The Murdoch Media

[Ian4]

this was the front page of yesterdays daily terrorgraph special 2pm edition. this was released at a time when the cops were warning the media to be careful how they reported information relating to the siege and to avoid scaremongering. they also made no effort to hide the faces of the hostages (other media outlets didn't show any faces until the siege ended)

 

[brigadiertiger]

Rupert Murdoch Verified account
‏@rupertmurdoch ·8h8 hours ago AUST gets wake-call with Sydney terror. Only Daily Telegraph caught the bloody outcome at 2.00 am. Congrats.

Maybe he missed the part where two innocent people were killed and others injured.

Just a rich lowlife maggot.

 

[Ian4]

Maybe he missed the part where two innocent people were killed and others injured.

Just a rich lowlife maggot.

yeah his tweet is being smashed all over social media. what a disgrace.

 

[tigersnake]

yeah his tweet is being smashed all over social media. what a disgrace.

So bad on so many levels. Wake up call? Sydney, or Aus, aren't prepared for terrorism? That's the obvious implication. Cynical for a lot of reasons, 2 being terror sells papers, and that he is so rich and powerful that he would be immune from any freedoms that we would lose in the name of anti-terro laws. The self-congrats is a real disgrace.

 

[Baloo]

We're becoming a Murdochracy

 

[Ian4]

We're becoming a Murdochracy

not anymore. people are now awake to the murdoch medias attempt at creating the political agenda in this country after their disgraceful character assasination of julia gillard. and their influence is waning as a result. his tweet was a pathetic attempt to draw attention. the old man is getting senile.

 

[spook]

If he takes after his mum, he has 20 years left.

But then, if he took after his mum he wouldn't be such a *smile*.

 

[Tigers of Old]

Thanks heavens for social media that this A-hole can be exposed for what he is.

 

[Giardiasis]

Everyone has a blind spot Gia. I was listening to Jon Fane in conversation with James Randi and other guests a few years ago and they were all amused by stories of people being duped by con artists until Randi lumped acupuncture in with other forms of woo and quackery. Fane who had been along for the ride suddenly jumped to the defence of acupuncture. That was a story about people's blindspots. You constantly amaze me on the issue of climate science. For someone who is clearly well read on issues you feel strongly about I can't understand how you misunderstand what balanced reporting is. It is not about balancing the amount of time it is about balancing the facts (in scientific issues the science decides what the facts are, not economists or scientifically illiterate reporters at The Australian). All the science is on one side. Sure their there are dissenting voices, but this is science not public policy. The proper way to dissent is to publish their data in the proper journals and have their work stand on its merits in their field. If they are right their's will become the accepted science. That just isn't happening. And no your denial of AGW is not sceptcism it is cynicism. The skeptic is not immune to the weight of scientific evidence. In this case 2+2=22 is apt. Sure a mathematician wouldn't come to that conclusion but then you are expecting people to listen to non climate scientists about their conclusions on climate science.

Under your prescription, whatever comes from the scientific community is to be taken as gospel by everyone else, and there is no room for questioning by non-members of the scientific community. Balanced reporting by media organisations should simply involve disseminating the information in a way for the public to understand. It is not the job of journalists to criticise the “consensus” of scientific thought; in fact, they should not even report on scientific work that conflicts with the AGW theory because it is up to scientists (not scientifically illiterate reporters) to review this work, and decide on its validity.

While the vast majority of information that comes from the scientific community advances the validity of the AGW theory, the fact remains that a significant number of tax payers who fund the ABC are sceptical of AGW theory. The way in which to report this information will differ greatly dependent on the angle from which you report. Reporting from both a pro-AGW theory perspective and a sceptical perspective is one way to achieve balance. Assuming that AGW theory is reality can also be reported from a socialist perspective (i.e. we need governments to enact socialism to solve the issue) or a capitalist perspective (i.e. we should get as rich as possible to adapt to the effects of AGW). All we hear from the ABC is reporting based on both a pro-AGW theory perspective AND a socialist perspective. We hear very little about reporting on the issue from either a sceptical or a capitalist perspective. You consider the ABC as balanced simply because it supports your political beliefs, and because it validates your confidence in the ability of positivism to elicit knowledge and understanding to as complex a system as the Earth's climate. The idea that a journalist can provide balanced reporting on any topic is a fallacy, they can only provide reporting based on their own biases, beliefs, etc. Hence any claim made by a media organisation to provide balanced reporting can only remain palatable as long as they have a range of journalists that provide critical analysis from a wide range of biases, beliefs etc. It is clear the ABC does not provide this; hence they do not provide balanced reporting.

Your insistence (and that of most AGW theory advocates) on trying to paint scepticism as cynicism or denialism seems to me a waste of time from a scientific perspective. If the theory is so rock solid, you wouldn’t need to waste time on such semantic nonsense. However in the hearts and minds of normal people it is an important distinction, hence much time is spent on psychological influences of such labels. Unfortunately this is not helpful to discovering the truth, and is in fact harmful given that it can easily fool someone into thinking their position is correct because the opposite viewpoint is known as denialism.

I read your article you linked on the AGW thread, which again tries to argue these points. The author has supreme confidence that empiricism has the ability to provide models that can predict long term weather. Hence anyone that disputes AGW theory can apparently only do so from the basis of empiricism (i.e. where is your model?). My scepticism of AGW theory is based upon two main tenants:
1. Empiricism is currently unable to satisfactorily understand long term weather patterns; and
2. The scientific community and hence the scientific process has been corrupted by the political class.

In regards to point 1, you only have to look at the ability of the models to predict weather outcomes to see that precisely zero have been accurate so far. Point 2 requires a bit more discussion which if I have time I will provide later.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Under your prescription, whatever comes from the scientific community is to be taken as gospel by everyone else, and there is no room for questioning by non-members of the scientific community. Balanced reporting by media organisations should simply involve disseminating the information in a way for the public to understand. It is not the job of journalists to criticise the “consensus” of scientific thought; in fact, they should not even report on scientific work that conflicts with the AGW theory because it is up to scientists (not scientifically illiterate reporters) to review this work, and decide on its validity.

Gospel? no. Tested and confirmed? Yes. I would like journalists who are going to report on science to know their subject and understand the scientific method. Science is not like humanities, opinions are not all equal. Yes they do have a duty to disseminate information, but your prescription seems to be that any information is okay. I prefer that they do their best to disseminate accurate information and that does not mean denialists get equal coverage. Any more than in a story about tooth decay you give equal time to someone who says sugar is good for you. Can non-scientists discuss science? Sure. Does this discussion change the data? No. What I maintain is that if you are going to discuss the science why do it by referring to not-science? Why use sources that have not been subjected to the rigour of the scientific method? Why settle for less?

While the vast majority of information that comes from the scientific community advances the validity of the AGW theory, the fact remains that a significant number of tax payers who fund the ABC are sceptical of AGW theory. The way in which to report this information will differ greatly dependent on the angle from which you report. Reporting from both a pro-AGW theory perspective and a sceptical perspective is one way to achieve balance. Assuming that AGW theory is reality can also be reported from a socialist perspective (i.e. we need governments to enact socialism to solve the issue) or a capitalist perspective (i.e. we should get as rich as possible to adapt to the effects of AGW). All we hear from the ABC is reporting based on both a pro-AGW theory perspective AND a socialist perspective. We hear very little about reporting on the issue from either a sceptical or a capitalist perspective. You consider the ABC as balanced simply because it supports your political beliefs, and because it validates your confidence in the ability of positivism to elicit knowledge and understanding to as complex a system as the Earth's climate. The idea that a journalist can provide balanced reporting on any topic is a fallacy, they can only provide reporting based on their own biases, beliefs, etc. Hence any claim made by a media organisation to provide balanced reporting can only remain palatable as long as they have a range of journalists that provide critical analysis from a wide range of biases, beliefs etc. It is clear the ABC does not provide this; hence they do not provide balanced reporting.

I don't understand why you think who pays matters to science reporting? It is irrelevant. The point you are missing is that science goes to lengths rarely seen in other disciplines to avoid bias. For this reason the reporting need not reflect the biases of the reporter, or their institution, that is a ridiculous notion. Socialism vs capitalism in science reporting? They couldn't have less to say about science. You might prefer that we do not live in a modern democratic country which has many systems (welfare, medicare etc) that have a socialist bent but that is not even vaguely related to whether science should be reported accurately.

Your insistence (and that of most AGW theory advocates) on trying to paint scepticism as cynicism or denialism seems to me a waste of time from a scientific perspective. If the theory is so rock solid, you wouldn’t need to waste time on such semantic nonsense. However in the hearts and minds of normal people it is an important distinction, hence much time is spent on psychological influences of such labels. Unfortunately this is not helpful to discovering the truth, and is in fact harmful given that it can easily fool someone into thinking their position is correct because the opposite viewpoint is known as denialism.

You can talk rings around this if you like. Skepticism does not ignore the weight of scientific data. What you describe is not skepticism. See the article I posted on the Global Warming thread:http://puntroadend.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=27593.2730 It is quite simple. If there is a scientific basis to a theory that better explains the climate conditions and changes then it will produce data and will be published and the scientific method and empiricism will interrogate it. Until such a time the overwhelming weight of all of the science being done (whose method is to try to falsify, not confirm) stands on its merits. Opposition to this is okay, but it is not based on the same standard and can be dismissed until it is.

I read your article you linked on the AGW thread, which again tries to argue these points. The author has supreme confidence that empiricism has the ability to provide models that can predict long term weather. Hence anyone that disputes AGW theory can apparently only do so from the basis of empiricism (i.e. where is your model?). My scepticism of AGW theory is based upon two main tenants:
1. Empiricism is currently unable to satisfactorily understand long term weather patterns; and
2. The scientific community and hence the scientific process has been corrupted by the political class.

In regards to point 1, you only have to look at the ability of the models to predict weather outcomes to see that precisely zero have been accurate so far. Point 2 requires a bit more discussion which if I have time I will provide later.

I must be misunderstanding your argument at point 1 because it seems childish. The massive weight of science and data of global climate going back over 50 years is not about weather prediction, you do know this right? You cannot cogitate your way to the fundamentals of science. Or you can only cogitate so far. You require empricism to confirm your thinking. Without it you are doing philosophy, not science. Empiricism is the best method we have. My point remains, while you can talk about science from a lay perspective it does not add to the data nor change the facts.

Point 2 is just as ridiculous. The vast majority of the political class have no idea how science works. They love the scientifically illiterate twat who calls himself a science writer in The Australian. Science is for the most part unconnected with politics.

 

[Giardiasis]

Gospel? no. Tested and confirmed? Yes. I would like journalists who are going to report on science to know their subject and understand the scientific method. Science is not like humanities, opinions are not all equal. Yes they do have a duty to disseminate information, but your prescription seems to be that any information is okay. I prefer that they do their best to disseminate accurate information and that does not mean denialists get equal coverage. Any more than in a story about tooth decay you give equal time to someone who says sugar is good for you. Can non-scientists discuss science? Sure. Does this discussion change the data? No. What I maintain is that if you are going to discuss the science why do it by referring to not-science? Why use sources that have not been subjected to the rigour of the scientific method? Why settle for less?

My prescription is that journalists at the ABC should disseminate accurate information from both a pro-AGW and a sceptic AGW bias. Allow the journalists to go out and report on what they find and let both viewpoints get equal coverage. I say this because a large proportion of the tax payers that fund the ABC are sceptical of AGW. Only by following this method can the ABC claim to be balanced, i.e. attempt to provide coverage that reflects the subjective values of the collective. Ultimately I think the best outcome is for the ABC to be privatised, and then they are free to report whatever they like.
It seems you’re understanding of balanced coverage is in regards to how individual journalists should act, but mine is in reference to the ABC as a public broadcaster, which is funded by people against their will.

I don't understand why you think who pays matters to science reporting? It is irrelevant. The point you are missing is that science goes to lengths rarely seen in other disciplines to avoid bias. For this reason the reporting need not reflect the biases of the reporter, or their institution, that is a ridiculous notion. Socialism vs capitalism in science reporting? They couldn't have less to say about science. You might prefer that we do not live in a modern democratic country which has many systems (welfare, medicare etc) that have a socialist bent but that is not even vaguely related to whether science should be reported accurately.

It matters because whether you like it or not, AGW theory is heavily politicised, and the ABC has a duty to provide balanced coverage, i.e. provide reporting from both sides of political issues. You misunderstand me; Socialism vs. Capitalism is relevant to the determination of means to achieve ends, not to any analysis of the validity of AGW theory. In other words, assuming AGW theory is correct, what do we do about it? Socialists want to enact carbon dioxide taxes, and regulations to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Capitalists want to remove government interference in markets to allow us to develop as much as possible to best adapt to any climatic changes. All we hear from the ABC is that socialism is the only solution. This is not balanced reporting.

You can talk rings around this if you like. Skepticism does not ignore the weight of scientific data. What you describe is not skepticism. See the article I posted on the Global Warming thread:http://puntroadend.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=27593.2730 It is quite simple. If there is a scientific basis to a theory that better explains the climate conditions and changes then it will produce data and will be published and the scientific method and empiricism will interrogate it. Until such a time the overwhelming weight of all of the science being done (whose method is to try to falsify, not confirm) stands on its merits. Opposition to this is okay, but it is not based on the same standard and can be dismissed until it is.

So continue with your psychological arguments then, they are irrelevant to the validity of AGW theory. You do yourself a disservice.

I must be misunderstanding your argument at point 1 because it seems childish. The massive weight of science and data of global climate going back over 50 years is not about weather prediction, you do know this right? You cannot cogitate your way to the fundamentals of science. Or you can only cogitate so far. You require empricism to confirm your thinking. Without it you are doing philosophy, not science. Empiricism is the best method we have. My point remains, while you can talk about science from a lay perspective it does not add to the data nor change the facts.
Point 2 is just as ridiculous. The vast majority of the political class have no idea how science works. They love the scientifically illiterate twat who calls himself a science writer in The Australian. Science is for the most part unconnected with politics.

Long term weather I said, i.e. climate. Climate models from pro AGW theory should accurately reflect observations, otherwise the theory is wrong. That is the scientific method is it not? From what I’ve seen, all climate models to date have been unable to accurately predict long term climate outcomes. Empiricism might indeed be the best tool we have to elicit understanding of Earth’s climate system, but given how complex a system it is, it might indeed be outside of the limits of empiricism’s ability to derive predictive understanding. Also the fact that we have only one earth from which to obtain observational data provides a big limit to what experiments can be performed, and the quality of the data obtained.
Why is understanding of the scientific method of politicians relevant to their ability to manipulate the scientific community into providing the intellectual power from which they can enact socialism? All they need is the results, they don’t need (nor care) to know how it is derived. They just know that the scientific community is well respected; hence people are likely to listen to what they have to say. Politicians have done the same thing to economics. Like I said, I hope to write a bit more about this, so I can categorically demonstrate that science is indeed very much connected to politics.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

My prescription is that journalists at the ABC should disseminate accurate information from both a pro-AGW and a sceptic AGW bias. Allow the journalists to go out and report on what they find and let both viewpoints get equal coverage. I say this because a large proportion of the tax payers that fund the ABC are sceptical of AGW. Only by following this method can the ABC claim to be balanced, i.e. attempt to provide coverage that reflects the subjective values of the collective. Ultimately I think the best outcome is for the ABC to be privatised, and then they are free to report whatever they like.

The opposition to AGW is not scepticism, it is denial of empirical research and modelling. The counter to a scientific theory must be as rigourous and empirirical as the theory itself. As such any reporting would need to be able to draw on this data. In this case it does not exist. So it cannot be reported on in any equal fashion. Science is not politics, or high-school debating. It doesn't necessarily present two sides. Look at John Oliver's clever satire of your argument to get some clarity.

It seems you’re understanding of balanced coverage is in regards to how individual journalists should act, but mine is in reference to the ABC as a public broadcaster, which is funded by people against their will.
It matters because whether you like it or not, AGW theory is heavily politicised, and the ABC has a duty to provide balanced coverage, i.e. provide reporting from both sides of political issues. You misunderstand me; Socialism vs. Capitalism is relevant to the determination of means to achieve ends, not to any analysis of the validity of AGW theory. In other words, assuming AGW theory is correct, what do we do about it? Socialists want to enact carbon dioxide taxes, and regulations to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Capitalists want to remove government interference in markets to allow us to develop as much as possible to best adapt to any climatic changes. All we hear from the ABC is that socialism is the only solution. This is not balanced reporting.

You may think that way, but science reporting is about science, not politics or philosophy. I agree that the discussion about how to cope with the effects of climate change is a political issue but you constantly conflate the science with the politics then try to argue that the science should be examined in a political or ideological framework which is both wrong and disengenuous.

So continue with your psychological arguments then, they are irrelevant to the validity of AGW theory. You do yourself a disservice.

You have presented no science to discredit the theory.

Long term weather I said, i.e. climate. Climate models from pro AGW theory should accurately reflect observations, otherwise the theory is wrong. That is the scientific method is it not? From what I’ve seen, all climate models to date have been unable to accurately predict long term climate outcomes. Empiricism might indeed be the best tool we have to elicit understanding of Earth’s climate system, but given how complex a system it is, it might indeed be outside of the limits of empiricism’s ability to derive predictive understanding. Also the fact that we have only one earth from which to obtain observational data provides a big limit to what experiments can be performed, and the quality of the data obtained.

Climate models are not pro or anti anything. Science is not politics, for god's sake stop this nonsense. Science is always striving for more/better data. It isn't, ethically, possible to experiment with the effects of smoking on human lungs. Does this mean the models and predictions of the relationship between smoking and lung cancer are spurious? No. The scientific method is capable of dealing with complex problems where experiments are not possible. The early signs all pointed at smoking. There was a group who actively tried to discredit the science and made very similar claims to those you have put forward...In what world would they have stopped lying about their products where government didn't force the issue?

Why is understanding of the scientific method of politicians relevant to their ability to manipulate the scientific community into providing the intellectual power from which they can enact socialism? All they need is the results, they don’t need (nor care) to know how it is derived. They just know that the scientific community is well respected; hence people are likely to listen to what they have to say. Politicians have done the same thing to economics. Like I said, I hope to write a bit more about this, so I can categorically demonstrate that science is indeed very much connected to politics.

You are making a typically broad and slightly off the wall claim here (sounds a little world government conspiracy theory nutty to me). What poilticians do with science is politics. What scientists generally don't do is constrain or filter their research through a political prism.

 

[Giardiasis]

The opposition to AGW is not scepticism, it is denial of empirical research and modelling. The counter to a scientific theory must be as rigourous and empirirical as the theory itself. As such any reporting would need to be able to draw on this data. In this case it does not exist. So it cannot be reported on in any equal fashion. Science is not politics, or high-school debating. It doesn't necessarily present two sides. Look at John Oliver's clever satire of your argument to get some clarity.

Of course it exists, for example the pause in global warming that has occurred over the last 15 or so years is now starting to become hard to ignore. If you have an anti-AGW bias, you will seek out the scientists that are pointing this out, if you have a pro-AGW bias you will either ignore it, or seek out the scientists that are scrambling to explain why this has occurred. Catalyst actually had a story on this issue recently, but of course, the pro-AGW bias it consistently takes was the same.

You may think that way, but science reporting is about science, not politics or philosophy. I agree that the discussion about how to cope with the effects of climate change is a political issue but you constantly conflate the science with the politics then try to argue that the science should be examined in a political or ideological framework which is both wrong and disengenuous.

The true implications of AGW theory goes beyond science, due to the conclusions that are being drawn on its effects on the lives of real people. Hence political forces are positioning themselves to win the minds and hearts of people so that their political desires can be realised. You do it yourself with your continual use of the label denier, which is irrelevant to scientific truth, and used only for psychological effect. So you see the science is really just a sideshow. Ultimately however it can not be ignored and I agree that any true scrutiny of AGW theory must come from empiricism.
It is clear that AGW theory is examined in a political or ideological framework by media organisations, including the ABC, hence why I say that true balance therefore demands that the ABC does so from multiple political/ideological frameworks.

You have presented no science to discredit the theory.

Point missed entirely.

Climate models are not pro or anti anything. Science is not politics, for god's sake stop this nonsense. Science is always striving for more/better data. It isn't, ethically, possible to experiment with the effects of smoking on human lungs. Does this mean the models and predictions of the relationship between smoking and lung cancer are spurious? No. The scientific method is capable of dealing with complex problems where experiments are not possible. The early signs all pointed at smoking. There was a group who actively tried to discredit the science and made very similar claims to those you have put forward...In what world would they have stopped lying about their products where government didn't force the issue?

I’m not sure what politics has to do with the paragraph you quoted? Your analogy regarding smoking is a non sequitur. Firstly people don’t need to be coerced to smoke, so I don’t see any ethical limitation on experimentation and observation. Secondly the Earth’s climate is a wee bit more complex than the effects of smoking on human health. I’d like to point out that government has done rather well from its taxation on smoking, which it justifies because smoking is harmful to health. It wasn’t through the benevolence of government that the harmful effects of smoking were brought to light.

You are making a typically broad and slightly off the wall claim here (sounds a little world government conspiracy theory nutty to me). What poilticians do with science is politics. What scientists generally don't do is constrain or filter their research through a political prism.

Well given how clearly governments have turned the economics profession into a tool for their agenda, I don’t see it as particularly unlikely to think they couldn’t do the same thing with physics (https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2014/01-02/fundamental-uncertainties-climate-change/)

 

[Peaka]

Interesting discussion guys.

For mine a real concern for the "settled science" is that an overwhelming majority ( if not all) the climate models put out by climate scientists have consistently over estimated global warming. Given the number of models out there you would expect about half to over estimate the empirical results and about half to under estimate the empirical results. The fact that they do not raises very serious questions about how much of the " settled science" we actually understand.

I am all for reducing the impact of humans on the planet but given there are limited resources to deal with all the world issues we need to allocate the resources in the most effective way. Given the climate models don't accurately predict what is currently happening it is somewhat hard to believe that they will accurately predict the results of any remediation action the world takes.

Have a merry Christmas ( or a happy holiday season for nonbelievers)

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Of course it exists, for example the pause in global warming that has occurred over the last 15 or so years is now starting to become hard to ignore. If you have an anti-AGW bias, you will seek out the scientists that are pointing this out, if you have a pro-AGW bias you will either ignore it, or seek out the scientists that are scrambling to explain why this has occurred. Catalyst actually had a story on this issue recently, but of course, the pro-AGW bias it consistently takes was the same.

Sorry but what crap. "The pause" is not science. Please point me to the great weight of actual scientific enquiry, data, and publication in "Science", "Nature" or other established peer-reviewed literature that stands in opposition to the vast bulk of science. It does not exist.

The true implications of AGW theory goes beyond science, due to the conclusions that are being drawn on its effects on the lives of real people. Hence political forces are positioning themselves to win the minds and hearts of people so that their political desires can be realised. You do it yourself with your continual use of the label denier, which is irrelevant to scientific truth, and used only for psychological effect. So you see the science is really just a sideshow. Ultimately however it can not be ignored and I agree that any true scrutiny of AGW theory must come from empiricism.

Sure, politicians can be greedy, ideological, power hungry narcissists. And? How would you describe most CEO's? If you know that empiricism is the way to test AGW why do you insist on quoting denier nonsense that has not come from empirical sources? I am not engaging in politics when I use that label. I am refusing to allow you to mislabel a denial of the empirical science as "skepticism". Science is driven by skepticism. It is consumed by attempts to falsify results, as this is how theories are made robust or changed as a result of new data.

It is clear that AGW theory is examined in a political or ideological framework by media organisations, including the ABC, hence why I say that true balance therefore demands that the ABC does so from multiple political/ideological frameworks.

Again that is political reporting, fine. But the science does not need to be reported in the same manner.

Point missed entirely.

It can happen. I am not infallible and you are not always succinct.

I’m not sure what politics has to do with the paragraph you quoted? Your analogy regarding smoking is a non sequitur. Firstly people don’t need to be coerced to smoke, so I don’t see any ethical limitation on experimentation and observation. Secondly the Earth’s climate is a wee bit more complex than the effects of smoking on human health. I’d like to point out that government has done rather well from its taxation on smoking, which it justifies because smoking is harmful to health. It wasn’t through the benevolence of government that the harmful effects of smoking were brought to light.

This time you missed the point. You cannot run a double-blind experiment on humans to test how smoking affects their health. It is not ethical. That hasn't stopped science from being able to model the problem. And while science found the links yes government acted on them. Left to their own devices the tobacco companies would not have made decisions that are for the best public good. The evidence is clear.

Well given how clearly governments have turned the economics profession into a tool for their agenda, I don’t see it as particularly unlikely to think they couldn’t do the same thing with physics (https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2014/01-02/fundamental-uncertainties-climate-change/)

Now we get to where your heart lies. Economics is much closer to philosophy than science. Would that it were not so. The economists did this to themselves, not evil government.

 

[bullus_hit]

Enjoying the debate folks, I must admit this pause in warming is one of the great misnomers in this debate, the graph shows a clear upward trend and we are breaking records left, right and centre. This year is on track to be one of the hottest on record, in fact most of our hottest years have occurred this century. This is what happens when the sceptics pick an outlier in the statistical data and use it as 'proof' temperatures have paused. They haven't, we simply encountered an exceptionally hot year in 1998. Temperatures have increased by 0.85C degrees in the past 130 years and they will continue to rise, to suggest otherwise is head in the sand stuff.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

 

[Carter]

My prescription is that journalists at the ABC should disseminate accurate information from both a pro-AGW and a sceptic AGW bias. Allow the journalists to go out and report on what they find and let both viewpoints get equal coverage.

Hell no.

Global warming is an environmental phenomenon. Best explained and measured by science.

I want my ABC coverage reflecting overwhelming scientific opinion, not some crackpot uninformed bias.

With all due respect, your "prescription" is absurd.

 

[Sintiger]

Tony Abbott just hired Mark Simpkin as Media adviser.

Clearly Mark must not have been one of the biased ABC journos taking "everybody's side but Australia's".

 

[Tigers of Old]

Terror, terror, terror, terror, terror, terror, terror, fluff, fluff, fluff, sport, sport, sport.