http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/516Part II: CBC’s denial of the climate science debateBy Dr. Tim Ball & Tom Harris Tuesday, November 6, 2007 Like the network itself, The Fifth Estate has violated its own mandate with ‘The Denial Machine’
Since the CBC first broadcast The Denial Machine in November 2006, both the show’s producers and the network’s Ombudsman have been informed about numerous scientific and other errors in the programme. There are too many to list them all here but some samples that were left in the programme, even after its most recent edit, are as follows:
Part 2 of a special week long series on ‘The Denial Machine’ in Canada Free Press (click here for part 1)
Programme’s mistakes left in even after warnings
1. The Fifth Estate commentator asserts, “The Denial Machine investigates the roots of the campaign to negate the science and the threat of global warming.” The programme does not address the roots of the issue at all. Had they done so, they would have discovered that many of the scientists who disagree with climate alarmism have been working in this field for decades and their published papers contesting the politically correct view date from the early 80s. If some American climate experts who refute the human-caused climate change hypothesis now receive support from fossil fuel companies, then it is clearly as a result of the scientists’ already well-established record of outstanding research in the field. In other words, the Fifth Estate have cause and effect backwards-- support from industry would obviously be a result of, not a cause of, the work of skeptical scientists.
The issue of possible industry funding is mostly moot anyways since very little (completely none in Canada) of the funding for research into the causes of global climate change comes from industry of any kind--it is essentially all tax-payer funded. Should the results of tax-payer funded research be hidden from the tax-payer? Like many in the CBC, The Fifth Estate and the network’s Ombudsman apparently think so.
The Fifth Estate’s use of the phrase “negates the science” is obviously misleading editorializing since scientists who oppose the views of Suzuki, Gore et al are in fact doing what scientists are always supposed to do-- probe, enquire, test, and, in this case, advancing a viewpoint of the science independent of political or corporate expedience. This promotes real science and the scientific method, and in no way ‘negates’ it.
2. Next the Fifth Estate tells us, “Tonight, we’ll show you how a relatively small group of scientists and corporations has managed to create a stand-off that could undermine the international cooperation many believe is our climate’s best hope.”
Both the network and the programme have been shown repeatedly that there is a very large group of climate scientists who have long opposed ‘environmental correctness’ on this issue. Whether it was the 8,000 scientists who work in areas related to climate change who signed the Oregon Petition opposing climate hysteria, or other open letters (sample) and statements from climate experts, the network must understand by now that there is anything but a consensus in the field. In reality, debate rages behind the scenes in the climate science community, as evidenced by the thousands of scientific papers published in the field every year. Were the science ‘settled’ as the programme implies, then the situation would be more akin to that in the field of plate tectonics where the science is rarely a topic of peer-reviewed scientific papers since the science is settled.
The lack of any clear scientific consensus in the field is an important issue and the CBC’s response to a challenge to show why they believe such a consensus exists is illuminating--see Note 1 after this article.
3. Immediately after the first broadcast of The Denial Machine in November 2006, Terrance Corcoran of the National Post wrote about how the Fifth Estate had failed to inform viewers about the affiliations of one of their prime witnesses against scientists on our side of the debate, James Hoggan, President of James Hoggan and Associates, a leading Vancouver-based PR firm. Corcoran pointed out the strong connections between Hoggan and the David Suzuki Foundation (namely, sitting on its board. He is also a donor) and alternative energy companies, clients who would benefit from climate alarmism. Since then, Hoggan has taken the reins from David Suzuki and now sits as the Chair of the David Suzuki Foundation.
Yet, instead of identifying the deepening connection between Hoggan and climate activists, not to mention alternative energy interests (far closer than any ‘skeptical’ scientist has with fossil fuel interests), the Fifth Estate still identified Hoggan only as “Vancouver PR man”. This clearly violates the CBC’s “Journalistic Standards and Practices” which states (Production Standards, section B: 1.3):
“Any relevant aspects of a commentator’s credentials must be clearly summarized so that the audience may have a perspective from which to appraise the speaker’s view. For example, the position and affiliation of a journalist or the particular qualifications of an academic or any other type of speaker should be stated.”
Given this obvious breach of the network’s own policies, will the CBC Ombudsman rule against the show’s producers? Based on the response from the Ombudsman’s office concerning past complaints about the CBC’s biased coverage of climate change (see Note 1 below), don’t count on it.
Part 3 of this series appears in tomorrow’s Canada Free Press--it will itemize other errors and serious misrepresentations in The Denial Machine.
Please read:
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
Scientists respond to Gore’s warnings of climate catastrophe
Note 1:
Concerning the CBC’s assertion that a ‘consensus’ exists among climate scientists about the causes of climate change
For a number of years, the CBC has maintained that there is a consensus in the climate science community about the causes of climate change. Indeed, they have repeatedly used the supposed existence of such a consensus as their rationale for rarely covering the alternative point of view on the science. In 2000, I (Tom Harris) challenged the network to show that such a consensus exists. Finally, on January 8, 2002, I e-mailed the Ombudsman:
“Today, 49 weeks after you explained that programmers were to respond within four weeks and 62 weeks after you said that you wanted to wait for a management review, the best you can say is “Your complaint is among those currently under review.” ... The National is clearly violating your own CBC policies which require you to give fair and balanced coverage on controversial issues such as this one, yet no one at the CBC is prepared to even address the issue seriously.”
By this time, I was openly Cc’ing many interested parties on my communications with the network and, perhaps for that reason, the Ombudsman responded in detail ten days later. His 10-page response contains text that is worth including here since many of the same points are being made today when corresponding with the CBC on this issue--here are some excerpts from the Ombudsman’s January 18, 2002 e-mail response to my complaint initially registered in 2000:
“While CBC’s Journalistic Standards and Practices instructs public broadcasters to give voice to the widest possible range of views, the journalism policy also imposes upon CBC’s journalists another editorial responsibility, notably the requirement to take proper account of the weight of opinion behind a point of view. So, to achieve balance and fairness, it’s not simply a matter of stating ‘some say this and others say that; there’s also a responsibility hereabouts to determine what opinions are relevant, to identify and to reflect what forces are driving any given development. In other words, CBC’s journalists have a responsibility to exercise their editorial judgment. As the policy book says, the CBC
“must supplement the exposition of one point of view with an equitable treatment of other relevant points of view. Equitable in this context means fair and reasonable, taking into consideration the weight of opinion behind a point of view, as well as its significance or potential significance.”
And then later in the Ombudsman’s 2002 letter:
“… it seems to me, you are overstating both the nature and the extent of the controversy in the science that’s been driving the international movement to curtail the emission of greenhouse gases. You portray the state of climate science as a sort of evenly balanced dispute between some scientists who say we are causing climate change and some others who say we are not.”
The Ombudsman then proceeded to describe in detail how climate change science was being in covered in other media--in particular, The Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail and The New York Times--as well by politicians, specifically Presidents Clinton and Bush. Besides highlighting the [very rare] coverage the network had given to our side of the science, the Ombudsman concluded this section of his review by stating:
“In a sense you are not on the same page as the mainstream news Media… the CBC, in its decision making process, is entitled to make its own editorial determination about what opinions are in the mainstream, and need to be reflected, and what opinions are on the margins, and can be given the editorial hook they so often deserve… Generally your other remarks ignore the strong consensus in the scientific community that the greenhouse effect is real, and that we humans are contributing to the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.”
I responded immediately to the Ombudsman:
“the fact that most of the world’s media and political leaders are convinced of the issue is not the point here. The CBC must be held to a higher standard than other media or politicians due to the network’s status as a taxpayer-funded institution. I believe that The National should be required to do sufficient research so that they are able to disseminate information based on what scientists currently active in the field are actually saying ...”
I concluded:
“you say, “… the CBC, in its decision making process, is entitled to make its own editorial determination about what opinions are in the mainstream, and need to be reflected, and what opinions are on the margins, and can be given the editorial hook they so often deserve.” As Cynthia Kinch [Executive Producer of The National] implied, the fact that an idea is “in the mainstream” and is therefore considered politically correct and so “safe” in no way indicates that it is correct. I side with Ms. Kinch on this one (even though I don’t believe she is actually directing The National to employ this philosophy when reporting on the climate change issue) when she says, “Skepticism and challenges to accepted beliefs are an inherent part of journalism”. If the CBC is merely going to determine “what opinions are in the mainstream, and need to be reflected”, then what are Canadians paying $750 million a year for? We can get the news from the mainstream for free.”
The issue was eventually referred to the CBC President who said he was satisfied with the Ombudsman’s response. The President completely ignored my contention that the network had failed to demonstrate a scientific consensus and instead had only shown evidence that a consensus existed in the media and among politicians.
Today, the same unsubstantiated claim of ‘consensus in the scientific community’ is repeatedly used as a reason for the CBC’s dogged refusal to cover both sides of the issue (with the noted exception of Rex Murphy and, at times, CBC TV Ottawa). In response to the same sort of complaints concerning bias in The Denial Machine, David Studer, Executive Producer of The Fifth Estate wrote:
“… our program was fair and balanced. ... We’re not obliged, by policy or normal journalistic practice or indeed by logic, to equate a preponderant and accepted view with minority arguments that are at odds with the facts as we have found them.”
Of course NRSP could challenge Studer to demonstrate that a “preponderant and accepted view” within the scientific community exists and the only a “minority” of scientists “are at odds with the facts as [they] have found them.” But the outcome of the same challenge to the network between 2000-2002 suggests that, in the final analysis, the network is not concerned with what is real in this issue, only what is widely thought to be real in the media. In that way, the Fifth Estate is no different to many of the politicians they so harshly criticize.
To learn more about the lack of any known consensus in the scientific community about the causes of the past centuries modest warming and forecasts for the future, readers may read a paper prepared by the authors as well as the PowerPoint slides that accompanied the presentation of this paper.
Topic: Part II: CBC’s denial of the climate science debate (Read 1319 times)