Complaint to ACMA (Complaint 3), original Email

From: BobFJ

Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 9:42 AM

To: broadcasting@acma.gov.au

Cc: ABC Corporate_Affairs10 ; Angela Peters

Subject: ABC Radio National “Science Show” complaint

 

I made a complaint to A&CA about five errors or misrepresentations in a single show.  However, despite many related Email exchanges, (see below), they failed to give a ruling within 60 days, whilst apologising for an oversight on their part.  I then asked for an apology to be broadcast, citing the reasons to the Chairman, and in turn he referred it back to A&CA.  However, for a second time, there is no satisfactory response after 60 days.

 

The original complaint (referred to as No.3) is contained in the attached MS Word file, where the five claims are shown to be false according to known facts and highly authoritative data.   A&CA advised referral to the Science Unit for comment on two separate occasions, but an oversight was the only explanation given.  A transcript  and audio of the original problem broadcast is here, and I’ve been unable to find any balancing programme, on any ABC network.

 

I thus complain to you that sections 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4 of the Code of Practice, have been violated.  (prior to the Code revision of 13/April).

 

Related Email correspondence follows, showing for instance that the presenter, a long experienced science journalist, definitely knew that the first claim was misleading, whilst the other four could not survive the most elementary investigative check.  (and it seems most unlikely that he didn’t know the latter were suspect).  I’m also advised that the show is pre-recorded with capability for editing before going to air.

 

Yours sincerely,

Bob Fernley-Jones,  (engineer retired)

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: BobFJ

Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 10:23 AM

To: ABC Corporate_Affairs10

Subject: ABC (part 2…. Re Mr Newman)

 

Dear Ms Mcliesh,

                            Thank you again for your Email of 2/March.  This second response is a separate thread relating to Mr Newman’ referral to you together with the related complaint No.3.  To aid in clarity, the appended correspondence relates substantively to only this thread.  I’ve also added some Emails involving Mr Newman that you did not append below yours.

The reason I referred it to Mr Newman and not to your complaints unit, was that I was not making a complaint, but asking for an apology for some errors that had not been denied.  I explained to Mr Newman that Editorial Policy clause 4.3.1 applied but I could not find advice as to how to instigate such.

 

Here follows the first significant extract from your Email:

 

“…In going over the correspondence we have had with you to date, it is apparent that we missed a concern that you expressed in your email of 25 October. It was only in reading your email of 25 January to the Chairman and subsequently re-reading your complaint of 25 October, that it was made clear to us that you were concerned about… [deleted text that translates to; complaint No.3]… I sincerely regret this oversight. ..”

 

However, in addition to the two Emails of 25/Oct & 25/Jan, it does not seem credible that your complaints unit also failed to comprehend the two-way significance of nine others; on 4/Nov; 10/Nov; 24/Nov; 29/Nov; 8/Dec; 12/Dec; 12/Jan; 17/Jan, & 27/Jan, that all mentioned complaint No.3 amongst multiple topics.  (i.e. Nos 1, 2, 3 & 4).  You also advised referral of complaint No.3 to the science unit for a second time on 12/Jan, to which an inference seems to be that they probably did not respond to you.  (Why?)

You have shown by far the most interest in complaint No.1, (the infamous Bob Ward interview [a]), and I think that you have used that as a stereotyped standard but with lesser interest for Nos. 2 & 4.  (although you did recognise them).

 

Your Email continued in part with:

 

“…We note the analysis you provide in response to points made during the excerpt of the press conference which was broadcast, however, as with the Bob Ward interview, I can only consider the content broadcast in the context of the accuracy requirements for topical and factual content (see section 7.4.2 of the Editorial Policies). On review, the addresses by Ian Allison and Dr Mike Raupach are considered to be their expert opinion as co-chairs of the Academy committee who produced the document. To the extent that their address includes statements and statistics to support their main thesis, Audience and Consumer Affairs is satisfied that considering the highly specialist nature of the content, the fact that the speakers are well credentialed to discuss content, and the clear attribution of the piece, we are of the view that it meets the accuracy requirements for topical and factual content…”

 

Unfortunately, you are appealing to authority, and authority does not necessarily confer accuracy [b] & [e].  Of the five broadcasted claims made by this authority, ALL were scientifically misleading and cannot pass any sort of elementary investigative journalism test [c]

I suggest that the most relevant Policy clauses that are prime here are:

 

7.4.2 Factual content requires accuracy.

(a) Every reasonable effort must be made to ensure that factual content is

accurate and in context.

7.4.4 Other viewpoints should not be misrepresented.

 

The first misrepresentation in complaint No.3 was the claim that glacial ice-core samples provide that over some past hundreds of thousands of years proxy data in entrapped gas bubbles give that carbon dioxide rose and fell in remarkable unison with temperature levels.  This indeed seems to be true, when viewing graphs wherein the time-scale is compressed from an immense geological time period onto a piece of paper.  However, in finer definition, it has been proven [d] that there is a lag in carbon dioxide of the order of 800 years behind the proxy fluctuations in temperature [d].  Thus the inference that the ice-core proxies show that rising carbon dioxide CAUSES temperature rise, is false because the data actually indicates the exact opposite [e].  Furthermore, the presenter was provenly aware [f] that the claim was seriously misleading, but made no qualifying edit.

If Robyn Williams were an impartial and investigative journalist, then he should either be already aware of the other four errors, or discover so from very elementary checking [c], (such as simply looking at the BOM rainfall records),

 

Here is the final extract from your Email:

 

“In considering whether impartiality requirements have been met in broadcasting the excerpt of this press conference, I am satisfied that they were for reasons outlined in my email of 8 November and further explained by Claire Gorman in her email to you of 13 December 2010…”

 

Putting aside that 7.4.1 is deficient in purpose for true impartiality, as per the separate thread with Mr Chadwick, this issue is different to the Bob Ward interview in that the five false scientific claims made were all alleged to be facts.  Consequently, you cannot sensibly declare them to be opinion that need not be ruled on, or make any other subjective assessments. 

Furthermore, as you have explained elsewhere, these programmes are pre-recorded, with ample time for the producer and/or presenter to add qualifying edits from other sources, or to make a substitution.

Not only did the Science Show put-to-air false information in the first place, but there has been no balancing programme broadcast.

Finally, there is an expectation that a Science Show should dispense SCIENCE that can be relied upon as factual.

 

FOOTNOTES:

 

[a]  Concerning the infamous Ward interview, see for example this review where Senator Eric Abetz’ extensively questioned in committee, the shameful treatment of Professor Bob Carter by the “Science Show”.  (the whole thing went world-wide).

 

[b]  There are plenty of examples of Authority being wrong in their pronouncements. A close comparator to the new AAS booklet, the subject of the programme, was the recent arguably opposite back-down by the UK Royal Society in their “climate guide”.  This resulted from an internal revolt, when Fellows demanded that exaggeration be removed and uncertainties be emphasised in that guide.  For instance:

“…The reworking was in response to pressure from 43 fellows who argued the society had gone too far…”

[c]  Here is a small extract from the Chairman’s address to ABC staff of 10/March/2010, wherein he sought journalism to be investigative and impartial etc:

 

“…Climate change is a further example of group-think where contrary views have not been tolerated, and where those who express them have been labelled and mocked.  In his ABC Online blog last October Chris Uhlmann wrote a piece called “In praise of the sceptics“. ‘“Climate science we are endlessly told is “settled”’ he wrote. “But to make the, perfectly reasonable, point that science is never settled risks being branded a “sceptic” or worse a “denier”…one of those words, like “racist”, which is deliberately designed to gag debate…You can be branded a denier if you accept the problem and question the solutions.”…”

 

[d]  For more information on ice-cores, see part a) in attached file (Science show complaint 3)

 

[e]  The same ice-core deception exists in the Al Gore Oscar-winning movie; “An Inconvenient Truth”.  His ice-core wall chart presentation was one of at least nine serious “errors” identified by Justice Burton in the British High Court.  The ruling included that it was not permitted to show it in British schools without corrective material alongside, thus effectively banning it.  (despite that it helped Gore win the ultimate authority of a Nobel prize!).  Here is a BBC view on it, and here an ABC USA view

 

[f]  Robyn Williams was absolutely aware of the ice-core deception as seen for instance from his interview with Andrew Bolt.  It is a bit heavy going, but scroll down to Andrew Bolt’s first entry which is actually a separate interview to that of Severinghaus, which BTW was blind to Bolt.

And, for instance, from the following, it is obvious that Williams is well read and would be unavoidably aware of the carbon dioxide lag issue:

Robyn Williams: But what I’d like to ask you [Bolt] in a more personal way is where do you get your evidence? As you said, you’re not a climatologist. I read about 25 journals a week and I go half blind doing so…


Related Emails from 2/March back involving Mr Newman‘s referral to you:

 

From: ABC Corporate_Affairs10 [Kirstin McLiesh]

Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 2:54 PM

To: ‘bobfjones@optusnet.com.au’

Subject: ABC

 

Dear Mr Fernley Jones

 

Thank you for your further emails to the Chairman of the ABC Board Mr Maurice Newman and to the Director of Editorial Policies Paul Chadwick. 

 

[deleted unrelated material]

 

Mr Newman  has also noted your correspondence and has referred it to me for consideration and response.  The ABC has a formal complaints mechanism  and your concerns must be examined within this mechanism.

 

In going over the correspondence we have had with you to date, it is apparent that we missed a concern that you expressed in your email of 25 October.  It was only in reading your  email of 25 January to the Chairman and subsequently re-reading your complaint of 25 October, that it was made clear to us that you were concerned about the Science Show story on the launch of the Australian Academy of Science’s climate document The Science of Climate Change: Questions and Answers”.  I sincerely regret this oversight. On review of the segment of the program which caused you concern, we note that it was an extract from a press conference in which Ian Allison and Dr Mike Raupach, the co-chairs of  the committee of scientists who produced the document, were launching it to the press. 

 

We note the analysis  you provide in response to points made during the excerpt of the press conference which was broadcast, however, as with the Bob Ward interview , I can only consider the content broadcast in the context of the accuracy requirements for topical and factual content (see section 7.4.2 of the Editorial Policies). On review, the addresses by Ian Allison and Dr Mike Raupach are considered to be their expert  opinion as co-chairs of the Academy committee who produced the document.  To the extent that their address includes statements and statistics to support their main thesis, Audience and Consumer Affairs is satisfied that considering the highly specialist nature of the content, the fact that the speakers are well credentialed to discuss content, and the clear attribution of the piece,   we are of the view that it meets the accuracy requirements for topical and factual content. 

 

In considering whether impartiality requirements have been met in broadcasting the excerpt of this press conference, I am satisfied that they were for reasons outlined in my email of 8 November and further explained by Claire Gorman in her email to you of 13 December 2010.   [deleted sign-offs]


 

From: BobFJ

Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 3:55 PM

To: Angela Peters

Subject: Biased and misleading journalism on Radio National’s “The Science Show”

 

Hi Angela: For the Chairman of the Board:

Dear Mr Newman,

Further to my subject Emails of 25/Jan & 15/Feb, I’m disappointed that I do not appear to have received any indication of interest after 5 weeks.

Meanwhile, please be advised that I’ve been developing a website, in order to draft-up various articles that can have potential for dissemination around the web, the media, and whatnot. The following, on hold, should be of particular interest to you because it refers to the subject issue. It may also present my case more succinctly than in my earlier emails. (asking for an apologies for five errors, per Policies and Procedures 4.3.1, together with a few other clauses)

Click here.

Other draft articles headlined at HOME, relate to three other complaints that I show have been unfairly handled by A&CA, and for which the statistics for the several appeals processes I’ve seen indicate that there is no value in proceeding further, either internally or with ACMA.

Yours sincerely,

Bob Fernley-Jones.


 

From: BobFJ

Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 7:10 PM

To: Angela Peters

Subject: Biased and misleading journalism on Radio National’s “The Science Show”

 

For the Chairman of the Board.

Dear Mr Newman,

It will be three weeks today since I sent an Email, asking for an apology concerning serious “errors” in each of the five claims made in a single “Science Show” programme. Your secretary Angela quickly replied that she would pass it on to you. It concerned my third complaint that I made to A&CA on 25/Oct/2010, entitled:

{3} The science of climate change. From “The Science Show of 21, August, 2010

“The Australian Academy of Science [AAS] has produced a booklet summarising our understanding of climate science…” [BTW; note maybe a tad trivially that…. however it is pervasively typical of the ingrained attitude of Robyn Williams; the use of the “Royal We“….. it should in fairness read; THEIR, not OUR from any truly unbiased/ investigative journalist!]

There has been no substantial response by A&CA to my complaint {3}, which is well beyond the statutory period of 60-days for any ruling, and that is why I suggested to you that an apology was in order.

Whilst it seems possible that you and other ABC staff MIGHT have your own firm opinions on climate change being caused by humans, in your address to ABC staff on 10, March, 2010, you nevertheless called for a more honest approach to journalism, and even mentioned the word investigative. You did not exclude the complex topic of climate change in that consideration, and, despite the contrary MSM emphasis, there are in fact many sound sources of scepticism about the popular catastrophic version of warming, which the flagship “The Science Show“ totally refuses to entertain.

I’m wondering if your seeming pause on my complaint {3} might be with the question:

How can Robyn Williams know that the five claims by the AAS that he broadcast were misleading?

Well, Williams has claimed that he is very well read on the science, including his indelible statement in an interview:

“I read about 25 journals a week and I go half blind doing so”.

And, for instance, concerning the highly misleading statement in part a) in{3}, (and also Al Gore‘s famous Oscar-winning-movie), the fact that ice-core proxy CO2 lags the ice-core proxy temperatures by some centuries, is overwhelmingly contradictory in the literature to the hypothesis of CO2 being the driver of climate change. Furthermore, Williams had a prior exchange with Andrew Bolt, where this was discussed, and Williams simply evaded admitting to the multiply well established scientific data.

It goes on; Me, a mere professional engineer, when comprehending Dorothea Mackellar’s famous poem about floods and droughts, particularly in a verse describing how the cattle die, back in 1904, made me wonder if there was anything new in recent droughts. So, I did what an investigative journalist should do and found that severe droughts are nothing new, (for instance as strongly evident in our BOM’s rainfall records), way before CO2 could have been an issue.

Will that do for now?

I have a lot more on the gross bias of the so-called “Science Show”, should you be interested?

But finally, are you interested in what I say…. An engineer (applied scientist)…. Feeling abhorrent towards certain bad academic science!

Please study the attached file.

Yours sincerely,

Bob Fernley-Jones


 

From: BobFJ

Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 3:54 PM

To: Angela Peters

Subject: Re: Biased and misleading journalism on Radio National’s “The Science Show”

 

Hi Angela,

Thank you for your reply below, and I’m hoping that you can help me with two things;

1) It will be two weeks today since my Email for Mr Newman, also below. Are you able to advise if he has initiated enquiries into it, or whatever?

2) I have also been in correspondence with the Director of Editorial Policies, Paul Chadwick, concerning interpretation issues in Policies and the Code of Practice. His earlier responses were encouraging and surprisingly rapid. However, in contrast, it is over a week since my last Email to him entitled: Problems with the ABC’s Editorial Policies.

Would it be too much to ask if you could establish if he has been out of town, or if the Email went astray? (Copy below)

However, I also Emailed him on 2 & 7/Feb some substantial related concerns entitled: Some examples of gross non-impartiality. (Part 1 and Part 2), for which the policies as currently worded do not inhibit such going to air.

So, maybe these later Emails did not help with his workload, and perhaps I’m being unfair to hope for a rapid response just like as before? I understand if your discretion suggests leaving this for while.

Sincerely, and do have a nice day,

Bob Fernley-Jones


 

From: Angela Peters

Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 5:41 PM

To: ‘BobFJ’

Subject: RE: Biased and misleading journalism on Radio National’s “The Science Show”

 

Thank you Mr Fernley-Jones. I’ll pass on to Mr Newman.

Kind regards

Angela


 

From: BobFJ

Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 5:39 PM

To: Angela Peters

Subject: Fw: Biased and misleading journalism on Radio National’s “The Science Show”

 

[deleted irrelevant intro]

For the Chairman of the Board:

Dear Mr Newman,

I have made four separate subject complaints to “Audience and Consumer Affairs” (A & CA), of which three have been ruled invalid. I find those rulings to be unacceptable, and will pursue them through other channels, but this is just background, and meanwhile:

My sole purpose here is to discuss one other complaint, that I laid on 25/Oct/2010. Since then, the statutory period of 60 days for a ruling has been truly exceeded, despite timely confirmation of complaint receipt. There have also been peripheral exchanges on it, including my Email to you, (cc A & CA), of 4 November. That Email placed on record, as a consequence of A & CA commenting that they could not give any scientific analysis, that I was NOT seeking anything such from them, but recognition that the programme gave incomplete/ misrepresented/ biased facts.

A copy of that complaint is in the attached MS Word file.

Given that there has been no ruling from A & CA, it seems that they have been unable to challenge it, even after reportedly referring it to “The Science Unit“.

Thus, what I would like to see are apologies for five errors, to be placed on The Science Show, in line with Editorial Policies:

4.3.1 The ABC seeks to avoid errors. However, the ABC will not hesitate to admit and correct a significant error when it is established that one has been made. When a correction is necessary, it will be made in an appropriate manner as soon as reasonably practicable. [See also 7.4.2.b]

I am asking you, because I don’t see any procedure for doing this in Editorial Policies.

In the light of your address to ABC staff on 10/March/2010, I think that you may be shocked by what has (NOT) been happening since. What I have touched on herein is but the tip of the iceberg, but I would be happy to supply much more detail, on this and other matters, if you ask.

For starters, you might be embarrassed by what has gone “virally” around the world blogosphere concerning your ABC. (I am)

Yours sincerely,

Bob Fernley-Jones (professional engineer, retired, Melbourne)


 

Emails not involving Mr Newman’s referral but with reference to complaint No.3 follow:

 

From: BobFJ

Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 6:38 PM   [additionally sent accidentally @ 6:54 PM]

To: ABC Corporate_Affairs10

Subject: Re: Complaints…..The Science Show

 

Dear Ms Gorman,

Thankyou for your latest Email.

I do not agree with your semantics and selective interpretations of the Editorial Policies, but clearly your minds are made up, and I will have no further correspondence with you on it. That includes my complaint [3] of 25/Oct/2010 on which you have not made a substantial comment or ruling within the required statutory period of 60-days.

[Deleted unrelated matters]


 

From: BobFJ

Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 12:39 PM

To: ABC Corporate_Affairs10

Cc: Bob Carter

Subject: Re: The Science Show

 

Dear Ms Gorman,

You have indirectly confirmed that you have seen the following Email which I reproduce between the xxxxx lines below.  [Deleted to avoid repetition…. It concerned complaint No.3.]


 

From: ABC Corporate_Affairs10

Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 3:57 PM

To: ‘bobfjones@optusnet.com.au’

Subject: The Science Show

 

Dear Mr Fernley-Jones

[deleted unrelated material]

We would like to clarify that it is a statutory requirement that the ABC responds to complaints of any breaches of our Code of Practice within 60 days of receipt of them. We have done this in the case of our correspondence to you.

Thank you for the submission of your word document*.  It has been passed onto the Radio National Science Show team.

 

*[This document opened with:  Here, resubmitted, in MS Word 2007 format, is my third of four complaints of bad journalism/ bias in recent radio “Science Shows”.  Three minor updates at 14/12 are in shown in red.   (See covering Email)

{3} The science of climate change.   From “The Science Show of 21, August, 2010]


 

From: BobFJ [mailto:bobfjones@optusnet.com.au]

Sent: Tuesday, 14 December 2010 7:15 PM

To: ABC Corporate_Affairs10

Subject: My complaints on “Science Show” bad journalism

 

Dear Ms. Gorman,

Reur 13/12/10 to me, I observe your interpretations with some surprise, and I take it that as far as you are concerned, my complaints numbered {1}, {2}, & maybe {4}, are closed, just a little short of the statutory period of 60 days.

Please confirm, yes or no.

 

[deleted unrelated material]

 

I also noticed that your latest Email copy return of my complaint No. 3, appears to be different again in format, and I’ve since realised that my original draft in MS Works can be easily converted to Word 2007 format. Thus, I’ve attached it here to avoid any such problems with formatting. I’ve also updated it for the passage of time, particularly in one of the graphs.

PLEASE USE THIS UPDATED ATTACHED FILE.


 

From: BobFJ

Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 5:37 PM

To: ABC Corporate_Affairs10 (Kirstin McLiesh)

Subject: Science Show….. Complaints

 

[deleted unrelated material]

Please refer Policies and Procedures below; (my underlining added):

[Sections 3 & 6 removed]

7.4.2 Factual content requires accuracy. (a) Every reasonable effort must be made to ensure that factual content is accurate and in context.

7.4.4 Other viewpoints should not be misrepresented.

 

When it comes to misrepresentation, see particularly my complaint No. {3}


 

From: ABC Corporate_Affairs10

Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 2:59 PM

To: ‘bobfjones@optusnet.com.au’

Subject: The Science Show

 

[Deleted unrelated matters]

With regard to your question about the Complaint No 3, the graphics in this email did all come through. There is no need for you to resend it in another format.


 

From: BobFJ

Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 4:25 PM

To: ABC corporate affairs

Subject: Fw: The Science Show Complaints

 

Dear Kirstin McLiesh,

It is now gone two weeks since I sent the following Email, and I’ve not received any Daemon or the like to suggest a failed message.

Would you please at least respond to question 1) promptly, since it does not require you to refer it to some other authority?

[this refers to 10/Nov below, re complaint No.3]


 

From: BobFJ

Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 3:43 PM

To: ABC Corporate_Affairs10

Cc: Bob Carter

Subject: Re: The Science Show Complaints

 

Dear Kirstin

Thank you for your detailed reply to my first two of three complaints. I have some initial quick questions and comments:

1) I see that in your return copy of my Complaint No. 3, that the images are no longer within the text, and that I could not open the files listed as attachments. Is this how you received it? If so, that damages its cogency, and I should resend it as perhaps a PDF or MS Office file. Please advise. (I use Windows 7, & Windows Live Mail)

[Deleted unrelated material]


 

From: BobFJ

Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 12:35 PM

To: Peters.Angela@abc.net.au ; ABC corporate affairs

Subject: Complaints; The Science Show

 

Dear Angela, for attention of the Chairman,

For the record, I would like to say that whilst I received a courteous response from Kirstin McLiesh to two complaints that I made on “The Science Show”, there was a comment that I find disturbing; that I extract below:

“… and I would like to assure you that you will receive a response to the editorial issues you raise in the very near future. I should point out that it is not our role to adjudicate in any debate on scientific evidence for and against AGW. However, we are happy to forward any information on to Radio National‘s Science Unit for their consideration.”

This related to a draft of a third complaint, where beforehand I had enquired if the ”complaints unit” had the resources to understand some serious scientific contradictions that were NOT mentioned in that Science Show topic.

My concerns are:

1) I am NOT asking for adjudicat[ion] in any debate on scientific evidence for and against AGW…” The issue is that there is a great deal of credible scientific evidence that argues that although CO2 is without question a warming greenhouse gas, its net effect is minor, (e.g. feedbacks), and it should not be asserted that it IS catastrophic. I should add that it is not just the ABC or other media that generally does not mention the contrary evidence, but also many climate scientists. For example, the IPCC in their fourth assessment report of 2007, reported extensively on “unprecedented” melting of the Greenland ice sheet in recent times, but not a word on the well reported facts that temperature records show it to have been warmer or similar there in the 1930’s and 1940’s, before it could be blamed on CO2. Thus it is easy for journalists and politicians to follow “the authorities’, but I plead that ABC journalism be investigative and show more balance. (and that includes certain TV individuals in “Catalyst” etc.)

2) Will the “Science Unit” give a balanced response, by accepting that there is unreported contrary evidence?

3) Will the ABC be following the reported policy improvements by the BBC in this area?

4) My third complaint, wherein for example, even our own institutional data, and photographs etc dispute the claim of unprecedented drought in Australia, is repeated below the line. {DELETED here}

Sincerely,

Bob Fernley-Jones. (retired professional engineer, Melbourne. Ph. {03} 9439 1329…. M; 0458 623 118 )


 

From: BobFJ

Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 11:43 AM

To: ABC corporate affairs

Subject: My Complaint No. 3; The Science Show

 

Here is my third of three complaints of bad journalism/ bias in recent radio “Science Shows””.

{3} The science of climate change. From “The Science Show” of 21, August, 2010

The Australian Academy of Science has produced a booklet summarising our [= their?] understanding of climate science.

[See later MS Word version Re 12/Jan]

 

 

Advertisements

About Bob Fernley-Jones

I'm a retired mechanical engineer, and I guess that because in my science, any bad assumptions can get people killed, I have an abhorrence of many things that are perpetrated by academics in some areas of science. In the case of so-called climate science, the culture and bias in some media is also repugnant to me. I'm hoping that the ABC will improve its self regulating policies and culture to eliminate bias, and this website is under development towards that end. (if necessary).

No comments yet... Be the first to leave a reply!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: