Marc, while the ABC does get it wrong (for example, in giving more than 1% coverage to climate change deniers), it does provide some balance to the increasing right-wing bias in Australia's media.

For a balanced overview, I refer to commercial sources, the ABC and SBS. The subtle, and often unsubtle, differences are revealing.

The notion of balance is, in reality, completly unworkable. If the ABC runs a program on evolution should they then have to run a program on intelligent design? While covering the gay and lesbian madigra should they cut to cardinal Pell for his reaction? After Playschool should there be readings of Atlas Shrugged or the Communist Manifesto?

How easily balance is achieved depends entirely on how heavily weighted to either the left or the right you are. I have met plenty of racist, sexist, homophobic and xenephobic Australians, should the ABC be required to reflect their views? Australia has a chapter of the KKK, I bet they're just pushing sh!t up hill to the achieve balance the ABC's editorial policies demand.

Having recently returned to study after a decade in a blue collar workforce I actually don't think the opinions of those cranky academics are all that bad.

Not sure what you mean by "denier" there David. ABC certainly miss reporting on a lot of mainstream scientific papers that suggest the notion of "Dangerous" man made climate chnage is exaggerated. It seems The Con also suffers from the same problem, being highly selective of the academics news it broadcasts.
And so there are a range of missing voices on the ABC and here. These include for instance the work of the Peilke's, Richard Lindzen and Judy Curry to name a few.
A recent example of ABC failing to provide adequate coverage is the total lack of coverage of the withdrawal of the erroneous Gergis/Karoly paper on SH temperatures. This was trumpeted in no less than 5 major ABC news reports.
They also failed to cover deficiencies in the Steig et al paper on Antarctic temperatures. The only mention is a brief editorial note. If you consider this is good journalism I suggest you need your head read.

ABC's fail to live up to their marketing hype. I would like to see an admission from the ABC and The Con that their readers should not rely solely on them for their news, rather all should read widely.

What a load of tosh! On a number of issues ABC has become beholden to its reporters to the detriment of its audience.
An example would be covering news that a paper loudly trumpeted as proving current SH temperatures are the highest in a 1000 years was withdrawn due to errors. Instead nothing. You can't tell me it wasn't newsworthy.

"ABC certainly miss a lot of mainstream scientific papers that suggest the notion of "Dangerous" man made climate chnage is exaggerated."

Thanks for the laugh Marc. I guess that means they miss a lot of very, very, very, very little.

Be nice if you could provide some evidence Bob, here's mine...

http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com.au/p/missing-news.html
.

Marc,
As usual, this is a sidetrack from the much more important topics in the article above. However, since you claim you have evidence to support your assertion, I have just checked your list.
I chose one at random:
Spencer, R.W.; Braswell, W.D. On the diagnosis of radiative feedback in the presence of unknown radiative forcing. J. Geophys. Res. 2010, 115, D16109.

Your blog states about this paper: "We remain mystified as to how the ABC have missed reporting this significant development in climate science, one of such significance it could merit a Nobel Prize. The only reason appears to be bias against any evidence contrary to ABC's alarmist view on climate change"

Yet, as SkepticalScience points out, this remote-sensing journal does not usually publish research into climate change; the paper immediately attracted criticism and Trenberth and Fasullo found Spencer and Braswell's study had no merit because:
* The model it uses is far too simple to accurately represent the Earth's climate
* The paper doesn't provide enough information to replicate their results
* Their results depend on using one particular data set
* They assume that ENSO responds to cloud cover changes, when in reality, the reverse is true
* The study's conclusions are incorrect and unsupportable.

I also note that the journal's editor, Professor Wolfgang Wagner, resigned specifically over this paper and concluded that it was "fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal".

What's more, in his editorial on the issue, Wagner said: "I would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper’s conclusions in public statements."

Seems to me that the ABC showed excellent news judgement in this case.

Bob you might recall significant discussion of the pros and cons of this issue here and elsewhere. It is very odd that ABC chose not to cover any aspect of the story. This does not constitute "excellent news judgement". In my opinion it is a deriliction of duty.

We're all entitled to our opinions. I fully accept that, in your opinion, it was a paper of such significance it could merit a Nobel Prize, and that it was a dereliction of duty by the ABC not to report it as such.

Bob, don't get carried away. I simply suggest the paper and the subsequent discussion were highly newsworthy, as are the other numerous examples provided on that list of missing news items I provided. So far you have not provided any evidence to support your claims. That ABC have failed to cover these many stories an example (IMO) of bias in its scientific coverage. The recent Gergis/Karoly paper was widely lauded and promoted by the ABC but the news of withdrawal of that paper (which is highly newsworthy) has not been covered. The Con included detailed update in its coverage.

Perhaps you can suggest a reason why ABC failed to report on it, and only provided an update after a complaint from me.

Here's another example of a missing item. Again I am not suggesting anything about its merit, however I am suggesting its publication is newsworthy and that it is worth discussion.
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/06/21/new-paper-climate-physics-feedbacks-and-reductionism-and-when-does-reductionism-go-too-far-by-dick-lindzen/

Marc, I'm a tired old hack. I started in journalism as a student in 1976. I've specialised in science writing since 1985. I've always found the ABC to be the strongest and most consistent force within the Australia media reporting on science. The Science Show is a radio legend. TV shows like Towards 2000, Quantum and Catalyst brought mainstream science to a mainstream audience. I think ABC Science Online is excellent and thorough. Part of the legacy of the ABC's decades of effort in this sphere is that science is taken seriously in news coverage. All media wrestle more with what to leave out than what to include. The good ones make that choice well, and I see nothing in what you say to dissuade me from thinking that the ABC does its job well. People with particular field of interest like you will always find reason to disagree and cite this or that story that should not have been included or excluded. Daily news can be picked apart day by day and fault easily found. But news is a continual cycle to be absorbed and judged over time.It's not THE story on any given day, it's the story as best you can pull it together with the resources available by deadline time. You say you see a long-term trend of the ABC selling short your particular field of interest. I don't find your evidence convincing - that's my opinion. Someone has to make call on any given day about what news they think MOST people will find newsworthy. Balance and comprehensiveness are ideals to be aimed for, not achieved in reality. In fact, I think if ABC News is guilty of any imbalance and lack of news judgement it is in the tedious formulaic nature of the news structure that it has embraced from commercial broadcasters - police rounds, politics, finance, sport and weather. Who gives a toss whether the price of spot gold changed by 0.01%, or that some tennis player ranked 97th in the world made it through to the second round of some minor tournament on the other side of the planet? Perhaps if critics like you concentrated your efforts on attacking that constant padding of new bulletins with such non-news - just because it ticks a category box, not because it's significant - there'd be more airtime and web space to run the kinds of stories you think are missing.

Marc, I was referring to demands for balance. To the best of my knowledge, independent studies, employing different methodologies, have produced similar findings: of the best qualified climate scientists, 97% agree that we face substantial risks, for which humanity is probably responsible; 2% are uncertain; 1% disagree.

In that light, for the ABC to give more than 1% coverage to deniers is unbalanced.

Not sure which study you are referring to David but you seem to have muddled the questions used in at least one of the surveys. The issue of "substantial risks" being the point of contention. For instance the questions that provided a 97% response in the study by Peter T . Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman (Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change -EOS VOLUME 90 NUMBER 3 20 JANUARY 2009-P21 - link below) are as follows:
1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
Note there is no mention of "substantial risks" in either of these questions. You appear to have made this part up. While I hesitate to speak for the authors of studies in my list of missing news items, I suggest all would answer as I would: "risen" to 1 and "yes" to 2. Hence the fact that they are missing from ABC's science coverage is surely a travesty on your grounds for acceptance grounds.

Peter T . Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

OK, I was using my own words and Doran is one of the studies. There was at least one other, about a year later. Different methodology, similar conclusion.

The fact remains that you peddle an extreme minority view, but seem to want unbalanced coverage from the ABC.

Robin Bell: "Who cares about the ABC anymore anyway?"
I do. The vast majority of the population get most of their information from TV, radio and newspapers. Most of that information is slanted in one way or another. The ABC, in my opinion, provides some balance.
Robin Bell: "Since the ABC stopped faithfully reporting news and started trying to LEAD public opinion ..."
Not that I've seen. Some of their reporters get in the way sometimes (Chris Ullman comes to mind), but I reckon the ABC does a better job than most in that medium. Can you give an example of what you mean?

Which view do you think I am peddling?
What evidence do you have that this view You think I am peddling is in the minority?
Abc have a charter and editorial policies that call for balance. I am merely suggesting they live up these policies.

Here's some more missing news Bob. For some reason ABC and The Con will neglect to inform its audience of the findings in these papers. It seems for some reason they are too dangerous to be discussed:

McKitrick, Ross R. and Lise Tole (2012) “Evaluating Explanatory Models of the Spatial Pattern of Surface Climate Trends using Model Selection and Bayesian Averaging Methods” Climate Dynamics, 2012, DOI: 10.1007/s00382-012-1418-9

R.S. Lindzen, 2102: Climate physics, feedbacks, and reductionism (and when does reductionism go too far?). Eur. Phys. J. Plus (2012) 127: 52 DOI 10.1140/epjp/i2012-12052-8.

Marc, I kept silent when you declared an implied authoritative knowledge of the personal baggage of ABC reporters. But "dangerous"? I'd like to think you're trying to be ironic, but in context with your other comments I don't think so. I don't have time for fruity conspiracism. I'm sure you'll have the last word, but here endeth my discussion with you. Cheers.

Marc Hendrickx: "Which view do you think I am peddling?"
Which view do you think you're peddling?
Marc Hendrickx: "What evidence do you have that this view ... is in the minority?"
The evidence is in the studies. What evidence do you have to the contrary?
Marc Hendrickx: "Abc have a charter and editorial policies that call for balance. I am merely suggesting they live up these policies."
You appear to be trying to bully them into giving unbalanced coverage to your favoured view.
The more you say, the more you sound like a full-blown lunatic fringe climate science denier. I find it fascinating.

And David your admission above: "OK, I was using my own words and Doran is one of the studies."paints you as someone who ignores what is published in preference to pushing your own warped viewpoint.
I don't find your behaviour in misrepresenting those studies "fascinating" I find it characteristic of closed minded individuals incapable of altering entrenched viewpoints when presented with new evidence. Similar views are held by those held captive by oddball religious cults. The sad thing is that your methodology of misrepresentation is so common here on The aptly name Con.

Hi Bob,

You are exactly right, so do you think most journalists see Gina Rinehart as someone who recognises opportunity in change, or as a destructive contributor to that change ??

I'm not well-informed enough to say what most journalists think. What I do know is that Murdoch's cross-subsidised flagship here, The Australian, has been free and easy attacking the perceived shortcomings of the major Fairfax newspapers, yet the SMH and Age have essentially always had to pay their own way. On ABC Breakfast this morning, Kim Williams claimed News Ltd was "moving to reinforce its print products", yet their rumoured job cuts number between 1000 and 1500. Asked pointedly about The Australian's own profitability (which News treats as a closely guarded secret) - and asked whether it was true that it last made a profit in 2008 and was headed for a $20 million loss this year - he said "I'm eager for The Australian to operate on a break-even basis and eventually I'm sure the paper can return to profitability". I have no idea what impact Gina Rinehart would have on the Fairfax newspapers - other to view it with trepidation for their public trustworthiness. Having watched the print empire of another media mogul - Kerry Packer - wither after his demise, if I were working on The Australian I'd be wondering with equal trepidation what happens to it after Rupert Murdoch passes on.

Hi Bob,

Thanks for replying and sharing your thoughts. Perhaps the answer to the discussion that's taking up most of your time here though might be a debate between opposing experts about climate change. Could be the perfect thing for a 4 Corners expose'. My advertising background would definitely see me promoting it as; 'The Cold Hard Tax or A Bloody Hot Business ??' :) Cheers Bob.

Hi Byron,

My '4 Corners' comment was an attempt to lighten things up a little. As you're in Edinburgh you may not have picked up on it. Of course, maybe it just wasn't particularly amusing :)

On a more serious note, how many contributors here either seek or defend the ideal of 'balanced reporting' etc, yet, when any another contributor offers a perspective opposing their own they chastise them as if they're not adult or experienced enough to have formulated an opinion ?? Out they come with expertise gleaned mainly from other media reports and quote snippets as if they're imparting the wisdom of their personal experience on a lesser being.

Oh, and then click on that little (-) minus sign signalling 'unconstructive' for no other reason than someone else contributed to a 'balanced' view by either disagreeing with them or asking them to account for their views. This is the extent of how much 'balance' a typical audience can tolerate.

Climate Change ?? I have an opinion. I also have very few facts so I don't profess to be an expert on it. My experience relates to media. Journalist, Bob Beale, has been eloquent enough to address comments in a factual and polite nature, although I'm sure he won't mind me suggesting that if an airline released a statement saying that there's a 97% chance of passengers surviving any one of their flights, ABC would in fact find it newsworthy enough to report on. More to the point, would you fly with them ?? If you wouldn't, you now have a different perspective on the importance of 3%.

Bottom line, this is 'the conversation' and an opportunity for us to learn from each other, otherwise, it's just 'the argument', and we won't learn anything.

I got the joke Mark, though it's hard to laugh when people like mind-reader and cat-palmist Ken Ring really have been put up as climate experts on mainstream TV. (See http://www.readfearn.com/2011/01/a-sunrise-climate-cock-up-and-reading-cats-paws/).
Your point about civil discourse and polite acceptance - or at least tolerance - of differing views is well taken. For any good conversation to work, everyone taking part needs to show due respect for social etiquette. Those who don't - by shouting others down, for example, or hijacking every conversational thread to a personal hobby horse - can not expect much tolerance from this writer. The comments threads of so many websites are madhouses of anonymous abuse.
Back to your point about balance and what or what is not newsworthy, you are quite right: it certainly would be hot news for any airline to confess that 3 out of every 100 of its passengers dies and I certainly wouldn't fly with them. Close to 8 million passengers travel between Sydney and Melbourne airports each year, so a 3% death rate would see planes dropping like flies out of the sky and leave one air commuter killed every two minutes.
Finding the right metaphor for assessing climate expertise is tricky. If 97% of cancer specialists agree that early surgical removal of a melanoma vastly improves one's chances of survival, how much airtime should the ABC give to a few dissenters who variously argue that it's better to do nothing, that herbal remedies are less invasive or even deny that humans can have any influence over melanoma.
A Nielsen poll found that 63% of Australians believe in miracles, more than half believe angels exist, nearly half believe in psychic powers (witness the Ken Rings of this world), 41% believe in astrology, a third believe UFOs exist, 25% believe the Biblical account of the supernatural origin of life, and 22% believe in witches.
I'm sure that someone could argue that to be more in tune with its audiences, more comprehensive and balanced, the ABC should trot out Cardinal Pell for expert comment on the evolutionary significance of a major hominid discovery, and consult prominent astrologers when the Hubble telescope discovers a new planet. There are indeed times when people such as religious leaders can make intelligent and useful contributions to public debate on such discoveries. Likewise, there are times when loud and colourful dissenters can prove to be useful to illuminate a complex issue. But in practice, my media experience tells me that these times are few and far between.

Bob, like David Boxall it seems you have misinterpreted the survey questions used to garner this 97% support figure-see below.
"Contrarians" like Lindzen and McKitrick whose new research papers I point to below would fall within the 97%, and yet their work seems to be permanently ignored here and on the ABC. Their findings appear highly newsworthy in the context of the current debate about what to do about man made climate change and yet their work remains unreported by Auntie.

Garth Paltridge has a good (IMO) op ed in the Fin Review today. If it was Karoly or Hamilton it would probably be re-printed on the ABC and here on The Con. However like other voicres providing alternate view points it is ignored. The dangers of Groupthink induced by media bias all to clear.

here's the link
http://afr.com/p/lifestyle/review/science_held_hostage_in_climate_Uamwgc7zXEsU6RbQJ5MWIJ#

Marc Hendrickx: "... it seems you have misinterpreted the survey questions used to garner this 97% support figure ..."
Much though you try to spin it, you can't escape the simple fact that you're in a tiny minority. You concentrate on the semantics of a single study, but that study isn't alone.
The resources you devote to denying and spinning show that you're well paid for your efforts, but a well-resourced minority is still a minority.
Getting down to substance, given that minds like Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking have warned against complacency, I'll stick with the majority of the best qualified and support prudent precautions. The worst-case might be little more likely than the feeble-minded faith that there's no risk, but it's severe enough that I take it seriously.

I'm not paid at all David, countering mis-information such as yours I do out of the goodness of my heart. If you look at the data, you'll find that catastrophists such as yourself are on the fringe.
Prudent precaution is one thing, destroying our capacity actually look after the environment another altogether.

Marc Hendrickx: "I'm not paid at all ...".
Good heavens, how do you put food on the table?
Marc Hendrickx: "... catastrophists such as yourself ...".
Do you think that denying a risk will make it go away?
Marc Hendrickx: "... destroying our capacity actually look after the environment ...".
So you support risking effectively destroying the environment?
If I'm on a fringe, the counters indicate that I have more company than you have on your fringe.

I appreciate your concern but a fair assessment of the evidence indicates that in regard to climate change your over reaction is unwarranted..Spending your energy of more meaningful pursuits such as habitat preservation or cleaning up degraded areas would be much more worthwhile.

Hi Bob,

Good reply (thanks for that) and obviously you are right. Finding the correct metaphor is definitely the trick and, as I'm sure that you would have picked up on immediately, there was a fair amount of tongue in cheek in my example. Aren't you glad that I didn't say; 'look what happened to those few silly dissenters some centuries ago who tried to claim that planet earth is actually round' ?? (I'm actually not arguing this issue)

As mentioned earlier, I don't know enough about Climate Change to productively contribute to an answer. I did read a couple of American studies a few years ago which suggested that the earth had experienced this same situation before due to gasses from the sun (so the studies weren't denying it) but went on to explain how the earth also repaired itself. I don't know how valid or otherwise these studies were but you might be up on them ?? Of course, if that was the case, it may bring the carbon tax into question. I don't know.

I have just read the story re; 'Sunrise' from the link that you provided and obviously take your point. Guessing that they rated a 6, wonder how they went the day after ?? I would have thought that their target demographic would rather have seen them covering the book about 'how to read your cat's paws' anyway :)

Back on topic, the line which says it all (that both you and I would relate well to) was spoken by the true gentleman of media being 'Geoff Newman'… 'more than 40 years in the media has taught me to question everything'. Even though it was the opening to an ad, how many of us in the industry didn't at least smirk the first time we heard it ??

I don't have an issue with balance, ownership, or even content from a consumer point of view. As you know, the media works to a formula, and each of us contribute to that formula without realising it so my only issue is when people stop questioning everything, or readily accept what might not be exactly as it appears to be. Those who I pay the most attention to, aside from those experienced in their fields such as yourself, tend to be questioning media … not quoting it.

Thanks for your insights Bob.

Hi Mark,
You'll open a can of worms with the "it's all happened before" argument on climate change. My starting point on that is the bleedin' obvious: the Earth has never had to deal with 7 billion humans before, let alone the technology and level of resource consumption and waste now occurring. As for the Earth "repairing itself", well, that's a fuzzy Gaian concept to say the least but maybe it will: whether modern human civilisation in its current form and intensity has a viable place in that repaired world remains to be seen. Fancy our chances? One website stands out for me in all this if you want to stick a thermometer under the planet's tongue and take its pulse: NASA's key indicators of global climate change http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/ Another is John Cook's very thorough run through of the many dodgy, delusional and dubious arguments put up by deniers, denialists, doubt-sowers, contrarians, sceptics, confusionists, obfuscationists, nutters and mythologists http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Others may cut in here and post links to sites like the astoundingly jaundiced and paranoid Galileo Movement - well worth a visit if you want insights into the bizarre inner workings of the minds of conspiracy theorists: basically, put your fingers in your ears, chant "Lalalalala" and tell anyone who'll listen that the world is embroiled in the greatest scam of all time, with (almost) all the world's scientists involved in a corrupt collusion with greens and the UN to impose a one-world government! True.
One observation I would make is that it is seems to me that too many of those who question climate science and/or the media have never spent a single day in a laboratory or a newsroom. Sure, pay keen attention to those who question - but remember to question them as well.

Nice one Mark.

After doing my own due diligence, I came to the conclusion that I don't understand enough to credibly judge the science. The same can be said of anyone who isn't appropriately qualified, even if they have science qualifications outside the climate field. Climate is just too fiendishly complex.

Resorting to the KISS principle, I settled on a single measure; what do most of the best qualified say? The answer appears to be that about 97% agree on one view (http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=734). The contrary view is supported by as little as 0.42%
(http://www.skepticalscience.com/meet-the-denominator.html). The numbers don't add up to 100; science is like that.

Hi David,

I think that I may have left you with the impression that I'm arguing against climate change ?? Actually, I'm not. If the article above was about climate change, I would have read with interest but wouldn't have commented at all.
Playing devil's advocate can create interesting conversation, which, is the best that I can do on this subject. Perhaps it came across as my personal opinion, and if so, I shall be more careful in future.

You seem more informed on climate change, I'm happy leaving the argument 'for this conversation' to you and any others who are. As the article is about media, and, I have a couple of decades of experience in that, I'm happy to throw in my 2 cents worth there. Hopefully I've cleared all that up now ??

Thanks David.

Mark Chambers: "Playing devil's advocate can create interesting conversation ...".
Unfortunately you chose "... American studies ... which suggested that the earth had experienced this same ...". That's classic, mundane climate science denier cherry-picking.
For those of us who don't understand the science (which I'd venture, in this case, is anyone without formal climate science qualifications), it's safest to steer clear of the science. There's too much denier mendacity out there that could trip us up. That's why I concentrate on the scientists.

Hi again David,

Let me try to explain myself one last time. Well, I'll give it a shot anyway.

Firstly, throughout this conversation I have noted that I do not know enough about climate change to do or say anything other than learn from the contributions of others and at no time has it been my intention to argue a position on it.

Next, I have admitted that climate change should be obvious to most of us, if not through certain personal observations then through logical conclusion, but, noted that I had only ever read 2 studies on the subject. Silly me, I mentioned what the 2 studies were. The only 'fact' intended to come across there was that 'I have only read 2 studies on the subject'. I gave them not credence nor rebuke and stated that 'I don't know how valid these studies were'.

Further, I have asked, after admitting yet again that I am not as knowledgeable about this subject as others here, if those who are more knowledgeable think that Australia's New Carbon Tax will properly address it ?? (still no feedback)

Devil's Advocate related to my 'admitted' tongue in cheek comments regarding 97% versus 3%, plus those 'few dissenters' claiming that the earth was round, not to the 2 studies that I happened to read a few years ago, which, btw, I only stumbled upon because some unrelated internet link dumped me on that site.

Lastly, I have stated that the article is about media, I have a couple of decades experience in that industry, and have really tried to discuss 'that' subject. Bob Beale knows media very well, so I discussed it with him. We won't agree on everything I'm sure, but we both recognise that many of the comments here reflect a consumer view point, which is fine, but they lack accuracy. It would appear that many making those comments are not qualified to do so, yet not one of these contributors asks any questions ... they just know. Not much point in responding to them, their minds are already made up, they already have all the answers ... they apparently know all there is to know about media so as it turns out, may as well talk about climate change after all.

Footnote; I may just be a little 'greener' than you think ... you'd have to ask.

Cheers David

Mark; I was trying to warn you that, with your choice of example, you'd shot yourself in the foot. Sorry if I offended.

And yes, this thread was hijacked. It's typical of the zealot in question.

No probs David. I'm still surprised that no-one here has ventured to comment on the likely effectiveness or otherwise of Australia's 'carbon tax'. The existence of the problem doesn't in itself justify 'any' proposed solution. For example; if the proposed solution isn't going to properly address climate change, doesn't that just mean we now have 1 additional problem ?? Well, it does, that's the reason for my question.

Cheers again.

Hi Mark,
Not sure what you mean by effectiveness. To me the proposed system is just another churn through the tax system that represents an anchor on productivity. In short it's a waste of time and resources. It will do very little to reduce emissions as we are so reliant on fossil fuels, and will remain so for at least the next 20 years. The need to buy carbon credits from overseas will see a lot of cash go that way for zero return. It will have no impact on the temperature. It will have no impact on the environment. In fact it may end up diverting a small proportion of money away from it, perhaps leading to some programs being reduced in scope or abandoned. The only reason we have been able to clean up so much industrial pollution and introduce tougher regulations since the 1970s has been our relative economic strength.

My preferred "solution" revolves around a gradual transition to nuclear power as existing coal fired plants reach the end of their design lives. Barry Brook's site (Brave new climate - I'll leave you to Google it) has some useful information of possible safe nuclear technologies that might be adopted to replace coal. At the same time some research into improving efficiency of selected renewables may also pay off but in a small way over the medium term.

In regard to the science one of the major issues is that of climate sensitivity. You may be aware of the disparity between model predictions and observations that has caused so much consternation of late. To me this provides strong evidence that the models have over cooked projections of future warming.It seems that the so called climate crisis may turn out to be a minor Kerfuffle. Our overall impact on the environment on the other hand will continue to grow with our growing population and tackling that issue is of much greater importance than trying to set the earth's thermostat.

Regards
M

Mark Chambers: "I'm still surprised that no-one here has ventured to comment on the likely effectiveness or otherwise of Australia's 'carbon tax'."
As you so rightly pointed out, this article is about media. It was hijacked for one lunatic zealot's climate science denial fetish. The carbon tax is further out on that limb.
That said, the tax is intended to be the precursor of a market-based system. The vast majority of the best qualified say that a market-based approach is most likely to succeed. Nearly all of those who argue otherwise are also climate science deniers, as far as I can see. I understand it no more than I do climate science.

But of course, the carbon tax was responsible for Black Caviar not winning by a greater margin. ;-)

Thanks for responding on this complete side track of carbon tax. I wonder what will happen after the next election when the opposition, likely to win without even campaigning, parade out their own list of experts to oppose the last list of experts before supposedly overturning the tax.

There are too many examples of yesterday's facts becoming today's fables and that includes one or two things which have been strenuously argued on their scientific merit. Plus, I have also never seen a tax implemented by a government that wasn't more to do with raising revenue than the ideal they've used to justify it with. "That' is where my skepticism lies.

On this subject, to the best of my knowledge, I don't have enough of it :)

Cheers David.

Mark Chambers: "There are too many examples of yesterday's facts becoming today's fables ...".
Perhaps. Is it wise to assume?
I've debated people whose end position seemed to be that every current theory is necessarily wrong. Except the ones they find agreeable.
That's why my end position is: what do the majority say? That's the majority of the best qualified. Politicians and shock-jocks have been too successful in perverting public perceptions for me to trust too widely.*
In my experience, that majority is most often right. Otherwise, would they still be the majority?
*Winston Churchill once said something along the lines that the best argument against Democracy is a brief conversation with the average voter. I wonder what he would think of the polluted mind of today's average voter.

Hi David,

No, I'm not using 'fact to fable' as an argument for, or against, the topic at hand. It's just something that I keep in mind when assessing either side of any debate about anything. Put differently ...

What if I'm wrong ?? It wouldn't be the first time.
What if they're wrong ?? It wouldn't be the first time.

As we've discussed before, most of us just aren't knowledgeable enough about this subject to make any decision at all. If push came to shove, I agree with you. Go with the majority of the 'experts'. But as shove hasn't happened yet, and likely never will, I'm happy to question everything. Imagine a society where either 'experts' or 'government' had the luxury of knowing that we'd just except whatever they told us ... not for me.

I see that you've hopped over to the new conversation ... good luck mate.

Cheers David.

Mark Chambers : "What if I'm wrong ?? It wouldn't be the first time."
My point precisely:-
Carl Sagan: "... Venus is an ominous reminder that in a world rather like the earth, things can go wrong. There is no guarantee that our planet will always be so hospitable."
Stephen Hawking: "We don’t know where global warming will stop but the worst case scenario is that the earth will become like its sister planet Venus, with a temperature of 250 degrees C ...".
The probability of the worst case is little higher than that of the best one, but the severity is so high that taking the risk is infernally irresponsible. (Risk being a function of probability and severity) I just don't think we have the right to take that risk. It baffles me that some rank a risk to their short-term interests higher.

Hi David,

I'm not sure if we're debating each other here or just having a chat, I'm getting the impression that you think I'm saying that we should do nothing until it's too late. My thoughts are these;

1. do what the majority of 'climate scientists' believe needs to be done
2. do it how the majority of whichever experts suggest it should be done
3. don't accept anything and just move on because a view is set
4. keep questioning ... otherwise if there's a better way we'll never find it
5. what if we're wrong ?? what if our actions 'don't' work, what if climate change isn't abated, what if it turns out that this tax isn't achieving what it's meant to ... what if ... ?? It might just be pretty important that we find out.

I'm sure that you are / were an expert in your vocation, as I am in mine, but I'm not going to pretend that better solutions or actions couldn't be undertaken than those which I suggest as more and more information comes to hand ... and that information only comes through asking more questions.

I have never been catastrophically incorrect only because I 'typically' don't work on matters of a catastrophic nature (catastrophic to the client of course but not to the planet) and when I can see a better approach I can usually implement it quickly enough to set things right. I doubt that the same applies to climate science or those things set in motion because of it.

Bottom line; as a so called 'expert' in my own field, once I have finalised any kind of plan I ask myself one question, over and over; why 'won't' it work ?? If I can't find a reason I ask myself one other question; does that mean it 'will' work, or does it just mean that 'I' can't find a reason that it won't work ?? The best way for me to settle that issue is to allow others to hold me accountable for my views, and in turn consider theirs, not shout them down because I'm the person (or because I represent the industry) who 'should' know best.

So David, if I'm prepared to question myself to that degree and expect others to question me to that degree, yes, I will surely continue to question everyone else.

Cheers David

Mark, my concern is that our willingness to contemplate our own fallibility encourages others to use uncertainty as an excuse for procrastination.

We don't discuss or debate in a vacuum. Bystanders pick up on what we say and interpret it in their own frames of reference.

Carelessness promotes misunderstanding.

Hi David,

Not quite sure where you're going there, but I've done my best to explain my own acceptance 'and' continuing objectivity so not much more to say other than it's really not an issue anyway ... the carbon tax begins tomorrow. I do have an issue with politicians who say one thing and do another, and while that's all of them, some have obviously been a little more blatant than others ... but let's not begin a discussion about that in this context.

Procrastinators ?? I wanted to join the great procrastinators club once but apparently if you get around to sending in the application you are automatically denied :)

Cheers.

Mark,
Where I'm going is that Devil's advocacy carries risks. You may consider it a clever tactic, but it tends to encourage what the Devil advocates.
As in all things, we remain responsible for the consequences of our behaviour.

David,

With the greatest of respect, and please don't think me rude but ... "Rubbish".
Playing Devil's Advocate means looking at the opposing point of view, it in no way suggests or necessitates that you agree with it. If you don't look at both views, you can't pretend to have looked at something objectively. How you choose to approach 'your' decision making process is not an issue for me, my only concern is that 'you' are 'allowed' to make 'your own' decisions based on the information 'you' require, and, 'that I am too'.

What the Devil advocates ?? Unless the term offends your religious sensibilities, and if so, I do apologise, it's nothing to do with the Devil ... it's simply a clique'. I wouldn't like to think that you are someone who is petrified that if people are given both sides of a story that they may come to a conclusion which may not agree with your own. I had given you more credit than that, I trust that I wasn't premature in doing so. Do you not give others the credit to make the correct decision after being exposed to an alternative view ?? (Rhetorical)

As we have both noted in prior posts, neither of us are climate scientists. That means we can just blindly accept what we're told, or we can be intelligent enough to ask questions, become more knowledgeable, and at least hold them to the same account as we would anyone else claiming to have information which may or will effect our lives. If you feel that they should not be held to account, I respect your view but it doesn't have to be mine so please don't continually suggest that I am in some way the Anti-Christ because I choose to at least consider alternative views. Sometimes, discrediting one particular view is easier than proving the other, either way you get the answers ... but only if you ask the questions.

Thanks David.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil%27s_advocate "In common parlance, a devil's advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position he or she does not necessarily agree with ...". In doing that, the danger is that those who do agree with that position will silently take what you say for what you believe.
If you've had to explain yourself, your behaviour is clearly generating consequences other than those you intend.
Anyway, I seem to have annoyed you so I'll leave it at that.

Yep Pete Gina's right up there as a feminist icon in my book - along with the Queen and Imelda Marcos... it takes real talent and drive to inherit the iron iron your dad found out there.

Let's just hope that Gina's Fairfax runs a decent poetry lift out supplement every week. I can't wait.

Incidentally, I am still looking for more words that rhyme with "special economic zones" but so far TC's readers have been to say the least unhelpful. Still what would one expect from a mob of slavering bolsheviks with no taste for the finer things in life?

Poetry doesn't put food on the table or provide safe, clean water.

Gina's took a company that was heavily indebt and made it a success. Give credit it where its due. What have you done for Australia, eh? What have you achieved?