The ABC will declare that “most Australians don’t think the ABC is biased” but while half the nation thinks it’s balanced, 30% don’t know, and of the 20% who are sure there is bias, there are three times as many who think it’s pro-Labor as those who think it’s pro-Coalition.
Bear in mind ABC1 only has about 10% of the Australian audience, so 90% of the nation prefers to watch something else. Did the survey ask respondents if they watch the ABC? We might find that of the 20% of the population who are familiar with ABC coverage, most think it’s biased to the left. With some probing questions, we might also find that people of different political persuasions define bias very differently. Could it be that those more likely to vote for the Coalition tend to value free speech even if they don’t agree with the views?
On the other hand those more likely to vote Labor or Green seem to think balance means skeptics shouldn’t speak at all. Is their idea of bias just “if the ABC allows skeptics to comment”. The Centre for Independent Journalism had a whole forum devoted to asking whether “balance” meant they still had to report skeptical views. (The panel was made up of one ABC reporter, one Fairfax editor and three academics). The (Labor) Minister for Science, Kim Carr, said (referring to climate skeptics) “We don’t have to accord superstition and wishful thinking the same status as science.” Clive Hamilton, former Greens Candidate lamented that climate denial got any ABC coverage at all.
by: Nick Leys From: The Australian
“ONE in six Australians believe the ABC provides favourable coverage to the Labor Party while one in 20 believe the ABC is favourable towards the Coalition…”
The ABC will be patting itself on the back, but they have disenfranchised a large section of the Australian population.
This research of more than 1000 people shows that 15 per cent of the population believes the ABC’s coverage of the climate change debate leans in favor of climate change believers, a figure higher among Coalition voters of whom 29 per cent believe the ABC is biased on this issue.
Here’s the sleeper… if 83% of the population think the ABC’s coverage of climate change is not biased, imagine how much “upside” there is for anger and outrage to grow when 16 million Australians realize how the ABC has let them down, and fed them science-according-to-Greenpeace.
Of those 83%, how many don’t read any newspaper, or only get the Sydney Morning Herald or The Age? How would any of those people know they were being spoon-fed propaganda?
That’s why word of mouth is so important. Those who only see The Love Media won’t have any idea unless you give them a good natured jibe at the staff BBQ and inspire them to hunt on the web.
You could start by asking them if they know which corporations stand to make the most from a carbon market. Which media outlets and which voters would get that answer right?
“All voices are welcome?” As if.
Mr Scott (ABC managing director) said:
“… unlike some of our partisan competitors, all voices are welcome at the ABC,”
Which is why the ABC calls us deniers right? To make us feel welcome?
That’s why they hire activists to fish for dirt, launch petty ambushes based on misinformation, and let guests trash logic and reason, equate skeptics to pedophiles, mock skeptics for their illnesses (and get it wrong), mouthing opinions they’ve done no research to aquire, especially on the ABC Ad hominem Unleashed blog?
That’s why ABC “reporters” ask me how I am paid, but when I turn out to be a volunteer they don’t report it. If I had been paid by Chevron, would they have not-reported that? They’re fishing for dirt, hoping to catch skeptics out. If skeptics make a mistake it’ll be a headline, when they act as the Guardians of the scientific method, catching paid officials making mistakes, or asking questions that ABC journalists should be asking, the ABC doesn’t want to know.
It’s why the ABC goes out of it’s way to find out what the highest traffic skeptical blogger in Australia says by flying a team to her house, interviewing her for two hours, then leaving in just 18 fragmentary words which say nothing of any real content? (Read what the ABC left in, versus what it left out, see the un-cut video in full.)
About 50% of the Nation’s citizens are skeptical. Where are their voices on “Our” ABC?
As I will keep saying, it’s not that there is a problem with the media, it’s that the media IS the problem.
If we had a truly competitive free market on air, stupid ideas would not become National Policy with a $10 billion fund.
It’s inept groupthink, not a conspiracy
Gerard Henderson: “The essential criticism of the ABC is that it does not engage even one political conservative as a presenter or producer or editor on any of its prominent television or radio or online outlets. This despite Scott’s pledge, made over six years ago, that, under his management, a ”further diversity of voices” would be carried on the public broadcaster. It has not happened.
The ABC is replete with leftists or left-of-centre presenters/producers/editors. But it remains virtually a conservative-free zone. If ABC management is aware of conservatives to match the likes of Phillip Adams, Jonathan Holmes, Fran Kelly and others – then it should name names. Otherwise, it should cut the pretence.
There is no conspiracy at play here. It is a natural phenomenon that like-minded people tend to mix with, and engage, their own.”
Read more: The Age
Andrew Bolt discussed the “ABC-Fairfax-and-academic-journalists” policy of not giving skeptics any airtime, and asked in 2010:
“How broadly should this restriction on reporting sceptics be applied? Should it also include not reporting them when they point out failed predictions? The vested interests , sheer nuttiness, religious fervor, totalitarian tendency or extraordinary hypocrisy of some warmists?”
Other posts on their ABC:
- Got baseless smears and innuendo? Perfect for the ABC.
- ABC uses taxpayer money to hide how it uses taxpayer money
- ABC, Dr Helen Caldicott sinks to mocking the unwell, Monckton calls for her to be deregistered
- Lewandowsky: the ABC parades a witchdoctor again
- Clive Hamilton’s war on science
- ABC – Agitprop for the Bureaucratic Class
“We don’t have to accord superstition and wishful thinking the same status as science.” Clive Hamilton, former Greens Candidate lamented..
Funny how the two essential foundational bases of the agw theory, the hockey stick and the ipcc posited causal correlation between co2 & temperature, have been fully discredited, and so agw is a theory without foundation, yet agw stands in the MSM as if nothing has changed at all. AGW survives (and thrives unfortunately) on leftist inspired media hype, which isn’t much different from wishful thinking or superstition.
Central, and I mean CENTRAL, to the theory was the ipcc claim of a proven causal correlation between CO2 & temps. That was actual very easy to debunk (just look at a graph showing CO2 & temps!). Yet hardly anyone knows this about CO2. We need to spread the word on this, and one way to try to spread the word on CO2 is to share and promote this succinct video which quickly demonstrates the obvious fallacy (.. deception) of the now retracted ipcc position.
There’s nothing wrong with the climate (no hockey stick), and there is no evidence that CO2 has anything to do with it. Indeed, the warmists now cling to the rather tenuous position that CO2 is both an effect and a cause of warming which would very likely spawn a runaway greenhouse. In the past CO2 reached as high as 7000ppm, but there was no runaway greenhouse effect, or we wouldn’t be here!
161
Eric, actually that quote came from the Labor MP — Minister for Science. “We don’t have to accord superstition and wishful thinking the same status as science.”
Clive is the one who thinks democracy can be suspended to save the world.
202
Yes, sorry, my bad. And it’s clear from the text that Clive didn’t say that. It’s the morning blur. But if I can get any redemption for that error I hope that my point, though, is solid. I’d say also, yes, a lot of these elitists think that we should jettison democracy and be ruled by the “top” 1%. Imagine if that 1% just happened to not agree with them on every issue…
101
Don’t worry about it man. that rush to be the first poster is tough business and you can’t always get it right. just ask juliar and her mathimaticians!!!
92
Lol, hilarious. The thing is that it took me a while it seemed to write my comment up, and proof it, and reproof, so I didn’t expect to be first. But then I end up with the admonition from the boss! If I had a clue about Australian politicians other than Julia it might have helped. But I’m sure glad that the people of Australia are wise to that carbon tax and are rejecting it en masse, yet that is just as those on this side of the big pond are proposing that we have our own idiotic c-tax. Insane.
—
No admonition from me! I was afraid I hadn’t made it clear. 🙁 Jo
131
Are they the “kindie economics” advisors she refers to? Is she angry that HE has degrees in economics, laws and arts and is a Rhodes Scholar while she is a failed solicitor?
30
Right Jo, I knew it wasn’t an “admonition,” that you were just pointing it out. I was just joking for humorous flair. Great blog!
10
Those who would rule the world, unable to compete on the open market and thus hold power through voters choice, saw the media as a tool.
Consolidated control under just a few figure heads.
Propaganda works, short term.
Once the news source is recognized as willing to lie to support their cause, the game is up.
Truth wins in the end, as falsehoods contradict reality , causing the necessity of further lying until it reaches the natural conclusion,
“Who you gonna believe? Me or your lying eyes?”
The old media is collapsing into irrelevance, it was their choice to support the cause, rather than report events and trust is lost.
Trust was all they had to sell, AP reporter Seth Borenstein can be seen in full “investigative mode” in the first CRU emails.
And the exposure of the media, their refusal to even look at the Climate gate emails and the pathetic inquiries that followed,will dog the “press”as they fade into bankruptcy.
The media and organs of state control have been quietly taken over, children get propaganda in schools, media drones the party line and politicians believe what the bureaucrats and academic elites tell them.
Discussion of community affairs no longer happens, the “public” meeting are orchestrated performances, logical questions are shouted down, character assassination the normal response.
Focus groups and consultants are hired to massage the issues, and the voters called stupid when we vote these hairbrained ideas down.
The amusing part, our wanna be leaders, are confused by the resistance their “brilliant ideology” encounters.
Now they are focussing on controlling the internet as communication here has not been working for their cause.
State funded media are ugly hang overs from history, the state has no message I care to hear,I will judge them by their actions, these speak truth, when the political bureaucracy’s lips are moving I know they are lying.
I resent being forced to pay for professional liars, who next to no-one actually listens to.
311
Nicely put, John.
91
Yes but how long before the “old media” dies? Especially when funded by the source of the propaganda problem.
71
The old media will never die, it will just become part of the study of social history (in regard to its potential impacts on Climate Change). 😉
30
very true, John….
The reason why the ABC, as a tax-payer funded ministry of propaganda for Labor and the Greens is failing, is because the socialist political principles the ABC operates upon contain the seeds of their own destruction. Here’s how a national information service controlled by a privileged and unaccountable technocratic elite is the nemesis of the very causes they labour so hard to promote…
1. The ABC and its growing presence on the web has crippled market-base content providers on the left of the political spectrum by flooding the market ‘free’ with tax-payer funded lefty content…
Crikey, Fairfax and the rest have to generate income from their content, Auntie has an unfair advantage as a billion dollar government institution not beholden to market pressures. As result the diversity of Left and Green intellectual talent is oppressed by the very government monopoly whose culture dearly wishes to promote post-Maxist and Green collectivist values.
Meanwhile the boring ubiquity and redundancy of lefty opinion provided by the government generates “PC fatigue,” raising demand for fresh alternative POVs and thus supports a healthy and growing trade in conservative and libertarian alternative content.
The flight to alternative non-lefty news sources is also reinforced by the ABC’s “unconscious” editorial policy of suppressing news information that doesn’t jive with their statist narrative, a tactic comparable to an airline cutting service to some destinations and then being surprised to find the flying public still travels to the destinations, just on another carrier.
For example, the ABC refused service to consumers interested in information about Climategate, but this didn’t stop info consumers from find out about the topic. On the contrary it guided consumers away from Auntie towards alternative information providers. Worse yet, the ABC failure of service bestowed unintended cachet to news providers that got the scoop early and that savvy-look was transferred to consumers who visited alternative new providers and thus were the first in their milieu to know the truth.
2. Secondly, ABC bias has the unintended consequence of poisoning the intellectual ecology of Labor and the Greens by not exposing them to rational critiques of their arguments and policies, thus allowing some pretty lame reasoning and personalities to rise untested to national prominence where they do max damage to Labor/Green credibility.
While doing its best to shelter the left’s sacred cows from critical thinking, the ABC expends much energy combing conservative arguments, behaviour and policies for weaknesses. This acts as a natural selection process, which weeds out feeble reasoning from the right early on. Thus the long term effect of ABC’s statist bias on national politics is to lead to an intellectually fragile, morally rudderless and delusion left confronted with a tempered right that has a far better measure of itself and reality.
The ABC’s negative effect on our national discourse is an example of how collectivist values, particularly “command-economy” principles, when applied to real world problems generate unintended self-destructive feedback loops because they work against the organic transactional ecologies that human societies rely upon to evolve and produce positive outcomes.
161
Just ran across an article on our difficulty talking to the people convinced of manmade catastrophe because of weather.
American Thinker Blog February 24th,
“Three reasons conservatives are losing the battle for America”.
Now I can insert Canada or Australia in place of USA and his description of our dilemma is still true.
Well worth the read, I found some enlightenment in his explanation of the sense of brain death when talking to a warmer, they really are not listening.
He describes why.
Not sure what the solution is, perhaps we have no choice, but to do a Slim Pickens, and ride the bomb down.(Dr Stranglove) Society may be beyond repair and need sped on its way.
I am very close to withdrawing my labour from the government economy.
I confess I have been baffled by the stolid non comprehension of some of my neighbours when discussing this CAGW scam, their acceptance of the dishonesty,blatant nonsense and dismissal of history.
Why intelligent people can not seem to understand why their tactics are bad for society.
And why they seem so hostile, so dismissive of our right to exist.
What good is saving the world if you destroy all that is good in the process?
I would offer you a link but thats beyond my skill set. so google it.
51
“I am very close to withdrawing my labour from the government economy”
Certainly brings to mind “Atlas Shrugged”. (Ayn Rand)
50
John Robertson that’s an interesting howl of despair:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/02/three_reasons_conservatives_are_losing_the_battle_for_america.html
The fact that conservatives are finally grasping that the entire system from education, to the civil service, to the journos, to the entertainment industry, is rigged against them is a necessary turning of the dialectic.
To be clear, the national discourse has not always been so hostile to the free market realism that is the foundation of modern conservatism and Libertarian thinking. We have entered in a brave new world where from now on when a Labor/Green government rises to power they will as a matter of course attempt to pass legislation outlawing the right to freely express an alternative POV in Australia, lest someone is offended. So we are quite literally teetering on a tipping point towards some kind of new hi-tech version of authoritarianism.
But the truth of the situation isn’t quite so grim as ‘The American Thinker’ paints.
As I pointed out above the left’s political and economic programs contain within the seeds of their own destruction. The same kind of feebleness due to a total misunderstanding of how human societies function that makes the ABC ineffective as a propaganda agency doom every Green/Labor initiative to failure and the Lefty elite are far too committed to post-Marxist collectivist dogma to be able to adapt to new ideas which better manage reality. In spite of their apparent cultural dominance, extinction is a real possibility for Labor/Green ideology.
A sad example is the drowning of roughly 1,000 illegal migrants at sea. It’s no secret how to stop the boats. But the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the Labor/Green government is so advanced their ability to reason clearly is stuffed… they will sooner self-destruct then do the right thing and save possibly thousands more from drowning at sea before the next election.
Labor/greenie willingness to let thousands die on their watch rather than to adapt their policies is evidence that the real danger is that Labor and the Greens are fine with taking taking the whole nation with them on their road to ruin. The question is will the Australian public allow that to happen?
I think not. But I would say that. 😉 Because I know that most Aussies are quite capable of quickly recognising common sense solutions in a pinch, which is why what was considered utterly impossible by the Left is now a reality — Tony Abbott is preferred Prime Minister.
50
Incisive thinking there, Wes!
Really well done!
30
Thanks for linking that up Wes.
Love your insight, I agree the group think crowd have developed foul habits, they refuse open discussion of policies, scream dissenters into silence,then assume silence is agreement.
Our BS detectors are overloaded, attempting rational debate is not working.
And you are right politically, it worked here in Canada, Steven Harper is Prime Minister with a majority government and our equivalent to ABC, CBC is completely spasmed out by our stupidity.
The media here cannot understand why we do not share their Harper Derangement Syndrome.
I know the progressives will soon educate enough voters to ensure their demise in the polling booth, but how soon and at what cost?
Can I avoid the cost personally?
Knowing they lie and why they feel they are not lying is vital information, the outline of group think in pt3 is real and scary .
After all the topic was the media.
10
Wes,
That is an excellent and insightful comment. Well done.
30
In other words they are unnatural, the basic irony of a mindset which worships nature.
20
Ya’ know Wes, I missed your analyses, while you were away. I am pleased to see (read actually) that you are back.
I am glad you did not capitalise “labour”. You may have put a few Green noses out of joint.
30
Thank you, Ex-W, cohenite and Rereke… my comments are merely applying the insights of Von Mises, Hayek and the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto’s “Taranto Principle” which has never had an adequate exegesis, but is without doubt a profound insight into the MSM’s bias on modern politics.
You know I am always lurking and enjoy your comment immensely too..;-)
30
The 10% audience share of ABC1 correlates with the ABC – ALP – Greens alliance.
They might say that 50% of the population are skeptics but from my experience I’d say that almost 80 – 90% of the politically active, newspaper readers and commenters are skeptics.
91
Janama,
You mean the people who decided to find out for themselves rather than just follow what was fed to them? I would agree with that.
111
If anyone has studied Goldratt’s Theory of Constraints” (available in most if not all MBA programmes) the student is first introduced to the logic of Socrates…..’Sufficiency’ ” If I have this, and this, and this, then I must have that”, and ‘Necessity’ “In order to have that I must have this”.
The logic of Socrates includes several “logical fallacies”. The argumentum ad populum “Everyone say it is so because it must be so”, argumentum ad vericundiam “The scientists say it is so and I am not a scientist so it must be as they say”, argumentum ad ignorantiam “It must be true because it has never been proven to be false” (or the inverse)and of course the argumentum ad hominem “You stupid dolt you are not capable of thinking”. I have noticed that in most of the warmist literature and in virtually every conversation with a non-realist these are the only arguments put forth. As for necessity, “If carbon dioxide concentration increased simultaneously with period of no increase or even a decrease in temperature, how can it be that CO2 causes a temperature increase?” ‘Sufficiency’ In order for CO2 to be causal, then does it not follow that changes in CO2 must lead? temperature. Being able to identify the nature of these logical fallacies, and asking question of necessity or sufficiency is usually enough to get someone thinking, unless died in the wool Laba Pardy or Green Mafia. In which case they don’t even understand what “logic” is. Their mind is so clogged with propaganda that they refuse to listen; much less understand. In Tasmania, this segment is, in my estimation, more like 25%.
50
I don’t think the ABC is biased against conservative, unhinged people.
I Know that their ABC is biased towards the Communists.
To argue otherwise is just a demonstration in myopic ignorance of the highest order IMO.
The fact that One Billion Dollars a year of our taxes pay for the ALPs face puppet propoganda machine utterly disgusts me to the point where I want to put throw chunks.
141
How many Australians, I wonder, reliant as they are, on the Australian media, would know that the official Russian position on the Kyoto Protocol, is that the next seven years should be used to wind it down gracefully?
Prime Minister Medvedev, speaking at the Krasnoyarsk Economic Forum, said, “I hope that the Kyoto Protocol will smoothly cease to be in force by that time [2020]. And bearing in mind that it is not very helpful already now, we are hardly likely to need it in the future”. [Source: ITAR-TASS]
141
Doesn’t everyone want the Kyoto protocol to be phased out and replaced by a global trading system?
010
Who is “everyone”?
20
lol ok people who want the issue of AGW addressed don;t want the Kyoto Protocol to remain. They want it removed. As such there is no surprise that the Russian PM would have a view that “I hope that the Kyoto Protocol will smoothly cease to be in force by that time [2020].”
But yes you are right not everyone wants it replaced with a trading system.
04
Right…. and just how many people is that (that want it)? An absolute minority, admit it. Do you really believe they should have their way?
50
Hi Mattb,
The full quote.
Looks like Medevedv is looking for replacement to the Kyoto protocol – but what the hell – who knows what people will be wanting in 8 years time?
50
ExWarmist,
Thanks for providing the full quote.
I am very careful to identify all of the “voices” in any news item (and especially those coming out of the second world). There were three voices in the full article.
1. The journalist, whose words comprise the start of item, before the Medvedev quotation. If you replace the first comma with a full stop, and replace the first full stop with a colon, you get an entirely different meaning to the lead-in, so it may be a transcription problem.
2. Medvedev’s words are his own. No journalist in Russia would last long if he was misquoted. But note, nowhere does Medvedev mention another global climate agreement.
3. The comments about a global climate agreement being needed are not attributed to him. But they are probably attributable to the third voice —- the editor responsible for the English language feed. If you want the story to be picked up by the European media, then you need to meet certain criteria.
4. The second quote will almost certainly be Medvedev’s, but without knowing what “it” is, what would other states demonstrate their commitment towards? Nowhere in the previous quote, does he state that he wants an alternative arrangement, so this quote is highly likely to have been be taken out of context, probably by the editorial team.
But whatever. The Russians are dubious about the whole thing, and they are a significant donor, and therefore voice, in the UN.
We are allowed to smile about that.
30
Everyone in the wealth for them creation business.
00
Matt,
Define “a global trading system”. Explain how a global trading system would work. Right now, trade is always between two parties, they are bilateral arrangements, between two parties who can both benefit from the trade. The best thing that government can do, is to get out of the way.
10
The ABC seems much more pro-Greens than pro-Labor – and is obsessed with classic Greens issues. See QANDA last night – Israel (bad), Assange (good), US weapons sales to Egypt (bad) …
132
Exactly. And given, as Jo’s excellent article points out, only about 10% of the Australian viewing and listening public do so at the ABC, that 10% just about correlates with the level of Green support in the community.
The only question is therefore, why should Australian taxpayers fund a relentlessly biased organisation which supports a political faction which works so assiduously against the best interests of Australia?
The mystery for me is why conservative politicians continue to go on the ABC to be either harangued and ambused or condescended to if they are ‘favourites’ like Turnbull? In Turnbull we can understand the man’s ego is the reason but what masochistic impulse drives the others to go on this politicised organisation?
I honestly believe that Australian society would be better if the ABC didn’t exist.
131
I agree entirely- it’s a middle class bias, not a bias against any particular party, so it’s not really what anyone outside a small minority wants.
I was shocked by the ignorance and rudeness of Eva Cox last night on Q & A. I don’t think we will be seeing a US Ambassador on there again anytime soon after that performance, and Jones acted even more than usual like his idiot cousin Alan. Apparently rudeness to the US ambassador is in the ABC DNA.
41
cohenite says:-
In the 2004 election, the coalition won a Senate majority. They could have done any number of things to restore some semblance of impartiality in the ABC. Apart from installing some crony friend of John Howard in some essentially powerless figurehead position, they did bugger-all.
Electoral Law reform for another example? Fuggedaboudit. The only thing that mattered to the supreme little egotist JWH was not rocking the boat in his (ultimately vain) attempt to surpass the term of Menzies.
Sometimes I think that the Coalition is merely the ‘not-quite-so-looney’ wing of the ALP. They save some money for their ‘really looney’ comrades to spend when they achieve the treasury benches.
31
Hi Mark – its a very real concern.
Does the LNP have the balls to stand up to the tyranny of the Senior Executive Service of the Australian Government (of which the ABC is the mouthpiece) – or not.
40
I’ve got my doubts ExW.
Too many ministers are either ignorant or lazy or both of those. They simply take the advice of the department head and too many department heads are too well connected to overseas NGOs and thinktanks. As you might imagine, these foreign bodies couldn’t give a damn about us.
10
Malcolm turnbull should change sides. He would be a natural fit in the labour party if he wasn’t so wealthy.
41
umm,, and what makes you think all the ex-union ALP politician are not wealthy ??
Where do you think a lot of those union fees end up !!!
Where did the funds from the sale of a certain property end up ??
Neither of the 2 boys involved seem to have much of it.
20
Yep you bring up the smell of a pig farm, antique clocks and faux nationalism,recessions we had to have not to mention kissing the soild of Foreign countries to impress them!! Amazing contrasts….
10
The public broadcaster always has a bias. And the BBC and the CBC always seem to have a leftist bias.
I freely admit that it may seem that way to a Libertarian such as myself.
However, with the ABC, especially since Conroy replaced Newman with Scott, has gone absolutely and completely PRAVDA.
What I mean by that is that whereas the ABC were always a bit economical with the truth, it has morphed into a government mouthpiece and propaganda machine. It seems to me that the ABC is no longer simply biased, but obsessed with telling lies, and Jon Faine and Fran Kelly, for example seem to be competing for some sort of distinction in telling the biggest and most ridiculous lies conceivable.
I don’t believe government has any business in any business of any kind. However, there are some situations in which I must concede that government ownership warrants an argument. Public broadcasting might be one of these areas, but not without some checks and balances to keep it in line.
41
Change the “A” in ABC to a “B” and what Jo’s written could apply almost totally the unspeakable BBC.
Perhaps they’re even worse because of their pension fund investment in ‘green’ energy and the fact that they reach a bigger audience with their bias.
BBC employees are (very well paid) birds of a left-wing feather flocking together!
102
i rarely watch or listen to ABC any more. what bugs me most is how political satire is almost non-existent these days, when there is so much to mock, especially when it comes to the CAGW scam:
23 Feb: UK Telegraph: Andrew Gilligan: Wind farms will create more carbon dioxide, say scientists
Thousands of Britain’s wind turbines will create more greenhouse gases than they save, according to potentially devastating scientific research to be published later this year.
Struan Stevenson, the Tory MEP for Scotland who has campaigned on the issue, said: “This is a devastating blow for the wind factory industry from which I hope it will not recover.
“The Scottish government cannot realise their plans for wind farms without allowing the ruination of peat bogs, so they are trying to brush this problem under the carpet.
“This is just another way in which wind power is a scam. It couldn’t exist without subsidy. It is driving industry out of Britain and driving people into fuel poverty.” …
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/9889882/Wind-farms-will-create-more-carbon-dioxide-say-scientists.html
25 Feb: Washington Times: Jessica Chasmar: Think tanks link Arab Spring to global warming
Several think tanks will hold a conference Thursday linking the Arab Spring to global warming.
The Center for American Progress, the Center for Climate & Security and the Stimson Center will release a new volume on “Climate Change and the Arab Spring.” Panelists Thomas L. Friedman, Anne-Marie Slaughter and Michael Werz will “parse out these complex interactions and discuss the implications for U.S. foreign and development policy.”…
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/25/think-tanks-link-arab-spring-global-warming/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
30
The ABC’s political position can be seen in one graphic by Gerard Henderson. The analysis does slightly put lie to their charter of balance.
At least if they were trying they would have one opinionista from the other side of politics on their books. But no, can’t sully the purity of the collective.
If the ABC intends only to serve one small part of society then they should not be supported by taxing the rest of society. No taxation without representation on air! Instead the American PBS model should be adopted.
The secondary benefit of this would be to return almost $1.5 billion to the budget bottom line, helping Mr Swan with his elusive surplus.
70
I can say that among the “blue collar” in Australia there is an unspoken disgust in Labor politics and an awareness of ABC/SBS bias on green issues,even among union members,as KK pointed out if something is going to hit your wallet hard everyone will start to question the motives or merits of green policy, everyone here has to remember that sheep on their own aren’t very bright but in a flock can be moved easier whilst still not being very bright 😉
90
The 50% who think the ABC is balanced are in the pay of Big Smug.
50
more CAGW comedy material:
24 Feb: Businessweek: Jim Efstathiou Jr: Worker Rest Breaks Double by 2050 as Climate Warms: NOAA
People working in jobs without air conditioning will need to take breaks twice as often by 2050 to avoid heat stress amid a warming climate, according to a study by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration…
“The planet will start experiencing heat stress that’s unlike anything experienced today,” Ronald Stouffer, a physical scientist at NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, New Jersey, and co-author of the report, said on a conference call with reporters. “The world is entering a very different environment and the impact on labor will be significant.”…
***The study excludes heat stress from working directly under the sun…
Under the worst projections for warming that see global temperatures rising 6 degrees by 2200, heat stress levels in places such as New York City and Washington, D.C., would exceed those seen in Bahrain today, according to the study. In such conditions, people working without air conditioning would need to rest about 75 percent of the time, Dunne said…
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-02-24/worker-rest-breaks-double-by-2050-as-climate-warms-noaa
00
More CLI-FI. (Climate fiction – a play on sci-fi for science fiction, although the correct term the fans us is SF- hmmm maybe CF would be better although that is used in the military to describe a confused situation – cluster something or other or Charlie Foxtrot)
I got an email this morning crediting me with first use of the term CLI-FI on this very blog in 2010.
The internment never forgets – blame and credit are appropriately assigned.
30
Damn auto complete. That should be Internet although some would like to intern us. I hate Apple but had to buy a mini IPad for one piece of software that isn’t available for anything else.
10
Well since warmists think that sea level rise will have put New York under water, maybe we can just move New York to Canada. That should keep people cool. Come to think of it, that has more up side than may first be noticed…….
40
The Voting behaviour of Australians suggests that most are unable to see the link between their vote and
what happens later during the Term of Government.
Who can blame them, when so much misinformation is around.
You have to trust someone and so we have a lot of people “Trusting” SBS and the ABC simply because they are “The Government”.
The good news for truth is that their ABC has made a blunder.
They have helped the public become wise to the link between their new and Eco friendly renewables push and their rapidly changing Electricity bills.
Trust has been broken so next time people are prepared to believe ill of their betters.
This paradigm of Government mismanagement then can be used as a template for other Government mismanagement that is Costing them.
Money speaks and when people are hurting they vote to relieve the pain.
There is hope.
KK 🙂
50
Stories like this are never going to feature in “our ABC” and that’s for sure.
http://notrickszone.com/2013/02/25/collapsing-consensus-another-german-meteorology-site-wondering-about-the-global-temperature-stagnation/
40
Mark
I like this comment on the link you gave
70
I like this bit:
“One thing is sure: the science of climate change is no longer an open and shut case – not by any means. The consensus that humans are driving the climate is more shattered than ever in Germany, and is crumbling at an increasing velocity.”
Thanks for the link, Mark. 🙂
20
No sweat ADE.
As you would have surmised Pierre Gosselin is based in Germany, a veritable hotbed of Greenism. When the ballon goes up in Germany it’s gonna be ‘all over red rover’. Also, Germans are getting sick and tired (finally) of featherbedding so many mendicant countries in Europe.
Germany may get heating from gas but they still need lighting and already, hundreds of thousands of households have been disconnected from the grid because they can’t pay their bills.
00
24 Feb: KMTR Oregon: Oregon to review $30M in tax credits for wind farm
Officials decided to review their recent approval of the tax breaks for the Shepherd’s Flat wind farm after The Oregonian newspaper raised questions about whether it should have qualified.
Shepherd’s Flat is a collection of 338 turbines in Gilliam and Morrow counties. The Oregonian questioned whether it should have received multiple Business Energy Tax Credits under state rules governing what constitutes a “separate and distinct” renewable energy facility.
Some wind farm developers have subdivided their projects to garner multiple tax credits. The tax credits have drained state coffers of millions of dollars that might otherwise pay for schools and other public services…
http://www.kmtr.com/news/local/story/Oregon-to-review-30M-in-tax-credits-for-wind-farm/XGg8bIwq9kG4oC4_rLjGmA.cspx
10
Morning,
How much longer do we have to put up with the abc’s continual ‘dumbing down’ of Australia’s necessary on-going discussions of important (& often costly) community issues.
Its about time a government with some guts got the gumption to tackle this ever-growing hydra head-on..else we may see something like a Saville-Affair sooner or later.
(If its good enough for Robyn Williams to draw long bows … then its good enough for me!!!)
Regards, reformed warmist of Logan
30
Couldn’t agree more RWOL. That’s why I’ve abandoned the ABC and turn over to ‘A Current Affair’ and ‘Today Tonight’ and the hard hitting commercial news for a sophisticated and thorough debate about the important issues of the day. After all where else will you find out if Kate’s ass looks big in that dress? And what is that new fab diet everyone is talking about? What we really need is Fox News to get even more into the real issues.
28
JFC, you need to spend more time outdoors.
Your post demonstrates your limited ability to find truth.
Go find John Brookes and share a joint with him. It is going to be about the best thing you can do for the world……ever.
40
Congrats JFC!!
Hasn’t anyone ever told you …
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.
… and while I’m on the subject of forms and life-forms!! .. Some people would say that you’d not be a very high one given your obvious myopic view of the continuously increasing evidence against man-made or man-increased global warming .. but I wouldn’t agree with them .. unless of course you gave me any further reason to.
open-mindedly yours
reformed warmist of logan
30
Here’s a suggestion.
Put an ABC section on the Tax returns forms.
You state what percentage you watch the ABC compared with other channels, and get a refund of say $3 for each 10% less than 100% (100% = about the same as other channels)
That would give me a refund of $30.. which is about 8c/day 🙂
60
will ABC (or the rest of the MSM) report any of the following:
Carbon plunges 12 pct as hopes for quick CO2 fix fade
LONDON, Feb 25 (Reuters Point Carbon) – European carbon permits fell 12 percent during trade on Monday after lawmakers said they would not hold a vote on Tuesday to start drafting law to prop up prices in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme…
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2197391?&ref=searchlist
EU lawmakers will not vote Tuesday on drafting CO2 law
BRUSSELS, Feb 25 (Reuters) – European politicians will not vote on Tuesday as expected on whether to begin drafting a law to prop up the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, delaying any possible deal on supporting the carbon market, officials said…
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/reutersnews/1.2197328
MEPs say EU ETS fix faces delays, possible defeat
LONDON, Feb 25 (Reuters Point Carbon) – A seven-month old plan to fix the EU’s carbon market took a hammer blow on Monday as EU lawmakers decided to put it to a full parliamentary vote before discussing it with ministers, a move that MEPs say at best will delay the plan and at worst defeat it…
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2197454
30
Pat
They were very quiet about the UK Met Bureau announcing that global climate had not warmed to a statistically significant degree over the last 17 years. (The announcement was put out at Christmas eve, and the ABC conveniently “missed” it.)
Neither have they been sending their sharp “investigative” reporters to look at the Gillard-Wilson AWU-WRA scandal. Four Corners – where are you???!
Apparently, the ABC welcomes your taxes. But not your opinions.
Cheers,
Speedy.
50
It also doesn’t welcome the truth.
20
Off topic but IMPORTANT NOTICE
The annual bloggi awards voting is open. This blog is one of the nominiees so everyone has to do their bit
http://2013.bloggi.es/
h/t WUWT
40
ooops typing is not one of my great skills –should be “nominees”
30
In case I have been misunderstood , by this blog I mean Jo’s blog. Make you ALL get a vote in so she gets another win to add to last year Weblog Award
( see top right of the page). This year there is a category just for climate blogs. get voting!!!
20
Hey thanks Ross, I’d completely forgotten we were up to the Bloggies time of year. I didn’t know I’d been nominated. But shucks, I thought Anthony had already won this 3 times already 😉 Jo
PS: But there is no “climate” category. It’s just that all 5 science blog nominees happen to write about climate.
30
Yes,I should have written “there is effectively a category for climate blogs”.
I’m not sure how they select the blogs but with three out of four being skeptic blogs it must be an indication of the skeptics winning the war.
00
That should be 4 out of 5!!
00
The most offensive use of my taxes is:
1. The sneer from SBS news readers whenever reporting something about the LNP. (versus the smile for JG, kev or christine)
2. The unchallengeable assumptions of the ABC. e.g. we are all gonna fry, catholics are all evil and muslims are all nice people
70
1950 A country relieved at the end of the war.
1960 A great country with the world at its feet.
1975 The beginning of the end – we are a rich country – relax – go on the dole.
2010 Taxpayers start to realise that their life’s work and savings have been “appropriated” by the
Government to be used to aid people “worse off than themselves.
2011 A worldwide search by Newcastle University PhD candidates is unable to find any other group in the
world who has put so much effort into their lives but is so badly damaged both economically and
socially. All candidates fail their PhD and the faculty is defunded because they failed to identify
Africa, Kiribati and Indian subcontinent as the most likely recipients of Australia’s “excess” wealth.
2012 A revolt occurs when taxpayers discover that the Billions in overseas aid given by our generous
government is actually borrowed money. trouble makers are rounded up and hospitalised with free
medicare provided.
2013 Taxpayers drugged and immobilized: can’t move or they might tear out the intravenous catheters
taking out their life blood into a little container labelled:
“For Government Use Only – Not For Private Consumption.”
2014 The world Greatest Treasurer cannot understand why NO taxes are collected this year; despite the fact
that all people of work age are now hospitalized on Free medicaid.
2018 The ringleader of the Tax Revolt, “Inedible hyperbowl” is finally arrested after living in a disused
coal fired power plant for six years in Lake Macquarie.
Hell. We need control over where our taxes go.
KK 🙂
50
Thank you for the compliment Kinky!
You made think of another question – will the ABC and other members of the entitlement classes give up their privilege without a fight?
30
No.
KK 🙂
00
Shouldn’t there be “ee” on the end of your name? I know Julia doesn’t think so.
10
No ‘ee’. Bud ow edewcaded PM is quoded as saying “inedible mark in history”.
Tim Blair has done a great job in teaching us how to understand our PM (replace the ‘d’s with ‘t’s).
Until Tim enlightened me, I could only guess the meaning of polidicks.
30
why doesn’t the Coalition inform the public of the huge disparities between the $23/ton aussie price of CO2 emissions and the price in the rest of the world?
why doesn’t the Coalition explain to the public how $23/ton is merely a starting price which CAGW cowboys hope will rise to $100/ton or more without any corresponding increases in compensation to those who presently think they are benefitting from a “carbon price”?
16 Feb: Radio New Zealand: Plunging carbon price stirs fears of collapse
The price of units has fallen to below $2 and specialist publication Carbon News reports some international units are trading as low as 15 cents.
Editor Adelia Hallett said the cost of carbon credits has halved in the past seven months and there are fears the price will fall further…
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/128213/plunging-carbon-price-stirs-fears-of-collapse
UPDATE 1-German greenhouse gas emissions up 1.6 pct in 2012
BERLIN, Feb 25 (Reuters) – German greenhouse gas emissions rose 1.6 percent in 2012 as a result of more coal burning and gas use, Germany’s Federal Environment Agency (UBA) said, adding the rise was smaller than had been expected after the government quit nuclear power…
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/reutersnews/1.2196855?&ref=searchlist
30
Let me fix that NZ headline : “Plunging Carbon Price Stirs Hopes of Collapse”.
As an aside, I found it odd that someone was reported as saying “the low [carbon] price is deterring foresters from planting trees”. It “foresters” means people / companies involved in forestry, then I’d have thought that planting trees – for future harvesting – is basic to their business and not something that only happens because of a price on carbon.
60
DavidH,
You only receive Carbon Credits for the Sequestration of CO2 in forestry if you don’t cut them down, sell the timber, make house framing, furniture, and hundreds of other useful things. No the business side of forestry is not permitted.
You have to leave it there and look after it for a minimum in NZ (I think of 30 years). And at $2.00 per tonne – no one would proceed with this business model. That’s why they should just give tax breaks or utilise the Direct Action Plan model.
The dumb GREEN nut cases don’t understand that the CO2 has been fixed by a process of photosynthesis and when made into furniture – the carbon remains sequested for the lifetime of the item (sometimes 100’s years).
30
The ABC purveyors of bias are the only media I have been moved to contact regarding their propagandised, left-wing/green opinions. After a blatantly rude and covertly abusive short interview they conducted with Ian Plimer about his book, ‘How to get expelled from school’ – I complained.
Of course I got the standard ‘Yadda yadda’ response after the ‘appropriate waiting period’:
•Tell the complainant that all complaints are taken seriously. •Tell the complainant that the ABC follows the highest standards of journalism and adheres to the policy of communicating different points of view as specified in the ABC Editorial Guidelines •Tell the complainant that the ABC has seriously considered the matter but can see no reason to uphold the complaint •Add the line about the complainant being able to take the matter further.
The day I received the response, they aired an hour-long interview on ‘Conversations’ with Tim Flannery, promoting his new book. The interview was extremely courteous, friendly, polite, chummy and chatty.
Now, THAT gave me the answer I was really looking for.
100
OT – sort of – I note with interest that the SMH has made no mention of the latest Newspoll results that show labor facing annihilation – they prefer to report on Julia moving from Kirribilli house to a Hotel in the western suburbs and Malcolm Turnbull’s appearance on Q&A last night discussing losing the leadership.
The SMH is no better than the ABC when it comes to bias.
60
Must be a slow news day in the smogosphere.
I’m fine with “skeptics” being given air time, as long as they’re communicating an accurate message from credible experts. That’s a hard thing for a skeptic to do.
013
And you’d employ the Thought Police to determine “accuracy” right?
I wish you’d apply the same filter when considering Warmist propaganda.
80
Thought police don’t exist dear.
A less fantastical way to determine whether a message had been accurately conveyed would be via going back to the source of said message. If Tim Flannery or Christopher Monckton make a claim that they contend is supported by credible experts, it is easy to check!
Should someone repeatedly make erroneous claims, they should not get air time. This applies to Flannery as well as Monckton.
22
Hi Tristan,
Might I suggest that “credible evidence” trumps “credible experts“.
But keep adulating authority if that pleases you – but don’t expect to be “credible”.
50
In many fields, it takes a credible expert to understand whether a given observation constitutes credible evidence.
There is a big difference between something that convinces a layperson, and something that convinces a credible expert. Generally, that difference is completeness of context.
For instance, when Jo cites the 1988 ‘business-as-usual’ projection from Hansen’s seminal work as the prediction against which realised temperatures should be compared to, she lacks the understanding required to give proper context (the actual forcings of the emissions scenarios presented plus the particular assumptions of the model) to the graph. To her, and you and other denizens of the blog, that is evidence of how wrong Hansen was.
Whenever people get to define evidence themselves, they are doing nothing more than exercising their opinion. In your case, and Jo’s and mine, that opinion is without much merit when it comes to climate science. That’s why, for areas in which I am not an expert (almost every area there is), I rely on the consensus of credible experts.
Maybe that’s just because I don’t like being wrong. 🙂
04
I consider Ian Plimer, Bob Carter, Richard Lindzen, Jeff Bennet, Dr. Roy Spence, Dr. Tim Ball, Steve Mcintyre, Ross Mckitrick, Anthony Watts, Jo Nova, Lord Monckton, Simon Turnhill, Mark Morano, and so on to be “credible experts”.
I consider David Karoly, James Hansen, Phil Jones, Kevin Trenberth, Andrew Glickson, Will Steffan, Andrew Pittman, Bill McKibbon to be con artists, creators of science fiction, and modern day snake oil salesmen.
Now you are going to say that Lord Monckton and Jo Nova aren’t “climate scientists”, whatever you interpret a “climate scientist” to be. I ‘ll wager they know far more about the subject than those in the second list. And that is because they use logical intelligent arguments without resorting to logical fallacies. If you are honest, you will admit that those in the second list produce very little else.
I don’t like being wrong, either. That is why I stick with he first list.
60
My condoences.
05
Tristan, serious questions:
Could you explain why your credible experts won’t show their data? Ever since I’ve come into this debate, I’ve only known one side to put their science on the table and make it freely available to everyone to replicate (an important thing in science). Hint: Not the warmists. I’ve also only known one side to allow intelligent discussion. Hint: Again, not the warmists.
Would you also explain why the CAGW crowd are rude to those they don’t agree with? It may be because they, the warmists, lie and cheat and steal, perform backflips and generally mangle the data to fit their horror story – and people know about it. They’ve been caught at it. They’ve admitted it on occasion. It’s visible again and again and again. Is that why they attack the person and not the science? They’re defensive?
Shouldn’t that tell you something about them? I don’t understand why you trust people like that.
60
Those don’t seem to be serious questions at all.
08
Tristan, if the assumptions of his models were wrong (in context), then he was still wrong.
I understand that some people want to find excuses to explain why he would’ve, could’ve, and might’ve been right if only he’d known then what we know now. But the bottom line is that billions were spent on predictions that were wrong.
There is no shame in making predictions that don’t pan out.
The shame is in pretending they were right, years after it’s obvious they were not.
90
I don’t suppose they would seem serious to a recidivist sophist and dissembler like you Tristan.
41
Not quite Jo.
If a projection assumes that non-anthropogenic influences are flat, because over the long term they approximate to flatness, you have to take any short term influences that actually occurred (in either direction) into account when trying to evaluate the accuracy of the projection.
For instance, if the projection had been bang on target, but we’d had increased solar activity and a preponderance of El Ninos in the past decade, it’d be wrong to laud the projection’s predictive ability.
Once you compare the total radiative forcing that occurred to Hansen’s estimated response to an equivalent radiative forcing, you can get an idea of how ‘wrong’ he was. It’s a bit fiddly and he didn’t give error bars but his model overestimated the response to GHGs – he used an ECS of something like 4.2C. A model that produced an ECS of 3C would have been quite accurate however.
Notice how much more informative that is than simply saying “OMG Hansen was wrong!!!1”
14
Yeah right, Tristan. And if your auntie had whatsits she’d be your uncle.
What a steaming pile of crap that was.
41
Are you talking about the stuff that just dribbled out of your ears?
If so, I wholeheartedly agree. 🙂
03
If you say so Tristan.
Poor widdle Tristan, stuck in his Lysenkoist mental state dreaming his leftist delusions whilst madly working the controls of his CAGW game console. Simply can’t wrap his brain around the reality that temperatures have stalled and that snows have returned with a vengeance in the NH.
“Mummee”, wails little Tristan “naughty temperature and snow aren’t doing what I told them to do.”
“Now, now Tristan my dear,” replies his weary mum, don’t get yourself too excited, you’ll have another ‘accident’, you don’t want that, do you?
“Damn”, thinks little Tristan, furiously working his game console, “where’s the restart button, I’m sure I can change that result IF I run it enough times.”
31
.
Amazing structure or organisation the ABC has.
1. The ABC Board with 8 directors.
2. The ABC Executive with 10 Executive Directors.
3. The ABC Advisory Council with 12 council members.
4. There’s a Managing Director and also Chief Operating Officer.
5. There’s a CEO of ABC International.
6. There’s a Director of Radio
7. There’s a Director of Television.
8. There’s a Director of Innovation.
9. There’s a Director of News.
10.There’s a Director of Editorial Policies.
11.There’s a Director of Legal & Business Affairs.
12.There’s a Director of ABC Commercial.
13.There’s a Director of People and Learning.
14.There’s a Director for each state and territory.
15.There’s a Head of reasearch and Marketing.
This is over the top management – no wonder their tea and coffee bill is huge for meetings?
The ABC spending facts 2012:
1. $486 million on wages and superannuation in 2012.
2. $25 million on consultants and contractors.
3. 401 employees earned more than $150,000 in 2012.
4. There are 4603 staff full time in 2012. (Average of all is over $100 thousand PA).
5. The ABC is still refusing to handover informaqtion of wages.
6. The ABC recieved a total of $1 Billion in direct payment from the Government in 2012.
7. The ABC recieved an extra $10 million in funding this year. (must have been a bonus)
On another topic – The National Climate Change Adaptation Research facility [NCCARF] has been running for five years but the Federal Government has decided not to extend its funding.
Wayne
GooseSwan could save quite a few $Billion – by scraping the ABC – sell it’s assets & properties, don’t think he’d get much for the brand.40
Fact: Survey shows Australians think ABC provides balanced coverage.
Nova Headline: FAUXTRAGE!!!
09
NEWS FLASH: 10% of population watch ABC, yet 75% have an opinion on whether it is biased or not.
09
Which group are you?
If among the watchers do you fine bias?
30
Yes I’m completely fine with bias… oh what that was a typoo? nevermind.
08
No I don’t find bias btw. Although that is mostly ABC online not the TV. It gets things wrong, but that is not the same as bias. 83% is a pretty strong result though.
Look there are 15% of people who probably think that footage of 2 mins of Abbott looking like a psychopath while he stands and shakes and nods but says nothing is biased.
011
Happily (for both of us) I haven’t watched or read much of ABC so your opinion is for others to dissect.
I do, however, watch quite a bit of PBS (USA). I assume they are similar and even my leftist (Democrat) commie friends acknowledge a bias. National Public Radio is the same or worse.
The impact of government funding is what?
41
Fine = find
10
What was the sample size? What was the survey medium? What was the response rate? How many questions were asked? Was it an anonymous survey, self identified, or verified? How many questions were there? Was the survey just about this topic, or did it contain questions on various topics? How long was the period of survey? How spread was the geographic? Is the survey method repeatable by other researchers?
All of these questions (and more) must be answered before your figure of 75% (or any figure, for that matter) can be credible. For example, if the surveyor stood in the lobby of the ABC head office, at lunch time, and approached people leaving for lunch, with one yes/no question, they would get one set of results. If the question was part of a wider survey, where the identity of respondents were verified (to prevent double recording), and run over a period of time, then you could expect a different set of results.
You have fallen into the propaganda trap of focussing entirely on the results, and not on the method. As it stands, the results, and hence all the hyperventilation, are meaningless.
00
I dont watch ANY television and have not for however many years since it went digital in the UK. It seemed an opportune point at which to break the dirty, squalid habit. Watching television is like smoking used to be, just taken for granted that you do it. Well I never did that either (until I took up cigars in my forties). The best protest is just bin-yo-box.
Broadband internet, DVD, blu-ray, DIV-X, innumerable viewing platforms, who needs the fuddy-duddy old box. Go on, bin it!
But I have real withdrawal symptoms from my current lack of a suitable VHS player.
I cant find most of my DVDs, most of the others are scratched, my broadband is slow and I dont have any of those other platforms…whatever they are.
So the lack of TV is getting on my mammaries…arghhhh…I may have to plug in and tune that receiver I have downstairs after all.
20
Last year I undertook a tour of ABC’s Sydney studios. Whilst visiting the studio where QANDA (and others) are recorded, I mentioned to the Guide (volunteer) my surprise at finding that the floor was level, and not tilted to one side. The Guide immediately sprang to the defence of the ABC (and QANDA) and stated that the ABC really was very balanced.
This is the real problem – when you are right and know that you are right, you cannot see the world except through your own eyes. Other points of view just do not exist. (For ABC, of course, replace “right” with “left” in the preceding sentence.)
40
I don’t get this at all. Is this a critique of the ABC (public opinion as evidence of bias?)? The respondents (heavens, their opinion is biased by their political persuasion)? Is it showing that the survey is meaningless?
By the way Gerard is wrong. Exhibit A is Amanda Vanstone. Exhibit B is that he does not know the personal beliefs of all presenters so he can’t say there are none. Never trust a person without a sense of humour.
This has as much relevance to climate change as Mr Monckton.
09
Gee, someone might think you should know the difference between a poll and a study………
41
Indeed my point.
17
Then how would you plan a study? {see my comment here)
If the opinion of people are only because of their bias, how would the producers of these shows be any different?
41
Good point. No one person, thing or organisation is without bias.
The study needs to look for systemic directional bias beyond the noise and, here is the problem, needs to demonstrate a level of bias (because it will have bias, everything does)that is low enough so that there is statistical confidence in conclusions of the study. Funnily enough, I am in the business of creating such studies, so send me some funds and it will be done.
24
sorry unclear – I mean the study will also be biased (by definition) so the study needs to have a low enough level of bias such that its own bias does not affect the statistical confidence in a finding of bias in the subject.
IS that clearer?
No?
then I’m leaving.
15
Which studies? the biased or the biased?
Let me be more clear; does more money correlate with less bias or is it the other way around?
10
they are all biased of course. But they are well done.
14
Speaking of bias, who is giving both of us “thumbs down” for these comments?
Jerks.
PS I noticed you didn’t answer this:
10
sorry. The answer is I don’t know.
Yeah the jerks. Probably typing one handed. Jerks.
03
How much $$$ to fund a study of that?
20
of jerking? I am sure you can make a few local calls to find the price!
02
I really think that this bias problem on the ABC is blown out of proportion really.
In all the time I’ve been watching, now almost 40 years, I have found that they are absolutely fair and even handed in giving equal time to both sides of politics here in Australia.
Allotted time to make Labor look good.
Equal time to make the Coalition look bad.
How can you fault that.
Hey, look over there, isn’t that Britney Spears?
Now, where’s that damned sarc off key.
Tony.
231
Let’s not forget the radio arm of the ABC in the form of JJJ, which is not quite at the level of an ageist Young Marxists club, but borders on it occasionally.
Especially hilarious was a few years back when they had a regular Sunday show called “Restoring The Balance” run ostensibly by two conservative minded pro Liberal Party flunkies specifically to counteract perceived ABC bias.
Well some of the opinions these guys had and the background they claimed to have were so stereotypically rich right wing that I eventually wondered if they were sock puppets trying to make the slightly-less-left-of-centre look bad. In one show they gave airtime to the Grattan Institute (hi Tristan) and a softball interview for an ABC board member. If they were honest it was merely a token effort.
Even so, “Restoring The Balance” only lasted 6 months and hasn’t been on air since 2011. Funny that.
10
Tony points over there at Britney Spears.
This is a great chance to link Frank Zappa’s sons, Ahmet & Dweezil Zappa doin’ the definitive version of Britney’s “Baby, One more Time”.
This was taken from a TV show they did called “Happy Hour”.
00
Thanks ABC: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-02-26/key-climate-change-body-running-out-of-money/4539948
10
This just in. . . flat out, blatant highway robbery by the Gillard Government!
This is stealing! Straight up stealing!
http://www.news.com.au/money/banking/cash-grab-inactive-bank-accounts-to-be-seized/story-e6frfmcr-1226585867131
10
… and your surprised???
10
Warcroft,Very soon the time will be reduced to 3 months.Then 3 days.
Remember, Do not steal, your government hates competition?
They act just like crack addicts, if not stopped then its OK, to keep doing it.
Posted this up thread but for an explanation of why the voters let this stuff happen,
American Thinker Blog, Feb 24th, 3 reasons conservatives are losing the battle for America.
He writes better than me and we can insert Australia or Canada and the picture does not change.
We make be FUBAR,
20
make=may.
00
I don’t read any newspapers as I tend to think it is yesterday’s Internet printed on dead trees, and whenever I check up on the news I am more likely to read the ABC news web site, NineMSN news, and two or three “alternative media” (i.e. honest media) sources for matters of international finance (eg Max Keiser) and state-sponsored terrorism (eg Alex Jones).
What’s important here is not that every outlet is perfect, nor that they tell me what I want to hear, what’s important is diversity.
For example I don’t believe some of the things Alex Jones goes on about, such as water fluoridation being a deliberate slow-kill poison because I’ve looked at the few studies offered as proof and found them to be severely lacking even by the low standards of epidemiology.
Likewise when Max Keiser tells us that the rioting in London last year was a direct consequence of the Prime Minister turning a blind eye to banking fraud, I know at some level he is just being wild and entertaining because that’s what RT wants and that’s what pays the bills.
By the same token, if the ABC says there was a storm in Bundaberg or yet another British backpacker getting lost in the bush and being rescued at taxpayer expense, then those events probably did happen they way they say it did.
I still consult all of these sources because they all have something true to contribute that you may not hear about elsewhere.
Of course, there is very little bias and spin on news events that don’t matter much. The problem is the big ticket items, such as NATO-Russia proxy wars in the middle east, or Australian troops being sent on “peace keeping” missions, or mass shootings, or financial regulations, or expansion of spying powers, or climate change, or anything else that can be used to steer the people’s behaviour and acquiescence in a particularly useful direction.
There is no way to 100% avoid bias in reporting. Having a diversity of sources and regarding each of them with skepticism on a case-by-case basis is the best strategy available to us today.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
Addendum…
And then one hears about Nine Entertainment being broke and getting bought out by two American hedge funds, one of which owns the company that made Corexit 9500, and one which has received significant investment by Washington USA, and one wonders whether our TV media choice outside of the ABC is also dwindling. We used to have laws against foreign ownership of media in this country, probably with good reason.
I expect even more “support the troops”, “Assad is an evil dictator”, and “cat stuck up a tree” reporting from channel nine in future.
20
We will always need the ABC for brutally honest updates on future climate disasters. If there’s a big storm or fire – and there’s always something – we’ll really need some dramatic vision with cheesy mock-classical music and a voice-over by Leigh Sales, the Angry Airhead. Otherwise how will we know that the climate thingy is worse than we thought?
The Cheesy Music Department and Preachy Convent Girl Recruitment Office will be the first things slashed by Tony Abbott. After that, the Smugness and Smirking Training Unit will be under threat. Maybe even Holmes himself. Save their ABC!
50
I believe that the ALPBC is well balanced towards the Coalition, most presenters clearly have a chip on both shoulders.
30
How many former ABC employees are or have been ALP press secretaries?
How good is the old mates network?
10
Barry Cassidy Insiders a Hawke Press Secretary, before the spin doctor department revolution
10
If the ABC were managing to dupe most of the nation, then most of them wouldn’t realise. I used to think the BBC was fair and balanced. Then I discovered radio from anywhere, via the Internet. It’s very easy to become lost when subjected to only one, huge & omnipresent broadcaster. Truly mind numbing in an unconscious sport of way.
30
I risk being seriously off topic here, but it is a message from the USA that is so well written that I though folks on this blog would appreciate it.
Laura Hollis, Nov 08, 2012
Laura Hollis is:
Current: Associate Professional Specialist and Concurrent Associate
Professor of Law at University of Notre Dame.
Past: Director at Gigot Center for Entrepreneurial Studies, Associate
Director and Clinical Professor at University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign.
Education: University of Notre Dame Law School, University of Notre Dame.
Summary: She has 20+ years’ experience in curriculum and other program
development and delivery.
I am already reading so many pundits and other talking heads analyzing the disaster that was this year’s elections. I am adding my own ten cents. Here goes:
1. We are outnumbered. We accurately foresaw the enthusiasm, the passion, the commitment, the determination, and the turnout. Married women, men, independents, Catholics, evangelicals – they all went for Romney in percentages as high or higher than the groups which voted for McCain in 2008. It wasn’t enough. What we saw in the election on Tuesday was a tipping point: we are now at a place where there are legitimately fewer Americans who desire a free republic with a free
people than there are those who think the government should give them stuff.. There are fewer of us who believe in the value of free exchange and free enterprise. There are fewer of us who do not wish to demonize successful people in order to justify taking from them. We are outnumbered. For the moment. It’s just that simple.
2. It wasn’t the candidate(s). Some are already saying, “Romney was the wrong guy”; “He should have picked Marco Rubio to get Florida/Rob Portman to get Ohio/Chris Christie to get [someplace else].” With all due respect, these assessments are incorrect. Romney ran a strategic and well-organized campaign. Yes, he could have hit harder on Benghazi.. But for those who would have loved that, there are those who would have found it distasteful. No matter what tactic you could point to that Romney could have done better, it would have been spun in a way that was detrimental to his chances. Romney would have been an excellent president, and Ryan was an inspired choice. No matter who we ran this year, they would have lost.. See #1, above.
3. It’s the culture, stupid. We have been trying to fight this battle every four years at the voting booth. It is long past time we admit that is not where the battle really is. We abdicated control of the culture – starting back in the 1960s. And now our largest primary social institutions – education, the media, Hollywood (entertainment) have become really nothing more than an assembly line for cranking out reliable little Leftists. Furthermore, we have allowed the government to undermine the
institutions that instill good character – marriage, the family, communities, schools, our churches. So, here we are, at least two full generations later – we are reaping what we have sown. It took nearly fifty years to get here; it will take another fifty years to get back. But it starts with the determination to reclaim education, the media, and the entertainment business. If we fail to do that, we can kiss every election goodbye from here on out. And much more.
4. America has become a nation of adolescents The real loser in this election was adulthood: Maturity. Responsibility. The understanding that liberty must be accompanied by self-restraint. Obama is a spoiled child, and the behavior and language of his followers and their advertisements throughout the campaign makes it clear how many of them are, as well. Romney is a grown-up. Romney should have won. Those of us who expected him to win assumed that voters would act like grownups. Because if we were a nation of grownups, he would have won.
But what did win? Sex. Drugs. Bad language. Bad manners. Vulgarity. Lies. Cheating. Name-calling. Finger-pointing. Blaming. And irresponsible spending. This does not bode well. People grow up one of two ways: either they choose to, or circumstances force them to. The warnings are all there, whether it is the looming economic disaster, or the inability of the government to respond to crises like Hurricane Sandy, or the growing strength and brazenness of our enemies. American
voters stick their fingers in their ears and say, “Lalalalalala, I can’t hear you.” It is unpleasant to think about the circumstances it will take to force Americans to grow up. It is even more unpleasant to think about Obama at the helm when those circumstances arrive.
5. Yes, there is apparently a Vagina Vote. It’s the subject matter of another column in its entirety to point out, one by one, all of the inconsistencies and hypocrisies of the Democrats this year. Suffice it to say that the only “war on women” was the one waged by the Obama campaign, which sexualized and objectified women, featuring them dressed up like vulvas at the Democrat National Convention, appealing to their “lady parts,” comparing voting to losing your virginity with Obama, trumpeting the thrills of destroying our children in the womb (and using our daughters in commercials to do so), and making Catholics pay for their birth control. For a significant number of women, this was appealing. It might call into question the wisdom of the Nineteenth Amendment, but for the fact that large numbers of women (largely married) used their “lady smarts” instead. Either way, Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton are rolling over in their graves.
6. It’s not about giving up on “social issues” No Republican candidate should participate in a debate or go out on the stump without thorough debate prep and a complete set of talking points that they stick to. This should start with a good grounding in biology and a reluctance to purport to know the will of God. (Thank you, Todd and Richard.)
That said, we do not hold the values we do because they garner votes. We hold the values we do because we believe that they are time-tested principles without which a civilized, free and prosperous society is not possible..
We defend the unborn because we understand that a society which views some lives as expendable is capable of viewing all lives as expendable.
We defend family – mothers, fathers, marriage, children – because history makes it quite clear that societies without intact families quickly descend into anarchy and barbarism, and we have plenty of proof of that in our inner cities where marriage is infrequent and unwed motherhood approaches 80 percent. When Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, many thought that the abortion cause was lost. Forty years later, ultrasound technology has demonstrated the inevitable connection between science and morality. More Americans than ever define themselves as “pro-life.” What is tragic is that tens of millions of children have lost their lives while Americans figure out what should have been obvious before. There is no “giving up” on social issues. There is only the realization that we have to fight the battle on other fronts. The truth will win out in the end.
7. Obama does not have a mandate. And he does not need one. I have to laugh – bitterly – when I read conservative pundits trying to assure us that Obama “has to know” that he does not have a mandate, and so he will have to govern from the middle. I don’t know what they’re smoking. Obama does not care that he does not have a mandate. He does not view himself as being elected (much less re-elected) to represent individuals. He views himself as having been re-elected to complete the “fundamental transformation” of America, the basic structure of which he despises. Expect much more of the same – largely the complete disregard of the will of half the American public, his willingness to rule by executive order, and the utter inability of another divided Congress to rein him in. Stanley Kurtz has it all laid out here.
8. The Corrupt Media – is the enemy too strong? I don’t think so. I have been watching the media try to throw elections since at least the early 1990s. In 2008 and again this year, we saw the media cravenly cover up for the incompetence and deceit of this President, while demonizing a good, honorable and decent man with lies and smears. This is on top of the daily barrage of insults that conservatives (and by that I mean the electorate, not the politicians) must endure at the hands of this arrogant bunch of elitist snobs. Bias is one thing. What we observed with Benghazi was professional malpractice and fraud. They need to go. Republicans, Libertarians and other conservatives need to be prepared to play hardball with the Pravda press from here on out. And while we are at it, to defend those journalists of whatever political stripe (Jake Tapper, Sharyl Atkisson, Eli Lake) who actually do their jobs. As well as Fox News and talk radio. Because you can fully expect a re-elected Obama to try to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine in term 2.
9. Small business and entrepreneurs will be hurt the worst For all the blather about “Wall Street versus Main Street,” Obama’s statist agenda will unquestionably benefit the biggest corporations which – as with the public sector unions – are in the best position to make campaign donations, hire lobbyists, and get special exemptions carved out from Obama’s health care laws, his environmental regulations, his labor laws. It will be the small business, the entrepreneur, and the first-time innovators who will be crushed by their inability to compete on a level playing field.
10. America is more polarized than ever; and this time it’s personal. I’ve been following politics for a long time, and it feels different this time. Not just for me. I’ve received messages from other conservatives who are saying the same thing: there is little to no tolerance left out there for those who are bringing this country to its knees – even when they have been our friends. It isn’t just about “my guy” versus “your guy.” It is my view of America versus your view of America – a crippled, hemorrhaging, debt-laden, weakened and dependent America that I want no part of and resent being foisted on me. I no longer have any patience for stupidity, blindness, or vulgarity, so with each dumb “tweet” or FB post by one of my happily lefty comrades, another one bites the dust, for me. Delete. What does this portend for a divided Congress? I expect that Republicans will be demoralized and chastened for a short time. But I see them in a bad position. Americans in general want Congress to work together. But many do not want Obama’s policies, and so Republicans who support them will be toast. Good luck, guys.
11. It’s possible that America just has to hit rock bottom. I truly believe that most Americans who voted for Obama have no idea what they are in for. Most simply believe him when he says that all he really wants is for the rich to pay “a little bit more.” So reasonable! Who could argue with that except a greedy racist? America is on a horrific bender. Has been for some time now. The warning signs of our fiscal profligacy and culture of lack of personal responsibility are everywhere – too many to mention. We need only look at other countries which have gone the route we are walking now to see what is in store.
For the past four years – but certainly within the past campaign season – we have tried to warn Americans. Too many refuse to listen, even when all of the events that have transpired during Obama’s presidency – unemployment, economic stagnation, skyrocketing prices, the depression of the dollar, the collapse of foreign policy, Benghazi, hopelessly inept responses to natural disasters – can be tied directly to Obama’s statist philosophies, and his decisions.
What that means, I fear, is that they will not see what is coming until the whole thing collapses. That is what makes me so sad today. I see the country I love headed toward its own “rock bottom,” and I cannot seem to reach those who are taking it there.
Laura Hollis
If we cannot regain control of those critical institutions (“that instill good character – marriage, the family, communities, schools, our churches”), that Ms. Hollis enumerated, and rekindle the rational, sane and conservative values they once represented,…..WE ARE DOOMED TO CONTINUE THIS SLIDE INTO A LEFTIST, PROGRESSIVE, LIBERAL LED DECAY and ULTIMATE COLLAPSE.
30
She sets out the view I hold of the media-academia elite and their hold on our culture.
She says they can be fought.
She doesnt say how.
There I differ. I dont think they can be fought. They have all the options, their dissidents none.
I dont want to repeat views Ive exprssed here before. They are too bleak and I pray the future is better than I fear. Indeed, none of us can speak for the will of God.
I will add one thing. Its sad that genuine liberal values, regarding such matters as Gay liberties, womens equality, rights of minorities have become entangled with the Leftist ideological bloc. It puts these things so important to my assessment of the culture we are losing, in the firing line alongside those who are destroying said culture and (by supporting mysogynistic, reprobate imported cultures) undermining those very freedoms themselves.
01
I look forward to Jeff Nyquist’s essay every Tuesday morning. This morning’s essay is ominous to say the least. The endnote is telling: if the United States collapses or declines to unimportance, the collapse of all other Western nations will not be far behind….”
00
Does anyone still remember the topic? I recon I can – and then again, I’m no Gilbert Einstein.
10
The ABC is so biased that if they tell me it’s Friday, I need to check it from a trusted source.
00
Look. yer can’t blame the illiberal progressives
fer controlling the message on the ABC. Orwell
showed them what ter do and they’re doin’ it.
00
Mark, I might have an answer to the drive by trolls.
It’s all in this new book.
Many a time I have suggested that among the asset management plans, the construction plans, the commissioning plans, (all very necessary of course) we need, in order to deal with a plethora of government sticky beaks poking into the individual’s business, an Asshole Management Plan. I had no idea that a philosopher would actually produce a work outlining how to create one.
Release date: October 30, 2012
In the spirit of the mega-selling On Bullshit, philosopher Aaron James presents a theory of the asshole that is both intellectually provocative and existentially necessary.
What does it mean for someone to be an asshole? The answer is not obvious, despite the fact that we are often personally stuck dealing with people for whom there is no better name. Try as we might to avoid them, assholes are found everywhere—at work, at home, on the road, and in the public sphere. Encountering one causes great difficulty and personal strain, especially because we often cannot understand why exactly someone should be acting like that.
Asshole management begins with asshole understanding. Much as Machiavelli illuminated political strategy for princes, this book finally gives us the concepts to think or say why assholes disturb us so, and explains why such people seem part of the human social condition, especially in an age of raging narcissism and unbridled capitalism. These concepts are also practically useful, as understanding the asshole we are stuck with helps us think constructively about how to handle problems he (and they are mostly all men) presents. We get a better sense of when the asshole is best resisted, and when he is best ignored—a better sense of what is, and what is not, worth fighting for.
00
And 15 times as many peoples think they favour the warmists than us!!!
00
83% of people believe they represent climate change accurately. Although from a warmists point of view, the 15% of people saying they favour warmists also count, because this, to me, means they are reporting accurately.
Accurate reporting on the science is favouring warmists and being unbiased.
20
Hah, an amusing observation!
11
that headline has probably the most hysterical distortion of statistics i’ve ever read. i assume these are the same mathematics you apply to your climate “science”?
00
I am very concerned ABC media has become a propaganda machine for this current government and carbon investors ? They just said an outrageous statement that Antartica is melting 10 times as fast ?
Why dont they have real scientists debate charlatans like Al Gore ?
Why dont they investigatee who is an activist first scientist second employed by this government ?
Why dont they ask questions like journalists ?
00
ABC media in Australia is pushing Global Warming propaganda via their IPCC source of information as if this was a credible organisation or credible neutral science !
If you are a real scientist, you should be very concerned how this organisation IPCC, is tarnishing all scientists and relationships between science and general public.
00
Sorry, this article is just trash. Baseless, fraudulent propaganda from soulless, evil right-wing liars.
[Would you like to present some actual examples of why you believe this?] -Fly
00