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

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

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

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

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

Here iJohn Bates bio:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Jo

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

________________________________

TheirABC, diverse views and the FOI Act

Guest post by Beliaik

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

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

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

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

G’day ABC news tips department

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

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

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

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

It has already broken in the British media, here…

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

And in the US media here …

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

… and here …

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I look forward to your early reply.

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

 Thank you for your email.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Program date    16/03/2017

Subject                Alarming story about coral bleaching being caused by CO2 emissions

Interviewee – Prof Andrew Baird from JCU

Interviewer – Kathryn Robinson

G’day

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Standards:

4.1 Gather and present news and information with due impartiality.

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

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

4.3 ……..

4.4 Do not misrepresent any perspective.

4.5 Do not unduly favour one perspective over another.

The Robinson-Baird interview demonstrates that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely,

The next step was to take the complaint to ACMA:

G’day ACMA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely,

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

FOI

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

FOI Contact Officer, Corporate Affairs, Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Written FOI request and ‘sufficient information’

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

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

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

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

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

Form of the document/s

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

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

Definition of Sceptical and Alarmist for the purpose of this application

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

Global warming – Sceptical view

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

Global warming – Alarmist view

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

Climate change – Sceptical view

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

Climate change – Alarmist view

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

CO2 – Sceptical view

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

CO2 – Alarmist view

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

Coral bleaching – Sceptical view

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

Coral bleaching – Alarmist view

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

Signature and address

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

FOI REQUEST – REFERENCE NUMBER 2017-011

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

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

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

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

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

Locating and identifying documents

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

Director News

Manager Editorial Policies, News.

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

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

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

Yours sincerely

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

4. Impartiality and diversity of perspectives

…

Standards:

4.1 Gather and present news and information with due impartiality.

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

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

4.4 Do not misrepresent any perspective.

4.5 Do not unduly favour one perspective over another.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers, Beliaik

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

h/t John, Dave B, Pat, Jim

More great journalism from The Guardian:

Climate change is turning Antarctica green, say researchers

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

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

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

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

There is more chance that Santa Claus will move in.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All stories on Antarctica

• CO2 hits record high: Antarctic temperatures do nothing
• The non-disaster of 150,000 missing penguins? They just went somewhere else.
• Giant blob of superheated rock under West Antarctica

…

It’s all in how you spin it. Supra-zoogle-watts of new wind power capacity was added last year. Wind and solar grew faster than fossil fuels. There are now 341,000 wind turbines around the world! Thus do Meaningless Big-Numbers flow.

Instead  Matt Ridley gets down to the small numbers that tell us what is going on: Wind Turbines are neither clean nor green.

The Spectator:  Here’s a quiz; no conferring. To the nearest whole number, what percentage of the world’s energy consumption was supplied by wind power in 2014, the last year for which there are reliable figures? Was it 20 per cent, 10 per cent or 5 per cent? None of the above: it was 0 per cent. That is to say, to the nearest whole number, there is still no wind power on Earth.

Key Renewable Trends IEA 2016

The only renewables superstars are those you never hear about — wood and hydro:

Their trick is to hide behind the statement that close to 14 per cent of the world’s energy is renewable, with the implication that this is wind and solar. In fact the vast majority — three quarters — is biomass (mainly wood), and a very large part of that is ‘traditional biomass’; sticks and logs and dung burned by the poor in their homes to cook with. Those people need that energy, but they pay a big price in health problems caused by smoke inhalation.

…world energy demand has been growing at about 2 per cent a year for nearly 40 years.

If wind turbines were to supply all of that growth but no more, how many would need to be built each year? The answer is nearly 350,000, since a two-megawatt turbine can produce about 0.005 terawatt-hours per annum.

So we’d have to build 350,000 wind turbines every year just to keep up with the growth in electricity demand each year.

To be fair, apparently wind power generates nearly 5% of Australia’s total energy, which is at the same time, pretty remarkable, and also maybe why manufacturing here is dying.

Here’s a meaningless small number:

Portugal ran for four days straight once on renewable energy alone. Four whole days!

Read the whole article Wind Turbines are neither clean nor green.

UPDATE:

With millions worldwide taken in,
By the Greens through renewable spin,
While the wind-turbine yield,
Is on pie-charts revealed,
As a slice unbelievably thin.

–Ruairi

REFERENCE:

IEA Key Renewable Trends, 2016

Welcome to paleolithic politics: in this version, the witchdoctors are syndicated and with lap tops.

OSLO (Reuters) – Nations around the world have adopted more than 1,200 laws to curb climate change…

Patricia Espinosa, the U.N.’s climate change chief, … said the findings were “cause for optimism”…

Because more laws are always good.

Forty-seven laws had been added since world leaders adopted a Paris Agreement to combat climate change in late 2015, a slowdown from a previous peak of about 100 a year around 2009-13 when many developed nations passed laws.

All those new laws and global temperatures peak anyway. Must be depressing for legisladocktors.

Too many laws is never enough:

“We don’t want weaklings in the chain,” said Martin Chungong, Secretary General of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. He urged all countries to adopt laws that help limit downpours, heatwaves and rising sea levels.

I’m with him. Why not speed limits for winds?

h/t Climate Depot

…

All over the US media today —  discussion over whether Trump will pull the US out of the Paris agreement. We all know the Paris agreement will not alter world temperature*, slow storms or stop floods but is potentially a trap for domestic legal action, it hurts the poor via high electricity bills, and reduces living standards (for those outside the $1.5 Trillion Green Industrial Complex). The free citizens around the world may score a big win soon. We hope.

*To put the impotence of Paris in perspective: if we use IPCC estimates, and all industrialized nations make a 100% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2100, we can only cool global temperatures by 0.35C — a third of one degree at most. That’s no oil, no gas, or coal, in a world powered by handmade nuclear reactors using mud bricks transported by horse and cart. 😉 And that assumes that the models are right despite them failing on regional, local, short term[1] [2], polar[3], major feedbacks [4] [5], humidity[6], rainfall[7], drought[8] and on clouds[9].

White House may pull out of Paris agreement due to legal implications

Timothy Cama, The Hill

Trump could announce as soon as next week his plans to pull out. The Huffington Post and New York Times reported on the developments earlier Tuesday.

Central to the administration’s debate is whether the U.S. could reduce its greenhouse gas-cutting commitment for the 2015 pact without running afoul of it.

The agreement states that a country “may at any time adjust its existing nationally determined contribution with a view to enhancing its level of ambition,” which sources say concerns the White House counsel’s office.

If Trump wanted to ratchet down former President Barack Obama’s promise of a 26 percent to 28 percent emissions cut by 2025, the agreement may prevent it.

The administration is also worried that staying in the accord would give environmentalists a legal argument to prevent Trump from repealing climate regulations like the Clean Power Plan.

Climate Deal Could Turn on a Single Phrase: 

John Swartz, NY Times

The provision at issue, Article 4.11, states that a nation “may at any time adjust its existing nationally determined contribution with a view to enhancing its level of ambition.”

Christopher C. Horner, a senior legal fellow at the Energy and Environment Legal Institute, said liberal state attorneys general and climate activists would inevitably sue over efforts to weaken the targets. “This will be most aggressive in the Ninth Circuit, which hopefully triggers some memories in the minds of administration lawyers,” he said, referring to the fight over the administration’s immigration plan, which has been stayed by the California-based federal appeals court.

“Despite the mad rush to insist that plain language means either the opposite of what it says, or else nothing at all, under any canon of construction, Article 4 does not permit revisions downward,” Mr. Horner said. “The language is deliberate and reads only one way: the way it was written and, as the context affirms, was plainly intended.”

The momentum has turned against the Paris agreement for Trump Whitehouse

Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post

Pruitt, who is spearheading the effort to rewrite several Obama-era rules aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions, has argued that exiting the agreement will make it easier to fend off the numerous legal lawsuits he will face in the months ahead.

At a rally with supporters Saturday, Trump said he would make a “big decision” on Paris within the next two weeks and vowed to end “a broken system of global plunder at American expense.”

Be very afraid — the big downside — “Pariah Status”:

“The Trump team seems oblivious to the fact that climate protection is now viewed by leading allies and nations around the world as a key measure of moral and diplomatic standing,” [Paul] Bledsoe said in an email. “The U.S. would be risking pariah status on the international stage by withdrawing from Paris, and even a fig leaf approach of technically staying in the agreement while ignoring most of its provisions would be better than pulling out altogether.”

Watch out. People might say things that are not nice about the USA.

The largest military power in the world and the second largest economy is hardly at risk of being “not included” or exiled from all the other decisions around the world that matter. As the largest contributor to the UN, if they did get excluded, the US would be freer. And if foreign aid was channeled direct instead of through a global bureaucracy, the poor may win too.

Keep reading  →