We want evidence, reason, and well informed opinions from all sides on important topics. Instead we’re coerced into paying for propaganda, character assassination, and the personal views of journalists.
The ABC has been outdoing itself lately. It doesn’t just ignore skeptics, it’s been actively working to denigrate them. No ad hom is too low, no fabrication too far fetched. Could it be complete fiction? Why not? Could it be the most expensive high profile ABC programs, costing tax-payers hundreds of thousands an episode? Yes sir.
It’s not a conspiracy, it’s a culture. When comedians and scriptwriters live off a diet of dogma at the ABC (it starts with the science unit), why would we be surprised that they’d churn out the same half-truths, deceit, and sloppy reasoning in their fictional work?
The ABC Chairman — Maurice Newman — recently worried about the poor intellectual quality of ABC “investigations” in The Australian, “Ad hominem attacks substitute for logical and evidence-based discourse that would otherwise allow viewers and listeners the opportunity to decide for themselves where they stand on the issues.”
Our billion-dollar ABC is supposed to represent the diverse views of the country:
The ABC editorial policy tells us the ABC must: “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.” [Thanks Bob Fernley-Jones]
The diversity of opinion is clear: the latest polls show 34% of Australians are in favor of a Carbon Tax and 57% are against.
So how do the ABC represent the voices of 57% of the people?
- A/ ignore them,
- B/ denigrate them, or
- C/ both of the above (see, e.g. “Anthony Watts”).
The lengths the ABC will go to, to destroy reputations of those they personally disagree with are considerable
I’ve already described how Wendy Carlisle called herself a “science journalist”, yet ignored Australia’s leading carbon modeler as he explained problems with climate models (twice, at length, with slides). Instead of asking Evans a single question when he was in the same room after the talks, Carlisle thought it was worth making international phone calls to people tenuously and distantly connected to the Monckton tour in order to talk about what their department was called in 1985.
The agit-prop is not just talk shows, it now extends to “comedy” and fictional dramas.
Crownies tries to defame Anthony Watts
Fictional character: James Watt
Two weeks ago, a legal drama —Crownies — put a lawyer-character in a devilish quandry. The poor dear — fresh from being drilled in Climate Alarm 101 at school — was forced to defend a “denier” who’d been punched by the lawyer’s hero — a frustrated alarmist scientist. The ‘persistent climate denialist’ was a blogger called “James Watt” who ran a site called “CO2fraud”, a thinly veiled attempt to denigrate Anthony Watts who runs the skeptical website Watts Up With That(easily the most popular climate site in the world). At the end of the case, Watt looks like a loser nerd who deserved to be punched. The climate scientist reckoned he might do it again “for $1000, it might just be worth it.” As per usual the script writers attack strawmen and produce a caricature of errors.
(Note to Crownies writers: hundreds of studies show the MWP was not just “local”, no major skeptic says GHG’s break laws of thermodynamics, the hot spot wasn’t found, alarmists still can’t name any empirical evidence, and if a glacier melts that doesn’t mean fossil fuels caused it. Any cause of warming will melt ice, raise sea levels, change growing seasons, you know.).
To see Episode 13: Try this link, or this one or possibly The ABC’s iView facility* (Parts of interest at 5.30, 15.30, 27.30, 30.30 and 38 mins.)
The ABC doesn’t even try to hide that the point was to make Watts look like an idiot — it’s written into their episode description:
Richard is prosecuting a case in court, this time with a good chance of winning. But he is not happy. He has to prosecute his climate scientist hero Tim Coghburn for assault, after Coghburn punched a persistent climate denialist, James Watt. Watt is an annoying gadfly and Richard detests all he stands for. And the fiasco is made worse when Richard sees Coghburn is being represented by Richard’s old, much admired law lecturer. Richard makes a stuttering start in court, and the defence QC makes Watt look unreliable and a bit of a goose. Part of Richard wants to lose because of his environmental concerns, but part of him needs a win. Richard finally cross examines Tim Coghburn and gets to reconcile his needs. He leads Tim through a series of questions as put by James Watt and his ilk, stirring Coghburn’s anger as he airs the simple rebuttals. Eventually Tim blurts out that yes, he did hit James Watt, and it felt great. Richard has his win, Tim is fined, and Watt still comes out of it looking like an idiot.
A Hamster tries satire on Monckton. If only it were funny…
While we toured with Christopher Monckton in Sydney in July, he mentioned that an ABC related team had interviewed him for 45 minutes, and then it all turned out to be a gotcha pretending he was Sacha Baron Cohen.
Now, What-Ho, three months later, they’ve finally scraped it into a 4 minute comedy sketch. The central idea was a good one — the riotous notion that Monckton was Cohen all along and has tricked everyone from the US Congress to media outlets everywhere. It could’ve been good — if only the actors could act. None of them can deliver their lines in any half-way convincing style. Watch Shaun Micallef self-consciously fake a laugh, see someone called Tony Martin overact his scripted lines, and laugh at the big Gotcha Moment flop as Monckton doesn’t bite and politely tells them they ought take their equipment and go.
As is usual with religious zealots, they just can’t carry off a joke. The best and funniest comedians know their topic well. But the Chaser crew don’t know Monckton well enough to realize that he has Graves Disease, and Martin’s comment that Monckton looks so “ridiculous” chokes on its own poor taste. This is cheap-trick propaganda, except it isn’t cheap. (The 8 shows cost $3.2 million dollars and the Chaser boys are getting $1.2 million of taxpayer money themselves.)
[I predict that Hamster, like Crownies, will bomb. Who wants to watch predictable shows tell them what to think and who to sneer at.]
The weak scientific culture of the ABC starts with the science unit
Bob Fernley-Jones documents just how unscientific Robyn Willliams “science” program has become.
Williams personal views on topics like “climate science” dominate his show. He reviews sympathetic smear books that personally attack scientists, but he won’t interview authors of science books who hold different opinions to his own (e.g. Professor Bob Carter, who wrote Climate: The Counter Consensus). Nor will Williams interview well-informed critics like William Kininmonth (Climate Change: A Natural Hazard), Dr David Evans, or Prof Garth Paltridge (The Climate Caper). And this despite global warming being rather near the top of the national agenda.
Williams says he won’t allow lobbyists to speak, but he interviewed a PR hack (Bob Ward) to attack Bob Carter. Carter had already explained in writing how Ward got it wrong — yet despite the weakness of Ward’s attack, Williams broadcast it without mentioning Carter’s answers in the broadcast, even though he had the document.
Over the last year Williams has gone out of his way to interview name-calling bloggers (John Cook wrote a whole book on “deniers”) or Oreskes (the Merchant of Doubt herself, who smears senior scientists with 20 year old misinformation). The weakness of the reasoning is so poor that Williams apparently thinks useful answers to climate science questions can be found by talking about tobacco funding in 1990. It’s tabloid gutter talk pretending to be “science”.
In other words if you can help propagate baseless ad hominem attacks, or you are so confused you think we learn something about the climate by analyzing someone’s biography, then the ABC would like to hear from you. But if you are a learned professor, with years of experience and you present a view that 6 out of 10 Australians are sympathetic with, you are persona-non-grata.
When will the ABC professional culture improve?
In 2010, Maurice Newman tried to warn ABC staff that they were risking one of the most trusted brands in the country:
“Should there be a view that the ABC was sheltering particular beliefs from scrutiny, or failing to question a consensus, I would consider it to be a dangerous perception that could lead to the public’s trust in us being undermined,”
Journalists and editors at the ABC are putting their personal preferences above most Australian’s, and elevating their opinions above professors of science. This is tribal warfare. We could ignore the petty minds, but they are in charge of the tax-payer funded megaphone. It’s time we stopped being coerced into paying for it to be used against us.
Maurice Newman will be replaced soon, but in the current political climate it is hard to imagine the change will mean the ABC will be run in a wiser, less biased manner.
It’s time for the Tax-time-tick-a-box campaign
Taxpayers fund the ABC. Why not let taxpayers a voice their view on their tax return? Let’s give them an opt-out, or an alternative:
“I agree my tax dollars should support the ABC ☐ ?”
All of the taxpayers who feel that the ABC represents and informs them will be happy to tick YES. (Right now, I want my money to go to medical research instead. How about you?)
The incentive to represent voters from all sides of the spectrum would produce the diversity and real competition that this country desperately needs.
———————————————————————-
If you are dismayed by the misuse of your tax dollars, you can write to the Chairman of the ABC or register a complaint.
UPDATED: Bob Fernley Jones has a better suggestion in comments:
There has been mention above that a formal complaint can be made to the ABC. They are obliged to respond to such through their “independent” Audience and Consumer Affairs group, AKA as A&CA, and a case number is mandatorily allocated and advised to complainants.
If you complain directly to the Chairman of the Board, (Maurice Newman), you are pressuring someone who has said enough to suggest that he must be fuming about the ABC culture, but he seems powerless to do much about it. One reason for that is possibly that the Editor-in-Chief is the Managing Director, (Mark Scott), whom apparently obeys the consensus alarmist view, and seemingly does not pay heed to the Chairman’s views. An influence on this may be that the ABC is funded by the government, and it may not be politic for the MD to bite the hand that feeds them….. dunno; just musing.
The official complaint process is OK within certain limits, such as being unable to address a particular person or wanting to format the text with quotes or emphasis, or inserting hyperlinks, and whatnot. However, this difficulty can be overcome by using the “official” complaints process and stating something like: refer to my (rich text) Email of…. to…. for full detail.
So, if anyone wishes to complain to the ABC, here follow some relevant Email addresses. Don’t expect to receive a quick reply from your selected addressee; since they would likely refer it to A&CA. However, they are alerted to your complaint and may think on it. (probably latently ranking high in the thoughts of less driven people). If you go through the “official” complaints system, you will be given a case number, and A&CA are obliged to respond in less than 60 days by law (and there are appeal processes if you are not happy with their ruling).
A&CA direct: [email protected]
Angela Peters, PA to Chairman (Mr Newman): [email protected]
Lin Buckfield, Exec Producer of “Media Watch”: [email protected]
Mark Scott, MD & Editor-in-Chief: [email protected]
Paul Chadwick, Director of Editorial policies: [email protected]
Jonathan Holmes: Presenter of Media Watch [email protected]
David Fisher, producer of “Science Show”: [email protected]
Robyn Williams, usual presenter of “Science Show”: [email protected]
It may be appropriate to exert pressure on “Media Watch” to apply more balance than they have shown in the past year.
Note to Robyn Williams: Where is the evidence?
I have written about William’s important role and poor professional standards before in: The evidence? What evidence?
———————————————————————
*The video will be available for viewing for the next two weeks. If that link doesn’t work, then you can access it by going to the abc website at <a href=“http://www.abc.net.au” rel=”nofollow”>www.abc.net.au</a>Click on TV on the menu, then click iView, then Programs, then Drama, then click on the Segment “Crownies” – Episode 13. (Thanks Elaine)
** The Hamster Wheel is produced by Giant Dwarf Pty. Ltd. in association with ABC TV. Executive Producers – Julian Morrow & Martin Robertson; ABC Executive Producer – Kath Earle.
The ABC meme-o-graph has been running at full steam for over a decade. But, as the public didn’t resist, they’ve been turning up the volume. Surrendering to the cacophy (to lie properly, you have to first believe a truth in the lie), they themselves have abandoned intellect for the warm embrace of unquestioning belief; drowning out questions and urges to think for themselves with mindless chants.
(Puts “ABC Programming” in a diffent light, doesn’t it?)
Now, there is no turning back. Who’ll be sticking around for the Kool-Aid?
10
Bernd
That’s a good way of expressing it and Kevin @8 below works a similar idea :
“”(to lie properly, you have to first believe a truth in the lie)””
10
As usual Bernd, you beat me to it. 🙂
What we are witnessing now, is the harvesting of a crop planted in the late 1990’s.
In 1998, James Hansen made a testimony before the United States House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. This was his second testimony, the earlier being in 1968, to a Congressional hearing, chaired by Senator Tim Wirth of Colorado.
The earlier testimony was a cleverly crafted scare tactic for funding, and it worked. Hanson got the funding he wanted for him and his team. The flow of information provided, from a series of grants, in a return on that investment, was sufficient to be reflected in the name of the 1988 Select Committee.
It is hard to say whether the idea of “climate as the enemy” was sold by Hansen, or whether it was purchased by Congress. Which was the cause, and which was the effect? We will probably never know – there were lots of agendas in play at that time.
But in either case, an idea was sold, and thus started its long diffusion into policy, thence the media who report on policy, into social attitudes that are influenced by the media, and thus to the media who report on social attitudes, and thus to the media who report on social attitudes, and thus to the media who report on social attitudes … you get the picture.
Neither your average socialite, nor your average pot-head, tend to read about the minutia of congressional hearings. It is the job of the media to report the message, and they can recognise a good meme when they see one. Good memes sell media subscriptions, so are to be encouraged and fed, and the more high octane the feeding, the better the meme, and the better the financial returns. Eventually everybody is talking about it.
Of course the groundswell of popular opinion is not lost on the politicians, who see it as a way of garnering votes, so of course they “adjust their life-long beiiefs” to better align with the people they would like to represent. So it becomes part of their election plank, and is dutifully reported by the political media, and thus influences social attitudes, and once more becomes centre stage in the media who report on social attitudes.
Those of us who are interested in peering through the fog of the future, tend to see the world in a pictorial way (pictures are easier to conceptualise than words), and we see this as two concentric circles, that are spinning (*) at different speeds. In the centre you have the political circle which seems to have a rotational frequency of about twenty years, and a media circle which has a much faster rotational frequency, of around four or five years.
It is worth noting that twenty years is about a generation, and each generation tends to question the beliefs of their parents. Hansen’s brilliance was, and is, in being able to capture the ideas of two consecutive generations of politicians, and to keep that going.
The political cycle, as Jo has reported, is now over a peak and is starting to decline. For political purposes, its time of usefulness is passing (unless Jim and co can pull something else out of the hat).
The media cycle is still on an up-swing and is fighting back at the apparent change in political and public attitudes. The “ABC programming” (gotta love Bernd’s insight) is reflective of that.
When something isn’t working, the natural instinct is to try doing it harder. The ABC is still working with a funding model that was established while they were congruent with political thinking, and they will continue to do what they have been doing for as long as that tranch of funding lasts.
This is actually all for the good. Because in the nature of all things that have a natural frequency, they will end up out of phase with society, and out of phase with their political masters. So, at some point, there will be a change in the funding model for the ABC, and at that time, we will see a lurch as the Corporation moves quickly to realign itself with the new financial reality. And thus the cycles will continue.
(*) The reference to Spin, and hence Propaganda, was intentional. [This footnote is provided as a public service for those trolls who “don’t do” nuance.]
10
Watch the narrative change from climate change to something even more ambiguous sometime in the near future. They will simply switch horses mid-race and hope the stewards don’t notice. Keep your eyes open. The emperor still has no clothes, but his followers will pretend not to notice the emphasis change from AGW to a more generalised enviro-cause where the culprit is still of human origin. They just haven’t found the right public relations narrative to change to yet, but they will.
10
How about “Sustainability” – the catchcry of Agenda 21?
10
Kevin Rudd is on the 21 member panel of agenda 21.
10
It is already here, Coal Seam Gas and Frakking. The Greens don’t want gas because they dont want any fossil fuel used, and they are trading on farmer’s fears whilst pursuing thier own agenda.
10
Look back to Russia and China to see how well State media worked. Free press was that because it worked to correct government wrongs by showing them in the light of truth. Control the press and you have the people (until they get really upset).
You don’t have a free press if it is taxpayer funded.
At some point you may realize if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it may very well be a duck.
10
Mark,
Nothing works in a Communist country, so it is hardly fair to pick on state-run media as an example.
I am not sure why I am bothering to point this out. I am sure that if the current crop of politicians get their way, Australians will eventually get the chance to find out for themselves.
10
But if you are a learned professor, with years of experience and you present a view that 6 out of 10 Australians are sympathetic with, you are
persona-non-gratis.Jo, typo, should be persona non grata.
—–
REPLY: Fixed. Ta! 🙂 JN
10
Incredible. On this basis the ABC makes the BBC look reasonable and balanced. Even Auntie wouldn’t dare broadcast such naked propaganda – yet.
10
Actually there was a real James Watt. He was Interior Secretary for a while during the first Reagan term in office starting in 1981. He was a real free market guy, absolutely despised the greens, was in turn despised by them, and an evangelical Christian. He was chased out of office due to a less than PC description of the makeup of his staff. The Clinton administration indicted him in 1995 for false statements made during an investigation (see Scooter Libby and Martha Stewart – note to self: NEVER talk to a federal investigator). He pled to one misdemeanor, was put on probation and paid a fine. Fighting the greens is a full body contact sport on this side of the Pacific. And the greens have a very long memory and will come after you if you were effective. Watt was effective. Wiki on him can be found here: James Watt. Cheers –
10
Another great piece from Joanne.
The ABC sounds like the BBC on acid!
As furious as I am with the BBC – and they really are bad – the ABC has taken AGW alarmist propaganda to a new level.
I hope that thousands of Aussies take up Jo’s invitation to complain in writing to the Chairman of the ABC.
10
Complain?….. I was considerin’ on doin’ a Libya on their asses…. Apparently it’s okay to abuse, torture and summarily execute any prisoners as a bonus too. It’s not a warcrime anymore…;-)
It’s a brave new world in lefty land…. except I have a sneaking suspicion that they haven’t put the thought into it that they perhaps should have…. LOL.
10
Around the world, the tide is turning and it’s building inexorably to a tsunami. It’ll reach the Antipodes in due course. The times they are achanging, as Bob said. It’s due in no small part to courageous individuals like yourself Jo, who kept on plugging through those bleak years of not so long ago.
“Investigative journalism is alive and well; it’s just moved house.”
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2011/06/17/the-death-of-journalism-and-the-irresistible-rise-of-the-blogosphere/
Pointman
10
Well said!
10
Great article pointman well said and inexplicably true.
We do have a few journo’s getting down and dirty and putting their future on the line every day. For that I am very thankfull to people such as Jo, Andrew Bolt, Allan Jones etc. I don’t think journalism is completely dead but they have some work to do.
Say YES to an election now !!
10
Excerpt from:
http://www.natural-person.ca/pdf/mary_croft.pdf
“When I hear, “I don’t believe in conspiracy theories”, what I hear is, “I’ve made up my mind based upon what I’ve been told to think by the Media Mafia conspiring to propagandize via TV, radio, and newspapers; please don’t confuse me with the truth.” What’s true is these people do believe in conspiracy theories – the ones they’ve been fed. If what they believe, i.e.: what they’ve been told to think, were true, they wouldn’t need to believe it.
Belief is of the ego mind and hence, false. When we know something is true, we don’t need to involve our egos. This is why we don’t really have much emotional attachment to the truth. It just is. When people become emotional about a subject I know they only ‘believe’ it. This usually comes up around religious or political beliefs. They are protecting their programming which has settled into the ego mind. The truth is foreign to those who argue those two subjects. It is their not knowing which causes the emotional response. Those who have certainty, which is from their experience, have no emotional charge on it. Arguing, by definition, is a reaction of the ego. This is why no one wins an argument. There is no win when the ego thinks it has won.
The Media are the sycophants of those promoting their agenda but its not really conspiracy – “plotting for treason, murder, sedition, or other evil-doing” (Oxford English Dictionary); it is complicity – “accompliceship; partnership in guilt” .The word “theory” means premise yet to be proven. So when one puts it all together, “I don’t believe in conspiracy theories”, it sounds rather weak. I don’t believe in conspiracy theories either. I don’t need to; I know of the evidence of complicity. Along with being accused of ‘believing in conspiracy theories’, I am also accused of being a ‘cynic’.
The cynics are right 9 times out of 10. – H. L. Mencken”
10
The once highly respected ABC is now the home or launch-pad for such drivel as Tripple JJJ, The Chasers, Crownies.
That all of these programs are targeted at the 15 year old market is a sad reflection on how our Tax dollars are used.
While visiting a supermarket recently the piped entertainment was Triple JJJ.
I was astounded at the anti “old people” vitriol that came over the speakers.
Flip comments from 25 year old “heroes” disparaging “Old Farts” is appalling.
You don’t need to be a psychologist or anything other than “sensible” to understand the damage that this sort of propaganda is doing our society enormous damage.
It is not funny on commercial shows and it is not funny on the ABC and a failure of Government that it is presented on the Commonwealth Broadcasting network paid for from the hard won tax dollars of the old farts being abused.
Driving a wedge between generations is Un-Australian.
Sorry for using that term “Un-Australian”. Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.
With ambassadors like “Hamish and Andy, The Chasers, Triple JJJ” and all the other juvenile programs found in Australian media who needs Kev the sequestrator to polish our image overseas.
10
Could be you are right. But there has always been inter-generational friction. Did you never, not once, think that your parents just didn’t really understand what life was about?
Look on the bright side. Our kids have grown up with constant media exposure that has been increasing in intensity, breadth, and volume. In all dimensions in fact, with the exception of depth – not much depth any more, but hey …
They have actually built up an immunity to this stuff (which is why it is increasing, by the way – see my previous comment at 1.2), so it is a lot less dangerous to them than it was to their parents and grand parents.
If you ask any of these kids if “old people” should be killed, just because they are old, most will say, “Well no, but they should go to old people’s homes and not get in our way”. The few who answer, “Yeah, why not”, should then be asked if that should also apply to their grand parents and parents. On deeper reflection, they ar likely say, “Well no, because my folks don’t get in the way all of the time”.
It is easy to believe anything, and nothing, when you are young.
10
Good point”
“Our kids have grown up with constant media exposure that has been increasing in intensity”
Developed immunity.
Still the ABC focus is not really appropriate an does damage.
We can understand the damage it does in Global Warming because we have taken the time to explore it thoroughly; Social damage is harder to see, I’m just saying we should be aware of the possibility or better still ask the police or teachers what they think of the usefulness of ABC propaganda from Chaser style programs.
10
When I was a boy someone came up with the advice to “never trust anyone over 30”, and it has stood me in good stead ever since.
10
so 1975 was the year they became disrespected.. when they started a youth radio station?
10
Once upon a time the ABC was something to be PROUD of,sadly now it has become a total embarrassment to the People of Australia and should be disbanded as soon as possible.
10
geo,
Living in a rural area the ABC provided a lot of good information and during times of floods provided constant updates. They were useful. Rural programmes are still OK and far better than the absolute crap produced in the city.
The ABC has gone the way of the CSIRO, BoM and ANU; all downhill.
10
I do live in Country N.S.W. and all that is true but WHERE do you draw the line.OUTRIGHT lies and BLATANT propaganda are inexcusable.The A.B.C. belongs to the people of Australia and we deserve better from them.May be it’s time for another EUREKA STOCKADE.
10
What would that achieve? Besides the Banksters agent – the government, would be the only side with guns.
10
It would achieve more than sitting on your arse and complaining besides smart people don’t need guns,civil disobedience and passive resistance will make things to difficult and expensive in the long run.Could you imagine the nightmare of paperwork if 5 million people refused to vote until the carbon tax was cancelled,guns or no guns we outnumber them.I could have a lot of fun with a can of spray paint,there are speed cameras and cctv cameras everywhere .Oh yes I could make myself a bloody nuisance.
10
“You don’t get to vote the way it is; you already did” Werner Erhard.
Could you imagine the nightmare of paperwork if 5 million people refused to pay taxes?
10
The ABC is not only “owned” by the people, the ABC act of Parliement and its charter seem to say that it is here to SERVE the people. Ho hum!
10
Rather than a Eureka Stockade – kill two birds with one stone.
“Apparently, Cambridge Ontario is using its own currency called Community Dollars.
The people of Argentina learned the hard way. The IMF stole all their property, their production, their labour, and their lives because they could no longer pay the arbitrarily increasing rate of interest on the fictitious loan.
As one woman put it, after the banks collapsed, and the people returned to bartering their labour and productivity among themselves, “We just figured, if they won’t give us their money,fine – we’ll make our own.” And they did. They are now thriving on their own interest free currency. No more poverty. They no longer have to produce three times their needs and sell two thirds of it to pay artificial interest payments to banks!
They will not accept cash of any kind or even the fictitious value of gold. Barter, whether we use our own self-created currency or whether we use electronic trade credits
from barter exchanges and networks is a perfect next step in our realization that we are all one because it will move us away from the banks which are literally stealing our health, wealth, love, peace of mind, labour,production, talent, spirit … our lives.
Barter is a fabulous way to get out from under the International Banksters; the government itself uses barter and 68% of all Fortune 500 corporations are involved in barter.
You think they don’t know it works?….”
http://www.natural-person.ca/pdf/mary_croft.pdf
10
One of the appalling things about ABC programming is that the “talent” is being paid Big Money to indulge themselves.
Politicians need to be held to account for this abuse of trust ie failing to give us a Rigorous, forward looking, uplifting, best practice Programming.
10
Apalling Broadcast Content
10
Why do I get the impression that you feel quite strongly about this … 😉
10
Ha Ha 🙂
Yes I live here and pay lots and lots of TAX.
I would rather my tax contribution not go to pushing the Global Warming agenda or to JJJ.
10
I can remember when JJJ was just a cutting edge new music station … ahhh the good ol’ days ….
10
To be fair JJJ has done far more for Australian music (and continues to do so) than all of the rest of the commercial stations put together. Australian music and musicians should be thankful that such a station exists. I still listen to it, and just laugh at their green-left-weekly editorial content. They are just useful idiots, after all, and really have no idea. You have to keep perspective as a listener. I’d rather listen to a 30 second grab about how awful Tony Abbott is than 5 minutes of ads for lawn mowers and yet another playback of a Bryan Adams song on some awful commercial station.
Oh, and you have to switch it off if the DJ is on an Australian rap artist thing. That stuff I can’t stand. But it’s a free country.
10
Rather than just whingeing about it, objective No.1 should be to make the ABC, as a taxpayer-funded entity, accountable. Newspapers have the Australian Press Council (which they volunteered to create to avoid government regulation). A government broadcaster, with at least one radio and/or TV frequency available to every household in the country, requires an ABC Standards Council, where producers of public affairs programs are required to answer allegations of bias. So far, we have only the ABC’s pathetic Media Watch, which barely ever deals with ABC bias, even though I’d guess that 60%+ of Australians would nominate ABC bias as an issue. In fact, more often than not, Media Watch is used as an attack dog by the Green Left clique that runs ABC public affairs on articles/programs in the rest of the media that it doesn’t agree with. I’d hope the proposed Australian government inquiry into media regulation is forced to deal with the ABC issue. If it doesn’t, it will be a whitewash designed by the Greens to attack the only Australian media that isn’t a slavish lapdog of the Greens-Labor government – i.e., News Limited papers and blogs.
10
Tom,
I believe that history will record the coalition of the ALP and Greens will be a turning point. The Greens have been exposed by their own utterances and actions as a party that is not compatible with a democracy that does not object to advancement through hard work. The fact that only about 12% actually vote for them and I expect that to fall next election should be seen as a good thing. Their strongest support is among the inexperienced young and the elite (read Useless) academics. The ALP now recognise, far too late, that their bed fellow is dangerous and totally impractical. The ALP will try and distance themselves from the Green policies which have caused them so much angst. It will then be interesting to see which branch of left the ABC will sponsor.
10
lawrie I’d love to agree with you but the average Greens voter is more interseted in ‘vibe’ than results or outcomes. I am serious when I say that for many people, choosing the Greens as their political party is akin to them choosing which nightclub they frequent. IT’s all about the image and fitting in, rather than actually making change. Sure, there are some activist green-lefties – but there is nowhere near enough of them to get all the votes they do. The rest are just made up from people who want to be alternative and not vote for ‘the man’ – read this as thinking the world isn’t perfect (no, it isn’t) and so the main political parties must be the reason. So voting for some other party must be the way to fix it. But I doubt even most of them think that deeply. I have younger relatives in this headspace and I despair when I see them and their friends blindly supporting Bob Brown as some type of counter-culture hero, just because he says things like ‘hate media’.
I also disagree that the ALP will successfully distance themselves from the greens. The greens are eating the ALP from within, and the ALP is stranded between the Liberals and the Greens and doesn’t know which side of issues to come down on. They constantly flip-flop between centrist positions and far-left positions (asylum seekers, live cattle, carbon taxes). I seriously believe they, as a party, are going through a crisis of confidence. I’m not one to write off political parties – all parties are just one leader and a useless opponent away from a landslide comeback (see T. Abbot and the liberals, who were thought to be gone for a decade). But if the ALP dont’ figure out what they stand for pretty soon, they are going to end up permanently sharing coalition status with the Greens.
10
Hi brc
Nice outline
– very real
– and scary that so much power can be handed to people with so few skills in running a country on the basis of “”voting for some other party.””
— also scary that so many young people are being entrained by the green – left – “we have been robbed by the ecologically impure” theme put out on the ABC and its media offspring like JJJJJJJJ.
— Where is the radio or TV station that will tell people to “be alert” to the possibility that the message they are getting is very distorted and restricted.
It is hard to find reality when money and power are concerned and these two things drive politics.
10
Dropped into the ABC website a moment ago and featured under “Best of ABC – Our picks of unmissable content”
At home with Bob
“Bob Brown’s country cottage is the birthplace of the Australian Greens.”
Sigh. Well I suppose they could’ve had an altar and candles. Poor Mr Newman must be a frustrated guy.
10
I’m pretty sure the sketch around Monckton is a complete own goal. They seem to forget that engaging with the ‘enemy’ in such a pathetic way is giving validity to the other position as being stronger; e.g is that all you can come up with?
Humor, if done right, can be an effective communication medium, just put ‘hide the decline’ into youtube..
10
I used to watch the ABC in preference to commercial stations. But now I’ve either ceased or now only rarely watch most of those programs. Four Corners is mostly rubbish. Catalyst is an AGW spout. As for Q&A – where do I start? Jenny Brockie runs a far better current affairs opinion show (Insight on SBS). I used to be a big fan of the Chaser boys, but the Hamster show leaves me pretty flat, and the Monckton segment last week was just plain embarrassing (for Craig Reucassel). I watch the odd 7:30 program, but only because Chris Uhlmann is there.
The ABC is a sad shadow of what it once was. The latte left have taken over. I certainly could find better ways to spend my 8c per day, or whatever it is nowadays.
10
We have similar problem in Canada with the CBC ho gets a $1.6 billion stipend from the Federal government every year. What I can say categorically is it doesn’t even come close to representing the vast majority of Canadians. It is now run by elitist, progressives with an agenda. There are calls to privatize it our at least cut its funding. I say say slay the beast!
—–
Reply: $1.6 b for CBC? wow. — JN
10
Folks, don’t concern yourselves so much about this. The ABC’s audience reach is in single figures. Those who do watch are either so far gone it doesn’t matter or apply their own credibility “filter”.
The only ABC show I watch with any consistency is “Silent Witness”. Never watch their news or current affairs programs.
10
Our local ABC TV transmitter has been off air since 19 October. They haven’t fixed it. I thought up until last night probably because no-one bothered to report it, but now it isn’t even transmitting static anymore, so someone probably reported it and they switched it off.
10
Gnome, if I may ask where (approximately) are you located? I ask because I work for the company that is responsible for broadcasting the ABC and SBS signal (don’t shoot the messenger!) and it is unlikely that any site would be off air for any serious length of time unless it was part of the Analog TV switch-off that is happening in a phased way across the country. Off course if it is what we call a “D” class site, it may not be looked at for a few days depending on the location …
10
It is the Lower Tully black spot repeater (self help tower) in Brosnan Road. (The full story is that it is due to be switched off on 6 December and most people have their satellite installations in place, but that doesn’t really fit the narrative here. Don’t get me started on that though!)
10
I have had a look around in our systems and our nearest site is at Mt Myrtle. This must be an Optus or Telstra site. This is one thing you cannot blame the ABC for. That still leaves a large number of things you can blame them for …
10
Thanks Jo.
FYI I sat in on Dr. Ben “I’m tempted to beat the crap out of Pat Michaels the next time I see him at a conference, very tempted” Santer last night, just feet from him.
No cross words, no fisticuffs, no bloodshed. WUWT?
I taped the entire presentation:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/21/dr-ben-santer-speaks-on-climate-modeling-and-everything-else/
10
Happy to be your wing man any time Anthony !!
10
Hi Anthony; I was interested to see Dr ‘blood and guts’ Santer and I want to say that us Newcastle boys have your back anytime you need us.
I’m afraid Santer lost me at 1 minute 17 seconds in when he said the IPCC was set up to tell us what we knew and did not know about AGW; that is completely wrong as even a cursory glance at that organisation’s charter reveals:
http://www.ipccfacts.org/history.html
The “mission statement” of the IPCC is to:
There does not seem to be much room in there for doubt about the existence of AGW and the IPCC’s history has been to never admit to any doubt or mistakes; the science is settled is the MO of the organisation and as, perhaps, the most influential of IPCC hired scientists Santer is as responsible as anyone for that deplorable state of affairs.
10
no matter what the politics of the following media, the comments show the public are saying “good riddance”:
7 Oct: UK Daily Mail: Amana Platell: The bloated Beeb was crying out for job cuts
BBC boss Mark Thompson solemnly announces the loss of 2,000 jobs after conducting the biggest overhaul of the Corporation in its history. Predictably, he is met with near hysteria from wide sections of the liberal establishment…
Many will be retiring anyway (on gold-plated pensions) or taking voluntary redundancy (on generous packages). The BBC is bending over backwards to accommodate them, and has even changed its redundancy terms so that sacked workers can be re-employed within just three months…
I’ve worked in TV and radio in the private sector as well as at the BBC, and I can say categorically that the Beeb will often employ two to three times as many people as Sky, ITV or independent radio stations to do the same job. The truth is that Auntie’s had it too good for too long.
As with most public institutions, the BBC’s employees seem to forget that it is we, the taxpayers, who are footing the corporation’s £3.5 billion bill.
And isn’t there an inherent metropolitan elitism about some of the decisions over what programmes should and shouldn’t be cut?…
Let’s hope that, when the dust settles, we find that ludicrous jobs with titles such as Multiplatform & Portfolio Controller and Reward Director, paying nearly £200,000 a year, have gone. But don’t bet on it.
Because, even in the teeth of the cuts, the Beeb’s still recruiting for these managerial posts. When chief operating officer Caroline Thomson (who earns £385,000) was asked on Newsnight why the corporation’s currently seeking a ‘Decision Support Analyst’ on £58,000, she was forced to admit she didn’t even know what the job entailed.
The response to job cuts at the BBC and BAE highlights how different the recession is for the public and the private sectors…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2046654/BBC-budget-cuts-The-bloated-Beeb-crying-job-cuts.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
6 Oct: BBC: BBC set to cut 2,000 jobs by 2017
Technicians’ union Bectu accused the corporation’s director general Mark Thompson of “destroying jobs and destroying the BBC”…
Unions reacted angrily to news of the job cuts. Gerry Morrissey, general secretary of the technicians’ union Bectu, said the BBC’s proposals should have been called “destroying quality first”.
The National Union of Journalists added “the BBC will not be the same organisation if these cuts go ahead”…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-15165926
6 Oct: UK Daily Telegraph: BBC to move another 1,000 jobs to Manchester
The BBC is to cut 2,000 of its 17,000 staff and move another 1,000 to its new Manchester base as part of a plan to reduce annual spending by £700 million, the corporation will announce today.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/8809075/BBC-to-move-another-1000-jobs-to-Manchester.html
Guardian naturally has maximum coverage but the comments don’t share the paper’s concerns:
6 Oct: Guardian: News to bear the brunt of BBC cuts that bite across the board
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/oct/06/bbc-cuts-news-2000-jobs?INTCMP=SRCH
only ABC coverage i could find after a lengthy search, and it is Reuters, and no comments. feeling nervous?
7 Oct: ABC: Reuters: BBC to shrink as it shares in UK spending cuts
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-06/bbc-to-shrink-as-it-shares-in-uk-spending-cuts/3320996
10
Ezra Levant: Countering the Media Consensus with Andrew Breitbart. http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/countering-the-consensus/1223329525001
10
Makes you wonder why the ABC wasn’t mentioned in the climate spin budgets … surely they are the biggest expenditure of all.
10
The BBC and The Guardian wax lyrical and predictable, continuing to push the warmism agenda in emotive framing. The author of the Attenborough piece in the Guardian is Susanna Rustin. The piece is a rambling and meaningless polemic, a transparent way in which to link Attenborough ‘gravitas’ with warmism – the smoke and mirrors brigade in full swing. At least Attenborough is honest and claims no intellectual insight or scientific knowledge of the complex issues, or links a preference of one policy over another. He merely professes the logical fallacy of argument by majority. Pathetic really.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2011/oct/21/david-attenborough-frozen-planet-climate-change
“David Attenborough: ‘I’m an essential evil'”
“David Attenborough’s latest TV series, Frozen Planet, is being heralded as his take on climate change. Now 85, he explains why – finally – he’s speaking out on the issue, and shares the joys of a long life spent filming sex and death in the wild.”
“But Attenborough’s sense of himself as a non-expert, combined with the trust invested in him by his vast audience, has also held him back. It is the reason he was reluctant to speak publicly about climate change, although privately convinced of the evidence for 15 years. “I’m not a chemist, I don’t know about the chemistry of the upper atmosphere, so that is why I kept out of the argument for as long as I did. But eventually enough people say two and two makes four for you to say yes, it’s four.”
10
“I’m not a chemist, I don’t know about the chemistry of the upper atmosphere, so that is why I kept out of the argument for as long as I did. But eventually enough people say two and two makes four for you to say yes, it’s four.”
If enough people from Nineteen Eighty Four said that two and two make five, what side of the argument would he join?
Rabbitburrow should be reminded of Solomon Asch’s conformity experiments.
It sounds like a good description of alarmist conformity too, at least amongst the chattering class. The irony there is that Asch’s results also showed that even a small dissenting voice gives the test subject enough confidence to resist conforming to the majority imposed insanity. This is why we cannot give up. Either we will be proven lazy and wrong by evidence, or we will be shown to be right about global warming being a scam, but to give up now is to silence the small voice that allows some genuine debate and falsification research to continue.
10
I was part of a similar experiment once.
I was in of a group who were given a stack of cards, each with about eight symbols on them – stars, circles, squares, etc. – of different sizes, different patterns, different colours, etc.
We were told that most of the cards contained symbols that were related in some way, with one odd-man-out being present. But there were also some that contained symbols that were were all related (there was no odd-man-out).
Our task was to analyse the symbols on each card to find the outlier, if their was one. We had no more than ten seconds per card.
The first two or three were fairly easy, but obviously got harder as time went on. What we did notice, however, was that one participant would say the answer quietly, but audibly, as he wrote it down. As the questions got harder, the temptation to write down what this person said became almost overwhelming (in fact it did become overwhelming for some participants).
For me, this was a good demonstration of how we are conditioned from pre-school, that being right is good, being wrong is bad, and that if you don’t know which is which, you will be safer following somebody else’s lead.
The question, of course becomes: If you are following somebody else’s lead, whose lead are they following?
10
Hi Rereke
Sounds like you are describing an artifact of Evolutionary Psycholgy.
There is another aspect of the way our brains automate so many tasks in your comment.
By creating small functional modules which group a number of activities together the brain can increase processing speed for familiar events; sometimes this leads to small errors as follows.
You want to type “there” but there is a similar sounding “their” also on tap. You automatically type the “sound” without checking and come up with :
“” outlier, if their was one. “”
An illustration of the fact that our brains are mostly on “automatic”; you obviously know the difference but let the automatic module handle the processing for you.
10
Yep, Like most people, I can think faster than I can type (although I can manage thirty words a minute on a good day – typing that is), I am a great believer in the power of spell checkers, and rely on them constantly. Can I help it if they don’t know the difference between two spellings of the same phonetic word.
In my real job, I am lucky enough to have the worlds very best, and most under appreciated PA, who is a total angel, and fixes up all of my misspellings before they go the the client.
[She also sometimes reads the JoanneNova blog]
10
That participant who was quietly saying their answers was a plant, colluding with the experimenter. That was the real objective of the experiment, to get the others to follow the collaborator’s lead.
All the more relevant to this blog topic, isn’t it?
10
Lovelock, Ehrlich, Attenborough and Crispin Tickell are members of Population Matters,
ex Optimal Population Trust
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_Matters
10
[…] There is no saving the ABC — We want 60% of our billion back […]
10
I stopped watching ABC TV and listening to ABC Radio well over 2 years ago because of its bias. I would fully support a substantial reduction of funding of the ABC. In particular ABC’s news and current affairs programs need to be cut. To be fair, ABC generally does a good job broadcasting music and childrens’ programs so those could continue to be supported. Williams and his colleagues can then find their true worth on the open market.
10
Patrick,
You still need news, and unbiased analysis. What you don’t need is opinion and propaganda masquerading as news and analysis.
10
Unfortunately the ABC has proven itself incapable o delivering unbiased news and current affairs programs. That being the case, the ABC offers nothing of value in that context. A substantial funding cut might just bring home that message to the leftist clowns masquerading as journalists at the ABC.
10
The ABC is beyond help. We can only satisfy themselves with the notion that the total viewership of this taxpayer funded slop-bucket for the alarmists, would fit comfortably inside the local library or local community garden.
Stop watching and listening to the ABC. It’s simply all you can do. It will eventually get through the rather thickened skulls of the mental monoliths who analyse ratings, and readership that, just like the ever declining Fairfax figures, a left-centric media bias equals declining relevance to a national audience.
The number of punters who will start to question the “science” behind the CO2 bullshit will only increase over time. The ABC bias is only going to get worse unless we turn off the remote.
10
“There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.”
– H.D.Thoreau
10
Why anyone watches the ABC is beyond me .
So obviously biased, to the point of absolutely boring.
Nothing of interest there any more.
10
Ah stop ya whinging. We all know you haven’t turned off and are till watching. Don’t bluff. You were back after 24 hours peeking weren’t you?
Didn’t hear (and wouldn’t) hear you complain when they did the parody of the PM “At Home with Julia”.
Sceptics can’t help it if their looks, subject and behaviour leave themselves wide open for a taking of the piss. Just go with it.
Jo is just miffed she didn’t rate high enough on the ABC left wing enemy ratings for a good satirising. Sour grapes.
At home with “Jo and David” perhaps?
[ssshhhhush don’t mention ‘at home with you know who’. It was sooo bad, sooo cringe worthy that we want it to quietly disappear from our memories.] [mod oggi]
10
It is not ethical in my opinion that those suffering a malady should be made the subject of public entertainment – no matter which side of the fence you are on.
10
Don’t complain, they are getting better. Last time they were canned for mocking kids with terminal illnesses.
10
No. I didn’t watch that rubbish either.
10
totally AGREE….. Lets get rid of the ABC and then the carbon tax… and Julia first! never have i seen such hatred in the community for a leader..(at least it she unites people, against her that is)
10
The ABC will have to be sold to write down the Rudd Gillard debtfest, along with Australia post, Medicare,Centerlink and anything else the governement owns.
10
What someone is actually watching their abc?
Last time I noticed it had become the green econazi propoganda channell.
The abc is to public information what goebbels was to public information in the 30s and 40s.
10
This will always sum up the ABC for me; the key point is at 57 seconds into the Barnaby interview:
http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2010/11/loopy-virginia-trioli-doesny-know-who.html
10
If anyone can tell me how the ABC could be anything other than a hemorrhoid on the broadcast media, please do.
Consider that the ABC does not compete for advertising dollars, so ratings are meaningless. The many public complaints are dealt with “internally”, which means ignored. And the whole circus is bankroled by a government, with the understanding that when it pays the piper, it calls the tune.
But however dismal and biased the ABC is, I still listen to the radio, because it is the only place left where Harvey Norman can’t scream at me constantly to buy his fridge.
10
The ABC is wonderful! Sea Change, Kath & Kim, Banana’s in Pyjamas, Q&A, Media Watch, The News, Chaser, Hamster Wheel, Gruen Transfer, The Number 1 Ladies Detective Agency, and many more. The list goes on and on.
As for the radio, most excellent. I don’t listen much, but if I’m in the car at 7:30 when Cammo talks sport with that bloke from Canberra, I love it. The Health Report is good.
BTW, if complaints about the ABC are ignored, so are ones about private broadcasters.
10
So that’s where you get all your information from.
10
Yes, Mr. Brookes, the ABC has produced some gems, so we know they are capable of doing the job. That is what makes the other 90% of their product so sad.
As for private broadcasters ignoring complaints? When they get it wrong then the punters just change stations. No more advertising, no more dosh.
My point is that with no accountability to the public and their needs or wishes, it was inevitable that the ABC morphed into the bloated waste of spectrum that it has become.
Having said that, commercial revenue did give us ‘Big Brother’.
To paraphrase Churchill, “The ABC is the worst broadcaster in the world…except for all the others”!
10
There has been mention above that a formal complaint can be made to the ABC.
They are obliged to respond to such through their “independent” Audience and Consumer Affairs group, AKA as A&CA, and a case number is mandatorily allocated and advised to complainants.
If you complain directly to the Chairman of the Board, (Maurice Newman), you are pressuring someone who has said enough to suggest that he must be fuming about the ABC culture, but he seems powerless to do much about it. One reason for that is possibly that the Editor-in-Chief is the Managing Director, (Mark Scott), whom apparently obeys the consensus alarmist view, and seemingly does not pay heed to the Chairman’s views. An influence on this may be that the ABC is funded by the government, and it may not be politic for the MD to bite the hand that feeds them….. dunno; just musing.
The official complaint process is OK within certain limits, such as being unable to address a particular person or wanting to format the text with quotes or emphasis, or inserting hyperlinks, and whatnot. However, this difficulty can be overcome by using the “official” complaints process and stating something like: refer to my (rich text) Email of…. to…. for full detail.
So, if anyone wishes to complain to the ABC, here follow some relevant Email addresses. Don’t expect to receive a quick reply from your selected addressee; since they would likely refer it to A&CA. However, they are alerted to your complaint and may think on it. (probably latently ranking high in the thoughts of less driven people). If you go through the “official” complaints system, you will be given a case number, and A&CA are obliged to respond in less than 60 days by law. (and there are appeal processes if you are not happy with their ruling)
A&CA direct: [email protected]
Angela Peters, PA to Chairman (Mr Newman): [email protected]
Lin Buckfield, Exec Producer of “Media Watch”: [email protected]
Mark Scott, MD & Editor-in-Chief: [email protected]
Paul Chadwick, Director of Editorial policies: [email protected]
Jonathan Holmes: Presenter of Media Watch [email protected]
David Fisher, producer of “Science Show”: [email protected]
Robyn Williams, usual presenter of “Science Show”: [email protected]
It may be appropriate to exert pressure on “Media Watch” to apply more balance than they have shown in the past year.
10
the Australian is really the only media where u might find a reasoned sceptical piece, tho there’s plenty of believer content right alongside. and now…
20 Oct: AFP: News Corp to start Australian paywall
The Australian arm of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation will begin charging for online content, the firm said on Thursday, with its flagship national broadsheet to move behind a paywall from next week…
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g3HrFgbyFeYn-LJ0TbA4fTxZKTig?docId=CNG.b386ee2679a07087a13a4808dee6523f.1e1
what we should all be telling the Coalition NOW:
22 Oct: Australian: Terry McCrann: Time for a change of climate
Because of the great weakness and again quite frankly incoherence and plain silliness of the opposition’s climate change policy. We’re against the carbon tax but in full agreement with both the government’s core policy and the specific objectives. That’s essentially the insane and inane bipartisan commitment to the 20 per cent mandatory renewable energy requirement by 2020 and the 5 per cent emissions reduction target.
The two are an exercise in bipartisan policy, tautological stupidity. Generating 20 per cent of our energy from renewable sources in 2020 really obviates the need for a separate policy framework to cut emissions by 5 per cent; and vice versa.
No, what Abbott must do is lead the opposition to walk away from all this; to build a sustained narrative against the entire climate change orthodoxy, to go back to his core belief that “climate change is crap”, but this time based on substance.
A good place for him to start would be to read the easily accessible denouement of the climate change bandwagon by Canadian investigative journalist Donna Lamframboise. It is an astonishing and devastating read. How, for example, as much as one-third of the entire corpus of purportedly “peer-reviewed” work in the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change arsenal is made up of magazine articles and press releases from activist organisations like Greenpeace. How the so-called army of top scientists include 23-year-old graduate students…
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/time-for-a-change-of-climate/story-e6frg9k6-1226173504996
10
Hi Pat, my belief that the Lib’s need to walk away from this madness had risen for me about 12 months ago I agree with Terry McCrann that they can’t have a bet each way on this argument. They won’t listen though !!
Say YES to an election now !!
10
I remember the ABC screening “The Great Global Warming Swindle” three or four years ago. They preceded the film with a panel demolition of the producer and the content of the film before it was even shown. I think Tim Flannery was present and I recall there was just one panel member who was open minded to the point of skepticism. The whole program was a disgrace in its obvious bias towards global warming and the so called science. From that moment for me, the ABC lost all credibility as a reliable source of information. Shame ABC. Shame.
10
Ditto stuart,
That absurd display of abc bias was the confirmation that i should be suspicious. The precursor was an inconvenient truth and the final trigger to get me moving was climategate.
10
Yes, Climategate must have been the catalyst for a lot of people. Did they ever identify who was responsible. If they ever do a NobelPrize for exposing endemic, socio-economic fraud would it have to be awaded in-cognit ?
10
Hi Stuart,
Yes the ABC (Australian) did screen “The Great Global Warming Swindle” in August 2007. I would have to give the ABC a bouquet for doing so as I think it was the only station to screen it in Australia. I grant the bouquet because whilst I had received a pirated copy of “The Great Global Warming Swindle” a week or two before the screening on ABC, at the time I was impressed that they were willing to show it.
There were 3 sceptics on the panel after the showing, they were: Michael Duffy, Bob Carter and Ray Evans. The rest of the panel were: Robyn Williams, David Karoly, Nick Rowley, Nikki Williams and Greg Bourne. The host was Tony Jones. Tim Flannery was not on the panel.
For me the recognition of ABC bias grew slowly after that. I still have a copy of the panel discussion and I watch it sometimes just for a good laugh.
I’ve noted that David Karoly’s mantra hasn’t changed since 2007.
I wish someone would produce a sequel to “The Great Global Warming Swindle” given there is so much more real evidence available now, especially after climategate.
10
“Open minded to the point of skepticism”? Maybe so open minded that his brains fell out……
A sequel to “The Great Global Warming Swindle”? Why? It was full of crap. So do they just make another documentary full of crap? The best option would be to get the Chaser guys do a send up of it.
10
Conclusive argument again. The ABC does wonders for your debating skills.
10
If I recall correctly the focus for team catastrafaria was an incomplete graph which was later corrected and the fact it was funded by channel 4.
That seemed to be the main abc argument against it.
Maybe a comparison between an inconvenient truthand the great global warming swindle is in order there jb?
10
Yeah Madjak, I’ll make a comparison. An Inconvenient Truth was an excellent documentary with a few small flaws. TGGWS was a collection of rubbish with almost no redeeming features.
10
John, if you believe what you just wrote, then let me tell you that this slightly used harbour bridge is for sale. Really, I can get you the best price … honest …
10
About 35 flaws to be precise!
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html
10
A bit O/T but in relation to media bias… what’s the betting that the Perth anti-CHOGM protests will get wall-to-wall coverage for the entire week? They are already talking about them endlessly on the media as we speak. This rag-tag bunch ism’t even clear what they stand for… here’s a taste of the crazy:
You can bet these ultra-left weirdos will get a lot of ABC coverage. So who supports an organisation like this? It is interesting to see who endorses them at their web site:
Seriously WTF? With the coverage these people get you think they would be representing mainstream Australia… it could not be further from the truth. These are the poster boys for rebels without a clue…
And the Convoy of no Confidence got exactly how much coverage? Buckley’s by comparison.
10
You are so right Bulldust. The media shouldn’t favour one particular type of ratbag.
10
Bulldust – so correct!
This bunch is a reality and growing – the FAR FAR LEFT!
Mr. Bainbridge & Kamala Emanuel now both share the same mobile phone number??? WTF
Probably also JB’s number!
IN Addition:
John Brooks – you quote
Very strange sense of morality John! Getting colder John?
10
Well I don’t care one bit about all the bull dust. As far as I am concerned, if you like, treat everything on the ABC as fiction. If you do this it becomes the best and most interesting station to watch, with great shows and interesting debates. I refuse to watch the utter crap on the other channels, it is ten times worse than the ABC.
10
So the abc is only 10% as bad as the other channells is it?
Well gee, thats worth a billion per year isn’t it?
not.
10
Sure is worth it!
10
That actually equates to 900% beter.
10
Just stumbled across a bit of an ABC scary story on their 24-hour propaganda channel relating to Fukushima.
Their “intrepid journalist” was driving around, talking to people in the area, and his radiation meter went “wild”. Well he acted as if it did. But the meter showed 2 point something µSv/h … as did a sample of “radioactive soil”, when a meter was placed immediately on a bag of it.
Now, for those living in the hills around Perth 0.6 µSv/h is to be expected, not at all unusual. Moving further inland, background levels can exceed 6 µSv/h. In some inhabited parts of the world, the natural levels of background radiation are over 10 µSv/h. The “average” person’s radiation exposure is 10 µSv/day.
Exposure to levels of radiation as shown by the ABC around Fukushima would result in an annual dose of less than 26 mSv; if one slept on the ground. Exposure is substantially lower indoors with simple precautions (like leaving shoes and boots outside and washing before ingesting food or going to bed). The limit for a radiation worker at a nuclear plant is 50 mSv per year. There are no credibly documented, detrimental health effects from such low levels of radiation exposure. The body is able to repair any damage.
The lowest known dose linked to an increase in cancer risk is 100 mSv; almost 4 times higher than the notional, maximum exposure one would encounter in the area. That increase in risk is 1%.
Government agencies like ARPANSA, that should be acting responsibly to educate the public as to the actual risk, are tip-toeing.
Meanwhile, the ABC fear-mongers, are contributing to an irrational, emotional climate that has already resulted in suicides amongst local farmers and reported elective abortions (in Europe).
10
Therefore Radon gas is likely to be a problem in homes around Kalamunda?
10
Only a problem if you’re doing a story for the ABC
10
Bernd
One of my colleagues ended up having a long “conversation” with a guy on EUReferendum who was trying to talk up the Fukushima incident as a major disaster, and comparing it with Chenobyl and Three Mile Island.
We have clients who are importing food products in to and out of Japan, so we were monitoring the IAEA news briefs about Fukushima quite closely.
And the message we were getting then was, and still is as far as I am aware: Thatm yes, there was some radiation leakage from the site, but this was from very short-lived isotopes that disperse and decay away very quickly, and yes, the core of one reactor has melted down as it is designed to do, within its containment vessel, and no, there has not been any increase in radiation into the environment from long-lived isotopes.
The guy on EUReferendum just did not want to hear that story – he wanted a disaster to occur – he was desperate for it.
At one stage he showed some photographs that purportedly showed very high temperature at another of the reactors. They were photoshopped, as we could demonstrate.
I have no idea if he was a journalist, but in retrospect, he certainly managed to get a lot of research and analysis from us for free 🙂
10
I was staying in some holiday accomodation last week. There was a selection of old dusty reading material on the shelf. One of the books I flipped through was called something like the ‘The Earth Survival Guide’ or similar. The publishing date (I think) was about 1991. It was an Australian publication.
Opening up, I found the contributing editor was none other than Robyn ‘100 meters’ Williams.
The book was an illustrated guide to how many was destroying the planet, and how things could change. It was an A4 size book, and clearly aimed at the schoolchildren market. It was probably standard issue in school libraries throughout the 90’s. Which would account for the odd activities of people now in their 20’s.
Front and centre was the big scare of the time, the ozone layer. But coming right up next to that was our old Friend global warming. Curious to see what 20 year old science material looked like, I perused the text looking for facts and figures. The key one they mentioned was sea level rise. It was going to be a terrifying 20-30 cm rise in the next 200 years (or something like that). So clearly at one point in the dim dark past Robyn Williams was happy to accept that the proposed sea level rises weren’t all that scary, before he started going on about 10 storey sea level rises.
There was no mention in the section of : insect plagues, more snow, increased hurricanes, or any of the other scary things we hear about now (I should check ‘the list’). There was no mention of carbon trading, carbon taxes or any sort of solution except ‘please use your car less’. In fact, the whole section sounded about as threatening as a vist from the in-laws, particularly after the horrors of being roasted alive from UV rays as per the previous ozone hole layer. Or from any of the other scary scenarios that were littered throughout the book.
Clearly after the Ozone layer threat fizzled with the public the scary-dial was wound up on the global warming facts to try and use it as the next
funding sourcepoint of concern.I meant to take some digital photos of the pages and the book cover for my interests. But I was on holidays and had better things to do, like take care of some nice bottles of red beside a roaring fire. But if someone wanted to dig the book out, it would make for an interesting contrast to the modern-day rhetoric. (yes, yes, I know, ‘it’s worse than we thought’).
10
Interesting comment — thanks.
10
The idea that Monckton is a creation of the creator of Ali G is pure gold. If commercial networks knew how to make this stuff, they would.
The episode of Crownies was so unfair. The cool good looking dude gets to play the climate scientist, while the skeptic is portrayed as a complete idiot. On the other hand, if the cap fits……..
10
The climate scientist didn’t have the cool looking Michael Mann/Ben Santer/Gavin Schmidt/Richard Black beard, though. Oh, and John, you should grow one as well. It would accentuate your manliness quite nicely. Don’t forget to go bald.
10
Or John Cook, fine cut of a man, yiiikkes!
10
The baldness is happening at its own pace, DirkH, as is the gray. Its nearly time for the clippers – saves on trips to the hairdresser….
10
One would think the other TV channels would jump at the chance to do an expose on the ABC tax funded bias…….then again it seems the BBC can get away with neither the ITV or Channel 4, in the UK having a go at them. Now, I wonder why?
10
Wow, fascinating to see that the ABC coming in for a caning from the denizens here. They are certainly copping it from all sides at the moment as much of the discussion on more centrist /left leaning blog sites seems to be that the ABC’s political coverage is total crap at the moment.
The AGW Skeptic community should probably get over themselves as far as their treatment on ABC. Personally i’d love to see more of a focus on the Skeptic position in the mainstream media, particularly as to the degree to which it should influence policy. Maybe more of the idiots who got booted out of parliaments galleries recently?
Hamster Wheel? Not as good as the Chaser, but actually pretty well done. The Monkton segment was GREAT! Kept waiting for the penny to drop. I cant believe that his minders in Australia were stupid enough to let him be interviewed by the Chaser Boys (who are actually pretty recognizable)as it must have been pretty obvious where that would go? And frankly, someone like Monkton who is sooooo into the theatrics of public interaction and so into attcking people who disagree with him should be able to deal with the kind of ridicule he dishes out.
I’d like to see more seriousness from the ABC in their political reporting. Get away from the politics as horse race crap. But, their current affairs and comedy are doing pretty well and if they are coping much the same type of complaints from both ends of the spectrum, then that’s probably an indication that institutional bias is less of an issue than some fringe, but vocal sections of the community think it is.
10
The only thing to possibly bring the abc towafds any semblance of reason would be a REGIME CHANGE NOW, followed by a selloff.
There is no such thing as an independant media which relies on one source for it’s funding, just like there is no such thing as an unbiased list of questions for an ombudsman to give a senator to ask them during a hearing.
REGIME CHANGE NOW
10
Madjack me mate!! Still with the Regime Change i see? I’m sure there are pills you can get for that.
And Madjack, how would Regime Change Now do anything to change what the ALP broadcasts? Or are you suggesting that it should be determined by the Govt of the day? And if you are suggesting that, then whats the basis for your whole fracking argument as that seems to be what they are being accused of by the outraged and humorless anyway.
But, and be careful mate, they have been busy at Berkeley of late in ways you may not feel comfy with.
http://berkeley.intel-research.net/arahimi/helmet/
http://www.berkeleyearth.org/study.php
10
See cat, Monckton has no minders. There is no big backroom budget, no organised astroturfer machine. It’s more evidence that we are the grassroots community movement that Team AGW pretends to be.
Do you ever wonder if you need some professional help with your delusions of conspiracy?
10
don’t know what to do now that the Berkeley stuff is out. redesign the head gear at least I reckon.
10
And another deflection from catamon.
REGIME CHANGE NOW!
10
There’s his problem then! Popular entertainers should have someone to help them cross the road and things like that or else they are vulnerable to the evil people out there who will take the piss.
10
Cat
Then, they won’t mind at all competing as a commercial enterprise with slowly diminishing government support, since they are doing so “well”, eh? If their content is so good and worthy, then why not just float themselves on the ocean of commercial reality? Cream should rise to the top now, shouldn’t it? Won’t cut them adrift rapidly, just cut their budget by 10% annually, should see them maintain their “standards”, while gaining great satisfaction in their own self sufficiency, doing their bit for the future of our economy, bless ’em.
10
Unfortunately Winston, in the commercial media in Australia we have more the situation where its not the cream that floats. Just look at the kind of crap that comes from the Bolts, Ackermans and Albrechtsons?
What i’d like to see is the Australian having to pay its own way and not be subsidized by News Corp.
Better a free media funded by the taxpayers than media funded by magnates to get their own messages out.
10
People like Bolt and co, provide balance with a conservative outlook against a litany of leftist journos, who are purely a product of their
indoctrinationeducation. Many on your side of the fence are only happy with a choir of leftist voices singing in unison. If they lived in Brehzniev’s Russia, they would complain that Pravda was too biased against the Communist Politburo, or that O’Brien let Winston Smith off too easy. It is not those of the right that don’t like a free press, and it is not those of the right who try to suppress dissent by making those opposing them be shunned or silenced. When we disagree with sentiments expressed by those such as you, we like to engage with you, even if we vehemently disagree, because we realise that it the clash of opposing ideas that leads to progress and truth. Without Bolt and co.. the prevailing paradigm would stand, even if it was incorrect, because everyone is singing from the same hymn sheet, no deviation from the party line is allowed, which is a recipe for stagnation of progress which you seem to desire. That those of a left persuasion can’t grasp that is a mystery to me. Perhaps you can explain to me how, if a branch of science is settled, can errors ever be found and how can progress be made? And, if a civilisation is crumbling and regressing, who exactly is the voice of reason that sets us back on another more adaptive path?10
If your collective luvs the ABC so much, buy the damned thing. Set up a co-op, sell memberships to your friends and the metro-green chic.
The notion of public broadcasting has been superceded by technology. Government money wasted on the ABC/SBS would be better spent on health, education and infrastructure.
10
John Brookes
October 23, 2011 at 12:45 am · Reply
“A sequel to “The Great Global Warming Swindle”? Why? It was full of crap. So do they just make another documentary full of crap? The best option would be to get the Chaser guys do a send up of it.”
Strange that unlike Gore’s crap TGGWS has never ended up in High Court having judgments passed down on it!
10
Well ‘ Baron Cohen’ fans & media types might like it, but I cannt see anyone else bring taken in by it. Its just another attempt by the Climate lobbyists to be seen ‘getting down’ with the kids. Embarrassing or what !
Imagine the outcry though were a media channel to try mocking ‘leading climatologists’, they’d all be running to mummy again , pleading death threats.
10
Off topic but I couldn’t see where to post it.
http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/262587/bangkok-not-waterproof
I’ve seen it before somewhere I think.
10
I’m guessing your ABC is funded with income tax? Here in the UK, our BBC is funded with a TV viewer’s license fee (who ever heard of anything so ridiculous in a so-called free country: one is required to purchase an annual license from ones government in order to legally watch TV in ones home – pardon all the “ones” – I’m English, one knows). The solution over here is easy: don’t buy the license. I haven’t bought a license now for over a decade and – blow me sideways and call me Doreen – my TV seems to still work just fine. Shame the freedom-loving Auzzies don’t have that same option.
10
Mr Cameron may be wishing that the Beeb was funded from general revenue too. If the Connolly case is the first of a series of embarrassing court cases then he will be squirming. I liked the appeal judges comment: “if it were optional, hardly anyone would pay it”. Funny that.
10
Over the years, the ABC has moved from simply reporting all the news, to now both screening and running an opinion on the news stories.
If you live in an inner-city terrace house, but have no children, have a university degree in the arts, ride a bicycle to work, have 2 dogs, eat vegetarian (organic), only voted for Greens or socialist left parties, have been a member of a protest group trying to save an obscure creature, and preferably you are in a same sex relationship….. Then a job at YOUR ABC eagerly awaits you !
What seems to have transpired is that we now have an ABC which is representative of only about 10% of mainstream Australia from a social and political perspective. Further, because of the very narrow focus of view points, the culture within now sees itself as intellectually superior and alienated from the other 90% of those with differeng views. This is why we now get the opinion culture. It would be funny to be a fly on the wall at their lunch table hearing the discussion pieces. I can imagine the internal back slapping of support set against the universal criticism of the uneducated masses of ignorant mainstream Australia.
BUT, in the ABC’s mad scramble to filter it’s culture base to the extreme socialist left since Kevin Rudd was elected to power, they do seem to forget that their ultimate boss is democratically elected by ALL. My message to Tony Abbott would be to nominate Alan Jones as new chair of the ABC after the next election. This would send the required message to the ‘incompetent incumbents’ and bring the broadcaster back to centre, from it’s current far, far left.
Imagine tuning the 7:30 report to see Andrew Bolt drilling Tim Flannery on his failed drought and sea level rise predictions. Now that would be OUR ABC !
10
I’m quite sure an ABC Standards Council, independent of the ABC, would be enough to start reining in the out-of-control Greens filter at the ABC, through which all of its political news and public affairs content is being funnelled. At the moment, the organisation is totally unaccountable, even though it is 100% financed by taxpayers. A formal process of justification wouldn’t remove the fashion-driven Green thought process in much of the ABC’s current news-gathering, but it could apply embarrassing sanctions, such as apologies, that would contain the worst excesses to a level acceptable to most people most of the time. It may be frustrating, but anything more draconian would start to look like the existing Greens censorship of the ABC.
10
fantastic
10
Nah, Bolt makes up so much of his “stories” and is such an offensive nuttbagger that he’d cost too much in legal fees to keep on.
10
Well lets see now.
Bolt posts about 400 “stories” per year.
Name me just 10 from last year that he has ‘made up’. (and show proof)
If you won’t/can’t name just 10 out of 400 (2.5%) then none of your posts about Bolt ought see the light of day on this blog.
Now that’l throw the cat-among the pigeons. Got the kajones catamon?
10
Well, Baa, there was the one where the court said that he got stuff wrong. In that case, he failed to check, and made stuff up instead. Worse still, making stuff up to suit his tawdry arguments.
But living in the west, I don’t read Bolt, so have no idea if he makes stuff up all the time, or if the aborigine bashing piece was a one off.
10
John Brookes @ 49.3.1.1
It is a tad off-topic, but you seem to have misunderstood Bolt’s issue which I believe queries why it is that WHITE-SKINNED aborigine claimants, even with freckles annat, can truly claim exclusive aboriginal heritage. Did you know that aborigines were commonly called “Blacks” in the past, and various place names and roads carry “Black” as a title? Now why would that be?
Don’t be confused by PC, and put your brain into gear, please
10
John, why did you write this?
“…I don’t read Bolt, so have no idea if he makes stuff up all the time…”
The ultimate ignorance is the rejection of something you know nothing about and refuse to investigate.
– Dr. Wayne Dyer
10
Well, on Bolt there is of course his most recent humiliation of being found in breach of the Racial discrimination Act. He made stuff up about the people he was writing about as to their ancestry and motivations. If you read the summary of the judgement it basically come down to a situation where he stuffed up mightily in an attempt to be a nasty prat.
I’d think my first exposure to what a silly prat this writer of nastily populous fluff is was back in 2009. Try the following. Utterly hilarious.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2009/04/17/why-andrew-bolt-should-be-sodomised-with-a-calculator-%E2%80%93-part-142/
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2009/11/18/the-definition-of-pathetic/
And then there were his various performances on Insiders before he, “left”. This boy is well hooked into providing the kind of word fodder that keeps a certain section of the community feeling like someone in the media “gets it”. I’ll concede that he’s well read. I occasionally visit his site, as i do Ackermans, just to see what the loony’s with a massive sense of entitlement are chatting about at the moment. Frankly, i go there more to see the comments than the OP’s as that’s where most of the entertainment is.
10
Regards his breach of the RDA, he was found to be wrong about the motivations of the complainants. Though it’s worth pointing out that a sister of one of the complainants agreed with Bolt.
Be that as it may, he lost the case so lets agree with the judge and say he made stuff up on that occasion.
That’s one.
Your links to an extreme left wing blog in Crikey is proof of nothing except that you live in an echo chamber. I asked you for 10 occasions out of 400 that Bolt makes stuff up, you have 9 to go.
The Crikey links are from 2009, that’s over 2 years ago which means so far you got one out of about a thousand. Hardly “making stuff up all the time”.
Keep trying catamon, but be careful what you say, freedom of speech isn’t what it used to be.
10
Possibly, but where he does its pretty rank. Oh and Baa, if i dont meet some arbitrary request of yours for multiple references on a particular matter, tough. I’m afraid that if your attitudes are such that you’d call Pollytics an “extreme left wing blog” then that pretty much tells me all i need to know about you. Try reading some of his less colorful pieces and you may develop a taste for stats and analysis.
10
catamon says…
Arbitrary? It was you who used the quantitative words “so much of his stories” to make your point or to get your opinion across.
At 49.3 you said..
Not being sure if you were making a factual comment, I asked you to provide proof to back up your claim.
A single instance plus a link to a known left wing web site such as Crikey doesn’t constitute “making up so much of his stories”.
In other words, you are just talking out of your arse in this instance, which leads me to think ‘on what other occasions does catamon talk out of his arse’?
Maybe some of the other commentors can help me with this.
Hey folks, WHEN DOES CATAMON TALK OUT OF HIS ARSE?
1-) Never
2-) Sometimes
3-) All the time
I say you talk out of your arse all the time, I vote for 3 and am inclined to think you’re just not worth bothering about.
p.s. Just a reminder about the “new” interpretations on the freedom of speech laws. Careful catamon, anonymity will not save you.
10
I cant stand watching Andrew Bolt but I love him because he gets all the Warmers and Greenies and Luvveys Really Worked UP.. and Up!
Magic stuff.
10
Andrew is to be congratulated at the very least for doing that, because the self-congratulatory attitudes of the Get Up brigade, even in the face of some of their most idiotic beliefs, becomes truly irritating at times, and it’s nice to see their egos given a nice kicking on occasions.
10
Catamon, I’d estimate that 80% of the subjects discussed at Bolt’s blog are not even reported by the Fairfax media and the ABC, but they’re the ones that ring true with the Australian mainstream; Bolt’s three million pages a month make him one of the most popular online addresses in the world. Why do you suppose that is? The only theory advanced by your small political echo chamber on the lunatic left is that Bolt is popular because most people are stupid. I go to Bolt because he’s a brilliant contrarian and expertly reads the mood of the nation. The conservative agenda he goes on with is the baggage you get by patronising him; as soon as Abbott is elected and the carbon tax is repealed (which could be three years away), his popularity will drop by about a third, I’d guess, as he outlives his usefulness with people like me. When that happens, Fairfax will regain popularity as its bias sees it devoting resources to interrogating the government of the day; the place has become so unprofessional it doesn’t understand that’s what it’s role should always be.
10
Utterly wrong Tom. The current theory approved by the Collective is that:
Bolt is popular because some people are stupid.
10
Catamon
You argue between the terms: SOME and MOST
In doing so, you admit belonging to the LUNATIC LEFT! Of all the points available to you in TOM’s comment – you reacted with the wrong answers because of blindness!
So, Catamon from the Lunatic Left – what’s the DRUM?
10
Catamon
Are you left handed or just inclined in one direction in your COLLECTIVE thoughts? The statement above is totally the words from Kamala Emanuel’s speech in all her election campaigns.
10
Sometimes, not a bad read. They give a bit much prominence to right wing nutterbaggers at times but generally worth a browse.
10
Tom, thats what i love about this site. The out there sense of humor on display. Pure gold mate!!
10
You know the ABC is meant to cover the whole story not half!
In the global warming debate I thought they were supposed to cover the skeptic side as well?
10
Here’s the extended interview with Alan Jones on the 7.30 program.
Leigh Sales tries her best to be polite and friendly. Note her questions regarding Alan’s views on climate change, she has no idea of where he is coming from. She has never spoken to Prof Lindzen or Prof Ball or any of the worldwide group of sceptical scientists that Alan has interviewed. It’s like she’s in a cocoon, protected from dissent by the Robyn Williams and Tony Joneses within the ABC. It’s a major group think.
I had a friend who works for the ABC until he found out I was a climate sceptic. I was immediately verbally abused and never spoken to again.
10
I wish that more publicity could be given to that interview. I couldn’t give Alan Jones performance enough ticks of approval.
10
Janama @51,
I’ve always had a very strong dislike for the Alan Jones aggressive style, but after watching the half-hour video you linked, I’m now inclined to think that he actually has a very sharp analytical brain. It’s a pity that elsewhere he has gone over-the-top sometimes with insulting rhetoric and stuff. The only area in the interview where he made errors that I noted was in attributing his assumed effects of certain aspects of the very low percentages of atmospheric carbon dioxide. I did more recently send him some explanations of the relevant quantum theory: like even 0.04% of a GHG thermalizes the whole atmosphere via molecular collions and stuff, but he did not respond
10
Janama – you’d have to be kidding wouldn’t you. Lindzen and Ball – what a joke. Have to listened to Jones interview with Will Steffen. All the shock jock nonsense of harping on points, interrupting – not to mention a laughable attempt at the science. Jones wouldn’t last 2 minutes in front of a science panel – the man is a fool on the topic of AGW science.
Leigh Sales at least engaged in an exploration of Jones values. As for “equal time” and covering the sceptics side – well would we devote equal time to discussing flat earth theory. I think not.
10
Meanwhile, out here in the real world, it continues to cool.
Just as one would expect, given the cyclical nature of climate.
10
Climate science, in its current dilapidated state, IS flat earth theory, “what_a_ joke” indeed. Piltdown man at least had some excuse as an honest misrepresentation of the truth by gullible anthropologists whose desire for a “missing link” led them to overlook the obvious. The Climategate emails clearly showed to anyone but the most biased onlooker that a culture of suppression, bullying and misrepresenting facts was endemic within this fledgling branch of science. Some many of the variables of climate are ill-understood, difficult to quantify, and not even taken into account (at their own admission- clouds for example) by their nintendo version of reality. Yet the science is “settled”, Hah! Scientists usually have the honesty to admit when their theories are incomplete or when knowledge needs to be gathered before hypotheses become theories. Climate science is apparently the exception to prove the rule. Their lack of honesty as to the degrees of uncertainty in their work, and the polemicist zeal that was unimpaired by conscience or restraint in marginalising anyone who dissented from the paradigm, was the catalyst for dooming a whole new field of scientific understanding to a hodgepodge of politicised waffle and backsliding to try and maintain their tenuous grip on public perception. They are losing the battle, and it is THEIR fault, because they treated everyone like idiots and gave half-arsed predictions of catastrophe (predicted 3 degrees per decade warming when 150 years saw 0.7 C warming, last 13 years no warming, any assertion Tim Flannery ever made!,etc) that were not borne out by reality, made stupid and tenuous assertions that could not conceivably be considered as logical (eg Kemp et al, the apex of sea level studies- Wow!), tried to pretend that their was NO climate variability in the past when clearly their was (MWP- obviously Greenland must have moved further north in the last 1000 years because Viking settlements of that time are under permafrost now, LIA- not due to Columbus!, RWP, Minoan Warming Period), and not to forget the banker’s pal- Al Gore- possibly one of the least prepossessing people in the Western World to lecture on the virtues of going ‘Green’- who has a carbon footprint the size of Montana and who clearly is an “environmentalist” of convenience to feather his own financial nest as the first Carbon billionaire. And then, even more damning are the “solutions” proposed with the effect of sending jobs and manufacturing from Western countries with good environmental protection and clean air policies to countries who (carelessly) are prepared to poison their own population for short term economic gain, not to mention polluting our shared atmosphere. The truth will win out, don’t you worry. Your Green Utopian dream is about to evaporate, as most pie in the sky intellectual exercises generally do. The road to hell is really paved with good intentions, it’s the unintended consequences along the way that are the real killers.
10
Snap!
10
I disagree, I think we should …
The Catholic church spent about 1000 years insisting that the earth was flat, and that if you sailed out of sight of land you would fall off the edge.
The Climate in those days was so much simpler. Everybody knew that rain fell from the sky, courtesy of God and the Angels, landed on the earth and ran into rivers, which then ran to the sea where it washed to the horizon, and fell off.
If it got warmer it was because God willed it so. If it got colder, it was because the people had not paid sufficient tithe to the Church. If there was a plague, it was sent by God to punish the wicked who would question His word and the interpretation of His church, and those stricken were taken by the Devil.
Simple and obvious, and everybody therefore knew it was true and the science was settled. There was a consensus of all of the learned men of those 1000 years. Anybody who disagreed was branded (literally in some cases) as a sceptic, shunned by their peers, and cast out of society to die of starvation.
Today, we are much more enlightened. Today we know that rain falls from the sky, courtesy of Nature that has set the system to “Automatic”, it lands on the earth and runs into rivers that run to the sea where it evaporates and goes back into the sky.
If it gets warmer, it is because a senior citizen is using some fossil fuels to keep warm in the winter, and if it gets colder it is because a senior citizen used some fossil fuels to keep warm in the last winter. If there is a plague, everybody quickly lines up (or riots) to get immunised using drugs that would not have been developed had it not been for the industrial revolution so despised by the Greens.
Religious belief comes, and religious belief goes.
Belief today, is no different to belief in Medieval Europe. Belief is all argument from ignorance. You cannot prove the existence of climate change, any more that you can prove the existence of God.
What a joke, indeed.
10
Alan Jones doesn’t put himself up as a climate expert, he interviews those who do.
Steffen was dancing around the subject like a madman – when Jones pointed out to him that the expert review of AR4 stated:
Steffen ignored the question and said that he has made his opinion based on the latest peer reviewed papers. I wish Alan had asked him which ones as most of the latest papers refute the claims made in AR4 and support a planet with a low climate sensitivity NOT the high one purported by the IPCC.
Professor Lindzen is an American atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen is known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and books.[1] He was a lead author of Chapter 7, ‘Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,’ of the IPCC Third Assessment Report on climate change. ex Wiki
So how do you get off ridiculing a scientist with his credentials??
10
Agree! Furthermore unfortunately Alan Jones let Steffen off very lightly after the latter claimed that IPCC’s version of climate science was endorsed by all the national academies of science. When my friend asked Steffen (by email) for the references, Steffen was unable to provide them. The best he could do was to cite the Q and A document from the Australian Academy of Science. Guess who was the President of the AAS at the time? None other than Kurt Lambeck, a prominent climate scientist from the Australian National University! So we are expected to believe that the AAS spontaneously rose up and requested money from the DCCEE to fund a committee to author this Q and A document? Incidentally, Kurt Lambeck was also one of the official “Monitors’ associated with the Inter-Academy Review of the IPCC’s processes and procedures. The highly critical report from that IAC Review was, in effect, buried by the publication of the Q and A document. Moreover, it seems highly unlikely that Steffen ever advised the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee of the findings of that IAC Review since, at a public meeting some months previously in Cooma, Steffen appeared to be under the misapprehension that IAC had endorsed IPCC’s version of climate science. (I was present at that meeting and drew Steffen’s attention to the relevant text in the IAC report.) In fact the IAC Rreport explicitly states that it does not consider the science or the veracity/validity of its representation in AR4.
10
What_a_joke @52, please see my 51.2
Whilst Alan Jones is a true “Shock Jock”, and I am by no means his fan, as I commented above, however, IMO he does have a shrewd mind.
Would you be kind enough to provide a link to the interview that you cited?
Jones interview with Will Steffen
Thankyou in anticipation.
10
http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=10476
See also my reply to janama above.
10
You know it is all BS when you ask if they, the tax paid person/institution, think they’re so good they could make it by donation only.
Apparently, it is very comfortably to be able to deliver what ever and get fully paid for it without making a show for it, a.k.a. akin to tax-supported fascist.
10
Turn off the ABC and listen to that hype and puerile crap that comes form the commercial stations, you have to be joking.
The ABC despite its bias does make good programmes, on the radio at least. Philip Adams is a total leftie but has interesting guests. Robyn Williams is an environmental alarmist but he does cover other scientific areas. “Counterpoint” leans to the right, offering an alternate perspective.
What one needs to remember is that the ABC has never represented the main stream (populace). It has largely left mindless entertainment to the commercial broadcasters, focusing on news, arts, science, education and politics. It has also tended to uphold the values of the establishment. In the 1950s the establishment was the church and British values, today the estabishment is academia and Science.
Unlike many here I hope there will continue to be an ABC offering an alternative to pop broadcasting. We can only keep at them to critically examine sacred cows like mainstrean science. One saving grace is that the bulk of the populace is largely unaware by the what the ABC says and does.
10
dlb, isn’t there something noxious about forcing the workers to pay for a channel that serves inner city greenies and advocates policies that waste even more of the workers tax money on wish-list items of those greens?
And if Robyn Williams breaks laws of reason, doesn’t research his stories well, and takes the mainstream big-government view on “theories” what makes you think any of his other broadcasts are giving you the most up to date, hard hitting, real science version either?
Either he understands what science is or he doesn’t.
Just because the commercials are vacuous on many topics is no reason to excuse forced payments for poor service on the ABC.
BTW The best current affairs coverage I have yet seen on the global warming topic BTW was 60 minutes. A commercial show.
10
Joanne @ 54.1,
I can’t actually bear to listen to “The Science Show” anymore, and what i do is wait for the transcript to come-out, as they claim it will on Monday avo. (although actually, sometimes not at all)
Thus, at the moment, I know not what crap illuminated the world yesterday. (Saturday, 22/Oct)
10
Have to disagree somewhat about the money angle in this post and in the headline. The ABC has made much more money from The Chaser than they have paid for. Chaser is a profit maker.
On the other hand Natural history, music, drama, news etc which have (or potentially have) some payback through cultural enhancement or community eduction (choose your own vague waffley expression) rarely repay financially.
10
Bravo dlb, for pointing out what the ABC is meant to do, “focus on news, arts, science,education and politics”. And by default leave “mindless entertainment to the commercial broadcasters”.
Then why do I have to support an arm of government that has corrupted the first list, and is incapable of providing material “mindless” enough to supply the second?
I do not want to see the ABC scrapped. I just want them to do their job.
10
The ABC is the Andrew Denton TV channel IMO. He produces TV programs for the ABC
CNNNN (2002–03)
David Tench Tonight (2006)
Enough Rope (2003–08)
The Gruen Transfer (2008–Present)
Elders (2008–09)
30 Seconds (2009)
Hungry Beast (2009–Present)
Gruen Nation (2010)
The Tunnel (2011)
AFP (2011)
The Joy of Sets (2011–Present)
His wife Jennifer Byrne hosts First Tuesday Book Club and appears on ABC News Radio Drive program.
10
I’m Green — With Envy.
Their very own ATM.
Think of the money those two are pulling in.
10
I can’t bring myself to be too concerned about this. If you have a good idea for a TV program put a proposal to them, they are quite desperate. SBS or the ABC would gladly help you develop any sensible concept you might come up with.
(Look at the Gruen thing, self satisfied advertisers sitting around congratulating themselves about how much they understand the public and the advertising business whilst pretending to criticise advertisements. The biggest wankfest ever on TV, but the ABC needs the programming.)
10
AFP was on channel 9
10
Partisanship, bias and the culture wars.
This truth is well known among our principal men now engaged in forming an imperialism of Capital
to govern the world. By dividing the voters through the political party system, we can get them to expend
their energies in fighting over questions of no importance. Thus by discreet action we can secure for
ourselves what has been so well planned and so successfully accomplished. – Sir Denison Miller
Thanks Kevin Moore.
10
You may find this site to be of interest too –
http://jordanmaxwell.com/articles/index.html
It’s a bit “out there” but interesting material to be found.
10
It is not “a bit ‘out there'” it is total and utter rubbish.
The British flag is an amalgam of the cross of St George, overlaid on the cross of St Patrick, overlaid on the cross of St Andrew. Nothing to do with the Vatican. In fact that flag did not come into existence until William of Orange laid claim to Ireland well after the Reformation.
It is also not where the term “Double Cross” comes from. That term comes from the beginning of the Twentieth century when the War Office in London set up a special section in Military Intelligence to recruit captured enemies, brain wash them, and then send them back to their own country to spy for the British. The unit was called “Section Twenty”, and had its name on the door in Roman numerals: XX, or double-cross.
I did not bother to read the rest of your reference, that was enough for me to pass it off as a nutter site.
If you believe this sort of stuff, then I suggest you comment there and not here. Or at the very least, check your facts before giving references to them. Or, if you are the owner of said site, you might want to consider seeking some professional help with your phobias.
10
I wouldn’t say it is total rubbish. Sifting through I came across a number of gems that greatly increased my understanding on how to deal with the laws of commerce – Statute law.
Also, for example there is a report by the Council of the Club of Rome, “The First Global Revolution” – page 36 of which would interest those researching the history of the climate change debate – “….Most menacing macro pollution by far:the so called ‘greenhouse effect’….”
Then there is the 1940, 28 page Remarks of Representative Hon J.Thorkelson in the US Congressional Record that make very interesting reading. He concludes his remarks by saying –
“what need we have of a Federal Council of Churches of Christ?
“Woe unto them, for they have gone in the way of Cain.”
In concluding this speech, may I say that the Federal
Council of Churches is a subversive organization, the members
of which are clothed in garments of pink, red, and
scarlet, all the colors of radicalism and communism. It is
now well to take heed, for this movement is carrying this
Nation into trials, tribulations, and war. No nation can
survive unless it maintains Christian morals and believes in
the teachings of the Man who came from Galilee. It is this
faith that has carried people on, and it is this faith which has
built up the Christian civilization, a civilization which cannot
survive when we deny Christian teachings.
I have included these articles in my remarks because they
are self-explanatory and more or less in line with the position
that I have taken as a Member of Congress. No nation
can survive that foregoes the teachings that gave it life and
security, and these teachings cannot survive if we destroy
the Nation that gives the people an opportunity to express
and fortify themselves in the comfort that such teachings
give them.
We must, therefore, as I have said before, return this
Nation to those sound and fundamental principles upon
which it came into life, namely, the Constitution of the
United States.”
I don’t care much for the US Constitition but I agree with his stance on Christianity.
10
Kevin believes that being a sceptic is this
1. Overturning any accepted notion by replacing it with a hypothesis that very few believe or have even heard of.
2. The end. Scepticism has no place in the examination of the alternative hypothesis.
I stopped following his links when he claimed that the Port Arthur massacre was faked; it was actually a plot by forces who want to remove guns from the hands of good citizens thereby centralising power (ie means of control through guns) with the “elite”.
10
Gee Aye, I often wonder who is paying you.
For those who may not have heard of the alternative to the MSM’s version of events,there are many rational arguements to be found on the internet debunking the official version of events. An example is –
“The Port Arthur Massacre: A sceptical re-appraisal”
http://sydwalker.info/blog/2010/12/17/are-the-port-arthur-killers-still-out-there
10
Kevin, you really don’t get it do you? You actually are completely uncritical of what you call the “alternative view”. This is like the Flying Spaghetti monster and Creationism being alternatives to Natural Selection as explanations for the diversity of life. Anyone can come up with any alternative at any time. It takes no effort to create myths.
10
Gee Aye, the myths exist only in your mind.
Read the link I gave and then critisise.
It takes no effort on your part to cast aspersions while at the same time having no knowledge of the matter.
Critisise the arguement,not me.But that’s not your job,is it!
10
Thanks again Kevin.
The first shot in the photo gallery is a gruesome stunner!
10
Talk about ABC Bias.
I just gotta come inside, have a red, and calm down after listening to ABC Newsradio just then.
They had on relay from BBC ONE WORLD, a program on the upcoming DURBAN COP17 Conference.
Talking to all the warministas from Professors at East Anglia to Lord Stern himself.
All predicting Catastrophic Consequences unless we fall into line. This is propaganda at its best.
Jo, you gotta get a listen to this, it’s a classic. Apologies for being unable to post a link guys.
ABC and BBC !! What a couple made in Green Heaven !!
10
Throw in the CBC for a menage a trois!
10
It has always been true that the state owned media pushes the agenda of the State. This is true, everywhere! Strangely enough most Australian seem to think this rule only applied to Nazi Germany or the Communist Soviet Union, but in reality the rule has nothing to do with ideology and has everything to do with the fact that the state controls the payroll. Anyway, it is good to see many people waking up to the fact that their Aunty has been on the Game all this time!
10
THE ABC Sounds like stooges and parrots of the NWO to me! Wall ST bankers dream come true..All TAX TAX TAX Well here the rub.. TAX THEM!!!!!!!!!!! Yes a tobin tax on Wall St turnover 1% of 600 trillion sounds like a great income.
10
BTW If you read the ABCs editorial policy carefully, you will discover that it is a completely meaningless piece of crap. Every rule has an exception that waters the rule down to the point where it may as well not be there.
For example, the part in your quote “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.”
It sounds good, but the key part is “over time”, notice they do not specify a time frame? so if the ABC finally presents a fair view of climate change in the year 2525 they will have honoured their policy!
They pulled that trick with the Iraq invasion. Before the Invasion they presented only the government pro-war view. After the invasion had started and after the government had been re-elected they started to publish some anti-war views however by that time it was too late to do anything about it.
10
Mike, I think you’ve nailed the problem with policies and politics. If we remove the adjectives from the stated editorial policy, then we have; “Present a diversity of perspectives so that, over time, no _ strand of thought or belief within the community is _ excluded or _ represented.”
As this sentence is contradictory, it is reliant on the adjectives to bond it together and make it seem like a concrete affirmation of honest intent. However, the adjectives are the weasel words that the author relies upon to permit any interpretation.
The words, “significantly”, “knowingly” and “disproportionately” will also allow an exit strategy when the evidence showing that the ABC has violated it’s own policy becomes overwhelming.
10
What is it about climate change that reduces otherwise competent people to idiocy? From Quadrant, a quote from Chief Scientist Chubb:
“You don’t get the Arctic ice melt just by natural events,” he said. “You can’t reproduce it through modelling if you just factor in natural events. But if you factor in human activity, then you get what’s happening and you get the reduction.”
So what does this say in the real world? Some people constructed some models based on what they described as “natural events”. What he means to say I think is “natural processes” (if you allow “events” to be a model input then you have a simple “model”: input=event=artic ice doing something; model: output = input; output = arctic ice doing something; perfect agreement with observations). Then the statement “You can’t reproduce it through modelling” would mean that the models failed to match observations. The “You can’t” part is meant to imply that every possible model has been tried and found to fail, which is clearly pathetic. More reasonable is the conclusion that the people who constructed the models had a poor understanding of the system they were attempting to model (obviously very likely with a complex chaotic system like climate over the next century). But no, that won’t do. Instead the conclusion is that since every possible natural process has been incorporated into every possibe model (the “you can’t” part) it must be that it is a process that is not natural. The only possible non-natural process is “human activity” and when “that*” is included in the models it fits perfectly.
As Phil Jones of UEA and climategate fame put it more directly when asked what evidence there was that this was caused by humans: we couldn’t think of anything else.
* As I understand it the model of “human activity” is the selection of a value for the single parameter in the equation relating change in atmospheric CO2 (observed, not modelled) and Hansen’s “global average temperature” change.
10
Like you I cringed when I read what Chubb had said. I wondered “What the heck must the international science community think of the standard of Australian science when our Government appointed CHIEF SCIENTIST comes out with such rubbish?”
10
Rereke Whakaaro
October 22, 2011 at 6:01 am · Reply
What we are witnessing now, is the harvesting of a crop planted in the late 1990′s.
Rereke
Today’s AGW ‘crop’ actually planted in the early 1990s.
When an accurate history of UN’s support for climate change alarmism is written, it will be clear just how eagerly – and prematurely – the developing world (and others) embraced it, years before the IPCC and its researchers ruled the science was “settled”.
It will be a case study in politicisation of science and deliberate entrenchment of confirmation bias on a grand scale. It will show how the promise of treasure at the end of the “carbon” (dioxide) rainbow ensured too many so-called “facts” became “theory-laden” with anthropogenic global warming, carbonorexia nervosa and so on.
Little wonder more folk are asking – with Judith Curry – whether “early articulation of a preferred policy option by the UNFCCC” entrenched a lucrative (for many) “feedback loop between politics, science, and science funding that accelerated the science (and its assessment by the IPCC) towards the policy option (CO2 stabilization) that was codified by the UNFCCC,” leading to “an overconfident assessment of the importance of greenhouse gases in future climate change”.
How did we get to this point? When did “climate change” become the dodgy rationale for wealth transfer on such an unprecedented scale from the developed world (haves) to the developing world (have-nots), with bureaucrats, carbon traders, etc, taking their cut/margins on the way?
ANSWER: ever since the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change codified notions of “dangerous” climate change, “climate debt” and “precautionary” action, UN bureaucracies (including the IPCC) have been moving slowly – but inevitably – towards today’s highly politicised end-game.
Alice (in Warmerland)
10
carbonorexia nervosa
Ha Ha 🙂
10
KinkyKieth,
You meant “carborundum nervosa“?
10
I think there a couple of flaws in “Crownies” theme which defies logic.
1. How does an Alarmist scientist become frustrated. Is it a lack of funds, scientific recognition or a position in a lucrative Government quango. I don’t get it.
2. How would an alarmist scientist hit anyone? Isn’t it the “deniers” that issue the punches and the death threats and the alarmist who must instigate security systems at work, at great expense to the tax payer to protect thenselves.
So like the current scientific debate about CAGW, Carbon Pollution or our Clean Energy Future this drama is based on a wrong assumption, I wonder if they used a CADM (computer Aided Drama Modelling) system for the plot they could have scored a trifecta!
What a waste of time. I want my 25 mins of my life back
Say YES to an election now !!
10
Well stuff me; an enthusiastic radio interview by the ABC so-called “The Science Show” of the author of yet another CAGW book has today been made available as a transcript. That author; Mark Lynus, is a journalist that is famous for having thrown a pie into the face of a sceptic that he did not wish to have friendly intercourse with.
10
For a couple of years I’ve tried to get the ABC gardening unit to do proper science instead of preaching “organic farming”, pseudo-fertilizers based on seaweed and a general chemophobia that insults those professional and talented chemists who saved millions of people from famine through pesticide, weedicde and fertilizer design – recommending grandma recipes like lemon juice, vivegar, soapy water and worse to treat pests and diseases.
For a couple of years I was fobbed off until sources close to Maurice Newman suggested a look at the ABC Advisory Council, some of which is due for election shortly. I am not making unreasonable inferences, but a member is Mrs Rena Henderson, whose short c.v. reads –
“Ulverston, Tasmania. Appointed to December 2014. Mrs Henderson, aged 64, is a house design consultant. Mrs Henderson, born in Wales, acts as a house designer, helping to interpret clients’ needs. Her knowledge is based from a family building company. Mrs Henderson is a trained sociologist, an able research and report writer, and has been a field interviewer for the ABS, providing data for the Institute of Family Studies. She is also an organic vegetable gardener and has a stall at the local community markets, selling home grown vegetables and crafts, providing an excellent opportunity to converse and consult with people across a range of ages and interests.”
Then, if you wish to go big time to the Board of the ABC because of Environment Policy Concerns, you meet among others Ms Cheryl Bart – “Appointed a Director for a five year term commencing 3 June 2010, Cheryl Bart is a lawyer and company director. She is Chairman of ANZ Trustees Ltd, the South Australian Film Corporation, the Adelaide Film Festival , AER Foundation and the Environment Protection Authority (EPA). Her other current directorship positions include Spark Infrastructure Ltd , ETSA Utilities and the William Buckland Foundation. Her previous directorships include the Economic Development Board (SA), Sydney Ports Corporation, the Australian Sports Foundation, Soccer Australia, Basketball Australia and the Defence Industries Advisory Board. Ms Bart was awarded the Order of Australia in the Australia Day Honours in January 2009. She was awarded the National Geographic “Spirit of Adventure ” award in 2008 as the first mother/daughter team to have successfully climbed the “Seven Summits”.”
Fancy having the Chairperson of the EPA on the ABC Board. I wonder if she excuses herself at times of conflict of interest, which must be much of the time.
10
A significant conflict of interest must be an essential pre-requisite qualification for appointment to a senior Government position. CSIRO….ABC……? others anyone?
10
What else would you expect from Robin “100 metres” Williams, the man who has predicted Port Phillip Bay will flood Healsville’s main street.
10
ABC & SBS Pty Ltd, botanical name (the Lefty’s Trumpets) cost a billion bucks a year to run. If you ad another few dollars extra, to redesign their logo in front of their every big city office – politicians will start to think.
Don’t blame the ABC’s supporters – they are the biggest victims. One day, when they wake up; they should take ABC & SBS in a class action for ”brains degradation” I will be their witness. If one can believe in all the ABC’s crap = proof enough that his /her brains is clinically dead.
What happened of ”the Doctrine of separation of power between a political party and the National Broadcaster” you will find it on my website: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com
10
Actually Stefan, a sizeable portion of the ABC and SBS funding goes to another private company that has the contract to transmit the TV and Radio signals (analog and digital) across Australia and to the local region (through Radio Australia). So a good portion of that government funding is going back into the private sector, so it is not all bad. Also there is a lot of the ABC and SBS content that has nothing to do with bad or biased science.
10