The ABC television program Four Corners promotes itself as "investigative TV journalism at its best". It certainly has a reputation, and an ability to get its programs talked about even before they have been shown.
I have already received several emails and a phone call about tonight's program which is titled The Greenhouse Mafia and by Janine Cohen.
I usually play tennis on a Monday night, but I will have to see if I can get out of this commitment so I can watch the program.
The preamble at the Four Corners website suggests a conspiracy is about to be uncovered, with comment including:
"Are Australians getting the whole truth on global warming?
Not according to evidence given to Four Corners, which returns with disturbing allegations about the power wielded by industry lobbyists, the self-proclaimed greenhouse "mafia".
A whistleblower steps forward with claims that industry representatives have burrowed deep inside the federal bureaucracy in a successful bid to hijack greenhouse policy.
"Their influence over greenhouse policy in Australia is extraordinary", he observes."
Science in Australia has certainly become very politicised.
In my experience it is usually the 'environment industry' pulling the strings; click here for something of a review by Prof Bob Carter.
I received the following note from a government scientists recently on an issue unrelated to greenhouse:
"Most would not understand how much control over scientists there is.
When ...[information deleted so scientists can not be identified]... they were "directed" from on high in overall scope. Comments at press conferences are rehearsed. Between the Minister's Office and the operational senior scientist ... [chain of command]... then to Deputy Director General, across to a policy group, then Public Affairs (press and spin), then the Minister's minders, then the Minister and maybe Premier. If its hot maybe through [another Department mentioned here] and Premiers. Perhaps shot at by [another government department] in counter move by them. Briefs and public statements are written and rewritten. Some might argue it's about responsibility and quality control - but it often becomes sinister."
There is a real need for much more openness. Government scientists must be free to put the evidence and argue their case. Policy on environmental issues should be informed by the best science.
But I am wary of tonight's program.
I do hope it is not just another industry bashing exercise. Their journalist Ticky Fullerton got it wrong on the Murray River and certainly botched the program on Tasmanian forestry; click here for my blog on 'the forestry job' and this article by Christian Kerr from Crikey on Four Corners titled the ABC's Paralysis on Bias is a good read.
5d560a6b40e6 Can you write more about this
Steve Munn
You have completely misunderstood the statement.
The issue was not number of vinyards but geographical location of vinyards.
The majority of UK vinyards are in the warmer lowlands such as Sussex, Wilshire, Pembrokeshire etc, well below the elevation of the MWP vinyards.
The reason is because it is too cool in the uplands for vines to grow there today today. One does not grow wines on the Matterhorn, for example.
I never said there were more or less, just commenting on the geographical distribution.
Oh and the source I obtained the data is The Little Ice Age by Brian Fagan, P.16-18. 2000, Published by Basic Books. As well as Encarta 2005.
It might help discussion here if a keener understanding of geography was developed by our alarming climatophobists.
Louis says:
"And the MWP was only a localised thing - sure was, the English obviously are not too interested in having vineyards. Did you know that commerial vineyards flourished as far north as Hereford and the Welsh borders? 300 to 500 Km further north than what they are now."
The so-called MWP is a major source of myths for AGW denialists.
Today there are more vinyards in Britian given than ever before.
BTW Jennifer , we Brisbanites aren't "behind". The southerners are way ahead of themselves.
Glad I didn't watch it but Hey - Media Watch was a very different programme!
DaveyG; Remember Rock Island Bend? Hope no one recalls this but it takes some practice to get it right like they all can today. Of course it works both ways.
A few years before I got young Kevin K from the Sun interested enough, then his editor commissioned a big story. The lads there chartered a twin engine plane and flew a long way south. But the weather had closed in over the target, a freshly flooded glacial valley and its fleeing wildlife.
What did they do? They went to the Melbourne zoo! Next day we had a three page spread including a front page photo. There was this poor wet possum dipping its paw in the water and tears flowed all over till the hydro legal people checked their flight path and demanded immediate compensation from all concerned. Poor K.K.
But guess who got a series of big spreads free.
I should add that I find the geometric patterns and calligraphy of Muslim art very attractive - more so than Muslim bums. Perhaps ABC and SBS could show a selection of such art whenever they mention Islam?
Thanks Steve,
Glad to know that most people see through the silly pictures. It seems, however, that the ABC thinks we don't, otherwise why would they persist? Is that organisation turning into the Ministry for Truth? SBS is even worse - any mention of Islam (three times in one recent bulletin) requires the obligatory view of a minaret, and then Muslim bottoms raised in prayer. I must have seen a million raised Muslim bottoms in the last year or so. I am beginning to know how a colo-rectal specialist feels, and I don't want to see any more.
I am with you on the images Taz - let's not diverge. Picture thinking is wonderful, as long as the images are not repeated ad nauseam, and with the blatant object of molding thought. Remember Leni Riefenstahl's film of the Nuremburg Rallies?
Phil,
I always make sure I have a representative bit of ordnance to fire at silly people, but I see you see a forest but have no clue seeing which trees are what and what trees are which.
You need to get into the detail, which means actually understanding what the forest is comprised off.
I watched Attenborough the other night, "Life in the Undergrowth", the world of the invertebrates, spineless creatures which inhabit the floor of the forest. The seem to need a nice warm moist environment to flourish but pity they want to destroy their environment by causing the earth to stop warming to the good ole Medieval times when they used to vines.
Goodness in England they used to grow crops on the marginal soils , 350 m ASL on the hills of Dartmoor in SW ENgland, on the Pennine Moors in the NE, and goodness me, today they can't any more.
SO even England, the home of global warming is still in the grips of the LIA.
And the Scots, Kelso Abbey in southern Scotland had over 100 ha under cultivation, 1m,400 sheep and 16 shephard's households, all above 300m ASL, well above today's limits.
But the invertebrates of the undergrowth would not have known then or now, would they Phil, because they too only kept to their flat little earth under the leaves.
And the MWP was only a localised thing - sure was, the English obviously are not too interested in having vineyards. Did you know that commerial vineyards flourished as far north as Hereford and the Welsh borders? 300 to 500 Km further north than what they are now.
Brrr bloody cold in teh old Dart, What?