ABC Chairman Maurice Newman on ABC’s PM last night, after urging a large group of ABC staffers yesterday to avoid “group think” on the issue of climate science:
MAURICE NEWMAN: The media hasn’t been good at picking these things up and it’s really been the question of what is conventional wisdom and consensus rather than listening perhaps to other points of view that may be sceptical.
And I brought in as well in that vain what’s been going on in climate change where there’s been clearly a point of view which has been prevailing in the mainstream media, and the fact that again perhaps consensus and conventional wisdom may not always stand us in good stead.
Below is the number of media mentions (c/o Media Monitors) this year of scientist James Hansen (currently in Australia) — head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City and adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University — graphed against media mentions of Christopher Monckton — 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, British business consultant, policy adviser, writer, columnist, puzzle inventor and climate sceptic:
That graph nicely puts that furphy to bed.
Newman is a plank who clearly does not understand what ‘science’ means; it is not politics, for example, nor ‘opinion’. It is also not religion. So why do presenters on the ABC ask, as Tony Jones did last night, of Martin Ferguson, “Do you believe in man made climate change”?
It’s not an article of faith FFS.
When even good journalists use this sloppy language what hope is there that the public will get educated about what the science says?
Just another science gumbie, of a certain generation fraught with guilt.
Good one. I was incensed by Neuman’s comments on PM last night. To truly represent both points of view we should have 19 scientists whose work supports human induced climate change for every 1 that doesn’t (and Monckton, of course, is no scientist). When presenting the errors in the IPCC report, one should also report the thousands of correct findings, and so on. Of course, no media organisation has the time for that and no media consumer has the stamina. Failing that, report on the overwhelming consensus view, and, now and again, some minor deference can be given to alternative points of view.
@Christopher: No it isn’t an article of faith, or it shouldn’t be, but it is often presented in such a way that if you question it, you are regarded as a ‘denier’ or a heretic. Me, I think that there’s a high probability that it exists. But I’m not close-minded enough to reject future evidence that goes against my Weltanschauung. 🙂
“…in that vain…” What is this – a terrible attempt at a climate related double entendre or is EVERYONE just losing their grip on the English language???
Jennifer Dillon,