Joke of the day

Over at ABC Online we have an article bemoaning the drop in public support for “climate change” as an important issue for Australians.

At the end of the piece there are eight bold headings – the fifth is “Sceptics given a platform”. They claim that “Most media outlets, including the ABC..” were even handed giving time/space equally whether scientists were pro-“climate change” or whether they were sceptics – who the article terms “..a tiny rump of gold-diggers..”.

This claim of media evenhandedness is simply hilarious. I would estimate the ABC and most other Oz media would be at least 10 to 1 biased against climate sceptics.

I hear pro-IPCC people complaining that “The Australian” is pro climate sceptics – however I seldom read that paper – but maybe they are more even handed.

7 comments to Joke of the day

  • val majkus

    I left this comment at Jo Nova’s blog
    Peter Lewis has an article at The Drum today ‘Scepticism becomes mainstream’ – two of the reasons he cites for this dreadful calamity is
    Sceptics given a platform – the nature of the media is to present balanced news. The difficulty occurs when more than 95 per cent of the world’s scientists agree that climate change is real and action is needed urgently while a tiny rump of gold-diggers say its overblown hype. Should media give the two sides equal airtime, or weight the time to the relative strength of the scientific cases? Most media outlets, including the ABC, went for the straight ‘two sides to a story’ approach. This had the affect of inflating the deniers’ case and reducing the import of the international consensus. (did any of you notice this balanced approach to reporting? …. um err … Thought so)

    Scientists caught flat-footed – The scientific community was then caught flat-footed, when a handful of minor errors were identified in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report. The science community failed to explain these errors as well as build understanding of the scientific processes of peer review. This means each time an error is identified it becomes a ‘gotcha’ moment, rather than part of the process of building understanding. It created more fuel for the deniers’ fires. By failing to consistently state that the science of climate change is in, science itself was exposed to attack and, along with the impenetrable explanations offered by then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, was further undermined by sceptics as being elitist and therefore suspicious. (Don’t you love “the failure to consistently state that the science of climate change is in?” Like in where … limbo, flux, a state of denial that it’s become so politicised?)

    Go leave a comment www.abc.net.au/unleashed/41870.html and we’ll see how balanced the moderators are

  • Regarding the same story, I have posted this on the Tim Blair Blog:

    This is a disaster.

    This is a disaster for both sides. We, The Climate Sceptics know that Climate Change is real. We know that Climate has always changed. We are also convinced that man has very little effect on the climate. The Urban Heat Island effect (UHI) is one of man’s small contribution to changes in climate. ( tinyurl.com/2bsmlp6 )
    So, we think that everyone should KNOW that Climate Change is real.

    Those from the other side of the debate, unfortunately are confused. First, it was man-made global warming (AGW) which they cut down to global warming. (So, although we admitted that there was warming they called us global warming sceptics.) Then the warming stopped as as one of their top scientist, Phil Jones said, there has been no warming for 15 years. ( tinyurl.com/2g6jxgo ) So, for (in)convenience, they changed global warming into climate change. Suddenly all their terminology became confused.

  • Ripper

    Lol , they won’t put up my comment pointing them here to check out what has happened in their regions.

  • klem

    “when a handful of minor errors were identified in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report.”

    Even the media do not believe that these were minor errors. The media knows they were put there intentionally to scare the readers and the media. They know they were fooled and this is partially why the media has given more time to anti AGW people. Climate-gate and Himalaya-gate are the two primary reasons why AGW has failed.

  • woodNfish

    Sorry klem, but the media wasn’t fooled by anything. They are more than happy to be useful propaganda tools.

  • Romanoz

    Article 6 of the Kyoto Protocol, which Australia has ratified, urges the member nations to engage in “Education, Training and Public Awareness” or as the old leftists would say ‘agitprop’.
    I dont think that includes giving “skeptics” a platform.
    Another unlevel playing field!

  • Romanoz

    Looks like the Warministas are recruiting some divine support.
    SUBJECT: GREEN POPE SUPPORTS US PATH FORWARD FROM COPENHAGEN
    From wikileaks.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>