jennifermarohasy.com/blog - The Politics and Environment Blog

Main menu:

Subscribe

November 2013
M T W T F S S
« Oct   Dec »
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Tags

Archives

Authors

Site search

Please visit

Categories

Nature Photographs

Links

Disclaimer: The inclusion of a blog or website in this list should not be taken as an endorsement of its contents by me.

Climate Change Rallies Held Around Australia

THE Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s news online is running with the headline ‘Climate change rallies held around Australia, with calls for Coalition to keep carbon tax’. So many could-be inspiring photographs and could-be inspiring captions follow the headline that I could have been on Facebook. Climate Change Rally

Indeed the ABC “news item” would tick most of the boxes for pure propaganda.

I’m filing some quotes from the “news item” here for posterity:

“There is no sceptic at the end of a fire hose.”

“Emergency workers played a significant role in warning about the dangers of unchecked global warming.”

“The Climate Council’s Tim Flannery told 30,000 people in Melboure that Australian must make their voices heard.”

“Greens deputy leader Adam Bandt evoked the memory of the 2009 Black Saturday bush fires, while firefighters spoke of their fears of increasingly hotter days.”

“Mr McNulty says scientists were clear that global warming would make extreme weather events more frequent and severe.”

Meanwhile I stayed at home reading Friedrich Nietzche, and note that he wrote:
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster.”

Advertisement

290 Responses to “Climate Change Rallies Held Around Australia”

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] Show All

  1. Comment from: Luke


    http://hot-topic.co.nz/easterbrooks-wrong-again/

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!!!!!!!!

  2. Comment from: Neville


    Spangled don’t believe a thing Luke tells you about Greenland temps. Here is a summary of the Vinther, Jones and Briffa study of Greenland temps for the last 1400 years.

    http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2010/apr/21apr2010a2.html I don’t know where he got his graph from but it is bogus and a con.

    I’m busy today but I’ll try and find a copy of the above study and post it here. BTW I’ve gone over this with Luke before but he still thinks that the Holocene optimum was cooler than today. So you can see he is a hopeless case.

  3. Comment from: Neville


    Spangled here’s that Vinther , Jones, Briffa study.

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/greenland/vintheretal2006.pdf

    Plenty of graphs and table 8 is very informative. Luke’s stuff is nonsense.

  4. Comment from: Debbie


    Very funny Luke re palladium.
    But just so we’re clear, the progression through those Abbot et al papers points out that modelled deglaciation requires AT LEAST 10,000ppm CO2 in the presence of a dust layer in order to occur.
    In fact it’s a range of 10,000ppm to 100,000ppm which is what that little equation you so gleefully quoted as some type of amazing refutation of my comment was referring to.
    Without the dust layer CO2 concentrations of about 200,000ppm would be required.
    In all cases a significant amount of CO2 is required for deglaciation.
    Given that current levels are approx. 400ppm I don’t think these paleo studies are much help to the alarmist meme?
    So Cohenite’s comment and mine was entirely valid re these particular paleo studies
    From page 5 Abbot et al :
    Snowball by the mechanisms discussed in section 2. It seems highly probably (e) that 1–10 m of dust would have a significant effect on the surface albedo and potentially other important processes such as evaporation

  5. Comment from: spangled drongo


    Instead of going all rabid on us Luke, just answer the simple question:

    Do you really believe the world has warmed, as per that graph you keep feeding us, 4c since the 1850s?

    Let’s face it, you’ve fed it to us twice in your last 3 comments so it is a very specific question.

    Yes or NO?

    But if you are claiming “That’s the current site temperatures” and it has nothing to do with the graph, then why do you put up the graph?

    Easterbrook is obviously a lot more honest.

    But to get back to your correlation claim, one of the favourite chants of you religious warmers is that existing CO2 in the atmo will continue to warm for centuries even if we stop emitting.

    That alone

  6. Comment from: spangled drongo


    so apparently we can have more CO2 or less CO2 but we will always have more warming:

    http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S38/51/51I69/index.xml?section=topstories

  7. Comment from: spangled drongo


    Neville, thanks for that.

    That paper by Luke’s warmer mates in table 8 says that the Greenland annual temps in 1851-60 are exactly the same as 1991-2000.

    That confirms, what I suspected, that Luke’s rebuttal of Easterbrook is just a crock !!

  8. Comment from: cohenite


    SD, that Princeton study is flawed. It is now becoming apparent that the IPCC’s notion of CO2 residency and the distinction between transient sensitivity and equilibrium sensitivity with the effect of CO2 lasting for centuries is nonsense; see Gösta Pettersson’s work:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/01/the-bombtest-curve-and-its-implications-for-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-residency-time/

    What is relevant from Pettersson’s work is that the measurement of the adjustment or residence time constants for a small perturbation gives you the values for any size perturbation. The measurement of the C14 residue from the bomb testing allows legitimate extrapolation to all CO2; and Pettersson’s work shows the residency time for CO2 is MUCH less than assumed by the IPCC’s Bern model.

  9. Comment from: spangled drongo


    Thanks cohers, I suspected that. It’s the sort of science that Luke would push down your throat so I thought I would use it for his “enlightenment”☺.

  10. Comment from: Neville


    Steve McIntyre is after fresh bristlecone junk from the junkies. Plus more upside down garbage used AGAIN as well.
    Geeezzzz these blokes just love BS , corruption and fraud. Little wonder that Luke thinks they are top scientists. Right up there alongside Mann the prince of con merchants.

    http://climateaudit.org/2013/11/28/bristlecone-addiction-in-shi-et-al-2013/#more-18641

    Robert Way ( of C&W) gives a weak as water comment at no 2. Just amazing how stupid these dingalings are, but hey I suppose they are the gift that keeps on giving. More from Steve tomorrow.

  11. Comment from: Luke


    SD digs in and is back to extrapolating to the world. And now he’s blurring with annual temps for for the whole of Greenland. Why put the graph? WTF – it’s your graph base numb nuts. Give up you drongo. You’re pathetic and so is your denial. Your attack has been shredded. Get out of your burning vehicle and report to the concentration camp for climate crims.

    Debs misses the point. Gee Debs it was only a snowball Earth. Might have needed a bit of a nudge? That’s analogous to today isn’t. Reaches for lammie recipe.

  12. Comment from: Luke


    Top scientists for Neville “my mistakes so many and so great” “limited knowledge of stats”

    Neville the fraudulent climate crim.

  13. Comment from: Neville


    As weak as water Luke, a good match for Way. The Greenland temps cooled for at least 60 years from 1930 until 1990s.
    Also warmest decades 1930s and 1940s and warmest year 1941. And not a great deal of difference 1851 to 1860 compared to 1991 to 2000. Probably best explained by the NAO.
    Also your so called scientists are a joke, they literally don’t know which way is up. Do you ? But Steve hasn’t finished with these con merchants yet.
    I repeat , we all owe a debt of gratitude to Tisdale for his weekly postings and graphs, books etc. He has strived to be accurate at all times but he’s not a genius. If you’re posting on a weekly basis you will make mistakes, but he has always admitted any errors and fixed them pronto.
    Just a pity the con merchants on your side didn’t follow Tisdale’s example.

  14. Comment from: Neville


    Here is Way’s explanation to Steve and Steve’s reply. Also funny reponse by Don Monfort.

    Robert Way
    Posted Nov 29, 2013 at 1:17 AM | Permalink | Reply
    I should clarify that I simply repeated what was listed as criterion in the paper – I did not check to ensure the authors initial interpretations regarding temperature signal were retained (rightly or wrongly). During my read I was more interested in examining the differences between the reconstruction methodologies (EIV, CPS, PCA).

    Steve: Robert, specialists in this field have placed far too much importance on complicated multivariate methods, in part, I suspect, because they tend to be outdoorsy, rather than mathematical, and do not have intuitive understanding of the underlying linear algebra, a topic that I’ve written on from time to time. If there is a consistent “signal” in the data, it emerges with simple weighted-averaging methods. More complicated methods run the risk of heavily weighting some series, flipping others. People who use “complicated” methods also tend to pay less attention to defects in the data e.g. Tingley and Huybers’ ludicrous inclusion of the contaminated portion of the Tiljander data, long after it was known to be contaminated. The larger issue here is more the continued passing-off of Graybill bristlecone data used in Mann et al 1998-99 as well as Mann et al 2008 in a supposedly “independent” study, as much as the (almost certain) incorrectness of their assertions of having carried out significance tests on local temperature.

    Don Monfort
    Posted Nov 29, 2013 at 11:25 AM | Permalink | Reply
    Way:”I should clarify that I simply repeated what was listed as criterion in the paper – I did not check to ensure the authors initial interpretations regarding temperature signal were retained (rightly or wrongly).”

    Don’t feel bad, Robert. The reviewers didn’t check either.

  15. Comment from: cohenite


    The comments in the CA dissection are amusing too:

    Fred

    Posted Nov 29, 2013 at 8:28 AM | Permalink | Reply

    “Wrong in both directions. How do they manage that so often?”

    It is a specialized area of paleo science called “Concurrent Suck & Blow”

    CA is still the benchmark for analysis of AGW pseudo-science; that would make luke the skid-mark I guess.

  16. Comment from: Neville


    Roy Spencer may have been correct, cloud variation could be the difference making the planet a little warmer.
    Problem is do models allow enough for this increase or decrease in cloud cover over time?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/29/study-lack-of-cloud-physics-biased-climate-models-high/#more-98343

  17. Comment from: Debbie


    Luke,
    Which/what point are you claiming I have missed?
    I was referring to the quote you posted from the Abbot et al research.
    I only outlined the range of required CO2 ppm (depending on dust or clay drapes it’s 10,000 to 200,000ppm according to this research) and quoted the current CO2 ppm.
    I also copy/pasted ONE(!) of the sections from these papers that validated Cohenite’s comment re the water cycle.
    I can’t find where anyone claimed there WASN’T a snowball earth?
    Neither has anyone argued there wasn’t SOMETHING or a combination of SOMETHINGS that created thawing.
    But please do point out the missed point that you apparently made.
    BTW, I laughed again when I re- read your palladium comment. Very funny.

  18. Comment from: spangled drongo


    More man-made global warming:

    http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/screenhunter_190-dec-01-05-16.jpg

  19. Comment from: Neville


    Richard Lindzen puts the boot into the barking mad CAGW religious cult.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_warming_religion_will_collapse_from_its_sheer_cost/

    Just think where we could be if just a fraction of those wasted billions were directed to more R&D research into new nukes.

  20. Comment from: Luke


    Looks like we’ll have to shut Debs down as a planet survival hazard.

    The ultimate stocking stuffer to stop your uncle Nev or SD being a serial whinger at the kiddies Xmas. The old codgers will probably try to stop you being carbon neutral kids but don’t listen to them. Just get them back to the nursing home quick after Xmas lunch.

    The new tour de force from that guru of the Anthropocene – William Ruddiman. Rebut this Gramps and until then STFU.

    http://www.whfreeman.com/Catalog/product/earthtransformed-ruddiman/tableofcontents

    How rice culture warmed the planet !

    http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/january7/manvleaf-010709.html Looks like climate crims (then foresters) have a lot to answer for !

    Robby will get off on it as it will be anecdote heaven albeit without kayaks but with quality citations.

  21. Comment from: Luke


    Lindzen joins the “climate science is a Lysenko plot” and “climate scientists are eugenicists” nutters. And where would it come from – Bolters’s cess pit of recycled denial. I guess it could be treatable.

    Could have added Pol Pot and Hitler though. Anyway it’s all just for the party faithful isn’t it. Gets uncle Nev REALLY WORKED up till morning tea is served at the home.

  22. Comment from: Robert


    I see that the reforestation-after-depopulation theory is having another run, concurrent with a desperate bid to bring back the hockey stick in its original straight-handled glory (but with a few more warps and bumps for that delicious “natural” effect). As Luke said to his best buddies, Tristan, Tristan, Tristan and Tarquin…let’s party like it’s 1998!

    Have we in fact crossed a line as a species? Is it the first time in human history that the tertiary educated are dumber than everybody else?

  23. Comment from: Luke


    Codgerian science “err I thunk dat’s wong – where’s my kayak”

  24. Comment from: Luke


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M68GeL8PafE

    The boys visit the doctor.

  25. Comment from: Neville


    Another good article on natural SLR and SL fall over many hundreds and indeed thousands of years.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/02/history-falsifies-climate-alarmist-sea-level-claims/#more-98420

  26. Comment from: Robert


    I still say Luke’s buddies would be less concerned with warming if they stopped wearing scarves in mid-summer.

  27. Comment from: Neville


    When will these moronic fools ever learn? Or how to waste 7 trillion that will return zip on the investment????? A five year old would be able to understand the sums. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/project_syndicate/2013/11/climate_change_the_eu_wants_to_spend_7_trillion_on_projects_that_will_barely.html

    Probably one of Lomborg’s best posts on this barking mad cult. All the money wasted is listed and the returns???? are calculated as well.

  28. Comment from: Neville


    This quote from David Deming before a US senate committee is an oldie but a goody.

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/11/26/if-you-like-your-medieval-warm-period-you-can-keep-your-medieval-warm-period/

    A reporter refused to interview him unless he blamed CAGW for recent warming and a senior researcher stated ” we have to get rid of the MWP.”

  29. Comment from: toby


    A very inconvenient graph that IPCC 1990 temp graph is it not Neville!? No wonder they had to remove it. I mean you’d have to have your head in the sand to believe in CAGW after a graph like that wouldn’t you?….hardly a surprise that it has morphed into something entirely different.

    so 17 years and no warming but its still worse than we thought, now who would have thought…….

    Robert, thx a priceless comment! “Have we in fact crossed a line as a species? Is it the first time in human history that the tertiary educated are dumber than everybody else?”

    yes if they have studied a pseudo science!

  30. Comment from: Neville


    More of the most absurd delusional nonsense and scary stuff from their ABC.

    http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2013/s3903815.htm

    Seems they think we could have a 4c warmer world by 2070. If not, then it’s a certainty by 2100. But OZ can fix it if we just increase our co2 reductions by a factor of 9 times. Or from 5% to 45%.

    So we know that our 5% reduction of co2 by 2020 will change the climate and temp by ZIP, but it’s a pity that these fools don’t understand that a further 40% reduction would make ZIP difference as well. Unbelievable rubbish.

  31. Comment from: toby


    Privatise the crusaders I say, they are a disgrace to journalism. They never withdraw any catastrophic predictions even when the papers are completely shredded and any attempt at balance is foregone in search of their causes.

    And they don’t even fulfil their charter anymore!!
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/your-abc-the-public-broadcaster-thats-lost-its-sense-of-purpose/story-fnhulhjj-1226773717549

    ABORIGINAL and Torres Strait Islander viewers are advised that the ABC’s latest annual report contains material that may cause offence.

    On page 231, for instance, we learn that ABC1 broadcast, between 6am and midnight, six hours of indigenous television. That is six hours for the entire year, or six minutes and 55 seconds a week, and two minutes and 18 seconds of that was repeats.

    Indigenous issues may be covered incidentally in categories such as drama, sport or current affairs, but since indigenous programming is listed as a genre in its own right, the lack of commitment in this area reflects the ABC’s confusion about its public purpose.

    The annual report makes a great deal of the corporation’s new Indigenous Employment Strategy. It boasts that there are 70 indigenous staff members, which means there are just 38 to find to complete the 2 per cent quota.

    It could of course meet the target by sacking a couple of thousand non-indigenous employees, which in many ways sounds preferable, starting perhaps with the head of indigenous content who appears to have little to do.

    Alternatively, they could reduce the entire staff to 50 and employ Stan Grant, who in any given week produces 25 minutes more indigenous television than ABC1.

    Grant’s weekly show, Awaken, is broadcast by National Indigenous Television, a network that does more than merely tick the box.

    It actually puts indigenous Australians on the box, just as the ABC would if it was fulfilling its statutory obligation to “reflect the cultural diversity of the Australian community”.

    The ABC’s charter runs to a mere 500 words but, even so, the corporation has enormous trouble sticking to it.

    The ABC is required “to encourage and promote the musical, dramatic and other performing arts” yet its flagship television service broadcasts less than one and a quarter hours of first-run Australian arts and culture a week.

    It is expected to “contribute to a sense of national identity”, yet the number of Australian programs on ABC1 is pitiful.

    In an average hour of prime time viewing last year, 32 minutes and 15 seconds was imported material and two-thirds of that had been broadcast before.

    There were 22 minutes and 22 seconds of first-run Australian television but 14 minutes of it was news and current affairs.

    A typical hour contained two minutes and 16 seconds of Australian arts and culture; six minutes and 15 seconds of documentaries and factual programs; two minutes and 12 seconds of Australian drama; three minutes and 15 seconds of entertainment and 28 seconds of religion and ethics. Oh, and four and a half seconds of indigenous programming.

    The ABC will tell you it is a question of money, yet in 1998, with a smaller budget and 500 fewer staff, ABC TV broadcast 10 per cent more Australian content and fewer repeats.

    On ABC’s Canadian equivalent, CBC, 82 per cent of programs were locally produced last year, and yet Canada spends less on public broadcasting per head of population than we do.

    Not surprisingly, ABC audiences have fallen over the past 15 years.

    In 1998, ABC TV’s weekly reach was more than 70 per cent; today ABC1′s weekly reach is less than 45 per cent.

    The ABC’s excuse is that there is more competition. Another way of looking at it is that many of the television services we once relied on the ABC to provide are now provided by the private sector.

    With the proliferation of media, public sector broadcasters around the world are struggling to define their public purpose.

    When airtime was scarce, it seemed reasonable for governments to ration it. State-funded broadcasters were there to ensure the public interest was served.

    In an era of media abundance, however, it is less clear what public broadcasters are supposed to do.

    The debate is particularly lively in Britain where the BBC’s Royal Charter is up for renewal in 2016, and public faith in the corporation is wavering.

    British viewers are obliged to pay a licence fee each year – currently Pound145.50 or $260 – and naturally they are keen to get value for money.

    Yet the BBC is no longer the dominant broadcaster. Subscriptions paid to the private-sector BSkyB network now exceed the BBC’s entire budget. Naturally, many viewers are asking why they are paying twice.

    The BBC still produces some remarkably good television, much of it starring Stephen Fry, which the ABC buys to pad out its schedule.

    Not for much longer, however. The BBC has recently decided to cut out the middleman and sell its programs direct to subscribers in Australia through its iPlayer app.

    The ABC, the principal re-broadcaster of BBC programs, is in trouble. It is not after all immune from the structural challenges faced by the rest of the media industry.

    The case for a major review of public broadcasting is overwhelming and it will be surprising if the Abbott government does not announce one in its first term.

    It is abundantly clear that the ABC lacks a clear sense of public purpose. Its decision to become a player in the Edward Snowden intelligence leak scandal rather than merely report an unfolding story demonstrates its internal confusion.

    Since the ABC appears intent on making the case for its own abolition, the government must save it from itself.

    Ultimately, it must strengthen the ABC’s charter to remove any ambiguity about what the broadcaster is supposed to do.

    The BBC’s charter runs to 29 pages. It begins: “The BBC exists to serve the public interest.”

    It stipulates that the BBC’s main activity “should be the promotion of its Public Purposes”.

    The BBC’s Public Purposes include “sustaining citizenship and civil society; promoting education and learning; stimulating creativity and cultural excellence; representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities”.

    Those who drafted the ABC’s charter must have assumed that these things were too obvious to spell out.

    Apparently they are not. At the very least, parliament should amend section 6 of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act to ensure that they are. Foreign shows such as some of those from the BBC will soon not be available anyway…so there goes another reason for the ABC ‘s existence.

    - See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/your-abc-the-public-broadcaster-thats-lost-its-sense-of-purpose/story-fnhulhjj-1226773717549#sthash.iRj83sMK.dpuf

    “ABORIGINAL and Torres Strait Islander viewers are advised that the ABC’s latest annual report contains material that may cause offence.

    On page 231, for instance, we learn that ABC1 broadcast, between 6am and midnight, six hours of indigenous television. That is six hours for the entire year, or six minutes and 55 seconds a week, and two minutes and 18 seconds of that was repeats.

    Indigenous issues may be covered incidentally in categories such as drama, sport or current affairs, but since indigenous programming is listed as a genre in its own right, the lack of commitment in this area reflects the ABC’s confusion about its public purpose.

    The annual report makes a great deal of the corporation’s new Indigenous Employment Strategy. It boasts that there are 70 indigenous staff members, which means there are just 38 to find to complete the 2 per cent quota.

    It could of course meet the target by sacking a couple of thousand non-indigenous employees, which in many ways sounds preferable, starting perhaps with the head of indigenous content who appears to have little to do.

    Alternatively, they could reduce the entire staff to 50 and employ Stan Grant, who in any given week produces 25 minutes more indigenous television than ABC1.

    Grant’s weekly show, Awaken, is broadcast by National Indigenous Television, a network that does more than merely tick the box.

    It actually puts indigenous Australians on the box, just as the ABC would if it was fulfilling its statutory obligation to “reflect the cultural diversity of the Australian community”.

    The ABC’s charter runs to a mere 500 words but, even so, the corporation has enormous trouble sticking to it.

    The ABC is required “to encourage and promote the musical, dramatic and other performing arts” yet its flagship television service broadcasts less than one and a quarter hours of first-run Australian arts and culture a week.

    It is expected to “contribute to a sense of national identity”, yet the number of Australian programs on ABC1 is pitiful.

    In an average hour of prime time viewing last year, 32 minutes and 15 seconds was imported material and two-thirds of that had been broadcast before.

    There were 22 minutes and 22 seconds of first-run Australian television but 14 minutes of it was news and current affairs.

    A typical hour contained two minutes and 16 seconds of Australian arts and culture; six minutes and 15 seconds of documentaries and factual programs; two minutes and 12 seconds of Australian drama; three minutes and 15 seconds of entertainment and 28 seconds of religion and ethics. Oh, and four and a half seconds of indigenous programming.

    The ABC will tell you it is a question of money, yet in 1998, with a smaller budget and 500 fewer staff, ABC TV broadcast 10 per cent more Australian content and fewer repeats.

    On ABC’s Canadian equivalent, CBC, 82 per cent of programs were locally produced last year, and yet Canada spends less on public broadcasting per head of population than we do.

    Not surprisingly, ABC audiences have fallen over the past 15 years.

    In 1998, ABC TV’s weekly reach was more than 70 per cent; today ABC1′s weekly reach is less than 45 per cent.

    The ABC’s excuse is that there is more competition. Another way of looking at it is that many of the television services we once relied on the ABC to provide are now provided by the private sector.

    With the proliferation of media, public sector broadcasters around the world are struggling to define their public purpose.

    When airtime was scarce, it seemed reasonable for governments to ration it. State-funded broadcasters were there to ensure the public interest was served.

    In an era of media abundance, however, it is less clear what public broadcasters are supposed to do.

    The debate is particularly lively in Britain where the BBC’s Royal Charter is up for renewal in 2016, and public faith in the corporation is wavering.

    British viewers are obliged to pay a licence fee each year – currently Pound145.50 or $260 – and naturally they are keen to get value for money.

    Yet the BBC is no longer the dominant broadcaster. Subscriptions paid to the private-sector BSkyB network now exceed the BBC’s entire budget. Naturally, many viewers are asking why they are paying twice.

    The BBC still produces some remarkably good television, much of it starring Stephen Fry, which the ABC buys to pad out its schedule.

    Not for much longer, however. The BBC has recently decided to cut out the middleman and sell its programs direct to subscribers in Australia through its iPlayer app.

    The ABC, the principal re-broadcaster of BBC programs, is in trouble. It is not after all immune from the structural challenges faced by the rest of the media industry.

    The case for a major review of public broadcasting is overwhelming and it will be surprising if the Abbott government does not announce one in its first term.

    It is abundantly clear that the ABC lacks a clear sense of public purpose. Its decision to become a player in the Edward Snowden intelligence leak scandal rather than merely report an unfolding story demonstrates its internal confusion.

    Since the ABC appears intent on making the case for its own abolition, the government must save it from itself.

    Ultimately, it must strengthen the ABC’s charter to remove any ambiguity about what the broadcaster is supposed to do.

    The BBC’s charter runs to 29 pages. It begins: “The BBC exists to serve the public interest.”

    It stipulates that the BBC’s main activity “should be the promotion of its Public Purposes”.

    The BBC’s Public Purposes include “sustaining citizenship and civil society; promoting education and learning; stimulating creativity and cultural excellence; representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities”.

    Those who drafted the ABC’s charter must have assumed that these things were too obvious to spell out.

    Apparently they are not. At the very least, parliament should amend section 6 of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act to ensure that they are.

    - See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/your-abc-the-public-broadcaster-thats-lost-its-sense-of-purpose/story-fnhulhjj-1226773717549#sthash.iRj83sMK.dpuf

  32. Comment from: Neville


    Aussie kids have slipped further behind the rest of the world although we have splashed heaps of extra cash on education since the Rudd/Gillard donkey govts came to power.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/we_added_billions_and_students_went_backwards_so_mere_cash_is_not_what_scho/

    In fact the disadvantaged students in poor countries are excelling, while our most advantaged students in the wealthiest schools have gone backwards.

    The Gonski rubbish is a clueless waste of time and money. We need better teachers and methods plus a much more sensible curriculum.

  33. Comment from: Neville


    There have been many lower temp records broken in the USA. Plus snowfall records as well and could be more to come.
    If this was USA summer temp records or drought their ABC and Fairfax etc would be endlessly yapping every day about more CAGW influence and proof that we need a higher co2 tax.
    http://joannenova.com.au/2013/12/more-than-1000-cold-snowy-records-set-in-us-one-small-media-outlet-covers-it/#more-32064

  34. Comment from: Neville


    More fraud, corruption and con games from within the IPCC. These fools can’t even abide by their own rules.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/03/wg1-co-chair-thomas-stocker-abandons-ipcc-principles/#more-98484

  35. Comment from: Neville


    Amazingly their ABC calls the traitor Snowden a whistleblower but the person who released the climategate emails is branded a hacker.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/abc_called_climategate_whisteblower_a_hacker_so_why_doesnt_it_call_snowden_/#commentsmore

    Robyn “100 metres Williams” put his 2 bobs worth in as well. But be should be grateful for the facts in those emails revealing all the corruption and fraud within a small group of suspect scientists.

  36. Comment from: bazza


    The ABC – our most trusted institution!
    Extracted bits from the Monthly, May 2005, Margaret Simmons , the ABC having survived the attacks of the Howard years.
    ……….The working day is infused with the irony of the clever, their undercutting humour, and the slight sense of disappointment that always accompanies passion. Public broadcasting, a former ABC executive comments, is a thing built on intellect and emotion. This makes it precious, but hard to manage. The people are easy to love, but they can drive you mad.
    The offices of the ABC are factories in which ideas and words are hammered out, industrial spaces for people who work with their minds. There are dozens of them all over Australia. They are utilitarian, often grey or blue-grey, with glancing stabs at beauty. A quirky postcard. An enamelled brooch pinned to a grey jumper filled with holes. “My thinking jumper,” its owner says. A dead pot-plant. Another one in flower. The workers are usually cramped, their desks covered in a thick fall of books. Guest couches are squeezed up against recycling bins with open maws, ready to take the reams of paper – read, written on, crumpled and thrown.
    In an ABC regional radio station far to the west of the Great Dividing Range, the staff pinboard has a notice: “Duck when they say that regional radio will be the last to go.” In Sydney, the passages leading to the offices of The 7.30 Report are painted a deep purple. “I don’t know why,” says host Kerry O’Brien, and I remark that it is at least a very balanced colour – the mid-point between red and blue. He laughs his rich flirty laugh. On the walls of his office are maps of the Middle East, so he can pick out the battlefields. Above them are several years’ worth of Christmas cards from the former communications minister, Senator Richard Alston, and the prime minister, John Howard. Apparently O’Brien has not yet been crossed off the list. In Melbourne, the director of radio, Sue Howard, has a cartoon on her office wall. It shows a cage with the bars shattered and two people standing dismayed at the door. One says: “Oh Lord. The Right Wing Phillip Adams has escaped.”
    …………Distrust between ABC management and staff is not new. Nine years ago, when the former Fairfax chief executive Bob Mansfield was brought in by the newly elected Howard government (sorry, federal government) to review the ABC, he reported that he was “very conscious” of a management–staff divide and a “lack of trust”. He also said managers needed to take more responsibilty for managing, rather than being at the behest of their staff. Some of this seems to have happened; ABC people will tell you it is a less consultative place than before, but that the distrust is worse than ever. Right or wrong, many think they will be punished if they question their bosses or step out of line. “The place has gone timid,” says one. Michael Duffy, an ABC critic who now has his own weekly Radio National program called Counterpoint, fears the ABC has “had the vigour squashed out of it … it is like a whipped dog. When you manage the ABC you are in the business of managing passion. Now there is a lot less passion to manage.”
    During the month I spent stooging around the atriums and back offices, two questions recurred in my interviews.
    One was: “What are you afraid of?”
    The other was: “Who is leading the ABC?”
    Kerry O’Brien says that after years of building up quality through the 1980s, “my fear is that we might edge back to the time when mediocrity ruled a long time ago. Mediocrity feeds off itself.” He says the greatest threat is “a compromised process at the heart”. By this he means the way the ABC board is appointed by the federal government of the day and has been stacked by successive governments. “If you believe in the need for a strong, genuinely independent public broadcaster of integrity then a fundamental part of that process has to be the integrity of the appointment of the board. It has to be free of political influence and seen to be free of political influence. If you just analyse the people who have been appointed, without reflecting on the character of individuals, it does go to a lack of integrity in the appointing process.”
    Like many others, O’Brien fears the impact of constant compromise due to lack of resources. The 7.30 Report has lost a third of its editorial staff since it went national nine years ago. “You might shy away from a particular story because you know you simply won’t be able to do it justice,” he says. “There have been times when we have had to be very, very selective on overseas satellite crosses, and at times almost ban them. There have been times when our travel has almost come to a standstill. You are cutting corners all the time. Those things aren’t automatically clear in what is going to air, but you have to worry over time about a decline in quality. I am still confident that the compromises we make are acceptable in the circumstances. We have a strong team here now, perhaps the best we have ever had, but I guess one of the realities of life at the ABC is you can’t feel secure about that continuing.”
    Meanwhile the director of television, Sandra Levy, says she fears the day is near when it will be close to impossible to commission Australian drama for the national broadcaster. “I think the future for ABC television is very bleak.”
    There are two ways of telling the story of the ABC at the beginning of the 21st century. One is a success story, a story of excellence, resilience and hope. The other is about what happens to a cultural institution, and perhaps also to a society, subjected to constant change, pressure, criticism and lack of sustenance. This second story is about wearing things down, about people withdrawing and pulling down the blinds, about feeling threatened and desiring protection.
    The ABC has never been more loved. The corporation’s own surveys say nine in ten Australians believe it provides a valuable service. The Australian National University’s 2003 survey of social attitudes shows 66% of Australians have confidence in the ABC. That might not sound so stunning, until you compare it with other institutions. Only 40% have confidence in the government, 31% in the public service, 33% in churches and religious institutions.
    The ABC has the best current affairs and news service in the country.

  37. Comment from: cohenite


    Vomitous bazza;

    “The working day is infused with the irony of the clever, their undercutting humour, and the slight sense of disappointment that always accompanies passion. Public broadcasting, a former ABC executive comments, is a thing built on intellect and emotion.”

    “The irony of the clever”.

    Let’s see some that there irony. Step up Ms Trioli and show the mindset of the abc staff:

    http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2010/11/loopy-virginia-trioli-doesny-know-who.html

  38. Comment from: Neville


    More delusional silly nonsense from bazza. If you believe that garbage bazza you really have got problems.
    But thankfully we’re not as stupid as you are. But leave it to the Bolter to present the real factual info, line by line.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_abc_betrayed_conservative_australians_and_now_must_pay/

    Their ABC should have a new charter that states that there MUST be as many conservative staff and commentary as the present radical leftwing layabouts.
    I’ve paid tax all my life and their ABC should be changed to represent my views as well , not just the leftwing pseudo sci-fi drivel they currently spew forth.

  39. Comment from: toby


    Most Australians do not watch the ABC, some of their shows are excellent…but their political bias is blatant and those unable to see that should ask themselves how they would feel if the ABC was right wing………. their current affair and opinion shows rarely try for balance. They are crowding out the private sector and they have reached a point where many (admittedly right wing/ conservative in general…although maybe we can throw in libertarian as well!?) are incredibly angry with what they are seeing. Any fair person would have to acknowledge there should be some attempt at balance? …wouldn’t they?!

    The bbc shows of quality will apparently no longer be sold to the ABC, but will be available through on line subscription….another good reason to privatise.

    Who in their right mind could think their Chairman should be paid more than the Prime minister?!…it is after all our money they are spending…..and the other highly paid staff are being paid out of our pockets…..do they seriously provide such an important “public service” that they should be paid more than doctors, nurses, politicians etc??? And if so let them work in the private sector.

  40. Comment from: Beth Cooper


    Hi Jennifer, here’s me thread re response to Kuhn’s paradigm, criticizing the post modern
    view of science as an irrational process of paradigm overthrow versus evolution of
    theories. and , tentative, growth of knowledge. I’d argue that plodding ‘normal’
    science can’t lead to growth of knowledge it’s irrational gestalt switch overthrow
    cannot either. Incommensurable and one not more explanatory in relation to
    the one it replaces.

    I consider incommensurability has been refuted and there is corroboration
    re evolution of knowledge eg from Ptolemy>Copernicus>Kepler>Newton>
    Einstein and advances in technology arising from the evolution of theories
    indicates this. I may be wrong (
    Beth the serf.

    http://beththeserf.wordpress.com/2013/12/11/10th-edition-serf-under_ground-journal/

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] Show All