon River…

Kathryn and the ABC have failed to comply with these parts of their code of practice.  In fact, Kathryn and the ABC have aided and abetted the promulgation of scandalously weak claims as if they were somehow supported by empirical evidence and were to be accepted as fact.

Standards:

4.1 Gather and present news and information with due impartiality.

4.2 Present a diversity of perspectives so that, over time, no significant strand of thought

or belief within the community is knowingly excluded or disproportionately represented.

4.3 ……..

4.4 Do not misrepresent any perspective.

4.5 Do not unduly favour one perspective over another.

 

The Robinson-Baird interview demonstrates that:

  1. The ABC are only showing one side of the “man-made global warming killing coral” argument, they don’t gather news and information or present views with due impartiality.
  2. The ABC knowingly excludes a significant perspective, the one that rejects the nonsense “97% consensus”.  To be sceptical of the man-made global warming alarmists’ claims is a perfectly valid and significant strand of thought; – scepticism belongs in science – consensus only has a place in politics.  The ABC disproportionately represent the alarmist side, to the extent that the sceptical side is never, ever presented.
  3. The ABC misrepresent the sceptical side by failing to provide us with fair and equal opportunity, or, indeed, any opportunity, to present counter-arguments to the alarmists’ scare stories.  This ABC misrepresentation robs the sceptical side of the credibility they so generously offer the alarmist side.  Sceptics contend that the human influence on climate is negligible, ultimately beneficial and in no way catastrophic, but the typical ABC viewer wouldn’t know that.
  4. The ABC unduly favour the alarmist side of the climate debate over the sceptical side ion two ways; by providing the alarmist side with seemingly unlimited platform space and never, ever asking any hard-to-answer questions and by refusing any space on any platform whatsoever to the sceptical side.

These are gross and serious breaches of the ABC’s code of practice that lead to erroneous beliefs amongst our political and bureaucratic classes who then spend billions of our dollars on a problem that doesn’t need fixing while many more serious and pressing environmental and societal issues are ignored.

If the ABC was true to its own rules people like me wouldn’t need to write to Senators asking for it to be sold off to private enterprise.  Conservative views are rarely heard on the ABC – I feel excluded in viewing almost all ABC News products.  My voice is never heard on the ABC.  It’s like the ABC has evolved into the Alinsky Brainwashing Corp.

Now you’ll be wondering how TheirABC could fob off such logic.  Here’s how they did it.

Thank you for your email regarding an interview with Professor Andrew Baird on ABC News 24 on 16 March 2017.

Your email has been considered by Audience and Consumer Affairs, a unit which is separate to and independent of content making areas within the ABC.

Our role is to review and, where appropriate, investigate complaints alleging that ABC content has breached the ABC’s editorial standards. These standards are explained in the ABC Code of Practice which is available here - http://about.abc.net.au/reports-publications/code-of-practice/.

We have reviewed the interview.  The presenter introduced the interview stating that new research from scientists at James Cook University had examined three major coral bleaching events over the past 20 years and found that the mix of species in the northern parts of the reef have changed forever, with some reefs losing 80% of their corals.

She said that the researchers had concluded that parts of the reef would never fully recover from repeated bleaching of its corals, and the researchers were calling for immediate action to curb climate change to limit further damage to the reef.

Professor Baird was introduced as a co-author of the study and he was asked a number of questions on the topics mentioned in the introduction.

There was nothing in the interviewer’s questioning which indicated an undue favouritism for a particular perspective, or a lack of due impartiality.

As advised in my previous reply to you, the ABC’s coverage reflects the weight of scientific opinion in this area which favours the view that global warming is happening and that human activity contributes to this warming.

This approach does not, of itself, indicate an undue favouritism for a particular perspective. Rather, it is consistent with the concept of ‘a balance that follows the weight of evidence’, which is identified in the ABC’s editorial standards as one of the hallmarks of impartiality.

Should you be dissatisfied with this response, you may be able to pursue your complaint with the Australian Communications and Media Authority, www.acma.gov.au.

Yours sincerely,

The next step was to take the complaint to ACMA:

G’day ACMA

You’ll recall I recently complained to you about the bias of Their ABC.  You told me I had to use specific examples of bias that had been broadcast, as opposed to sweeping failures to abide by their code of practice as demonstrated by newsworthy events the ABC has failed to cover.

Fair enough, those are your rules.  This complaint is the first that I hope fits your rules.

First please read my first attachment “2017-03-16 Complaint re interview on ABC TV News24.pdf”.

Somewhat surprisingly, Their ABC responded promptly.  Please read my second attachment “2017-03-17 ABC email reply – coral complaint dismissed.pdf”.

You will note the ABC defends their bias with appeals to authority and consensus.

First, on ‘consensus’, the Cook et al “97% consensus” paper was junk science at its worst and has been thoroughly and extensively debunked.  Only the alarmist community subscribe to it now.

Second, on ‘appeals to authority’, if Their ABC are so big on authorities they don’t come much bigger than the United States Government.  Here’s what Mick Mulvaney, Director of the Office of Management and Budget said last week,

“As to climate change, I think the President was fairly straightforward saying we’re not spending money on that anymore. We consider that to be a waste of your money to go out and do that. So that is a specific tie to his campaign.”

Their ABC said their approach is “…consistent with the concept of ‘a balance that follows the weight of evidence’… but it isn’t.  It is consistent only with the memes of the alarmist community – all of whom are dependent on the continuation of climate alarm for their ongoing incomes.

It is a reasonable expectation that for 1.6 billion taxpayer dollars the ABC will carefully examine all sides of every argument and conform to their code of practice.  But it doesn’t and it isn’t.  Since I started writing this I’ve learned that the G20 are dropping reference to “climate change”, too, in response to the changed White House position.  World events have well and truly overtaken the ideological slaves at Their ABC.

My recommendation is that the ABC needs to be stripped back and rebuilt with much stricter guidelines requiring journalists and presenters to separate their personal ideology from their professional role and to resume proper investigative journalism that fully informs the viewer of ALL sides of EVERY argument.

Now you’re wondering how the ACMA-luvvies batted such devastating reason away.  Here’s how they did it.

RE: Your complaint about ABC News 24 broadcast on ABC News 24 on 16 March 2017

Thank you for your complaint about ABC News 24, referred to in your correspondence received on 20 March 2017.

The Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) considers all complaints to be important and your concerns have been logged in our database to help identify potential recurring or systemic compliance issues with legislation, Codes of Practice and Standards.

When deciding whether to investigate a particular matter, the ACMA considers a range of public interest factors including the specifics and/or merits of the matter, the nature and seriousness of the issue raised, the matter’s potential to affect the community at large and its priority in relation to other matters of public interest.

We acknowledge that this matter has given you cause for concern, however, the ACMA has decided not to proceed with an investigation into your complaint because:

  • ABC programs are not obliged to ensure that every perspective on an issue receives equal time or that every facet of every argument is presented within a particular broadcast.
  • the ABC has extensively covered the issues of coral bleaching and climate change on its platforms, following the weight of scientific evidence.
  • the ACMA has conducted a number of investigations which explain the impartiality standard in the ABC code, for example BI-270 and BI-257.

For more information about the ACMA’s broadcasting investigations, including its approach to opening an investigation, please refer to the information here:

http://www.acma.gov.au/theACMA/About/The-ACMA-story/Regulating/broadcasting-investigations-1

If you have concerns about the way the ACMA has treated your complaint, you may make a complaint to the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman or seek independent advice about avenues for review. The Ombudsman can investigate complaints about the administrative actions and decisions of Commonwealth government agencies. More information can be found on the Ombudsman’s website at: www.ombudsman.gov.au or you can call 1300 362 072.

Yours sincerely,

Obviously ACMA are heavy green Kool-aid drinkers, too.  To be sure I went through the whole ABC complaint-ACMA complaint process a second time (reporter Anna Salleh interviewing serial alarmist Terry Hughes from JCU) with the same result.  I’ll spare you the tedious (4000-word) details of that transaction.

FOI

This brings the narrative to the FOI request, dated 20/04/2017.

FOI Contact Officer, Corporate Affairs, Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Written FOI request and ‘sufficient information’

This written request is an application for the purposes of the FOI Act.

The document I seek is a list of links to articles related to “global-warming”, “climate-change”, “CO2” and “coral bleaching” that represent the sceptical view of those respective debates – as presented by the ABC on all its platforms.

I have listened, viewed and searched for years and I’ve not found any sceptical articles on the ABC’s platforms.  There are plenty of articles that represent the alarmist view of these debates, but no sceptical ones.   (Sceptical and alarmist for the purpose of this application are defined below.)

I will be satisfied with a list of the last twelve months sceptical articles – unless there are none in the last twelve months.  In that event I will be satisfied with a list of the last ten years of sceptical articles.

Your search is likely to be more effective than mine.  If after a reasonable amount of searching you can find no ABC articles representing sceptical views that have been published in the last ten years then please just say so.

Form of the document/s

I have no way of knowing the form of the document/s.  It could be one or more schedules or data-base search runs or program lists or staff instructions or minutes of meetings or emails between staff – only you could reasonably know.

It could even be emails between members of the ABC Corporate Affairs unit and others in relation to my non-FOI request for such a list two weeks ago.  That would be a good place to start – check and see if anyone did work up a list but just hasn’t been given the nod to send it to me yet.

Definition of Sceptical and Alarmist for the purpose of this application

Articles on “global-warming”, “climate-change”, “CO2”, and “coral bleaching” can be sorted into Sceptical or Alarmist views by comparing their message themes with these general definitions;

Global warming – Sceptical view

The present gentle global warming is natural and similar to the Minoan Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period (about 3000,2000 and 1000 years ago respectively).  This warming is entirely beneficial to all life on Earth.

Global warming – Alarmist view

The present alarming global warming is unnatural and in no way similar to the Minoan, Roman or Medieval Warm Periods.  This warming represents a serious threat to all life on Earth at some point in the future.

Climate change – Sceptical view

The climate has always changed and is changing now.  Changes are primarily driven by solar cycles, orbital variations, planetary albedo, ocean currents and the laws of thermodynamics.

Climate change – Alarmist view

 The climate has changed naturally in the past but it is changing now in a way it shouldn’t be.  These changes are directly attributable to humanity’s use of fossil fuels.

CO2 – Sceptical view

The planet was nearing a low-CO2 extinction event and humanity’s use of fossil fuels returns much-needed sequestered carbon dioxide to the biosphere and is generally beneficial.  The benefits of carbon dioxide far outweigh any negatives put forward by its detractors.  The additional warming effect of humanity’s CO2 emissions is largely insignificant.

CO2 – Alarmist view

The planet has a natural CO2 steady-state that is far lower than present levels and the human contribution to raising them is highly damaging.  The costs of carbon dioxide far outweigh any positives put forward by its supporters.  The additional warming effects of humanity’s CO2 emissions are highly likely to result in catastrophic consequences for the climate.

Coral bleaching – Sceptical view

Coral bleaching is caused by a range of natural cycles working separately or together in a way not yet fully understood by the science community.  Reef ecosystems in general are quite poorly understood by the science community.  Bleaching appears to have no connection to humans mining or burning coal.  Ocean temperatures are not significantly influenced by atmospheric CO2 levels.  Great Barrier Reef coral ecosystems generally appear to be in robust good health.

Coral bleaching – Alarmist view

Coral bleaching is caused by humans and is well understood by the science community.  Reef ecosystems in general are very well understood by the science community.  Bleaching is caused by humans mining and burning coal and releasing other CO2 emissions into the atmosphere.  The oceans are warming up due to increasing atmospheric CO2 levels and that is harmful to coral.  Great Barrier Reef coral ecosystems generally appear to be in catastrophically-declining health.

Signature and address

Here’s TheirABC’s official response – dated 15/05/2017….

FOI REQUEST – REFERENCE NUMBER 2017-011

I refer to your request for access to documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act) in your email of 20 April 2017. Specifically, you have sought access to the following:

“A document with a list of links to articles related to ‘global warming’, ‘climate change’, ‘CO2’ and ‘coral bleaching’ that represent the sceptical view of those respective debates—as presented by the ABC on all its platforms from 21 April 2016 to 20 April 2017.

If there are no articles from the last 12 months, [you] will be satisfied with a list of the last 10 years of sceptical articles.”

I note that in our acknowledgement letter to you on 4 May 2017, we stated that for the purposes of FOI we would assume that by “articles” you were not only referring to written pieces, but to broadcast news and current affairs content on ABC television, radio and online services.

I am authorised by the Managing Director under section 23 of the FOI Act to make decisions in respect of requests made under that Act. Following is my decision in relation to your request.

Locating and identifying documents

I have taken reasonable steps to identify and locate all relevant documents. My search for these documents involved contacting the following relevant people, who in turn consulted with relevant managers and staff within their respective teams:

Director News

Manager Editorial Policies, News.

I requested that searches be conducted of all hard and soft copy records for documents which fall within the scope of your request. As a result of those searches, no documents were identified.

Under section 24A of the FOI Act, the ABC may refuse a request for access if all reasonable steps have been taken to find a document and the ABC is satisfied that the document does not exist. In the present case, I consider that all reasonable steps have been taken to locate relevant documents. I am further satisfied that the requested documents do not exist and therefore access to them is refused pursuant to section 24A of the FOI Act.

If you are dissatisfied with this decision you can apply for Internal or Information Commissioner (IC) Review. You do not have to apply for Internal Review before seeking IC Review. Information about your review rights is attached.

Yours sincerely

Next consider this extract from TheirABC’s code of practice….

4. Impartiality and diversity of perspectives

Standards:

4.1 Gather and present news and information with due impartiality.

4.2 Present a diversity of perspectives so that, over time, no significant strand of thought or belief within the community is knowingly excluded or disproportionately represented.

4.3 Do not state or imply that any perspective is the editorial opinion of the ABC. The ABC takes no editorial stance other than its commitment to fundamental democratic principles including the rule of law, freedom of speech and religion, parliamentary democracy and equality of opportunity.

4.4 Do not misrepresent any perspective.

4.5 Do not unduly favour one perspective over another.

If TheirABC were meeting those standards we would be seeing articles representing views from both sides of the climate debate.  But we don’t.  We only ever see alarmist articles.  Those people who only take news from the ABC may well be unaware that a “diversity of perspectives” even exists in the climate debate.

The purpose of this exercise was, as noted, primarily to trigger cognitive dissonance amongst all the worker-luvvies who now know for a certainty deep in the backs of their minds that they are not meeting their own corporate standards.  They may never acknowledge their bias publicly, but that seed of self-doubt is planted.

The secondary reasons included forming the basis of a Ministerial missive requesting Senators Fifield and Nash to sell Their ABC – which has been submitted.  It included this para….

“It is time the ABC sank or swam on its own merits.  Please sell it.  Right now.  Yes, the left will scream.  But they can put their money where their mouths are and buy it.  That way they’ll at least be its legitimate owners rather than the occupying force they are today.  That way I and other conservatives won’t be funding the left’s propaganda machine.”

There’ll also be a formal complaint about the breach of the code of practice to the luvvies at ACMA – when I get to it.

This not a goal-oriented mission, it’s more a system-oriented activity in line with Dilbert creator Scott Adams’ philosophies.  That way there’s no disappointments when the luvvies pretend they have done nothing wrong.

All right, JoNovaians.  Long story complete.  Any suggestions?

Cheers, Beliaik

(The tag grew from a local pollie noting she got a tummy pain whenever she saw me approaching.)

 

h/t John, Dave B, Pat, Jim

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.3/10 (97 votes cast)

Weekend Unthreaded

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.2/10 (21 votes cast)

Antarctica might go green say scientists (only 2km of ice and 50C of warming to go)

More great journalism from The Guardian:

Climate change is turning Antarctica green, say researchers

Or maybe it isn’t. Check out the brave actual prediction:

“Antarctica is not going to become entirely green, but it will become more green than it currently is,” said Matt Amesbury, co-author of the research from the University of Exeter.

Can I just say, the mean thickness of the Antarctic ice sheet is 2.16 km. I don’t know many plants that grow through one meter of ice.

Scientists studying banks of moss in Antarctica have found that the quantity of moss, and the rate of plant growth, has shot up in the past 50 years, suggesting the continent may have a verdant future.

There is more chance that Santa Claus will move in.

Maybe scientists will engineer frost resistant plants that survive at minus fifty. Right now, tonight, the centre of Antarctica is only five degrees below that.

Fifty years from now, plants that survive minus 50 will have a home…

Spot the out-of-date, old cherry picking:

In the second half of the 20th century, the Antarctic Peninsula experienced rapid temperature increases, warming by about half a degree per decade.

Nobody mention that in the last 20 years the Antarctic Peninsula cooled by almost 1 degree.

News from 20 years ago? Call the Guardian an “oldspaper”.

So some bits of moss are growing on some corners of Antarctica. Should we thank the blob of superheated magma lying underneath?

All stories on Antarctica

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.7/10 (68 votes cast)

India meets climate goals early by doubling coal, and keeping it as main energy source for next 30 years

In the last day in the media, India is going to use coal as its backbone energy for the next thirty years, is buying coal mines all around the world, and will double production by 2020 to a massive 1,500 million tons per annum. At the same time India is meetings its climate goals early, and is likely to reduce emissions by 2 – 3 billion tons by 2030.

They can’t all be true:

Coal to be India’s energy mainstay for next 30 years: policy paper

–Economic Times, May 16th

China, India dominate coal ownership as some shun climate risks: report

– Reuters, May 15th

Coal Decline In China & India Likely To Reduce Emissions Growth By 2-3 Billion Tonnes By 2030

– Cleantechnica, May 16th

China, India to Reach Climate Goals Years Early, as U.S. Likely to Fall Far Short

-InsideClimateNews, May 16th
 The top two headlines are backed by big numbers: India is the worlds third largest coal producer, and coal powers 60% of India’s energy needs. But the poor investors or readers of industry rags might think India’s coal use is falling. Read the fine print.

Lessons in spin:

It’s all in how an issue is framed. The third headline talks about “reductions” from forecast values, meaning theoretical savings of emissions “that might have been, but weren’t”.
The fourth headline tells us that the two massive coal producing nations are “meeting climate targets early” which just shows how pathetic the climate targets are.
If these countries are a “success” what does failure look like?
We have to teach children (adults) how to filter these contradictions.
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.8/10 (89 votes cast)

Innovative taxes needed to “find” $300 billion pa for climate damage

In socialistspeak people don’t produce goods to make money, they “find” money lying around the crysanthymums or something, because $300,000,000,000 dollars didn’t have anywhere else to be.

Innovative finance needed to find $300 billion a year for climate losses

And what if the solar dynamo drives climate change instead?

Tax the Sun.

My climate prediction: Global climate reparations are going to employ 100 million accountants.

By Laurie Goering

LONDON (Thomson Reuters Foundation) – With money for action on climate change already in short supply, an estimated $300 billion a year needed to help countries deal with unavoidable climate losses will have to come from innovative new sources, such as a financial transaction tax or carbon tax, researchers say.

Funding for such climate “loss and damage” aims to assist people who lose their land to sea level rise, for instance, or are forced to migrate as drought makes growing crops impossible in some regions.

“What stands out most clearly is that there isn’t currently enough funding to even begin thinking about financing loss and damage, with available climate, development, risk reduction and disaster recovery financing all falling short by an order of magnitude,” said researchers at the Berlin-based Heinrich Böll Foundation.

In a report released at the U.N. climate negotiations in Bonn, now heading into their second week, researchers said about $50 billion a year would be needed by 2020 to help people who lose their land and culture or are forced to migrate as a result of climate-related problems.

As Eric Worrall notes, the UN has such an obscene amount of money they need $300 Billion per Year to Alleviate the Tedium

Harjeet Singh, who heads climate change policy for charity ActionAid, also said that setting up a new loss and damage funding body made no sense.

“It’s so tedious to set up an institution and get it going, and make sure the money reaches the intended people. It does make sense to use the existing mechanisms to transfer the money,” he told the Thomson Reuters Foundation in a telephone interview from Bonn.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.5/10 (53 votes cast)