How the ABC does it

 Alberici shows fearlessness and fights for the truth with discredited warminist

Surely a Walkely award should be rewarded to Emma Alberici for her sharp, analytical and challenging questioning of Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann in an interview on Lateline this week. It should be recalled that Mann has been thoroughly and completely discredited for his hockey stick graph, a complex story that has been covered in detail in many places. The idea that Alberici may have even read or knows about these other points of view is open to question.

One can only dream of such questioning of Ian Plimer or Bob Carter on the subject of their writing on the same topic. Maybe it was this style of  biased Dorothy Dixer type questioning that inspired the government to get Ray Finkelstein to enquire into the Australian media.

EMMA ALBERICI, PRESENTER: The Climate Commission’s latest report says global average temperatures have continued to rise over the last decade. It’s all part of the research that started more than 20 years ago in the United States. The lead climate scientist in much of that work was Michael Mann. Mann says he’s the central object of attack in what some have characterised as the best funded, most carefully orchestrated assault on science the world has known.

EMMA ALBERICI: Much of the modern debate around climate change can be traced back to your 1998 graph, what was known as “the hockey stick”. Now, that was made famous in Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth. It showed temperatures dating back 1,000 years. In your book you concede that thermometer readings don’t reach much further back in time than a century, so how reliable is this graph as a measure of climate trends?

EMMA ALBERICI: Back in 1998 a television interviewer asked you if your research proved that humans were responsible for global warming. Your answer was that it was highly suggestive of that conclusion, but you wouldn’t go further than that back then. At what point were you finally convinced that that link did exist?

EMMA ALBERICI: Your critics refer to what’s known as the medieval warming period of around 1,000 years ago when there were no coal-fired power stations, no motor vehicles and other modern phenomena that could explain the temperature rises as you suggest, and yet the planet was going through an extended heat spell between that period of 11th and 14th centuries. How do you explain that?

EMMA ALBERICI: Now you’ve just published a book called The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars and I have to say it’s a book that reads much more like a thriller than a scientific textbook. You’ve had death threats and charges that you misappropriated funds. On one occasion you went to work and were greeted by the FBI. Tell us what happened there.

EMMA ALBERICI: Who are these vested interest groups?

EMMA ALBERICI: Now recount for us the events on that most pivotal day in November, 2009.

EMMA ALBERICI: Can I just pick you up on that because of course it became known, as we know, as “Climate-gate” and it’s been picked over extensively. Much has turned on the word “trick” – Mike’s nature trick, which we assume you were the Mike that’s being referred to in that particular email from the University of East Anglia in the UK. In anyone’s language, trick implies some kind of deception.

EMMA ALBERICI: If I can just pick you up in that same passage where “Mike’s nature trick” was used, there was also the unfortunate term “hide the decline”, which many people have assumed meant hide the decline in temperatures when you were trying to advance a thesis that temperatures were rising.

EMMA ALBERICI: Now given your research shows a recent increase of almost one degree Celsius across the globe, a rise unprecedented, as you say, during at least the last thousand years, what do you think are the implications of your research for Australia in particular of doing nothing to stop carbon emissions that are linked to those rising temperatures?

EMMA ALBERICI: Michael Mann, thank you very much for your time this evening.

5 Responses to “How the ABC does it”

  1. FatherJon Says:

    There’s absoutely nothing convincing about this guy at all! Every response is hedging.
    I’ve never heard of any threats to climate scientists in Australia, sounds like a fantasy, along with his bag of white powder which was probably his wife’s laundry detergent.
    ‘Hide the decline’ he says? More like ‘hide the sausage’.


  2. sfw Says:

    I just don’t understand why (I assume) intelligent people accept the AGW without question. The skeptic world is split along these lines. There is a large skeptical movement, check out ‘The Skeptics Guide to the Universe’ it’s a great podcast but the entire crew is captured by AGW. They discussed Peter Gleicks lapse of ethics last week. They came to the conclusion the end justifies the means. When people who rightly attack false science in the form of homeopathy etc won’t look critically at AGW, even after Climategate etc then the world is in trouble. As for Australian journalists, I don’t know how they get their jobs, I really don’t. They appear to have a total lack of interest in what happens. I’m still waiting for the press to investigate the Australia Day riot. It seems to be a matter of ‘Nothing to see here please move on’.

    There is no need for Finkelstein, the press is doing it themselves.

  3. Bruce Says:

    @sfw I similarly don’t don’t understand why people with no scientific background, accreditation, or any peer-reviewed contribution to the field feel they know much more than those who dedicate their entire careers to the further understanding of our planet and human longevity. I suppose you also feel you would deal out better sentences than judges, apply more appropriate grades than teachers, and deliver more accurate diagnoses than doctors. Take your head out of the sand! Please develop a sound argument then return to the table. Climate change is real and until you can provide us with the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that it is not, you should consider your current position.

    NB: Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones, Ray Hadley, Steve Price, Miranda Devine, Andrew McIntyre, Greg Sheridan, et al. do not qualify as scientists, nor can they provide (or have they ever provided) us with any scientifically sound reason why 7 billion+ people aren’t severely hampering the survival of our planet.

  4. Andrew McIntyre Says:

    You raise a very interesting problem that goes to the heart of your comments.
    You say we have not provided any sound reason why global warming is not true.
    The problem is precisely here.
    You Bruce, have not proved why it is true.
    Talking on another topic, it was Christopher Hitchens who said, “What can be asserted without prove, can be dismissed without proof”.
    The fundamental problem is that all these experts assert the truth of global warming without proof. If indeed they had proof, they should be able to demonstrate it.
    It is not for sceptics to prove anything.
    Surely the almost daily revelation of the lies, distortions, recognised errors of the warmists predictions is enough to dismiss them.
    I am surprised that this alone does not make you suspicious.

  5. FatherJon Says:

    FatherJon Says:
    March 18, 2012 at 16:35 | Reply
    Very few of the prominent ‘climatologists’ have the requisite credentials to support their theories. Professor Ian Chubb is a neuro-scientist; Ross Garnaut is an economist; the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IGPCC) Rajendra Pachauri is a railway engineer and economist; and Lord Stern, one of the UKs major climate doomsayers is also an economist. Al Gore, as we all know, is just a sensationalist media commentator.

    The President of the World Federation of Scientists, Antonino Zichichi, said “Models used by the IGPCC are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view”

    Sadly trillions of dollars will be wasted chasing the bogeyman of andropogenic climate change when the money could have been used solving REAL problems around the globe.

    It’s become a form of faith-based quasi-religion amongst its supporters.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: