Climate debate no place for hotheads

THIS newspaper supports global action on climate change based on the science.

FOR some time The Australian newspaper's editorial position on climate change has been at the centre of a culture wars campaign in which a misrepresentation of where the paper stands has been repeated so often and with such conviction that it has become accepted by some people as fact.

Ruffled feathers and threats of defamation over a Twitter report by academic Julie Posetti are the latest expression. Posetti was attending, and reporting via Twitter, a supposedly one-sided panel discussion on climate change at a conference of journalism lecturers at the University of Technology, Sydney.

Posetti has been sent a lawyer's letter inviting her to retract and apologise for publishing defamatory remarks following off-the-cuff comments at the conference by a former employee of The Australian, Asa Wahlquist.

Wahlquist has since admitted she had not discussed the issue of climate change, or any other issue, with The Australian's editor-in-chief, Chris Mitchell, for some years.

Posetti has been invited to visit The Australian's offices to get first-hand experience of the industry she has been tweeting about.

The issue has become something of a social media cause celebre, although it has barely raised a ripple in the mainstream media. Ironically, those who invoke the ideals of diversity to defend Posetti's right to tweet what she likes are often the same people who disparage The Australian for publishing views on climate change with which they disagree.

For some, the issue with Posetti has become a test case for new media and whether the stream-of-consciousness style of Twitter should be exempt from libel laws.

Away from threats of legal action, the issue has a lot to do with a longstanding misrepresentation of this newspaper's editorial position on climate science and its longstanding support for a global response to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

The charge against The Australian is summed up by Clive Hamilton, who has accused the newspaper under the leadership of Mitchell of "running a virulently anti-greenhouse line, allowing the news pages to become a parody of dispassionate journalism, verballing scientists and attacking science in pursuit of a larger ideological battle".

In Hamilton's world view, The Australian is feeling increasingly isolated by its stance on climate change and continues to publish defamatory articles about climate scientists and attacks on all forms of renewable energy while working hard to publish voices from what it sees as the other side to give itself cover.

Hamilton made his mind up about The Australian a long time ago and was himself the subject

of defamation threats over his writings about the newspaper's climate change coverage in his 2007 book, Scorcher, which Mitchell now says he would have been wise to pursue.

"I now regret not suing Clive Hamilton over Scorcher and various other writers who have completely misrepresented my position and, much more importantly, that of the paper," Mitchell says.

"In essence we have allowed misleading polemics to frame the debate about our views and assumed smart people will see our real position simply by reading our paper. That apparently has not been enough for some on the extreme Left of the debate."

Hamilton based his charge against The Australian in Scorcher on an examination by the Australia Institute think thank, which he once ran, of opinion pieces and editorials published in the paper in the first three months of 2006.

The political orientation of opinion pieces and editorials were assessed against three criteria: whether they were for or against the Howard government's position on climate change; whether they were for or against the Kyoto Protocol; and whether they were for or against the consensus view of climate science.

According to the Australia Institute's analysis during the three-month period, The Australian published opinion pieces or editorials as follows: nine for the government's position and one against; 10 against Kyoto and one for; and 10 against the consensus view of the science and six for (including one by prime minister John Howard).

Under Hamilton's analysis it was not possible both to accept the science on climate change and support the Howard government's position, even though that government accepted the science and established the framework for an emissions trading scheme.

Neither was it possible to believe a climate change response was necessary without supporting the Kyoto Protocol even though Australia had met its Kyoto targets - and the subsequent signing of it has not enabled either a national or international abatement scheme.

On support for the science, Hamilton said evaluation was not as clear as the first two criteria because "some authors say they accept the science but treat it with scepticism or claim that it is exaggerated. I think you will agree that the political effect of claiming that the science is exaggerated is to work against action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."

Hamilton was provided with a larger sample of editorials and opinion pieces before publication but said his decision had already been made. The samples included two articles from Greens leader Bob Brown and others from anti-nuclear activist Helen Caldicott, British Labour environment minister David Miliband, federal Labor's then environment spokesman Anthony Albanese and former Clinton environment adviser and Climate Institute board member Cathy Zoi, who wrote on why the then PM should consider carbon pricing.

Hamilton's own contribution was published January 12, 2006, arguing that the Asia-Pacific Partnership meeting in Sydney was no substitute for Kyoto. He has since been published in The Australian on several occasions and has a standing invitation to submit further contributions.

The broader conclusion that Hamilton drew from his analysis of the editorial position of the newspaper during a three-month period is not supported by a longer-term view.

There is no dispute that The Australian has opened its news and opinion pages to a wide range of views on the existence and extent of climate change and what should be done about it.

But the position taken by the newspaper in its daily editorial column, or leader, has been clear for well more than a decade.

In the editorial of April 6, 1995, the paper said: "The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring unnaturally, primarily as a result of industrial development and deforestation, is no longer seriously disputed in the world."

On July 19, 1996, it said: "The greenhouse problem appears to be worsening, according to the international scientific consensus, and the pressure on Australia and other nations whose exports depend heavily on fossil fuels is growing stronger."

The newspaper's rejection of the Kyoto Protocol was never tied to doubts about the science or the need for an international response. In an editorial of September 30, 1997, the paper said: "The point is that the Australian position for Kyoto is not that greenhouse lacks a scientific basis - it is accepted that human activity is affecting climate. But the real questions are to what extent is climate changing and how can greenhouse emissions be managed so that deleterious impacts can be contained without damaging individual economies."

And on June 19, 2004, the newspaper said: "It would be foolish to ignore the possible consequences of global warming, and there is virtually nobody - certainly not in the Howard government - who argues we should. But decisions on what we do about the greenhouse effect, including whether we sign the Kyoto Protocol, should be based on cool science and the national interest, not deep-green scaremongering and Hollywood action movies."

The Australian has unwaveringly supported global action to combat climate change based on the science.

On November 2, 2006, the paper said: "You can accept the significant risk that the climate is warming while wishing to employ scepticism and scientific rigour when working out what to do about it. Eventually an international carbon pricing system that sets proper price signals for pollution will further drive this process."

It has accepted the findings of the UN panel on climate change. On February 5, 2007, it said: "The real news from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's latest report, issued last Friday in Paris, is the higher level of implied scientific certainty - first that global warming is unequivocally happening, and second that humans are, in the panel's view, highly likely to be causing most of it.

"Let there be no mistake: all the signs suggest the need for action on climate change. But cool heads are essential."

The following day, February 6, 2007: "The release of the IPCC report on Friday demonstrates the clear moral argument for the government to respond."

The newspaper also welcomed the findings of the Peter Shergold report, commissioned by the Howard government.

On June 2, 2007, the paper said: "The Weekend Australian believes that the task group, by holding firm to core principles of a market-based solution driven by price signals, has made a compelling case for a post-Kyoto model that deserves serious consideration."

And on June 4, 2007: "It is now well accepted that while taking action on climate change will cost money, not acting may cost much more. The longer the wait the higher the additional cost. This does not, however, suggest that any action will deliver the hoped-for economic savings."

The paper also welcomed Ross Garnaut's reports for the Rudd government.

On February 22, 2008, it said: "Australia has much at stake in this debate. If climate change is not mitigated, Australia could be one of the biggest losers because of our hot, dry variable climate. If Canada gets a little warmer, it opens up the North-West Passage.

"If Australia gets a little warmer, the Murray-Darling food bowl is desiccated. We have much to gain from the development of a rational approach to climate change, and Professor Garnaut has given us a solid place to start."

On Garnaut's interim report on July 5, 2008, the paper said: "The Weekend Australian has no argument with any of these foundation principles on which Professor Garnaut has based his report. If there are grounds for criticism, it is that by advocating a starting date for an emissions trading system of 2010, with a high initial price of more than $40 a tonne, Professor Garnaut risks contradicting his own advice that Australia should not get too far ahead of the international effort.

"In addition, he is probably asking too much of the political process to assume that the introduction of an emissions scheme, regardless of its format, can escape the perils of political self-interest."

On the Rudd government's discussion green paper on July 19, 2008, the paper said: "The trajectory that was set on climate change by the Howard government with the Shergold report remains largely intact. This is the right approach for Labor to take."

The paper urged constructive action ahead of the Copenhagen meeting.

On December 5 last year: "This paper has held to three key points - that the planet may be at risk and action is needed; a preference for a market-driven solution; and an awareness that an early entry into a low-carbon economy would give Australia a first-mover advantage.

"In democratic societies, political action often demands a certainty science cannot deliver. The excessive and uniform arguments made for action have backfired but we now have a chance for a debate that will not bury climate change but excavate the real issues surrounding it."

Following the failure of the Copenhagen UN conference to set required emissions reduction targets, the paper said on December 19 last year: "If the world is to see action on global warming it is time to recognise the obvious limitations of the UN to develop a global strategy. It is time to call on the nations that have the power and focus to fix the problem to get on with the job."

And on December 21 last year: "Despite Copenhagen's failure, the meeting did demonstrate that there is no longer mainstream political opposition to reducing greenhouse emissions. While the specific impacts of climate change are not agreed, there is a global political consensus that all governments must act."

The paper continues to support action on climate change and free speech. On March 12 this year the editorial said: "For the record, The Australian has long accepted the probability of anthropogenic climate change and favoured the introduction of an emissions trading scheme. But reputable scientists and stakeholders deserve their say, regardless of whether they subscribe to a newspaper's editorial line."

On October 2, in response to the Royal Society's revised discussion paper in Britain: "The Royal Society sets out a strong case for pursuing the cautionary, responsible approach long advocated by The Weekend Australian. The society cites strong evidence that increases in greenhouse gases due to human activity are the dominant cause of global warming."

The Australian has never hidden its preference for technological solutions over proscriptive restrictions that shift Australia's emissions to other countries.

And it has argued that the emphasis should always be on getting the greatest carbon abatement at the least financial and social cost.

On November 27: "As the carbon reduction debate progresses, it is clear that the real argument is not primarily about climate science but economics. If greenhouse cuts are to be made, which The Weekend Australian believes is necessary insurance against climate change, the challenge is to achieve the biggest cuts for the least cost, a process that needs an efficient market mechanism."

While the views of climate sceptics have been represented in the news and opinion pages of the newspaper they have not been reflected, and have been seldom mentioned, in the paper's editorials. The paper has, however, defended their right to have a voice.

On March 6 this year: "One of the most disturbing aspects of the debate is the rise of green totalitarians, who have tried to silence those with different viewpoints. Their intolerance does not stop at the sceptics. Commentators such as Danish economist Bjorn Lomborg, who accept the theory of man-made climate change but believe mitigation is expensive and ultimately futile, arguing instead that resources would be better invested fighting disease and malnutrition, are also granted heretic status."

The paper has acknowledged that some people, including the government's own scientific advisers, believe that alternative viewpoints should not be given publicity.

One journalism lecturer tweeted this week in response to the Posetti dilemma that "debate about objectivitys moved on somewhat in the past decade many J-scholars (me included) see it as a false goal [sic]".

Australian National University climate scientist Will Steffen, who sits on the federal government's climate change committee, recently delivered a paper at the climate forum in Hobart asking that if the science on climate is so clear, why is it still portrayed as uncertain in the media?

It seems some people hold the view that on issues of such gravity as climate change the usual media rules of reporting alternative opinions should not apply.

The reality is that, despite the science, a good deal of uncertainty exists in the minds of many people, a situation that has not been helped by the exaggerated claims of some about what to expect.

History shows that, even if public doubts are unfounded, refusing to hear and challenge them can ultimately compound the misconceptions. Much has been written on how the rise of Hansonism was fuelled in large part by the refusal of the political class to allow public discussion of popular, if ill-informed, views on issues such as indigenous welfare and immigration. Suppression of debate can invite lazy policy and totalitarian excess at the extreme.

In the case of climate change, it is apparent that some people would be quite happy for a totalitarian approach.

Writing on Crikey, commentator Guy Rundle recently encouraged climate campaigners to mount a propaganda revolution based on the tactics of Mao and Lenin. He said climate change campaigners could achieve more by adopting a communist model of establishing a whole disciplined apparatus, "with the explicit object of creating both a core of full-time cadres-organisers-propagandists who could expound the argument everywhere, anytime, a hundred different ways, at the drop of a hat".

Rundle said: "Earlier revolutions had succeeded because step by step they created a wider band of people who, while not professional agitators themselves, had been so convinced by the argument - intellectually, politically, morally - that they felt some of its urgency and identified with it, so that they would talk to others about it."

Rundle said crucial to this process were four things: the training school, the pamphlet, the public meeting and political self-criticism-analysis.

"It's a signal fact of the climate change movement that none of these features are really present. The Right likes to argue the Green movement is Marxism by other means. If only that were the case, some of these things might have been in place," Rundle wrote.

He encourages the propaganda approach despite offering the view "you can't honestly say that the science is settled, because no science is ever settled".