At least ‘our’ ABC is going to show the film – or at least, some of it. But only to be followed up by a panel of experts, most of whom will seek to demonise the filmmaker and rubbish the film. I refer of course to the film, The Great Global Warming Swindle, which will be aired this Thursday night (July 12) at 8:30pm.
While it is nice to see the ABC trying to shed its image of entrenched bias, and allow the documentary to go ahead, there are still some problems here. First of all, it appears to be a shortened, edited version of the doco. Why not show the whole thing?
Secondly, there will be a panel of ‘experts’ following the film to debate its merits. Evidently the need for balance and getting all points of view is the rationale for this.
But why must the ABC go down this path? Do they think we are so uneducated that we cannot make up our minds for ourselves? Do we really need the follow-up discussion? Why the sudden urge to allow all points of view on the ABC? This has not been their custom in the past.
Undoubtedly it is occurring for this reason: the true believers about global warming were incensed that the ABC even dared to show the film in the first place. The ABC was hounded by the eco-warriors to not even show it. Now they are demanding time to trash the film and its message.
It appears that as a means of placating these vocal critics, the ABC has gone to this unprecedented and extraordinary step. Now there is nothing wrong with debate on the issue, and many of us do lack scientific expertise on these complex matters. So an informed debate could be a good thing.
But consider what is really happening here. There are complex and controversial social issues all over the place, and the ABC regularly airs shows about them, without seeing the need to provide some sort of balance by way of a follow-up debate.
The ABC regularly features shows pushing various agendas – usually leftwing and secular agendas. For example, it often features pro-homosexual docos. I do not recall ever seeing a panel discussion following such a show, in order to get some balance, or provide equal time.
It has a lot of programs which are really just excuses for anti-Christian bigotry. Often its “religion” program, Compass, will feature decidedly anti-Christian nonsense, especially on key days such as Easter and Christmas. I do not recall the ABC ever following up these attacks on biblical Christianity with a discussion session, meant to provide equal time and offer a bit of balance.
It often has programs bashing Howard, Bush, the US, and policy in Iraq, and so on. Again, when have there been follow-up debates in an effort to ensure fairness and balance? Many other examples could be produced in this regard.
Thus the question is: why is there such a pressing need to provide ‘balance’ here, when the ABC never does it for other hot potato issues? Why is the ABC running so scared on this issue, while so callously trampling over the concerns of many Australians on other hot topics?
But, we should perhaps be grateful for small mercies. Even an edited version of the doco is better than nothing. And concerning the documentary, Bob Carter, who is a geologist who researches ancient climate change, has a piece in today’s Australian, discussing why this film needs to be seen.
Says Carter, “Made by Martin Durkin, and called The Great Global Warming Swindle, this documentary explores the science of climate-change alarmism carefully and accurately. The message of Swindle, which is to be screened on the ABC this week, is that scientific knowledge does not identify carbon dioxide emissions as an environmental harm, nor does their accrual in the atmosphere cause dangerous warming.”
As mentioned, there has been hysteria in some circles about even allowing the film to be aired. Militant greens and others have declared war on the film and the ABC for giving it a run:
“Imagine a well-provendered and equipped military fortress in time of war, for that is what the alarmist, pro-IPCC, climate lobby group represents. Suddenly, loping across the landscape outside the fort, and carrying just a single-shot rifle, appears a lone member of the enemy army. Does the camp commander respond by sending out a platoon, including a psychologist with a megaphone to check what this naive infantryman is up to? Not on your nelly. Instead, the response is remarkable in its ferocity. Three panzer divisions come tearing out of the fort – manned, as it happens, by many distinguished scientists who have volunteered for their politically correct duty of suppressing alternative views – blazing away with all they’ve got. In a trice, the landscape is turned into a moonscape, pockmarked with craters and littered with debris.”
He continues, “For you see, science is not about the triumph of the weight of numbers, nor about consensus, nor about the will of the social majority. An idea such as the greenhouse hypothesis is validated not by shouting but by experimental and observational testing and logical analysis. And note especially that a hypothesis doesn’t care who believes in it, right up to and including environment ministers, heads of state and presidents of distinguished scientific academies. Rather, science requires that to be successful a hypothesis only needs to be clearly stated, understandable, have explanatory power and withstand testing.”
He concludes, “Every day we find public figures on Australian TV and radio stations muttering about there being ‘a consensus’ on dangerous, human-caused climate change, or that the science of global warming ‘is settled’. Such persons should be referred to the nearest psychologist, and gently dissuaded from inflicting their nonsense – for that is what it is – on the poor public. Science is never settled, and it is about hypothesis testing against known facts, not arm-waving about imaginary futures that have been created by PlayStation 4 computer buffs. Consensus nonsensus.”
So let the debate begin!