Follow on Twitter
Subscribe by RSS
Despite the claims of The Australian, the ABC does not possess a” left-wing groupthink” approach to climate change — in fact, says Andrew Kos, it actively sows doubt about established climate science throughout the community in the pursuit of so-called “balance”.
The ABC is not part of the ‘left wing’ groupthink on climate change
Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the “body of fact” that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.
~ “Smoking and Health Proposal”, 1969, Brown & Williamson (former subsidiary of British American Tobacco).
Since the 1950s the causal link between smoking and cancer was confounded by the tobacco strategy of doubt. It was so successful that even as late as the 1990s 30 per cent of Americans were still unable to link it to a particular disease (cancer) even though they had some idea smoking was harmful to their health. Likewise, in the 1990s, the American Food and Drug Administration sought to categorise tobacco as addictive — but were only successful in getting the authority from Congress to do so in 2009.
The ill effects of smoking are now so widely known that it seems almost quaint that it took so long for it to become ingrained in the public conscious. So effective was the tobacco strategy in misinforming the public, in delaying public health regulation and protecting corporate profits, that it became the standard playbook for combating government action against acid rain, the hole in the ozone, second-hand cigarette smoke, and presently with climate change. (See footnote for details on the book that methodically chronicles this development.)
Climate change denialists who seek to distort and reframe the (non) debate on climate change science are guided by this strategy. By courting the media, they circumvent the consensus that has been reached amongst climate scientists in order to muddy and manipulate the understanding of the science by laypeople. They insidiously project the impression it is still a contentious issue in the science community when it is clearly not.
Crucial to the strategy’s success is the employment of prominent scientists who are not climate experts or researchers regularly published in science journals but, instead, are savvy communicators that mix enough half-truths with discredited theories to avoid outright condemnation. Unfortunately, there are not many climate change scientists who possess the clear and cogent language of the late Stephen Schneider and who can then go on to repackage it succinctly for the 30-second media grab. Scientific information is often too complex and nuanced for slick PR — and many scientists don’t see it as their role to engage in public policy debates anyway. This creates a vacant space for climate change denialists to proliferate. They are hardly media shy and consequently some are paid not to be (as you’ll read below).
This strategy of course can only work if there is a complicit media willing to give climate change denialists column inches and airtime. The ABC has been characterised by the right wing commentariat as having (ironically) a ‘left wing’ bias, but in reality the public broadcaster is guilty of – willingly or unwittingly – nourishing the doubt strategy.
In The Australian on May 26th, Chris Kenny argued in “Groupthink takes over at national broadcaster” that the ABC is in the thralls of the “alarmists”. He highlighted the feud between The Australian and ABC’s Media Watch over the way threatening emails to climate scientists at the Australian National University had been reported and portrayed as clear evidence of bias. Click here for Jonathan Holmes latest response, and a background on this exchange. But that aside, this piece will focus on Chris Kenny’s (and broadly the right wing media’s) key accusation that the ABC has a ‘left wing’ bias when it comes to climate change science.
First off, it should be stated that the proposition that promoting climate change science is somehow ‘left wing’ is, in itself, a fallacy. The science isn’t guided by a left or right dichotomy — it is based on the scientific method. The critique of left or right only comes into play when politicians are deciding on how they want to formulate their policy response to the science. For example: Labor’s Emissions Trading Scheme is a market based system that relies on price signals to allocate capital – a right wing approach – and the Coalition’s Direct Action Plan – where government would instead hand out taxpayers money to companies to reduce pollution – is a left wing approach. If the ABC advocated the Direct Action Plan policy every chance it got then the right wing commentariat would be correct in the ‘left wing’ accusations it makes. But the ABC does not do that. Curiously though, the pro-free market and pro-small government newspaper The Australian never writes about the horrors of the left wing Coalition policy, but will write disparagingly of Labor’s pro-market policy despite (one would assume) its natural predilection to embrace it (over the alternative).
But moving on to the main question: Is the ABC really as pro on climate change science as Chris Kenny contends?
I’ve already argued that the science is neither left or right, so let’s see how the ABC presents the climate change science to ABC viewers.
The most recent example that dispels the accusation that the ABC is pro the science is “I can change your mind on climate” that aired on April 26th. This program was a deceptive exercise in giving two unequal positions both equal standing and representation. It was made worse by being fronted by two lay people instead of two climate change scientists. No doubt the producers were unable to find any climate change scientists willing to go along with their intellectual charade.
On Crikey, Clive Hamilton explained the devastating stupidity of it all:
Hamilton: ABC’s latest climate change doco another PR victory for doubters
The premise of the film, commissioned by the ABC, and the accompanying panel, suggests that there is a genuine debate about climate science. But as there is in fact no debate in the scientific literature about the main propositions of climate science, the ABC is hoodwinking its viewers.
If there were a real debate among scientists, then the climate deniers would be publishing their counter-evidence in the professional scientific journals. But they are not, because they do not have evidence that will stand up to scrutiny.
So they set out to do something else, to create the impression in the public mind that there is a serious debate among scientists about global warming. To do so they must shift the terrain away from the scientific journals and into the popular media, where they do not have to face the scrutiny of experts….
The ABC will argue that in presenting “both sides” viewers will be able to make up their own minds. For issues such as euthanasia, capital punishment or conflict in the Middle East, that is legitimate. But the subject of this debate is a complex body of science that only those with advanced training in a relevant discipline can properly understand and assess….
“To be fair to the truth.” Once we simply expected that of the national broadcaster. This latest program tells us that the truth no longer carries so much weight at the ABC, not when it comes to climate science.
The ABC giving the green light to this production showed a failure in their programming standards and further sullied advancement of the issue in the mind of the public. The only benefit from the program was in serving the strategy of doubt and perpetuating the false equivalency of there being two justifiable positions. This wasn’t left wing or right wing — it was just bad programming based on specious balance.
Incidentally, Nick Minchin, the representative for the climate denialists, has been on the wrong side of another important issue in the past. He brazenly took the view that second-hand smoke was not harmful and did not require government regulation — despite the overwhelming preponderance of scientific evidence.
“Senator Minchin wishes to record his dissent from the committee’s statements that it believes cigarettes are addictive and that passive smoking causes a number of adverse health effects for non-smokers,” the committee’s minority report says. “Senator Minchin believes these claims (the harmful effects of passive smoking) are not yet conclusively proved… there is insufficient evidence to link passive smoking with a range of adverse health effects.”
Second-hand smoke is now suspected to be a strong factor in Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, which for years has mystified the medical profession and terrified new parents.
The other glaring example of the ABC presenting a program that was anti-science was on 12 July 2007, when it aired the controversial climate change sceptic documentary, “The Great Global Warming Swindle”. Subsequently, the documentary received wide and exhaustive criticism for distorting the contributions of two featured scientists, misrepresenting research, making assertions without evidence, and overreaching in its attacks on scientists and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
But television hasn’t been the only ABC medium that has helped to further the doubt strategy. A quick browse on The Drum website shows that climate change denialists have had bountiful access to the ABC’s online opinion pages.
The prominent Australian denialists featured:
Bob Carter (2 articles)
Bob Carter
Background:
- He is a retired marine biologist who has made tricky claims such as, “Since then (1998) it’s been very gently cooling. No evidence at all that any of these changes have anything to do with human activity or influence. These are natural climatic changes.” In that quote he presents half the picture by focusing on the next couple of years which weren’t as warm but, as you see on this graph by NASA, he neglects the clear long-term warming trend. He then adds, on top of this, the caveat of: even if I’m wrong, it’s not us causing it. Cherry picking the data is a common tactic by denialists to construct the half-truths that add a semblance of authority to their discredited theories. It is an affront to rigorous science that aims to seek the truth.
- Denied that he receives monies from vested interests, up until it was leaked in 2012 that he was on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries (Exxon, Scaife Foundations and Koch Family Foundations, and others).
- He is a member of the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) and is also affiliated with other denialist front organisations and committees that have innocuous names such as Australian Environment Foundation (set up by IPA), Galileo Movement (received funding from Gina Rinehart), Global Warming Policy Foundation, New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (funded by the Heartland Institute), Science and Public Policy Institute, International Climate Science Coalition (funded by the Heartland Institute) and the Australian Climate Science Coalition (set up by IPA)
- To find out more click here.
Ian Plimer (2 articles)
Background:
- Plimer is a mining geologist and a mining company director of seven companies. And despite having no expertise in climate science or any regular published work in reputable climate science journals, he has written numerous books on the subject that have been found to contain a litany of errors.
- Plimer has connections to the following denialist groups: IPA, Natural Resources Stewardship Project, Global Warming Policy Foundation.
- Like Minchin he has been on the wrong side of debates before.
- To find out more click here.
Joanne Nova (4 articles)
Joanne Nova
Background:
- She has a degree in molecular biology, not climate science, and is a right wing commentator.
- Like Plimer she dabbles in writing books on a subject she doesn’t understand and discloses she would never accept climate science in her book, “The Skeptic’s Handbook II”: “There is no consensus, there never was, and it wouldn’t prove anything even if there had been.”
- To find out more click here.
Then of course you have the army of IPA representatives that are regularly featured on The Drum in both online and television formats.
They include but are not limited to:
Although IPA refuses to disclose their funding, they have been exposed for receiving monies from industries ranging from mining, energy, tobacco, pesticides, and irrigation. And when you look at the positions the IPA has taken and what industries that fund them — there is a striking coalescence. Therefore, it is fair to question whether they really speak for the merit of the science or rather for their financial backers. Industries like to fund outfits like the IPA because they know an incredulous public wouldn’t believe their self-interested positions if they came out with it publicly themselves.
None of the denialists I have listed have credible climate science backgrounds and most are supported either through institutions, or directly themselves, by industries that are looking to protect their bottom line by limiting action on climate change. Yet, despite these blatant conflicts of interests, they are given a powerful platform on the ABC under the guise of ‘balance’.
The argument peddled by Chris Kenny and his ilk that the ABC kowtows to the ‘left wing groupthink’ is a rather spurious argument that rests on a tired and false stereotype of a left wing leaning public broadcaster. What you can safely accuse the ABC of is falling in line with the groupthink of the wider mainstream media when it uncritically gives denialists a soapbox in the name of ‘balance’.
Rather than adhering to standards of quality and truth, the ABC does a disservice to the science and the public by going along with the rest of the media in gratifying the hucksterism of the denialists.
Note: The term denialist has been used to label all those opposed to the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. Scepticism is an important facet of science that has been perverted and co-opted by denialists who want to masquerade as having a legitimate dissenting scientific view. This piece will not indulge that fraud.]
Footnote: For the full history of the tobacco strategy read Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway’s meticulously researched book, “The Merchants of Doubt”. It details the key players and institutions that have attempted to discredit science for their own political and commercial ends, and often with the aid of a passive media.
(This story was originally published in the blog The ABC has gone to hell. Read also environment editor Sandi Keane’s recent exposé of ABC’s false balance on climate change.)
5 Comments
How the #ABC sows doubt about #climate #science in the pursuit of "balance". #AGW #media http://t.co/IKIRM45e
How the #ABC sows doubt about #climate #science in the pursuit of "balance". #AGW #media http://t.co/IKIRM45e
In August last year I engaged with the ABC over their use of IPA representatives for ‘Opinion’ as follows:
“I have attempted to set the argument out as clearly as possible and have supplied a list of examples (articles published on ‘The Drum’) of what I am talking about. Although I have read with varying degrees of thoroughness all of the listed examples I have not attempted to unpick the content. I do not argue that it should not be published only that the apparent congruency between the consistent line taken in the pieces and the vested self interest of (purported) corporate sponsors should be made public. I am not here trying to highlight the evils of the group I have used as an example (The IPA) but trying to highlight shortcomings in the ABC Editorial Policy.
The argument is as follows:
Section 1.1.3 of the ABC Editorial Policy: Principles and Standards 2011 states that the ABC will “ensure that editorial decisions are not improperly influenced by political, sectional, commercial or personal interests.”
However nowhere does the Policy state that the ABC has a responsibility to ensure that opinion and analysis aired on ABC platforms, is not ‘improperly’ influenced by political, sectional, commercial or personal interests. This strikes me as an oversight.
Nevertheless I assume that the ABC would have as an aim to avoid improper influence biasing its broadcast content. It seems to me that there is nothing improper in the presentation to the ABC audience of the views of political, sectional or commercial interest provided the relationship of such interests to the opinion and analysis offered is made explicit.
Section 2 of the Policy that deals with the Accuracy of broadcast content makes explicit that “An opinion, being a value judgement or conclusion, cannot be found to be accurate or inaccurate in the way facts can.” However Section 4, which deals with Impartiality and Diversity of Perspectives, acknowledges that one factor influencing the assessment of impartiality in respect of the delivery of content is “the likely audience expectations of the content”.
I contend that an expectation of the ABC audience is that they will not be misled by content.
A failure to disclose such affiliations by the provider of such opinion and analysis has the potential to mislead the ABC audience in that the affiliations and obligations of providers of opinion and analysis have the obvious potential to influence what they say or write on a given topic. Section 4 of the policy states that: “a broadcaster operating under statute with public funds is legitimately expected to contribute in ways that may differ from commercial media, which are free to be partial to private interests.”
The ABC correctly sees that it must avoid partiality to private interests. As such non-disclosure of relevant affiliations and obligations runs counter to Section 4 of the Policy, which declares the organization’s aspiration “to equip audiences to make up their own minds … consistent with the public service character of the ABC.”
In the absence of a stated aspiration to avoid any ‘improper’ influence of ‘political, sectional, commercial or personal interests’ on opinion aired on ABC platforms and the absence of a mechanism to ensure this (disclosure of such affiliations) the capacity to ensure the aspirations set out in Section 4 is severely reduced. In other words, in my view there is a substantial loophole in the Editorial Policy inviting exploitation and carrying the potential to mislead ABC audiences.
If this is accepted, the existence or otherwise of specific examples demonstrating that this has already occurred seems irrelevant. The possibility that this might occur in future should really be enough to address the issue via the Editorial Policies via a requirement to disclose any such affiliations. However it seems to me that such exploitation and of the Editorial Policy may well already be occurring and as I have been requested to provide specific examples I have included some below.
The examples provided are all written pieces published in the online version of the Drum. They have been authored by the representatives of the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) and before listing and discussing them it is relevant to provide a little background on one of the operational characteristics of the IPA. The IPA with a budget of currently around $1.7 million derives, according to publicly available sources, the lion’s share of its funds from corporate sponsorship.
The IPA is open about its neo-liberal stance and publishes its very generic annual financial reports on its website but it maintains a deliberate policy of non-disclosure of the names of its corporate and institutional benefactors.
Climate Change, Carbon Tax – ETS
The examples I have provided have been thematically restricted to the field of climate change and the Rudd-Gillard government’s response to this via the Carbon Tax – ETS. I have done this because this is an area where I can claim sufficient knowledge to critically assess the offerings on ‘The Drum’. Irrespective of the thematic point of departure for the piece of writing I find the offerings by the five representatives that have to my knowledge published on the Drum to be characterized by facts (or assertions of fact) cherry picked to conform to a carefully expressed but consistent narrative. This can be described as follows:
• Climate change may or may not be happening. There is significant dissension about this between the scientists. There may have been significant attempts to mislead by the scientific mainstream. The authority of the IPCC in this matter is questionable.
• Even if it is happening the efforts of the government to address the causes of this phenomenon are hopelessly inadequate. They will lead to the weakening and possible destruction of the Australian economy and to spiraling increases in the cost of living for ordinary Australians.
I appreciate that this is an extreme simplification of the message underlying the pieces I will list but assert that in essence this is the consistent message of the writing. What is undeniable is that the IPA supports those who attempt to argue against the overwhelming scientific consensus that:
• The climate is warming
• That greenhouse gas emissions resulting chiefly from the combustion of carbon based fossil fuels by mankind is the cause of this.
• That the climatic results of this process, if it is allowed to continue, will be disastrous for the future of mankind.
There is no doubt that this is the case. Director of the IPA John Roskam has stated “Of all the serious sceptics in Australia, we have helped and supported just about all of them in their work one way or another,” he says, listing some prominent figures on the local circuit. “Ian Plimer – we launched his book – Bob Carter, Jo Nova, William Kininmonth.” (Ben Cubby and Antony Lawes ‘The benefit of the doubt’, Sydney Morning Herald, May 8 2010) They advertise the lecture tours of the major international climate change deniers and currently list one of the most prominent of the deniers Bob Carter as an ‘Emeritus Fellow – Science Policy Advisor’. The people they support are generally without appropriate professional qualifications. They almost universally lack credible peer reviewed publication in the scientific literature and their work, to be found almost only online and in the popular press has been universally and repeatedly discredited by the scientific community. All of these points have frequently been applied to Carter by credible participants in the debate around the science – not least on ABC media platforms.
Why would the IPA take this stance?
According to Sourcewatch the IPA (in 2003 at least) was in receipt of funds from no less than fifteen major electricity generating companies. (Mike Nahan, “‘Charities’ that are really political lobbyists must be exposed”, The Age, August 8, 2003.) The IPA’s policy of non disclosure makes it impossible to verify whether or not it is still funded by any or all of these companies but the relentless promotion of the contrarian viewpoint on climate change and the general tenor of the articles written by IPA people for the Drum is consistent with this.
Might the position of the IPA vary from the interests of its funders?
The matching of IPA rhetoric to the self-interest of corporate donors has previously been confirmed by Alan Moran in an IPA submission to the Productivity Commission Inquiry into the National Access Regime 2001 (p45). Moran revealed that the IPA had about 4000 funders and whilst the IPA “may take positions which are somewhat different from those of the funders. Obviously that doesn’t happen too often, otherwise they’d stop funding us…”
The inevitable rejection of my arguments included the following:
It is our view, that in the case of the lack of disclosure of IPA financial interests in relation to the Drum Opinion articles you note, that this would not “materially” mislead the audience in a manner that would be in breach of clause 2.2. This is because the views are expressed in the context of an opinion piece. They are clearly expressed in terms of a polemic, expressing a particular viewpoint in favour of big business, small government, lower taxes and generally sceptical of the thesis that human induced climate change is occurring and that we can do anything about it.
We are of the view that the reader’s interpretation of the pieces quoted by you would not be “materially” altered by knowing the financial donations to the IPA presented to them by organisations that are also of the same view.
There is much about the response that I found extraordinary but it is clear that the ABC is not prepared to accept any responsibility for allowing its platforms to be used to spread self interested lies and deception. This is disgraceful but all is not well with Auntie at the moment.
Well said Doug Evans,
I complained to the ABC recently about the ABC and their use of Peter Reith and his articles about Craig Thomson. A clear case of the pot calling the Kettle Black.
The response from corporate affiars from the ABC was along the lines of just because you don’t like his politics and personally dislike the man that is no reason not to put his opinion on the Drum.
No where did I say i personally disliked Reith. What i was saying however was that such a person should not be allowed to have such access to the public broadcaster to peddle his lies.
When i complained about Chris Uhlmann and his rude and arrogant treatment of Dr Craig Emerson on 1 May this year. The following was the response.
“The adversarial or ‘devil’s advocate’ style of interviewing, employed at times by Chris Uhlmann, can generate a strong and mixed reaction from the public. Part of the technique of the ‘devil’s advocate’ approach is to take major points of criticism from various sources and put them to the interviewee. This can sometimes give the audience the impression that these are the personal views of the interviewer. This is not the case.
When he is doing a one-on-one interview he has a duty to conduct a testing interview that does not allow the interviewee to use the occasion as a political platform. It is his duty to put other points of view to the interviewee and his responsibility to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the questions are answered.”
My response was “So when do the interviewers decide to give Politicians a platform and when not?”
If you followed the logic of that response above from the ABC you would always ask them in a confrontational manner especially because Politicians use all media as a Political Platform at all times.
What a complete and stupid waste of time that answer was.
I contrasted Tony Jones who interviewed Greg Hunt recently in a very mild manner. Not interrupting once and letting Hunt go on ad infinitum with his Political rubbish. For example he talked about a Carbon Tax in the year 2020. And Tony was silent. Never mind that the carbon PRICE is in until 2015 and then changes to a cap and trade scheme.
Abbott asked a question in parliament the other day along the same lines which was about the Tax in 2050.
So the ABC have just lost the plot in terms of fairness and Balance.
I don’t mind an argument and I don’t mind being wrong but what I do mind is an unbalanced slant on the issues. That is what the IPA does on Drum and the ABC is the culprit for letting them allow such a Bias.
You are dead right Something is wrong with the ABC at the moment.
How the ABC spreads doubt about climate change science | Independent Australia http://t.co/XUulua00 @GetUp #theirabc #mediafail
Thanks for an excellent article and commentary from Doug Evans and Cracker. It was the previous Chair of the ABC Board, Maurice Newman, who interfered in the ABC’s editorial policy on climate change reporting and gave much greater weight to the opinion of climate skeptics. There is now a ground swell of opinion against what’s happening at the ABC under the current management. An attempt to raise a petition through Getup that the ABC return to its charter received four thousand votes.
My letters to the ABC complaining about its reporting on climate change and interviews by Uhlman etc have received the same response as those sent to Cracker, almost verbatim. These proforma replies raise the question that the ABC has a clear editorial objective and has its responses thought out well in advance to counter public opposition.
[Disclaimer: the author has worked with Anna Rose on AYCC events]
The points raised by Andrew Kos are valid in that he argues that the time for ‘debate’ was in the past, as climate scientists no longer see the issue as contestable. Yet there is still the realization that many people in the community have not yet adopted this position. Anna Rose is aware of Kos’s points and targets them in her book ‘Madlands’. She writes that she was hoping to use the ‘Change Your Mind’ programme not to convince Minchin, but to speak to the great number of people who do want to explore this issue.
The programme was very uneven in its editing and much of the information provided by eminent scientists was left on the cutting room floor. The fact that Rose then went on to write her book means that a most valuable resource is now available to disseminate information in a publicly-accessible way.
Kos writes that Rose is not a scientist but overall I think this is immaterial. One scientist could not specialise in all the scientific issues that this topic involves and it is good to have a thorough and diligent good communicator to filter all the various strands of information. On the http://www.madlands.com.au website is the following recommendation by Matthew England, co-director of the Climate Research Centre, UNSW: “This is a deeply engaging book, a great read; full of information, woven with personal experience, honesty and passion. A global tour that uncovers the facts, realities, myths and misconceptions about climate change, and a whole lot more. Highly recommended!”.
I do not fault the ABC for showing the programme, though Kos is far from being alone in pointing out that many more targeted pro-climate change programmes are needing to be shown. In the meantime I recommend that all who do wish to promote this issue in the community spread the word about the ‘Madlands’ book, for the eminent environmentalist Bill McKibben writes of it: “There is a huge stack of books about global warming, most of them tedious and repetitive. This is the opposite – an alive and engaging account of the most important task of our time, convincing the world to act on what the science tells us before it’s too late. It’s funny, warm, human, sympathetic – and tough-minded too!’
[Disclaimer: the author has worked with Anna Rose on AYCC events]
The points raised by Andrew Kos are valid in that he argues that the time for ‘debate’ was in the past, as climate scientists no longer see the issue as contestable. Yet there is still the realization that many people in the community have not yet adopted this position. Anna Rose is aware of Kos’s points and targets them in her book ‘Madlands’. She writes that she was hoping to use the ‘Change Your Mind’ programme not to convince Minchin, but to speak to the great number of people who do want to explore this issue.
The programme was very uneven in its editing and much of the information provided by eminent scientists was left on the cutting room floor. The fact that Rose then went on to write her book means that a most valuable resource is now available to disseminate information in a publicly-accessible way.
Kos writes that Rose is not a scientist but overall I think this is immaterial. One scientist could not specialise in all the scientific issues that this topic involves and it is good to have a thorough and diligent good communicator to filter all the various strands of information. On the http://www.madlands.com.au website is the following recommendation by Matthew England, co-director of the Climate Research Centre, UNSW: “This is a deeply engaging book, a great read; full of information, woven with personal experience, honesty and passion. A global tour that uncovers the facts, realities, myths and misconceptions about climate change, and a whole lot more. Highly recommended!”.
I do not fault the ABC for showing the programme, though Kos is far from being alone in pointing out that many more targeted pro-climate change programmes are needing to be shown. In the meantime I recommend that all who do wish to promote this issue in the community spread the word about the ‘Madlands’ book, for the eminent environmentalist Bill McKibben writes of it: “There is a huge stack of books about global warming, most of them tedious and repetitive. This is the opposite – an alive and engaging account of the most important task of our time, convincing the world to act on what the science tells us before it’s too late. It’s funny, warm, human, sympathetic – and tough-minded too!’
A fine and informative report that should be bookmarked for reference.
When people claim the ABC is ‘left-wing’ I despair. It means we have shifted so far to the right in a few short decades.
Try engaging an IPA member in an email ‘argument’ as I have (I wanted to not engage). It’s a frightening thing.
[...] up 1000 posts on 100 blogs, I’m going to stick with number one for this post. Number two has been comprehensively outlined in this post by Andrew Kos on Independent Australia. I’ll cover number three in coming [...]