To paraphrase Mandy Rice Davies
, "They would, wouldn't they." To demonstrate to yourself that the ABC is completely biased, in particular on climate change, all you need to do is go to the ABC web site here
, get yourself a stiff drink (because believe me, you'll need it) and watch the debate that followed the screening of the film "The Great Global Warming Swindle." The audience was partisan and biased, just as alleged by Senator Eric Abetz:
Figures released by the ABC show 32% are Labor supporters, 24% support the coalition and a further 17% are in favour of The Greens.
All of which means, of course, given the Greens make Labor look positively right wing, that there was 24% for the Coalition and 49% against the Coalition. Seems pretty biased to me. The videos on the site don't show the fact that Tony Jones felt it necessary to issue a "public health warning" prior to the showing of the main film:
I am bound to say The Great Global Warming Swindle does not represent the views of the ABC.
Why on earth would he be "bound" to say that? Should a public service broadcaster have such a blatant editorial agenda? And then, before the debate had even started, he took the opportunity to discredit the film and its director. Reeks of impartiality. You can find it on YouTube if you really want to.
If that's not enough, check out the "Global Warming Links" (black mark for the ABC there, it should read "Climate Change Links" because, as any fule kno
, there ain't been no warming since 2001), all of which are parroting IPCC propaganda down to the letter."Award winning" science writer Bernie Hobbs (that's the award for Most Patronising Pile of AGW Alarmist Claptrap, 2007)
But it is Bernie Hobbs' article, entitled "The Great Warming Swindle Swindle" - oh witty title, Bernie - which is the worst piece of patronising BS. It just falls over itself in a desperate attempt to ridicule the film and its presenters. Puke Alert if you dare read it:
There's nothing like an accurate, well researched documentary to help make sense of a complex issue like global warming. It's a shame that The Great Global Warming Swindle isn't one.
The Swindle is a one-sided anti-global warming argument put together by a film maker with a name for skewing the facts, and featuring greenhouse skeptics with media profiles that far exceed their scientific publishing records.
Are you seriously suggesting An Inconvenient Truth
isn't one-sided? Or that Al Gore isn't the definitive
AGW alarmist with a "media profile that far exceeds his scientific publishing record"? It isn't difficult to exceed zero. She then insults viewers by spouting, in the most condescending fashion:
If you didn't have access to the net, or a higher degree in climatology, it'd be all too easy to swallow the straight-forward graphs and expert evidence that The Great Global Warming Swindle bases its case on.
Where's your higher degree in climatology? Nauseating and patronising. The rest of the article is filled with misrepresentations à la AIT,
quoting Goddard Institute temperatures (i.e. James Hansen - AGW crackpot), claiming the climate models reflect reality (sorry, but where did the models predict nearly a decade of cooling?) and she tops it all off with this:
Balanced? No. Accurate? No. On the right track? Not even close. What this film's really got going for it is an alarming number of variants on the scientist as balding white guy theme, and the fact that it'll make a great teaching tool in documentary-making classes.
But don't take my word for it - watch the film and then, more importantly, watch the panel discussion airing immediately after it. Only then will you be in a position to do what the film's spruikers say - make up your own mind.
Yes that's right, Bernie - watch the discussion afterwards, as that completely abandons any pretence of fairness or balance. And where in those links is any contrary view expressed? Nowhere - as would be expected from the ever impartial ABC.
With journalists like this on board, don't insult my intelligence by saying the ABC isn't biased when it comes to "climate change" - it's like every other public service broadcaster (the BBC being another good example), with the science desk staffed with Left-wing, environmental extremists.
Read it here