We must be watchng different ABCs. The one I watch has been devastated by political interference during the Howard era where the board was loaded with right wing extremists who employed a former Liberal Party apparatchik as CEO. He then enforced a right wing culture not different to the Murdoch viewpoint. This ABC has been just as engaged in the unrelenting bullying and propaganda against the current minority government as the rest of our decaying mas media. I would love to know where I can find the ABC Don Aitkin is watching, it would be a real relief from the endless right wing propaganda.

Ian,

See Roger Crook's comment below. Balance is the key word. It is difficult to pull off, and it doesn't just happen by giving the Leader of the Opposition the same amount of time as the PM. And the trouble with balance is that it offends just about everyone, because we like to have our beliefs and opinions confirmed by the news story and the way it is presented.

If you think the ABC is full of right-wing propaganda you must have clear and unshakeable views about most things. I'm much more uncertain, and I like my uncertainty verified by the way news and news commentary is presented.

As it happens my views on many things are uncertain but I don't regard it as "balance" when experts discussing their area of expertise eg climate scientists, are rebutted by someone with no specialist knowledge in the area eg Lord Monckton - or a political scientist. I regard it as propaganda, as are a variety of rhetorical tricks such as attempts to maintain there is "uncertainty" around the issue of AGW or that those who accept the science are somehow inflexible rather than rational. Balance would be two equally qualified and peer reviewed climate scientists debating the issue although they would in all likelihood be in complete agreement about the basic issue and only disagree about some of the details.

With respect, Ian, I don't think you enough about the field to be so categorical. When I engage in it, which is with care, I am not engaging in propaganda but exercising a researcher's scepticism. Those who believe in AGW may prove to be right in their insistence that the world has warmed over the 20th century, that the warming is unprecedented, that humans are responsible for it, and that the consequences are dire, but none of these claims is strongly based in data, and the arguments are highly conjectural. After more than thirty years in the research-funding and research policy domains, I know enough to know that, which is why I am agnostic about the perils of AGW, and totally sceptical that our carbon tax is of any value.

And with respect Don, I doubt that you know anything at all about what I might or might not know so your appeal to your own sense of authority is lacking expertise and an example of the hubris that AGW deniers seem so prone to. So many AGW rebuttals seem to add up to "I know nothing about climate science but don't you know who I am?" Personally, when I'm uncertain I rely on experts and that's why I'd still trust climate scientists more than those - like you - who aren't climate scientists.

You don't seem to know about the uncertainty in it all, so I guess you'll go on trusting the climate scientists (you might like to define them) you believe in. That is the trouble with this field: too much belief, not enough questioning — especially given that the stakes are said to be so high.

The climate scientists that it is reasonable to trust are those who have published the peer-reviewed papers on the topic. The overview of all this research is presented in the IPCC reports, and for an Australian perspective in the Garnaut reports.

The big picture science IS settled, and I'm not aware of any university, research organisation (e.g. CSIRO), or academy of science in ANY country which disputes this.

There are still uncertainties, and these are included in both IPCC and Garnaut. I've yet to see any information which would make a rational scientifically literate person think that these reports overestimate the risk, but as the IPCC do not include the effect of many tipping points (because though the effects would be huge, the likely hood of them happening are very uncertain) it is reasonable to suspect that things may be worse than the reports suggest.

What has gone wrong in Australia is that the vested interests have been very successful in casting doubt on the science. Don provides a great example of the techniques used by claiming that the science is based on belief, when the power of science comes from rational examination of the evidence.

Not only have the climate change deniers been unable to provide any rational scientific reasons for having doubt about big picture science of climate change, they are unable to come up with an explanation of how the vast majority of climate change scientists in every country have got it so wrong.

I find it very sad and scary that so many in Australians now think that balance is providing the Labor and Liberal views without further analysis. When George Brandis says the carbon price killed Fairfax he should be laughed at and such economic lunacy should not be treated as just 'one side' of the debate.

Oh dear! So many assertions, so little doubt. Here is Garth Paltridge, former Chief Research Scientist in atmospheric research, and head of the Antarctic CRC:

'The broad theory of man-made global warming is acceptable in the purely qualitative sense. If humans continue to fill the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, there can be little doubt that the average temperature of the world will increase above what it would have been otherwise. The argument about the science is, and always has been, whether the increase would be big enough to be noticed among all the other natural variations of climate. The economic and social argument is whether the increase, even if it were noticeable, would change the overall welfare of mankind for the worse.

Attempts to resolve the arguments are plagued with problems, a lot of which are inherently insoluble. There are many aspects of the behaviour of the natural climate system and of human society that are unpredictable in principle, let alone in practice. But perhaps the biggest of the underlying problems, and it is common to both arguments since it inevitably exists when there is large unpredictability and uncertainty, is the presence of strong forces encouraging public overstatement and a belief in worst-case scenarios.'

No one I know casts doubt on the 'science' — what they cast doubt on is the certainty of those who call for action now, when, as Paltridge says, there is so much uncertainty about what is happening, and what might happen.

I didn't claim that 'the science is based on belief', rather that those who unquestioningly accept the IPCC, Garnaut, Stern, Combet et al seem to do so without looking for themselves at what are relatively straightforward things, like the validity and reliability of temperature measurements, both in our time and in ancient times, and how sure we can be about climate sensitivity to increases in carbon dioxide. The believe, as you seem to do, that there is a problem, and that we must do something about it now.

And peer review is nothing more than a statement from a journal that this article might be worth looking at. The real test of quality in published research is not getting published. It is whether or not in ten years' time any notice will have been taken of it

As to the name of the ship, it depends on whether you learned about it from Conan Doyle, like me, or through a history source. Both are correct, depending on the source.

The problem I see with reporting 'truth and accuracy' is the definition of what is 'truth and accuracy? Can we always say and demand people accept 'the science is settled'. I hope not, otherwise science is damned.
Whereas if 'balance' is the objective, the audience can then make up their own mind on the evidence as presented.

MsKKK:

What 'truth' are you referring to ? What, since you raise it, is the 'truth' about so-called
'climate change' (meaning anthropogenic global warming)? In my judgment, this is an area with a great deal of uncertainty, both as to how much of it is occurring, and whether or not warming would be a net benefit to humanity. But I don't detect any such uncertainty from the ABC in its news broadcasts. I would agree that balance here is difficult, because AGW is the current orthodoxy. But then what price investigative journalism?

I want an independent and fearless ABC, not one that goes with the current orthodoxy, whatever it is. And that's hard, just because it is funded by us as taxpayers via a government (any government) that does not want persistent critics in the media, and can decide how much money to turn on or off.

It is not easy being the ABC, and I value it. But in my judgment it does possess a 'culture', a view of the world, which is of a particular kind. I laid out what I thought that was in my initial comment. I'm not opposed to that culture —indeed, most of the values I share — but it is not balanced or diverse. It can stay as it is, in which case it should start again with its Code of Practice and Editorial Policies. Or it can change its practice to accord with its documents.

That "culture" you identify Don is an interesting one. It seems these days as many people criticise the ABC for its Tony Abbott/John Howard, right wing bias as there are those criticising it for its Karl Marx left wing leanings. And on the fringe dance the many lunatics each blowing their own whistle. Would this indicate evidence of balance? Or is it simply an issue of you being unable to hear your own particular tune loudly enough because the others play a different song at the same concert?

It could be, yes. I guess we are prone to pick up the cues that are relevant to our own interests. I'm not specially interested (any more) in what happens at the next election, but I am interested in the nature of public debate in Australia, so I tend to tune out the ritual about the leaders, and listen to what remains.

This is how I see the audience when it comes to science.

How many of the audience has done anything more than high school algebra? Would it be 15%. Lets double it and say 30%

Then, how many of that 30% has done linear algebra and multivariable calculus. Say half? 15% of the total?

Then how many have differential equations under their belt?

So, something less than 15% of the viewing audience have the mathematical ability and mental gymnastic skills to follow an argument about hard science. That’s follow – not decide.

You obviously see it differently. So I am interested, how do people decide when mathematical treatment is out of the question?

There's been research in this. It's called "hostile media phenomenon". Researchers had subjects watch media reports of the 1986 Israel-Lebanon War and asked for their opinions of whether the reports were biased or not. Subjects who identified as strongly or somewhat "pro-Israel" felt that the media reports were anti-Israel, held Israel to a higher standard than other nations, etc. Subjects who identified as pro-Palestinian felt that the media reports were pro-Israel, held Israel to a lower standard, etc.

Don’t know the answer to your question. What I do know it should not be necessary to have an understanding of differential equations before there can be a line of communication and understanding between science and the people. We must all remember it is the people who are the majority and it is the people, whether they have an understanding of differential equations or not, who elect governments.

The problem is that scientists are not trained communicators; they love the ‘jargon’ of their science and use it as a form of deliberate elitism. For many it is their shield from the people; ‘they don’t understand differential equations so how can they understand what I am talking about?’

Perhaps we should set the two combatants below a maths test and see if they can do differential equations?

Monckton was educated at Harrow School and Churchill College Cambridge where he received his B.A. (Classics, 1974, Cantab,. Now M.A.) and at University College Cardiff, where he obtained a diploma in journalism studies.

Flannery completed a Bachelor of Arts degree in English at La Trobe University in 1977, and then took a change in direction to complete a Master of Science degree in Earth Science at Monash University in 1981. He then left Melbourne for Sydney, enjoying its subtropical climate and species diversity. In 1984 Flannery earned a doctorate at the University of new South Wales in Palaeontology for his work on the evolution of macropods (kangaroos) (Source: Wikipedia)

What (climate) science, on both sides of the spectrum, needs to recognise is one of the golden rules of causing behavioural change is that knowledge, values, attitudes and beliefs determine behaviour.

If you wish to change people’s behaviour, say to support your argument, you first need a deep understanding of the existing, knowledge, values, attitudes and beliefs of your target. Those four attributes are built over a lifetime, short or long, of experience. I don’t believe either side has properly researched why people behave as they do with regard to the climate debate.

What we have had is fear mongering, exasperation, denigration and downright abuse from both sides and as a result an exasperated, confused and in some cases a polarised public. The people watch those who would influence them.

The examples are there. Flannery promised Armageddon, governments built de-salination plants costing billions and power stations to feed them all with taxpayers money. Then we got floods.

Water levels are going to rise; so Flannery buys a house on the water, so did Greg Combet. What are the people to believe?

You don’t need to be able to do differential equations to come to an opinion on the ‘behaviour’ of those two. Their behaviour like the rest of us is determined by their knowledge, values, attitudes and beliefs, which has been apparent for all to see.

So science can wail against the wall in the face of those examples.

The ‘people’ are NOT stupid. They all know that China (not to mention India) is opening a new power station every day or week or whatever it is? And they also know that China mines huge quantities of its own coal and imports huge amounts from around the world to feed those power stations.

The people do understand that a ‘carbon tax’ has now become a ‘carbon price’ and Australia’s big polluters employ Australians, suddenly the unions understand this too.

People do understand, because they have seen and I believe understood the numbers, that if Australia stopped producing any ‘carbon’ tomorrow – the climate of the world tomorrow and in the future, would not change.

So the argument ‘It’s just another BIG TAX’, rightly or wrongly, gains currency with the people, because most of the people, and this has been researched, believe a lot of their taxes are wasted.

In 1930 Einstein said:

If my theory of relativity is proven correct, Germany will claim me as a German and France will declare that I am a citizen of the world. Should my theory prove untrue, France will say I am a German and Germany will declare I am a Jew.

There must be few in the climate debate wondering how history will judge them.

I just wish we could start again, but then again as an ego is a manifestation of fear, we would have to eliminate egos from both sides, and that would take more than a differential equation.

Roger.

There are many books and websites aimed at the average person which clearly explain climate science.

What is more, almost everyone who posts against climate change make points to which the correct answer can easily be found with only a few minutes on the internet. I call these people deniers because they post without having done any investigation to the view of the other side, and has been proven with years of discussion on the internet, I've yet to see a denier change their mind.

Your post is an example of the rubbish used against climate change. Firstly, just because Flannery says something wrong does nothing to prove that the decades of work by thousands of scientists is wrong. Secondly, as far as I've been able to determine, Flannery has been taken out of context, and he was speaking in general terms (droughts will get worse and there will also be times of worse flooding). Thirdly, extraordinary claims are made about the power of his words - blaming Flannery for building the desalination plants.

Your other points are all playing politics aimed at stopping anyone from doing anything.

I'm very pleased that you are using your real name. I hope that your grand-children read your post and judge you accordingly.

Michael,
You have shown by what you have written, that you don't understand the dynamics that drive public opinion.

I deliberately did not give a personal opinion on the debate, on who is right and who is wrong. If you got that impression, it was not my intention and I regret your conclusion.

I am not playing politics. I do have extensive experience in attitudinal market research and what makes people behave in the way they do.

As for your last sentence I have always used my real name, why wouldn't I? I would hope everyone does otherwise they have something to hide.

Further to your last sentence I believe it was Oscar Wilde who said 'Oh can men be such bitches'.
Very childish of you.

Roger, Surely you are playing games!

How can anyone read your post and not think that you are lobbying against climate change action?

I do understand the dynamics that drive public opinion, and have to admire the expertise behind the campaign against action for so effectively changing the views expressed in the media and on-line.

I'm certain that some deniers are paid campaigners posting in forums (here, The Drum, Crikey, etc) to seed the denialists spin lines and to give the impression that there is great public doubt. I wonder how many years it will be before we find out the truth.

Anyone who reads other on-line comments will know that it very unusual to use a real-name - hence my comment.

Roger,
It would appear, from your comment, people decide by ‘smelling a rat’ and ‘on gut feeling’.

Is that then prone to the situation where the best arguer wins rather than the best argument?

Well said, Roger.

And Michael, you make large assertions that make me shake my head: 'almost everyone who posts against climate change make points to which the correct answer can easily be found with only a few minutes on the internet'. The 'correct answer'. Wow! If only it were true. I'm often told that everything has been sorted out at Skeptical Science, as though it were a Bible of climate change. It's nothing of the kind — it presents a point of view. If one wants the opposite point of view, go to Lubos Motl. Better still, read both, and then one will be puzzled, and no longer think that the science is 'settled'.

But here's a test for you. I've done quite a bit of work on the measurement of temperature. Where would you suggest that people go to find out about (i) the likely error in the measurement of sea-surface temperatures (remember that the oceans cover some 70 per cent of the Earth's surface);
(ii) the reliability of land temperature measurements before the second world war; and (iii) whether or not one can use paleo measurements of temperature to support the view that the rise in temperature in the second half of the 20th century is 'unprecedented' (in short, are the data fine-grained enough to allow such an inference)?

You say that this requires only a few minutes on the Internet, and you suggest that you are knowledgable. And we want correct answers, not just opinions. Off you go!

And, for what it's worth, my children and grandchildren from time to time read what I write. We even discuss it, too. So far the question of 'judgment' hasn't come up. I'm happy to rest on their judgment, when and if it comes. Your use of that sort of lofty scorn has no place in a conversation

"Anyone who reads other on-line comments will know that it very unusual to use a real-name - hence my comment."

So really it's cowardice? Have to hide behind another name or a silly avatar or both.

It's no wonder the debate has gone off the rails if we don't know who is writing what.

You could be anyone! Good grief! Pleased to meet you Greg.

I'm new to this forum, so my view of deniers comes from Crikey and occasionally The Drum.

If there is uncertainty about the big picture of climate change can you tell me one university, government run research organisation, or academy of science in ANY country that shares your doubt?

It is a fact that there are a few highly publicised scientist that disagree with climate change, and people such as yourself who dispute it.

But it is also a fact that as far as mainstream science goes there is no dispute.

Where have you published your work? If you have, what has been the response? If not, why are you right and the vast majority of climate scientists wrong?

And if the vast majority of climate change scientists are wrong, is this because they are all stupid? Or because of some vast international conspiracy?

OMG Roger, are you suggesting we should run the risk of only reflecting on ideas and opinions? Considering your position though, perhaps we should also be compelled to sign our electoral ballot papers, just so someone knows who voted for who and then later, they can ask me why. Me? Well I have to maintain a degree of anonymity because as a mild mannered reporter, my views must remain so, as a cover for my "other life" as the anti-christ. Rupert understands, even if you don't ...

Michael,

Universities and academies of science are not people. People have doubts, organisations don't. To the best of my knowledge no university in Australia has made a public statement about the accuracy of AGW assertions. Only the executive of the Australian Academy of Science has made such a statement. The Fellows have not been asked. Same with scientists. There has been no meeting of climate scientists at which they have listened to all point of view and then voted on the issue. Science isn't like that.

You don't read carefully, do you. I don't dispute the science. Indeed, I read it carefully. In my judgment the case has not been made strongly for policies like the carbon tax. That is policy, not science. Ross Garnaut is not a climate scientist, either, but both of us are able to comment on both the science and the policies. We disagree, but it is only through disagreement, as Popper said, that we get to learn anything.

If you want to see what I have written, look me up, and read it.

And how are you going with the test?

Goodness me! Sorry superman. What do you do now they are taking away public phones? Use an Ap, I suppose.

Scientific organizations endorsing the consensus:

The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":

American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
British Antarctic Survey
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Environmental Protection Agency
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
Federation of American Scientists
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Royal Meteorological Society
Royal Society of the UK

The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 13 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:

Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias (Mexico)
Russian Academy of Sciences
Academy of Science of South Africa
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)
A letter from 18 scientific organizations to US Congress states:

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science."
The consensus is also endorsed by a Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC), including the following bodies:

African Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Madagascar's National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Academy of Science of South Africa
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Sudan Academy of Sciences

Other Academies of Sciences that endorse the consensus:

Australian Academy of Science
Royal Society of New Zealand
Polish Academy of Sciences

Now if there were any serious scientific doubts about climate change you would expect that at least one legitimate scientific organisation would say so.

And in no case were the members of the organisation asked what their view was. This is politics, not science. Don't you understand that?