But that didn’t stop Lateline from giving him air time on the subject last night.

Contained in the Lateline report about the hacked emails that were nicked from the Climatic Research Unit of the UK’s University of East Anglia last week and spread all about the web was Bolt’s take on what it all meant:

“Obviously some of the world’s top climate scientist, ones most involved in developing this theory, involved in a massive collusion stretching from America to Britain in trying dodge, fiddle with data, destroy data when others try to check it, sceptics try to check it,” says Bolt.

Here’s a snippet of Bolt’s measured comments from the many posts he’s devoted to the subject on his blog, which is presumably why Lateline felt him qualified to represent the ’sceptics’ :

Surely these emails can’t be genuine. Surely the world’s most prominent alarmist scientists aren’t secretly exchanging emails like this, admitting privately they can’t find the warming they’ve been so loudly predicting?…

This has to be a forgery, surely. Because if it isn’t, we’re about to see the unpicking of a huge scandal.

Feel the drool.

Apparently the producers of Lateline thought it fitting to give this kind of considered commentary oxygen.

This kind of thing has been labelled the bias of balance (thanks @Lumo) by some: an overcorrection of sorts in which pundits are given airtime simply because they represent an opposing view, not because they know what they’re talking about.

Ross Gelbspan spent 31-years as a reporter and editor. He argues in his books The Heat Is On and Boiling Point that a “failed application of the ethical standard of balanced reporting on issues of fact has contributed to inadequate U.S. press coverage of global warming.”

An item dating back to 2004 on the Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) website acknowledges that the journalistic norm of balanced reporting is considered one of the traditional pillars of good journalism. But:

“By giving equal time to opposing views, the major mainstream newspapers significantly downplayed scientific understanding of the role humans play in global warming. Certainly there is a need to represent multiple viewpoints, but when generally agreed-upon scientific findings are presented side-by-side with the viewpoints of a handful of skeptics, readers are poorly served.”

What’s the internal directive for ABC staffers when it comes to reporting climate science and the politics of climate science? Is it to commission well informed experts on the subject, or to pursue the secret ingredient of news that journalists are taught to seek out: conflict? Because that might work for politics, but it doesn’t work for science.

There IS a distinction between reporting the science of climate change, and commenting on the politics of it. Everyone is entitled to an opinion on that, however unqualified it is, and Bolt’s theory on the significance of these emails is a point of view that shouldn’t be censored.

But if Lateline is seeking to shed light on the issue, that won’t achieve it by interviewing Bolt.

Climate science is neither left wing or right wing. There’s no pro or anti in this discussion, and the reportage surrounding it has to dig deeper and think more intelligently. None of us are climate scientists, but that doesn’t mean we can get away with relying on soundbites.

Airing the Great Global Warming Swindle was a low point for the ABC’s coverage of climate science. Can we please move on?

The internet went insane (OK, more insane) as the leaked emails spread like a bad case of the clap online, with climate sceptics up in arms, claiming their contents are a smoking gun proving collusion, data manipulation and conspiracy amongst scientists to push their climate change agenda.

You can download them for yourself here or read just the emails online here.

Australia’s favourite climate sceptic La Bolt picked up the story on Friday, declaring it “a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science” and has continued to run with it all weekend:

Surely these emails can’t be genuine. Surely the world’s most prominent alarmist scientists aren’t secretly exchanging emails like this, admitting privately they can’t find the warming they’ve been so loudly predicting?

…

This has to be a forgery, surely. Because if it isn’t, we’re about to see the unpicking of a huge scandal.

So just what is so incriminating in these files? You can read the critics’ full list here.

One of the most discussed and debated excerpts has been from a 1999 email by Research Center Directer Phil Jones:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

His colleagues have come out in defence of the emails, claiming the words are completely innocent in their proper context:

The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 … and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.

Other criticisms of the hacked emails’ contents revolve around the language used by the scientists when discussing climate change denialists, including one scientist describing the death of Australian sceptic John L Daly as “a cheering occasion.”

Obviously there are dozens more “smoking guns” in the emails, and just as many rebuttals and defences, but you can wade into the whole shit fight yourself, (at your own peril).

The story has just hit the mainstream media (and probably the rest of the Oz media by the time you read this). Here’s the NY Times, Guardian, Washington Post, Telegraph and Times. Many sceptics had been dubious that the MSM would cover the story at all. Now it has, though, early sentiment seems to be that most publications are being far too blasé and understated in their reporting of “the greatest scandal in modern science“.

As the Beeb point out, it’s possibly no small coincidence that this was all unleashed right before Copenhagen. At a time when the public’s belief in man-made global warming has dropped both at home and abroad, it will be interesting to see how much traction this whole saga can gain in the wide, offline (ie “real”) world.

As they say: Watch this space.

That quote from U.S. deputy national security advisor for international economic affairs Michael Froman about his hopes for a final agreement in Copenhagen would be funny if wasn’t so, well… unfunny.

The full quote:

“I don’t think the negotiations have proceeded in such a way that any of the leaders thought it was likely that we were going to achieve a final agreement in Copenhagen, and yet [they] thought that it was important that Copenhagen be an important step forward…

“There was a realistic assessment . . . by the leaders that it was unrealistic to expect a full, internationally legally binding agreement to be negotiated between now and when Copenhagen starts in 22 days…”

We’re a long way from Yes We Can now folks. Forget the halcyon days of the Change campaign, when “realistic assessments” about how “unrealistic” it was to expect any meaningful change to be brought about by the political system never made the soundbites …

In these post GFC times we need something snappy to sum up the Obama administration on climate change, a view shared by pretty much every other government involved in the Copenhagen negotiations.  We need to update the merch: roll out something new on T-Shirts, mugs, magnets.

The slogan?

“Obama 09: Realistic assessments of unrealistic expectations.”

Either that, or “Yes we Can’t.”

Fits better on a badge.

Members of the G8 rich countries have pledged to halt temperature rises to two degrees Celsius.
Yet they have refused to commit to the carbon targets, which would deliver even this modest goal.
At two degrees we would lose the coral reefs.
At two degrees we would melt Greenland.
At two degrees my country would not survive.
As a president I cannot accept this.
As a person I cannot accept this.
I refuse to believe that it is too late, and that we cannot do any about it.
Copenhagen is our date with destiny.
Let us go there with a better plan…..

At the moment every country arrives at the negotiations seeking to keep their own emissions as high as possible.
They never make commitments, unless someone else does first.
This is the logic of the madhouse, a recipe for collective suicide.
We don’t want a global suicide pact.
And we will not sign a global suicide pact, in Copenhagen or anywhere.

So today, I invite some of the most vulnerable nations in the world, to join a global survival pact instead.
We are all in this as one.
We stand or fall together.
I hope you will join me in deciding to stand.”

President Nasheed and leaders from vulnerable countries around the world signed a declaration calling on developing countries to develop using clean energy and sustainable technology, and for rich nations to commit to fast and deep carbon reduction paired with significant assistance to poor nations.

We are gathered here because we are the most vulnerable group of nations to climate change.
The problem is already on us, yet we have precious little with which to fight.
Some might prefer us to suffer in silence but today we have decided to speak.
And so I make this pledge today: we will not die quietly….
I believe in humanity.
I believe in human ingenuity.
I believe that with the right frame of mind, we can solve this crisis.
In the Maldives, we want to focus less on our plight; and more on our potential.
We want to do what is best for the planet.
And what is best for our economic self-interest.
This is why, earlier this year, we announced plans to become carbon neutral in ten years.
We will switch from oil to 100% renewable energy.
And we will offset aviation pollution, until a way can be found to decarbonise air transport too.
To my mind, countries that have the foresight to green their economies today, will be the winners of tomorrow.
They will be the winners of this century.
These pioneering countries will free themselves from the unpredictable price of foreign oil.
They will capitalize on the new, green economy of the future.
And they will enhance their moral standing, giving them greater political influence on the world stage.
A group of vulnerable, developing countries committed to carbon neutral development would send a loud message to the outside world.
If vulnerable, developing countries make a commitment to carbon neutrality, those opposed to change have nowhere left to hide.
If those with the least start doing the most, what excuse can the rich have for continuing inaction?
I think a bloc of carbon-neutral, developing nations could change the outcome of Copenhagen.

You can read the full text of the speech here.

Coming only days after he had been singled out by African negotiators at the Barcelona pre-Copenhagen talks as one of the leaders whose action does not match his political manifesto, you have to admire our PM’s gall for blaming the lack of global and domestic action on sceptics who, frankly, are not in a position of real power. Sure, the sceptics make a lot of noise. Sure, they make life annoying and difficult. But a real leader would stand up, sweep them aside, and do what it takes.

Unless, of course, that leader is also a sceptic – of a sort.

There has been a lot of discussion recently about the different kinds of climate change sceptics in our debate. The PM joined the fray in his Lowy Institute speech, defining three kinds of sceptics as follows:

The opponents of action on climate change fall into one of three categories.

• First, the climate science deniers.
• Second, those that pay lip service to the science and the need to act on climate change but oppose every practicable mechanism being proposed to bring about that action.
• Third, those in each country that believe their country should wait for others to act first.”

As far as it goes, that is quite a useful analysis. But it leaves out the fourth, and, in my opinion, by far the most dangerous category of sceptic: those who profess to take the science seriously, seek to hold the moral and scientific high ground, and then utterly fail to take the kind of action the science requires.

Those who claim to care but do too little are far more worthy of scorn and derision than those who profess not to care at all.

Let me put forward a scenario to help us decide who is most culpable.

A child swimming at a surf beach starts waving frantically from out in the waves. Corey Bernardi says “he’s not drowning, he’s just waving.” Nikki Williams says “oh, the poor dear, but I really couldn’t do anything to help, it’s just beyond my stength.” Mitch Hooke says “he might be drowning, I’m not 100% sure, but we’d be far better placed to wait for the lifesavers to get here and deal with it.” That’s Kevin’s three categories. But what does Kevin himself say?

Kevin says “this is a crisis on a grand scale. Look at all these people milling around on the beach and cravenly refusing to do anything. We have a moral obligation to act.” He starts wading in. Everyone else breathes a sigh of relief because they think Kevin’s got it under control. But Kevin never gets anywhere near the child, as he only wades in 5% of the way. The child drowns.

The fourth group of sceptics are by far the most dangerous because, through their protestations, by continually talking about how serious the issue is, they convince a great many people that the issue is under control. I believe, for example, that recent polling results by Lowy and others, which show an apparent reduction in levels of popular concern about climate change, are due in large part to the Rudd approach. Certainly, the growing chorus of scepticism helps, but far more insidious is the feeling that it is under control, that it is being taken care of. That is the power of  greenwash, which corporations (”Beyond Petroleum”, anyone?) have long understood.

The core of this problem is that Rudd presents “two stark choices – action or inaction”. That is the point he made in his speech on Friday, and it’s his main rallying cry for the CPRS.

But “action or inaction” is the kind of false dichotomy that can only be supported by the shallow, spin-over-substance brigade that is so powerful in this highly political, incredibly policy-cautious government. For those of us who are actually concerned about outcomes, about delivering something meaningful – in this case a safe climate for us and for all those who come after us – the choice is very different.

The truly stark choice is “do we do what needs to be done, or do we fail?” Will we pull out all stops and do everything we can to protect the climate, or will we deny, faff around, equivocate or, worst of all, dissemble until it’s too late?

Mr Rudd attacks sceptics as gambling with our future.

Do you feel lucky?

According to their website…

“Starting in July 2009, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists fielded an eight-country team of reporters to uncover the special interests attempting to influence negotiations on a global climate change treaty. Relying on more than 200 interviews, lobbying and campaign contribution records in a half-dozen countries, and on-the-ground reporting from Beijing to Brussels, our team pieced together the story of a far-reaching, multinational backlash by fossil fuel industries and other heavy carbon emitters aimed at slowing progress on control of greenhouse gas emissions. Employing thousands of lobbyists, millions in political contributions, and widespread fear tactics, entrenched interests worldwide are thwarting the steps that scientists say are needed to stave off a looming environmental calamity, the investigation found.”

It is no surprise that this is going on. Guy Pearse, Clive Hamilton and others have been raising these issue for many years. But the more exposing of this kind of political influence the better, and it’ll be interesting to see what they have managed to pin down.

When I first became interested in the relationship between the big polluters and politicians, the first place I looked was at political donations.  Interestingly, most of the really big polluters (Xstrata, BHP etc) don’t need to make big political donations – they have influence and access by virtue of royalty payments and their sheer size. It tends to be the smaller fry that need to pay for influence – property developers and the like.  The NSW Greens do good work in this area through www.democracy4sale.org

Stay tuned for the story tomorrow – and check out the global climate change lobby.

Endangered marine life? Pah. Big explosions?! Now you’re talking!

It’s an unfortunate reality: science doesn’t sell; sex (and other big bangs) does.

But what’s the lesson in all this for the environmental community? Do greenies need to suck up their pride to find a sexy, sell-able angle to their causes for the greater good? Or with a bit more persistence, can journalists (and the public) be won over with “worthiness”?

UPDATE: Reader and journalist Anastasia Joyce has let me know about her new site Wotwaste, which attempts to do this in a really constructive way by finding interesting angles to the issue of waste and pollution with articles like “What’s waste got to do with organic chemistry and Queen Victoria’s mauve dress?” and “Is human hair really used in pizzas and bakeries?”

Perhaps there is a happy medium to be found between tabloid twists and uber-dry science spiels after all.

There is a lot at stake. Arguably it is the future of the planet. Some countries are literally fighting for their survival while other countries are fighting to defend the status quo. The divisions between the rich countries that have largely caused global warming, and the poorer countries who in many cases will be the most affected, could not be more stark. So far the talks have been proceeding slowly but as the deadline for an agreement draws nearer, the tensions are starting to show.

Yesterday (last night Australian time), the talks were brought to a halt by the African group of countries who are demanding that rich countries commit to higher targets. They named the elephant in the room.

A ‘trust building’ lunch between the Umbrella group (chaired by Australia) and African nations ended with African nations walking out saying we’re dying and you’re not doing enough. Africans told them specifically that people were dying by the minute, ambitious reduction is not negotiable because the survival of millions of people depends on it, and if they
weren’t here to talk about numbers then it wasn’t the right place to be.

It must have a been a great lunch. You can imagine the head of the US and Australian delegations chowing down on big fat juicy steaks, while everybody else sat around waiting for their food to arrive. And the airconditioner was probably stuck on hot, with people gradually sticking to those awful plastic chairs you find in conference centers. And then, just as the Australian delegate was cackling hysterically at a US joke about starving children, the African delegates decided that the future was actually important, and got up and walked out.

Well, maybe it wasn’t quite like that, but the outcome was the same. At the G77 press conference, the Africa group put it bluntly: “When asked why they are not willing to put the number s on the table…they say its politically and economically difficult ….for us it is a questions of life and death, people are dying in Africa because of the actions of people in the west.”

And then they lanced the boil that has been plaguing negotiations for months. “ We are not ready to give annex 1 countries a blank check through LULUCF rules and the flexible mechanisms before they give us their aggregate numbers and individual numbers”.

Rich countries have put weak (or no) targets on the table and have been focusing on fixing the rules of the new treaty so that they can have as many loopholes as possible to allow them to continue with business as usual. They won’t put forward targets until they know how they’ll be able to squirm out of them.

Australia is a classic. First Kevin Rudd put out a target that was so low (5-15%) that it was only just enough to stop us being kicked out in disgrace, and then when it became clear that our low ambition had dealt us out of any influence, increased it to a highly conditional 5-25%. This is still far below what a rich country like Australia should be committing to and what African countries and the science demands :– 40% or more by 2020.

Australia is doing as much as anyone (apart from a couple of rogue states) to undermine prospects for a strong global climate treaty through our low ambition and relentless push for loopholes. It is remarkable that Kevin Rudd has somehow managed to position himself as a leader on climate change in spite of the reality of our negotiating position. Its not hard to look good on climate when you are compared to the US or to the Federal Coalition, but climate change can’t just be about spin or about public relations. There is far too much at stake, and we are rapidly running out of time.

The UK’s Met Office has produced this interactive map showing just how dramatically Earth could change in our lifetime if urgent action isn’t taken to curb this grim forecast.

Nope, the all powerful cabal in this equation, according to Peter Walsh’s retiring presidential address to the Lavoisier Group and published in The Australian’s opinion pages, is the Greens.

Peter Walsh served as minister for resources and energy from 1983 to 1984 and finance minister from 1984 to 1990 in the Hawke government. His take on the CPRS?

The driving force behind this campaign to decarbonise Australia has been the Greens.

Don’t think there’d be any argument there. But Walsh continues:

Although they are small in terms of numbers they are extraordinarily influential.

Not influential enough to have the controlling vote in the Senate, mind you, but Walsh continues:

Their influence is derived from the support they have in the media – notably the ABC and the Fairfax media – but also because they are well off with secure jobs and they live in the best suburbs.

Malcolm Turnbull’s seat of Wentworth, which is probably the richest seat per capita in all of Australia, is a prime example of this wealth and influence.

Notwithstanding their personal prosperity the Greens seek to reduce the standard of living of other Australians (often in states far from Sydney and Melbourne, such as Western Australia) through measures that will reduce our productivity and progress.

Never mind that the Greens failed to secure the vote there in the last election (key words here: Turnbull’s seat). A mere trifle. There’s more to this conspiracy theory:

The extreme Left realised early on that a regime that controlled emissions of carbon dioxide would enable them to control in great detail the lives of every Australian.

…At the heart of this campaign is the creation of a powerful rent-receiving and rent-seeking alliance of banks and other financial institutions that will make billions from trading the emissions permits and that, once the emissions trading scheme is established, will be able to spend hundred of millions in ensuring, as best they can, that repeal is politically impossible.

…It is an extraordinary thing that the Left has become a willing accomplice in this racket.

The government is facing one of the greatest policy challenges in recent times, so how about some thoughtful, insightful and informed commentary from the national broadsheet instead of stuff straight from the grassy knoll?

Cue the Stonecutters tune …

What rhymes with Bob Brown?