Julia
In Memoriam
- Joined
- 10 May 2005
- Posts
- 16,986
- Reactions
- 1,973
And the rest of their remarks:
The program in question must comply with the ABC's factual accuracy requirements. These are set out in section 2 of the Editorial Policies (http://abc.net.au/corp/pubs/documents/20110408/EditorialPOL2011.pdf) as follows:
"2.1 Make reasonable efforts to ensure that material facts are accurate and presented in context.
2.2 Do not present factual content in a way that will materially mislead the audience. In some cases, this may require appropriate labels or other explanatory information
These standards are supported by a set of principles. Of relevance to your concerns, the principles state:
"Types of fact-based content include news and analysis of current events, documentaries, factual dramas and lifestyle programs. The ABC requires that reasonable efforts must be made to ensure accuracy in all fact-based content. The ABC gauges those efforts by reference to: o the type, subject and nature of the content; o the likely audience expectations of the content; o the likely impact of reliance by the audience on the accuracy of the content; and o the circumstances in which the content was made and presented.
While we acknowledge that the figure for resettlement in Australia quoted by the caller was inaccurate, it is unreasonable and impractical for every statement made by a talkback caller to be challenged or corrected by the host. We believe that a reasonable listener would understand that callers are expressing personal convictions and are not to be relied upon for hard information. In this particular case, the caller was not particularly coherent and was unlikely to be seen as fully credible by the reasonable listener.
Given this, we are of the view that the discussion complied with factual accuracy requirements.
Thank you again for taking the time to write. Please be assured that your views on the program's partiality have been noted by Audience and Consumer Affiars and by radio management.
For your reference a copy of the ABC's Code of Practice can be found at: http://abc.net.au/corp/pubs/documents/codeofpractice2011.pdf. Should you be dissatisfied with this response, you may be able to pursue your complaint with the Australian Communications and Media Authority (http://www.acma.gov.au).
Despite plenty of indications that the Earth has gotten warmer””like melting glaciers and ecosystems that are shifting toward the poles””there are a number of climate skeptics who simply don't accept the temperature records produced by three different organizations (NASA, NOAA, and the CRU). Many of them pinned their hopes on physicist Richard Muller, who was also not convinced the professionals had gotten it right. But Muller did something about it, forming the Berkeley Earth project, and building a huge database of land temperature records.
Back in October, Muller dropped his findings in a rather unconventional location: an editorial in The Wall Street Journal. Despite the hype, the results were rather bland. He produced a temperature record that was nearly identical to that of the other organizations. But now, Muller is back for round two, and this time he has chosen the New York Times as an outlet for his climate musings.
As before, his team uses a different statistical method of reconstructing temperatures that works well with short records, taken at sites that were shut or moved. NASA, NOAA, and the CRU use methods that require long records, so they have to make adjustments to the data from sites that have shifted or gotten new equipment. This compensates for the fact that these changes will lead to discontinuities in the record. Since Berkeley Earth doesn't need the same length, it can just skip adjustments entirely: any record with a discontinuity is just split there, and treated as two records. The team has now also pushed its analysis back to almost 1750, adding a century to the land temperature records produced elsewhere.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-work-at-the-age/story-fn72xczz-1226438913695James Delingpole in his blog for Britain's The Daily Telegraph:
THE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the US government body in charge of America's temperature record, has systematically exaggerated the extent of late 20th-century global warming. In fact, it has doubled it . . . What (Anthony) Watts (of the Watts Up With That? blog) has conclusively demonstrated is that most of the weather stations in the US are so poorly sited that their temperature data is unreliable. Around 90 per cent have had their temperature readings skewed by the Urban Heat Island Effect . . . . . . Poor Professor Muller has been telling anyone who'll listen . . . that as a former "sceptic" he has now been forced by weight of evidence to conclude that global warming is definitely man-made and there has been lots of it (a whole 1.5 degrees C -- Wow! that's like almost as much as you'd get if you drove from London to Manchester!!!) since 1750. Tragically as Watts has very reluctantly and by-no-means-experiencing-any-kind-of-Schadenfreude had to point out the data used by Muller to draw these conclusions was unreliable to the point of utter uselessness. So, in the spirit of magnanimity in total crushing victory, I would urge readers of this blog not to crow too much about the devastating blow Watts's findings will have on The Guardian's battalion of environment correspondents, on The New York Times, on NOAA, on Al Gore, on the Prince of Wales, on the Royal Society, on Professor Muller, or on any of the other rent-seekers, grant-grubbers, eco-loons, crony capitalists, junk scientists, UN apparatchiks, EU technocrats, hideous porcine blobsters, demented squawking parrots, life-free loser trolls, paid CACC-amites and True Believers in the Great Global Warming Religion. That would be plain wrong.
Here is another one off the Ars Technica website.
Berkeley Earth project is back to re-re-confirm Earth is warming
BEST extends the temperature record to the 1700s, but gets the same result.
Link to article - http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/07/berkeley-earth-project-is-back-to-re-re-confirm-earth-is-warming/
Please wayneL, l am not taking sides on this issue.
If l see something on the net that could be useful to this thread, I post with a link.
Please wayneL, l am not taking sides on this issue.
If l see something on the net that could be useful to this thread, I post with a link.
Basilio was fond of referring to AGW as "liars" in addition the the repugnant "denier".
As it turns out clearly, demonstrably, irrefutably, it is the alarmists who are the liars, from climategate, fakegate, to the BEST laughing stock and Muller's preposterous lie that he was a skeptic.
I wonder if she will have the integrity to post a retraction and apology? :frown:
Scientists are no longer "persuaded" by evidence but "converted", turning away from the dark forces of scepticism towards the eternal light of truth. Academic papers read like evangelical tracts, threatening sorrow and damnation. Those who fail to repent the sin of carbon gluttony are condemned to wail and gnash their teeth, as the flood waters rise around them. Woe betide anyone who questions the climate change priesthood, for as Clive Hamilton warned us earlier this year, "It's heretical to reject the overwhelming consensus among those qualified to judge". We hesitate to mention the Spanish Inquisition, but didn't Galileo face that charge at his trial in 1633?
Found on Bolt's Blog - and warmists wonder why the world is not swallowing their pathetic attempts to make us believe their lies - such as this one blaming melted lights on global warming when it was due to a fire:
View attachment 48375
View attachment 48376
View attachment 48378
And here is the real cause of the melted lights:
View attachment 48377
Read more: If warmists believed this, they’ll believe anything
Haven't you been reading the whole thread? Muller was never a genuine sceptic.One of the most quoted climate skeptics is scientist Richard Muller. He has changed his mind and now says global warming is real!!
Excellent article of why he changed his mind is published in the Wall Street Journal. Definitely worth a read.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204422404576594872796327348.html
Sorry been away in Phuket.
He is more a critic of the hockey stick graph in which he critiscised the maths behind it.
Also critiscised the Al Gore documentary, saying it was 80% bulldust. I have still not seen it by the way.
So yes, you are right, he is just a typical scientist testing the facts.
His own research showed the world was warming and so he has obviously joined the "dark side".
Conservapedia - love this site - quote Richard Millar as a skeptic-
"To be fair, an independent analysis cleared the scientists involved of any wrongdoing,[13] and, in 2011, a study conducted by global warming skeptic Richard A. Muller, largely funded by the oil industry,[14] confirmed the results of the scientists involved in climate gate, concluding that "Global warming is real."[15] However, the study makes the baseless conclusion that just because the Earth is warming, humans are causing it ('anthropogenic global warming' versus 'global warming'), falling victim to the old liberal 'bait and switch' technique.[16] "
http://conservapedia.com/Climategate
BTW, what have you done to ameliorate your carbon output due to international travel?
Sorry been away in Phuket.
He is more a critic of the hockey stick graph in which he critiscised the maths behind it.
Also critiscised the Al Gore documentary, saying it was 80% bulldust. I have still not seen it by the way.
So yes, you are right, he is just a typical scientist testing the facts.
His own research showed the world was warming and so he has obviously joined the "dark side".
I think we're all getting tired of the typical AGW doomsday'ers posting up rubbish, failing to answer basic fundamental questions, scurrying away for a "holiday" and then re-appearing with some other pathetic distraction.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?