ABC freezes out debate

THE ABC is to be congratulated for airing the Great Global Warming Swindle, but needs a swift kick for running its phoney debate.

The experts had as much plausibility as the self-acclaimed climate expert Tim Flannery, who holds no climatology credentials, and host Tony Jones made a mockery of the notion of an independent interlocutor. There was all sizzle, no sausage. When attempts were made to question the science presented, either by members of the audience, or some on the panel, they were cut off. Anyone hoping for some insights into the most hyped scientific bandwagon since the non-existent Y2K bug would have been sorely disappointed. Jones, who might have been expected to produce something newsworthy from his interview with documentary maker Martin Durkin, could do no more than present a series of sneering adhominem attacks, as did the ABC's science show host Robyn Williams. The other Robin Williams, the professional Hollywood clown, could not have been funnier if he had been trying to be absurd. Not that there was a lack of material with which to work, far from it. Former US vice president Al Gore's original documentary had serious holes in it, but these were ignored. "Your'' ABC has a position on the climate change question, just as it does on so many other issues and it will not brook legitimate questions from those who may query that view. Those viewers not already polarised by the debate might have liked a real scientist to explain why Argentines were last week shivering as Buenos Aires endured its first major snowfall since 1918. The snow followed a cold snap two months ago, which brought sub-freezing temperatures to the capital, causing the deaths of 23 through exposure and bringing on an energy crisis. It was no more an extreme weather event brought on by global warming than was Hurricane Katrina, though some over-heated enthusiasts, such as Flannery, tried to blame the killer hurricane on human contributions to carbon dioxide levels. Nor were the below-average temperatures experienced in Sydney over the last weeks put into any sort of perspective. The global pessimists seize on any temperature variation that suits their argument, but reject any that might expose their claims. They are in the business of fear - from six-metre sea-level rises to the end of the Great Barrier Reef. The problem is the constant discovery of new theories that dispute the claims made by the scaremongers. One such unhelpful note was sounded by researchers from the Australian Institute of Marine Science in Townsville, who have found that the threat to the Great Barrier Reef's corals may have been exaggerated. As this column noted previously, the biggest cause of coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef in recent times was a deluge of fresh water, which inundated a reef during a period of low tide. Now the researchers say they have found that many of the corals contain microscopic algae that protect them from temperature fluctuations. This will disappoint those, including Nicholas Stern, the author of the eponymous apocalyptic report, who have been using the sure demise of the reef as an emotional lever. What we do know is that the Earth has been hotter and colder that it is today, without any man-made carbon dioxide emissions contributing to the equation, and despite Jones' and Williams' attempts to deny it, there has been correlation between sunspot activity and the global temperature. It is also claimed by some scientists that Earth may actually be entering a period of global cooling, not warming, right now. We just don't know enough about the science to make that determination right now. Rational minds would encourage further research, but the irrational have already made their minds up and are determined to close down debate. This is not science, it is schlock journalism and the ABC should be ashamed of its role in promoting such pseudo-scientific discourse in prime time. It is equally disappointing, though not unexpected, that the Australian Greens and the ALP are equally close-minded on the issue, when there is an abundance of evidence available to support a vast range of theories.