Guest Post: Beliaik TheirABC, diverse views and the FOI Act

When is it OK for our national broadcaster to thumb its nose at its own code of practice?  The obvious answer is never, but we know it happens routinely.  So what can the common worker-drone do about it?  Not much, but we can at least try to use existing legislation to draw attention to the more egregious examples.

One such attempt is described here.  Settle back, this is lengthy.

With the ‘splodey-headed ABC-luvvies  fairly busy being maximally outraged by the US citizenry’s choice for their highest public office, it seemed a good time to try and sink the slipper into them over their second most-passionately held world view – our unfolding ”climate disaster” – and their deranged reporting of it.

The story begins back in February when I thought to tip TheirABC off about the breaking story of the NOAA whistle blower, Dr John Bates.  Here’s what I sent…

G’day ABC news tips department

I read the following article with interest, but can find no reference to it on the ABC. Given the numerous articles featuring NOAA on your website, I wonder if you will feature it soon?

The NOAA whistleblower has been big news across the blogosphere and since the ABC never shows stories that counter the global warming narrative I thought it was time you proved your critics wrong.  Here’s another link to it.

It has already broken in the British media, here…

And in the US media here …

… and here …

Everyone has the internet with them everywhere these days, so bias in some issues can be quite visible in terms of non-reporting.  Please show your lack of bias so those who feel the ABC should be sold off to private enterprise might be placated for a while.

I look forward to your early response on the matter.  You don’t want to wait until after the POTUS tweets on it do you?  Really?

Needless to say, they didn’t cover the John Bates story, even though I tipped them off twice more.

The next step was a complaint to TheirABC’s complaints department…

Subject: Failure to cover the NOAA whistleblower reveals the ABC’s refusal to show both sides of the global warming debate

Your Comments: The ABC claims to provide balanced news and editorials – you tell us that all the time!  Why then, has there been such a pointed failure to cover the material provided by whistleblower and retired NOAA climate expert John Bates?

John Bates wrote of this on renowned climate scientist Judith Curry’s blog – here – – that

“A NOAA NCEI supervisor remarked how it was eye-opening to watch Karl work the co-authors, mostly subtly but sometimes not, pushing choices to emphasize warming. Gradually, in the months after K15 came out, the evidence kept mounting that Tom Karl constantly had his ‘thumb on the scale’—in the documentation, scientific choices, and release of datasets—in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.”

Later John Bates says this, “So, in every aspect of the preparation and release of the datasets leading into K15, we find Tom Karl’s thumb on the scale pushing for, and often insisting on, decisions that maximize warming and minimize documentation.”

He also says, “I also raised concerns about bias; here we apparently see Tom Karl’s thumb on the scale in terms of the methodologies and procedures used in this publication.”

A reasonable person would find it quite newsworthy that such an eminent figure has come forward to accuse the former director of NOAA of “putting his thumb on the scale” but it has not been covered by the ABC…  Why?

While climate alarm is last on most people’s list of worries, it sucks up a disproportionate amount of our taxes and your air-time – so why won’t you cover something that helps shed light on what we climate sceptics have been saying for years?

You can’t say you didn’t know because I tipped you off on 7/2, 8/2 and 9/2/16 – and I can provide copies of the acknowledgement emails if you’d like.

I look forward to your early reply.

Naturally the luvvies were having none of that!  Here’s their reply…

 Thank you for your email.

Your complaint has been considered by Audience and Consumer Affairs, a unit which is separate to and independent of content making areas within the ABC. Our role is to review and, where appropriate, investigate complaints alleging that ABC content has breached the ABC’s editorial standards. These standards are explained in our Code of Practice which is available here –  

You have complained that a failure to report recent Dr John Bates’ criticisms of Dr Tom Karl’s 2015 climate study is evidence of ABC bias.

We note that this story received relatively little coverage in major media in Australia.  According to a report published by Associated Press, Dr Bates subsequently stated in an interview that there was ‘no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious’; another study has since confirmed the Karl calculations; and the journal that originally published the Karl research has rejected the allegation that it was rushed to print.  In our view, the ABC’s lack of coverage of this story does not demonstrate a lack of impartiality, but rather a fair and reasonable assessment of its news value. 

The ABC has provided extensive and ongoing coverage of issues relating to climate change across a range of programs and genres, presenting a range of different perspectives.  Overall, the ABC’s coverage reflects the weight of scientific opinion in this area, which favours the view that global warming is happening and that human activity contributes to this warming.  This approach does not, of itself, indicate an undue favouritism for a particular perspective.  Rather, it is consistent with the concept of ‘a balance that follows the weight of evidence’, which is identified in the ABC’s editorial standards as one of the hallmarks of impartiality.

Thank you for giving the ABC the opportunity to respond to your concerns.

Because I work to a system of creating maximum cognitive dissonance in the minds of leftarded journalists, the next step was a formal complaint to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).  Leaving out the somewhat tedious detail, ACMA ruled that I can’t complain about something that didn’t happen.  Who knew?

Fair enough, then, obviously it was time to complain about articles that did get published.  The first complaint was about a News24 interview.

Complaint re interview on ABC TV News24 – Breach of code of practice

Program time    0951 and again at 1044 (Queensland time, not fake time)

Program date    16/03/2017

Subject                Alarming story about coral bleaching being caused by CO2 emissions

                             Interviewee – Prof Andrew Baird from JCU

                             Interviewer – Kathryn Robinson


This morning Kathryn Robinson interviewed a coral scientist whose livelihood depends on him finding alarming stories about the reef.

Every question and comment from your interviewer fed into the global warming alarmist narrative and not one single remark referenced the sceptical side of this issue.

JCU’s pompously named “ARC Centre of Excellence in Coral Reef Studies” have never been able to answer quite simple questions from the sceptical side.  See Julian Tomlinson’s editorial from today’s Cairns Post – attached – to support this.

Kathryn might have asked how the claimed process of man-made carbon dioxide emissions suspended in the atmosphere and emitting down-welling long-wave infrared back-radiation are able to heat the micro-millimetre-thin surface layer of the sea without the phase change of water immediately re-releasing that heat energy as water vapour – but she didn’t.

Kathryn didn’t ask Professor Baird if he was aware that infrared radiation will not penetrate water – (which is why infrared firefighting cameras are useless in searching a waterway for a submerged person).  It would’ve have been informative to be aware of the limitations of a marine ecologist’s knowledge of physics.

Kathryn didn’t ask what other sources of heat may have warmed water in the Coral Sea other than the alleged CO2 greenhouse effect – for which zero empirical evidence has ever been put forward. 

Kathryn didn’t ask about the influence of the recent El Nino event on Coral Sea temperatures – an entirely natural cycle with no connection to humans burning fossil fuels.

The bleached areas of the GBR are bathed by the South Equatorial Current, which is heated by sea-floor volcanicity in the Vanuatu-Solomons region – which has some of the world’s most active and spectacular volcanoes.  But Kathryn didn’t ask about heat from that source.

The Vanuatu-Solomons volcanic zone has many sea-floor hydrothermal vents that release sulphur compounds that are toxic to the microorganisms that are the basis of the reef’s food chain; but Kathryn didn’t ask about those compounds affecting the coral.

Oxybenzone, an ingredient in many sunscreens worn by reef researchers and tourists alike, is highly toxic to coral, even in minute quantities.  But Kathryn didn’t ask about its effect on coral either.

Coral is the ultimate survivor from the past 400 million years of ever-changing climate, but Kathryn didn’t ask why it should suddenly be so sensitive to minor water temperature changes.

The ability of coral to expel and replace symbionts is an evolutionary superpower that other species can only dream of, but Kathryn didn’t ask about that.

Kathryn didn’t ask how come coral can live in waters much hotter than ours, such as the Middle-East, and much colder as well, like New Zealand.  Not even how coral seem to be OK in blazing hot sun at low tide, either in shallow, easily-heated pools or exposed to the air.  Nor how the same species thrive in slightly deeper water where it’s colder.

The interview didn’t stray to water quality, but the ARC Centre of Excellence in Coral Reef Studies were completely unaware a coral reef could live happily under the permanent mud-plume of the Amazon River…

Kathryn and the ABC have failed to comply with these parts of their code of practice.  In fact, Kathryn and the ABC have aided and abetted the promulgation of scandalously weak claims as if they were somehow supported by empirical evidence and were to be accepted as fact.


4.1 Gather and present news and information with due impartiality.

4.2 Present a diversity of perspectives so that, over time, no significant strand of thought

or belief within the community is knowingly excluded or disproportionately represented.

4.3 ……..

4.4 Do not misrepresent any perspective.

4.5 Do not unduly favour one perspective over another.

The Robinson-Baird interview demonstrates that:

  1. The ABC are only showing one side of the “man-made global warming killing coral” argument, they don’t gather news and information or present views with due impartiality.
  2. The ABC knowingly excludes a significant perspective, the one that rejects the nonsense “97% consensus”.  To be sceptical of the man-made global warming alarmists’ claims is a perfectly valid and significant strand of thought; – scepticism belongs in science – consensus only has a place in politics.  The ABC disproportionately represent the alarmist side, to the extent that the sceptical side is never, ever presented.
  3. The ABC misrepresent the sceptical side by failing to provide us with fair and equal opportunity, or, indeed, any opportunity, to present counter-arguments to the alarmists’ scare stories.  This ABC misrepresentation robs the sceptical side of the credibility they so generously offer the alarmist side.  Sceptics contend that the human influence on climate is negligible, ultimately beneficial and in no way catastrophic, but the typical ABC viewer wouldn’t know that.
  4. The ABC unduly favour the alarmist side of the climate debate over the sceptical side ion two ways; by providing the alarmist side with seemingly unlimited platform space and never, ever asking any hard-to-answer questions and by refusing any space on any platform whatsoever to the sceptical side.

These are gross and serious breaches of the ABC’s code of practice that lead to erroneous beliefs amongst our political and bureaucratic classes who then spend billions of our dollars on a problem that doesn’t need fixing while many more serious and pressing environmental and societal issues are ignored.

If the ABC was true to its own rules people like me wouldn’t need to write to Senators asking for it to be sold off to private enterprise.  Conservative views are rarely heard on the ABC – I feel excluded in viewing almost all ABC News products.  My voice is never heard on the ABC.  It’s like the ABC has evolved into the Alinsky Brainwashing Corp.

Now you’ll be wondering how TheirABC could fob off such logic.  Here’s how they did it.

Thank you for your email regarding an interview with Professor Andrew Baird on ABC News 24 on 16 March 2017.

Your email has been considered by Audience and Consumer Affairs, a unit which is separate to and independent of content making areas within the ABC.

Our role is to review and, where appropriate, investigate complaints alleging that ABC content has breached the ABC’s editorial standards. These standards are explained in the ABC Code of Practice which is available here –

We have reviewed the interview.  The presenter introduced the interview stating that new research from scientists at James Cook University had examined three major coral bleaching events over the past 20 years and found that the mix of species in the northern parts of the reef have changed forever, with some reefs losing 80% of their corals. 

She said that the researchers had concluded that parts of the reef would never fully recover from repeated bleaching of its corals, and the researchers were calling for immediate action to curb climate change to limit further damage to the reef. 

Professor Baird was introduced as a co-author of the study and he was asked a number of questions on the topics mentioned in the introduction. 

There was nothing in the interviewer’s questioning which indicated an undue favouritism for a particular perspective, or a lack of due impartiality. 

As advised in my previous reply to you, the ABC’s coverage reflects the weight of scientific opinion in this area which favours the view that global warming is happening and that human activity contributes to this warming.

This approach does not, of itself, indicate an undue favouritism for a particular perspective. Rather, it is consistent with the concept of ‘a balance that follows the weight of evidence’, which is identified in the ABC’s editorial standards as one of the hallmarks of impartiality.

Should you be dissatisfied with this response, you may be able to pursue your complaint with the Australian Communications and Media Authority,

Yours sincerely,

The next step was to take the complaint to ACMA.

G’day ACMA

You’ll recall I recently complained to you about the bias of Their ABC.  You told me I had to use specific examples of bias that had been broadcast, as opposed to sweeping failures to abide by their code of practice as demonstrated by newsworthy events the ABC has failed to cover.

Fair enough, those are your rules.  This complaint is the first that I hope fits your rules.

First please read my first attachment “2017-03-16 Complaint re interview on ABC TV News24.pdf”.

Somewhat surprisingly, Their ABC responded promptly.  Please read my second attachment “2017-03-17 ABC email reply – coral complaint dismissed.pdf”.

You will note the ABC defends their bias with appeals to authority and consensus.

First, on ‘consensus’, the Cook et al “97% consensus” paper was junk science at its worst and has been thoroughly and extensively debunked.  Only the alarmist community subscribe to it now.

Second, on ‘appeals to authority’, if Their ABC are so big on authorities they don’t come much bigger than the United States Government.  Here’s what Mick Mulvaney, Director of the Office of Management and Budget said last week,

“As to climate change, I think the President was fairly straightforward saying we’re not spending money on that anymore. We consider that to be a waste of your money to go out and do that. So that is a specific tie to his campaign.”

Their ABC said their approach is “…consistent with the concept of ‘a balance that follows the weight of evidence’… but it isn’t.  It is consistent only with the memes of the alarmist community – all of whom are dependent on the continuation of climate alarm for their ongoing incomes.

It is a reasonable expectation that for 1.6 billion taxpayer dollars the ABC will carefully examine all sides of every argument and conform to their code of practice.  But it doesn’t and it isn’t.  Since I started writing this I’ve learned that the G20 are dropping reference to “climate change”, too, in response to the changed White House position.  World events have well and truly overtaken the ideological slaves at Their ABC. 

My recommendation is that the ABC needs to be stripped back and rebuilt with much stricter guidelines requiring journalists and presenters to separate their personal ideology from their professional role and to resume proper investigative journalism that fully informs the viewer of ALL sides of EVERY argument.

Now you’re wondering how the ACMA-luvvies batted such devastating reason away.  Here’s how they did it.

RE: Your complaint about ABC News 24 broadcast on ABC News 24 on 16 March 2017

Thank you for your complaint about ABC News 24, referred to in your correspondence received on 20 March 2017.

The Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) considers all complaints to be important and your concerns have been logged in our database to help identify potential recurring or systemic compliance issues with legislation, Codes of Practice and Standards.

When deciding whether to investigate a particular matter, the ACMA considers a range of public interest factors including the specifics and/or merits of the matter, the nature and seriousness of the issue raised, the matter’s potential to affect the community at large and its priority in relation to other matters of public interest.

We acknowledge that this matter has given you cause for concern, however, the ACMA has decided not to proceed with an investigation into your complaint because:

  • ABC programs are not obliged to ensure that every perspective on an issue receives equal time or that every facet of every argument is presented within a particular broadcast.
  • the ABC has extensively covered the issues of coral bleaching and climate change on its platforms, following the weight of scientific evidence.
  • the ACMA has conducted a number of investigations which explain the impartiality standard in the ABC code, for example BI-270 and BI-257.

For more information about the ACMA’s broadcasting investigations, including its approach to opening an investigation, please refer to the information here:

If you have concerns about the way the ACMA has treated your complaint, you may make a complaint to the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman or seek independent advice about avenues for review. The Ombudsman can investigate complaints about the administrative actions and decisions of Commonwealth government agencies. More information can be found on the Ombudsman’s website at: you can call  1300 362 072.

Yours sincerely,

Obviously ACMA are heavy green Kool-aid drinkers, too.  To be sure I went through the whole ABC complaint-ACMA complaint process a second time (reporter Anna Salleh interviewing serial alarmist Terry Hughes from JCU) with the same result.  I’ll spare you the tedious (4000-word) details of that transaction.

This brings the narrative to the FOI request, dated 20/04/2017.

FOI Contact Officer, Corporate Affairs, Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Written FOI request and ‘sufficient information’

This written request is an application for the purposes of the FOI Act.

The document I seek is a list of links to articles related to “global-warming”, “climate-change”, “CO2” and “coral bleaching” that represent the sceptical view of those respective debates – as presented by the ABC on all its platforms. 

I have listened, viewed and searched for years and I’ve not found any sceptical articles on the ABC’s platforms.  There are plenty of articles that represent the alarmist view of these debates, but no sceptical ones.   (Sceptical and alarmist for the purpose of this application are defined below.)

I will be satisfied with a list of the last twelve months sceptical articles – unless there are none in the last twelve months.  In that event I will be satisfied with a list of the last ten years of sceptical articles.

Your search is likely to be more effective than mine.  If after a reasonable amount of searching you can find no ABC articles representing scepticalviews that have been published in the last ten years then please just say so. 

Form of the document/s

I have no way of knowing the form of the document/s.  It could be one or more schedules or data-base search runs or program lists or staff instructions or minutes of meetings or emails between staff – only you could reasonably know. 

It could even be emails between members of the ABC Corporate Affairs unit and others in relation to my non-FOI request for such a list two weeks ago.  That would be a good place to start – check and see if anyone did work up a list but just hasn’t been given the nod to send it to me yet. 

Definition of Sceptical and Alarmist for the purpose of this application

Articles on “global-warming”, “climate-change”, “CO2”, and “coral bleaching” can be sorted into Sceptical or Alarmist views by comparing their message themes with these general definitions;

Global warming – Sceptical view

The present gentle global warming is natural and similar to the Minoan Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period (about 3000,2000 and 1000 years ago respectively).  This warming is entirely beneficial to all life on Earth.

Global warming – Alarmist view

The present alarming global warming is unnatural and in no way similar to the Minoan, Roman or Medieval Warm Periods.  This warming represents a serious threat to all life on Earth at some point in the future.

Climate change – Sceptical view

The climate has always changed and is changing now.  Changes are primarily driven by solar cycles, orbital variations, planetary albedo, ocean currents and the laws of thermodynamics. 

Climate change – Alarmist view

The climate has changed naturally in the past but it is changing now in a way it shouldn’t be.  These changes are directly attributable to humanity’s use of fossil fuels. 

CO2 – Sceptical view

The planet was nearing a low-CO2 extinction event and humanity’s use of fossil fuels returns much-needed sequestered carbon dioxide to the biosphere and is generally beneficial.  The benefits of carbon dioxide far outweigh any negatives put forward by its detractors.  The additional warming effect of humanity’s CO2 emissions is largely insignificant.

CO2 – Alarmist view

The planet has a natural CO2 steady-state that is far lower than present levels and the human contribution to raising them is highly damaging.  The costs of carbon dioxide far outweigh any positives put forward by its supporters.  The additional warming effects of humanity’s CO2 emissions are highly likely to result in catastrophic consequences for the climate.

Coral bleaching – Sceptical view

Coral bleaching is caused by a range of natural cycles working separately or together in a way not yet fully understood by the science community.  Reef ecosystems in general are quite poorly understood by the science community.  Bleaching appears to have no connection to humans mining or burning coal.  Ocean temperatures are not significantly influenced by atmospheric CO2 levels.  Great Barrier Reef coral ecosystems generally appear to be in robust good health.

Coral bleaching – Alarmist view

Coral bleaching is caused by humans and is well understood by the science community.  Reef ecosystems in general are very well understood by the science community.  Bleaching is caused by humans mining and burning coal and releasing other CO2 emissions into the atmosphere.  The oceans are warming up due to increasing atmospheric CO2 levels and that is harmful to coral.  Great Barrier Reef coral ecosystems generally appear to be in catastrophically-declining health.

Signature and address

Here’s TheirABC’s official response – dated 15/05/2017….


 I refer to your request for access to documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act) in your email of 20 April 2017. Specifically, you have sought access to the following:

“A document with a list of links to articles related to ‘global warming’, ‘climate change’, ‘CO2’ and ‘coral bleaching’ that represent the sceptical view of those respective debates—as presented by the ABC on all its platforms from 21 April 2016 to 20 April 2017.

 If there are no articles from the last 12 months, [you] will be satisfied with a list of the last 10 years of sceptical articles.”

I note that in our acknowledgement letter to you on 4 May 2017, we stated that for the purposes of FOI we would assume that by “articles” you were not only referring to written pieces, but to broadcast news and current affairs content on ABC television, radio and online services.

I am authorised by the Managing Director under section 23 of the FOI Act to make decisions in respect of requests made under that Act. Following is my decision in relation to your request.

Locating and identifying documents

I have taken reasonable steps to identify and locate all relevant documents. My search for these documents involved contacting the following relevant people, who in turn consulted with relevant managers and staff within their respective teams:

  • Director News
  • Manager Editorial Policies, News.

I requested that searches be conducted of all hard and soft copy records for documents which fall within the scope of your request. As a result of those searches, no documents were identified.

Under section 24A of the FOI Act, the ABC may refuse a request for access if all reasonable steps have been taken to find a document and the ABC is satisfied that the document does not exist. In the present case, I consider that all reasonable steps have been taken to locate relevant documents. I am further satisfied that the requested documents do not exist and therefore access to them is refused pursuant to section 24A of the FOI Act. 

If you are dissatisfied with this decision you can apply for Internal or Information Commissioner (IC) Review. You do not have to apply for Internal Review before seeking IC Review. Information about your review rights is attached.

Yours sincerely

Next consider this extract from TheirABC’s code of practice….

  1. Impartiality and diversity of perspectives


4.1 Gather and present news and information with due impartiality.

4.2 Present a diversity of perspectives so that, over time, no significant strand of thought or belief within the community is knowingly excluded or disproportionately represented.

4.3 Do not state or imply that any perspective is the editorial opinion of the ABC. The ABC takes no editorial stance other than its commitment to fundamental democratic principles including the rule of law, freedom of speech and religion, parliamentary democracy and equality of opportunity.

4.4 Do not misrepresent any perspective.

4.5 Do not unduly favour one perspective over another.

If TheirABC were meeting those standards we would be seeing articles representing views from both sides of the climate debate.  But we don’t.  We only ever see alarmist articles.  Those people who only take news from the ABC may well be unaware that a “diversity of perspectives” even exists in the climate debate.

The purpose of this exercise was, as noted, primarily to trigger cognitive dissonance amongst all the worker-luvvies who now know for a certainty deep in the backs of their minds that they are not meeting their own corporate standards.  They may never acknowledge their bias publicly, but that seed of self-doubt is planted.

The secondary reasons included forming the basis of a Ministerial missive requesting Senators Fifield and Nash to sell TheirABC – which has been submitted.  It included this para….

“It is time the ABC sank or swam on its own merits.  Please sell it.  Right now.  Yes, the left will scream.  But they can put their money where their mouths are and buy it.  That way they’ll at least be its legitimate owners rather than the occupying force they are today.  That way I and other conservatives won’t be funding the left’s propaganda machine.”

There’ll also be a formal complaint about the breach of the code of practice to the luvvies at ACMA – when I get to it.

This not a goal-oriented mission, it’s more a system-oriented activity in line with Dilbert creator Scott Adams’ philosophies.  That way there’s no disappointments when the luvvies pretend they have done nothing wrong.

All right, Cats.  Long story complete.  Any suggestions?

This entry was posted in Guest Post. Bookmark the permalink.

84 Responses to Guest Post: Beliaik TheirABC, diverse views and the FOI Act

  1. stackja

    Demand a change with ABC management. Of course!
    How? Lobby MPs? Eventually worked with ‘Safe Schools’.
    My MP is lefty LNP. I hope to see his defeat. Then change ABC.

  2. steve

    Suggestions? Give up, you can’t beat City Hall.

    PS. If you cannot find City Hall, just turn left at every intersection that you come to.

  3. stackja

    #2384026, posted on May 19, 2017 at 11:28 am
    Good luck!

    A start!

    Lao Tzu Quotes. The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step.

  4. stackja

    #2384027, posted on May 19, 2017 at 11:28 am
    Suggestions? Give up, you can’t beat City Hall.

    PS. If you cannot find City Hall, just turn left at every intersection that you come to.

    History shows real leadership has beaten ‘City Hall’.

  5. steve

    #2384036, posted on May 19, 2017 at 11:32 am

    History shows real leadership has beaten ‘City Hall’.

    If you want real leadership, turn right at every intersection you come to. You will soon come to a desert!

  6. herodotus

    Well done! The ABC is a complete disgrace and our politicians have failed dismally to deal with it. Your work is valuable.

  7. jupes

    You sir, are a champion. Magnificent opening thrust.

    My only advice is keep going. Being published on the Cat is a start, let’s hope more media outlets give you space and / or publicity.

  8. Beliaik

    Thanks, Cats, and thanks Sinc.

    The beauty of the system of relaxivism is there are no goals. When you don’t expect to win (achieve a specific goal) there is no disappointment when the (predictable) loss happens.

    Relaxivism is all about creating specific moments of cognitive dissonance in the minds of the luvvies with the hope that it evolves into a critical thought process over an extended period of time and results in a gradual opening of their minds to other ideas.

    In this example the minor anxiety that is created when the luvvies realise, deep in the back of their minds, that they’re not meeting their own written CoP standards is the moment when the seed of self-doubt is planted. That’s what basically happened to me before I woke from the green dream.

    One Cat noted on the Wednesday Forum that planting seeds in the Arctic waste of the leftard mind is a waste of effort. That may well be so. But the seed may remain buried and frozen until, (you guessed it), the climate changes and some increased atmospheric CO2 fertilisation causes it to spring to life!

    (Giving politicians stomach pain since 1982)

  9. .

    Keep going. Stay mad as hell.

  10. Tim Neilson

    Well done! They won’t care less that they have published no sceptical articles on any of those issues, but the public might.

    Can I just note one other thing they said to you, as an excuse for not publicising the NOAA issue?
    We note that this story received relatively little coverage in major media in Australia.
    We’re always told that we need to spend over a billion a year so that the ABC can provide “balance”. But apparently if the rest of the MSM won’t report something the ABC just take that cue and do the same.
    So how does that “balance’ thing work?

  11. indigo

    I admire your persistence but it’s a brick wall. The only thing that will kill the climate change monster is a a significant (1 degree plus) drop in global temperatures. That is actually on the cards, with a Maunder Minimum likely in the next 5 to 10 years. The last time the sun was this week was during the Maunder Minimum.
    “TWO weeks of little solar activity on the face of the Sun has led experts to believe that we may be on the brink of a prolonged cold period.
    According to Nasa, there have been no sunspots on the surface of our star in two weeks, leading to predictions the solar minimum has begun early.
    The sun follows cycles of roughly 11 years where it reaches a solar maximum and then a solar minimum.
    During the former, the Sun gives off more heat, and less in the latter.
    By observing the sun through Nasa’s powerful Solar Dynamics Observatory spacecraft, experts have noticed there has been very little activity.
    The space agency said in a statement: “This is the longest stretch of spotlessness since the last solar minimum in April 2010, indicating the solar cycle is marching on toward the next minimum.”
    Scientists had not anticipated the next solar minimum until around 2020. If it has begun early, it could lead to a cold snap on Earth.”

  12. Tim Neilson

    One Cat noted on the Wednesday Forum that planting seeds in the Arctic waste of the leftard mind is a waste of effort. That may well be so.
    I fear that it might be. In evolutionary terms, the human species has prospered by developing and deploying intelligence. That process has now gone into reverse with the rise of middle class pinkoism. If we aren’t yet at the stage of extinction level stupidity we can’t be far off it.

  13. H B Bear

    Complaining about the ALPBC staff co-op is like punching jelly. The only solution is nuclear but that ain’t gonna happen under the Uniparty.

  14. Rockdoctor

    Just finished up a contract in remote QLD. ABC FM was the only choice and then close to main towns. I don’t listen to ABC Radio normally and haven’t been in a position where ABC Radio has been the only choice for about 7 years now. What I will say is the quality of programming has drastically declined, all I got was endless puff pieces on artists, loads more sport or sport related pap than before, virtually no current affairs (Though probably a good thing for my blood pressure) and they play a lot more music now. The clincher for me was the practice of a lot more repeats during daylight hours something that used to restricted to the dead of night when I used to hear the same stuff that aired in the day a week earlier on night shifts.

    Want a solution, shut it down or sell it off. Government media was meant to cover areas like where I was having no commercial coverage, ABC has a fraction of the coverage from when I last worked in that area and the programming has taken a distinct inner city latte suburbs focused direction. ABC used to bearable if there was no choice, now I find it unbearable and chose silence. Either way the ABC needs to stand or fall on it’s own now.

  15. Farmer Gez

    The ABC attitude to contrary opinion is best exampled by Jon Faine, who now refuses to debate or allow sceptical callers airtime. He is in total contravention of the charter but knows he won’t be challenged by management for his stance. If this pompous flea won’t be brought into line then it is time for a full independent investigation of the ABC and it’s lack of intellectual, political and social diversity.

  16. Baldrick

    Excellent post.
    You’re doing God’s work there Beliaik.

  17. Kneel

    Complain to ACMA again.
    Since there is a “97%” consensus, and there ARE items re: climate change on the ABC, then clearly, over time, we should see 3% skeptical items. If there are NONE for the last 12 months, then a simple count of climate change items on the ABC, which should be well over 100 in the last 12 months, would indicate a lack of balance.
    Good luck, but I’m not holding my breath…

  18. JMH

    I love this.

    Well done Beliaik and as others have suggested, keep going.

  19. johanna

    The ABC did broadcast a debate between Lord Christopher Monckton and Richard Denniss at the National Press Club in July 2011. Since Monckton wiped the floor with Denniss, I think it’s safe to call it for the sceptics.

    It would have been reasonable for them to cite this in response to your FOI request, but it has perhaps gone into the forgettory.

  20. Mother Lode

    The ABC’s processes and procedures are designed to wear you down by attrition while, at the same time, channelling you down ever more tortuous by ways that your original point is lost under a mountain of correspondence, entanglements of references to other matters, countless offices and roles, and other minutiae.

    Their last defence is to make you look like a crank.

    And all your efforts are only appearing on a blog that, preeminent though it is, remains a fringe community.

    Try to get this into a higher profile organ like The Paywallian. There must be someone there who wouldn’t mind seeing the ABC take a bloody nose.

    Who knows, the wan and shrunken Fauxfacts press might take a remote (if inactive) interest since since it finds itself chained to a rock like a frightbat Prometheus with the ABC coming out and tearing out its viscera every goddam day.

  21. struth

    Beliaik, as you can see with the comments above, the great “there’s nothing you can do about it” Australian apathy is alive and well.
    As somebody who led one of the convoys of no confidence against the Gillard mole, I know that activism not only works but even when you think it hasn’t. … has.

    Because we are on the right side of history and indeed nothing short of warriors against evil, the flow on effects can be staggering.
    All the effort that the evil left must put into winning is staggering.
    Every day in education and corruption is easily fought against.
    Truth and integrity can knock off all their effort and years of work and planning if we embrace it and truly believe it.
    Trump is no god.
    He might not be perfect.
    But he’s just one bloke that could bring down the whole socialist corrupt global elite and their billions of dollars and people expending so much time and energy to get him.
    Imagine if a few of the apathetic above didn’t just sit back winging, what might be achieved.
    And as you say, what a better way to spend your time and what better reason.
    Don’t work for charities.
    Work to make charities unnecessary.
    A concept lost on Australians.
    It seems there are many at the cat who do their bit and what they can.
    It is encouraging.

  22. Bruce of Newcastle

    Once and only once did I complain to the ABC about their coverage. It was the children overboard affair. I was unhappy that they completely omitted any mention that the country shoppers had sunk their own boat, which was why the kiddies were in the water.

    I did get a reply, surprisingly. Unsurprisingly it was bullshit. That was when I worked out that the ABC was the enemy and must be privatised or abolished.

    Your efforts Beliaik are excellent, but are futile except to rub their noses into their own mendacity. May they remember that when they front up to our Lord in the final court of judgement. Where they will be sentenced to some really strong global warming for a very long time.

  23. struth

    I disagree.
    His efforts are futile only if no one else is attacking.
    I don’t think the ABC, being a tax payer funded government department can be non biased.
    It should not exist.
    We should all be attacking on every front.

  24. Rabz

    Thanks Beliaik. I have neither the inclination nor the patience to take such a (what I regard as futile) course of action, but good on you, nonetheless.

    There’s always the Mantra™, for when you’ve finally had enough.

  25. custard

    Well done Beliaik.

    Keep fighting the good fight.

  26. Empire

    What struth said.


    Have you considered leveraging effort? Do you know other retirees who may have the same opinion and inclination? A formation of one is an irritant at best. A squadron is a material problem for the filth.

  27. John64

    Congratulations Beliaik, the fightback has to start somewhere.

    On a related topic, various ABC radio channels have been running short promos lately. There’s one for Frank Elly’s RN Breakfast which I have heard 3 or 4 times, it only goes for about 15 seconds so I might not recall it precisely word-for-word, but I found it extraordinary.

    Frank is asked what is the thing she most enjoys about presenting her show and the answer is “being at the front line of defence against bad government policy”. At one level this isn’t surprising, it’s how TheirABC operates (and Frank’s “an activist” anyway). But I was astounded to hear the admission so bluntly.

    Who at TheirABC decides what is “bad” government policy? Individual presenters, the water cooler collective, show producers or management? (Not that there would be any difference in the outcome.)

    Is it a legitimate pursuit of TheirABC (funded by all taxpayers whose views cover the entire spectrum) to mount a “defence” (i.e. resist, campaign against) against any government policy?

    If this is the definitive statement of TheirABC groupthink; their coverage of asylum seekers, climate change, homosexual marriage and myriad other issues can be understood and rationalised in a crystal clear manner.

  28. Beliaik

    Johanna (#2384144, posted on May 19, 2017 at 12:38 pm)

    Thank you for this…
    National Press Club Debate Christopher Monckton v Richard Denniss 2011 Address

    Cannibal and Rabz came up with this from 2007 – “The Great Global Warming Swindle” – so I may write back to the FOI officer and see what she has to say about those two articles she missed. It actually would be simpler if the count were zero, but the fact you Cats have found two speaks to their ineffectiveness.

    To all who see this sort of effort as futile, I say it as all in how you choose to view it. I don’t expect to change anything single-handedly, rather I’m working to a system of creating moments of cognitive dissonance in leftard minds. Little time-bombs with long, long fuses.

    The absence of specific goals means it (relaxivism) is about the journey and not the destination. Planting the seeds of cognitive dissonance is its own reward. You can do it anytime and anywhere. It’s fun, it’s easy and it’s free. Our side should be doing it in every possible interaction. Millenials are remarkably open to be being informed they’re not about to die in a climate calamity.

    Empire (#2384190, posted on May 19, 2017 at 1:15 pm)

    Yes, I would like to employ some leveraging. In my area we have a group of half-a-dozen conservative letters-to-the-editor writers who give each other ideas and moral support.

    But I’d like to take it further. I’d like to form a group to combat nonsense greenie climate science articles in the media. I want to call the group the Calm Logical Environmentalists Against Normalising Socialism (the Cleans). The Cleans would be a group of (mainly-retired) scientists who would match the alarmists press release for press release.

    And I also want to form SitDown! SitDown! would be a relaxivist group of retirees and other like-minded conservative folk who would be opposites to the alarmist activists at GetUp!

    Between The Cleans’ serious conservative writers and SitDown!’s calm-them-down-give-them-a-cup-of-tea relaxivists we might just crack the leftoid nut. But organising conservatives is like herding, um, Cats. So, I’m open to suggestions. Anyone know a conservative version of G-Soros?

  29. Andrew

    I complained to the Press Council about an article by Jenna Price. While the Lindt hostages were still facing life or death, Price (a perfessr of j’ism) described it as a “false flag” operation.

    Got that? A666ott and/ or Da Joooooz killed those hostages and stitched up ISIS any waving a black shahada.

    They found that while they understood why I was upset, it was fair comment.

    Not a shred of evidence was required. Price believed it therefore fair comment.

  30. The Deplorable Barking Toad

    Love your work Beliak.

    Keep on punching!

  31. MJ

    Broadly agree, but be careful what we wish for. Close down the ABC and we just have commercial station and channels. Ads interspersed with crap. The PBS model in the US is ruined by appeals for donations.

    Best is to watch the large amount of good stuff and turn off Kelly, Faine etc.

  32. Rococo Liberal

    The problem with complaining about the ABC is that you have to watch or listen to its output. That is tedious enough.
    Secondly I suppose we have to realise that the ABC is a queer fish. It has no power at election time, because very few epople actually watch it. But hose who do watch it tend to be part of the political class. So the ABC has much more power on a daty to day basis because it is listened to by those who have the power to change things.
    The best campaign, therefore is to explain to the right-wing faction of the political classes that they do not need to listen to the ABC, and in fact should boycott it and refuse to do anything that anyone has raised onthe ABC.

  33. Beliaik


    Agreed, there is always the law of unintended consequences.

    However the good ABC shows would get a run on the commercial stations eventually.

    What pickles my gherkin is paying for the left’s propaganda machine.

    I’d rather have three or four major hospitals built each year than fund a direct competitor to commercial media interests, particularly when it is the trend-leader in leftist whackjobbery.

  34. Diogenes

    Last year I attended a teacher’s network day at the Ultimo staff collective. Whilst the usual tongue bathing was going by my colleagues, every time they mention “fran” or “costas” or a show I went who / what ?

    At the lunch I bent the ear of a direct report of Madam Google. an advisor of some sort, and told him I had been an ABC consumer virtually since birth, one of my earliest memories is sitting on Oma’s kitchen bench listening to the afternoon light classics program (I must have been under 7 ) ; the book reading on the Melbourne breakfast show at 7:30 (Thomas the Tank Engine & Toad of Toad Hall stick in my mind); Clive Robertson on 2BL and 2FC at other times; radios welded to Classic FM the day it started; the nightly ritual of the news, the weekly 4 Corners. But now , I did not even realise I was unable to receive ABC TV for 3 years between moving into my current house & the final digital cutover (it suddenly appeared one day as I was channel surfing) ; I have have not listened to more than a few minutes at a time of Classic FM for 5 years; 10 years ago I would have died in the ditch to help protect the ABC, today , if it were to disappear I would not even notice, and in fact if I were asked I would gladly sign the staff’s pink slips, and the contract of sale for the buildings and assets.

    The look on his face was priceless.

  35. Tim Neilson

    #2384225, posted on May 19, 2017 at 1:46 pm

    MJ, as best I can tell from the limited amount of taxpayer-funded broadcasting I endure, almost all the “good stuff” is imported, and a good deal of that is from private enterprise.

    Remember when there was a public campaign against the ABC being subjected to any accountability, and their own chosen public face for the campaign was the UK private enterprise product “Peppa Pig”? They know themselves that what they produce is utter trash. Why should we pretend any different?

    In this day and age of cable and internet, if there’s an audience for decent broadcasting private enterprise should provide it, and if there isn’t, why should taxpayers who don’t want it have to pay for it?

  36. Beliaik

    Rococo Liberal

    “The best campaign, therefore is to explain to the right-wing faction of the political classes that they do not need to listen to the ABC, and in fact should boycott it and refuse to do anything that anyone has raised on the ABC.”

    Haha, agreed, but they’re all media tarts and the lure of the camera and the microphone is irresistible.

  37. Mother Lode

    MJ, the ads are what we get so we don’t have to pay taxes for it.

    Much more ‘Free to Air’ than the ABC.

    And the only things on the ABC that aren’t crap are the imported BBC programs. Hardly justification for a $Billion+ budget.

  38. incoherent rambler

    Thomas Jefferson –
    “To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.”

    Seems like we have an old problem to deal with.

  39. Baldrick

    I don’t think the ABC, being a tax payer funded government department can be non biased.

    The sooner people realise TheirABC is actually a government sponsored political organisation, the sooner the tax mooching parasite can be extracted from the host.

  40. Oh come on

    Their ABC are following the party line as espoused by that Professor Boyband idiot they had on talking about the cosmos recently. You do not debate the ideas of “climate deniers”. Oh no, The Science Is Settled there. The debate has moved on within Big Science whether “climate deniers” be lectured to until they fall into line, or ignored. That’s the big debate within Science regarding climate science.

  41. Fisky

    Funny how we never see any climate models anymore. 10 years ago you could scarcely go for a stroll without tripping over a climate model, they were that thick on the ground. Everyone was producing these computer forecasts proving that temperatures were going to rise by 0.5 degrees before 2020 or whatever.

    What happened to that?

  42. .

    Shame, Fisk. Even new documentaries talk about them with caveats.

  43. A Lurker

    Try to get this into a higher profile organ like The Paywallian. There must be someone there who wouldn’t mind seeing the ABC take a bloody nose.

    If Beliaik enjoys watching heads explode then he should send his missive to the Communications Minister and the PM. 😀

    Outsiders on Skynews might be a good mark, and Mark Latham would be a good person to send it to as his new show is getting lots of eyeballs.

  44. Boambee John


    From the reply to your first example:

    “Overall, the ABC’s coverage reflects the weight of scientific opinion in this area, which favours the view that global warming is happening and that human activity contributes to this warming.”

    Their ABC smoothly elided from the case it actually presents, Catastrophic AGW, to simple AGW.

    It is easy to make a case for human inlfuence on global temperature. People dig up coal, gas or uranium lying dormant under the earth, convert it to energy that is partly dissipated as heat, leading to the measurable urban heat island effect. Sum the worlds urban heat islands, and there is a wider effect(not necessarily global, as the heat islands are unevenly distributed).

    Whether this is measurable is at least debatable, given simultaneous natural variation, however, it seems unlikely to be significant, much less catastrophic.

    Suggestion: attack them on the catastrophism, that is much harder to defend.

    From the reply to your first example (the NOAA case):

  45. Boambee John

    Sorry about the random sentence at the bottom of my comment!

  46. Start a campaign complaining that the ABC has become too alt-right, so should be shut down.
    Thousands of people who never listen to it will believe it and sign your petition.

  47. .

    Pfft…..hilarious Gary. It might even work!

  48. Beliaik


    Please pardon my ignorance, but I have to ask, is your name pronounced “Dot” or “Underscored Point”?

  49. .

    Dot seems popular. Truth is I got sick of typing my name or screen name in.

  50. old bloke

    Well done Beliaik, keep fighting the good fight.

    You should get in touch with Jo Nova and do a guest post on her blog.

  51. A M

    If, as suggested by a poster above, a journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step, could that step please be changing the ABC’s ACA’s remit from including its garbled, illiterate syntax:
    “which is separate to and independent of ”
    “which is separate from and independent of “?

  52. Beliaik

    old bloke

    Point taken – but I can’t find a “contact us” section on Jo’s site. Do you know the trick? I just added this in her current comments thread….

    May 19, 2017 at 6:19 pm • Reply
    Off topic, but how do I send a tip to Jo?

    I recently used FOI to ask the ABC for a list of climate articles written from the sceptical perspective to show their diversity. They found none, but commenters at Catallaxy thought of two.

    The full yarn is here It’d be excellent if Jo and any other interested bloggers ran it, too.

  53. old bloke


    I found the following on her web page….

    If you want to get a message to Jo it’s best to email joanne “AT”

  54. Beliaik

    old bloke

    Well done, sir. Your eyes are better than mine!

  55. herodotus

    Cannibal and Rabz came up with this from 2007 – “The Great Global Warming Swindle” – so I may write back to the FOI officer and see what she has to say about those two articles she missed.

    1. They did a Snowcone hatchet job on it the moment it finished.
    2. The version they showed was cut by about 30%
    3. I have the entire broadcast (film + “debate”) recorded at the time.

  56. Fisky

    Instead of producing climate models that fail predict future temperatures, the present tactic is to massage historical data like Soviet wheat harvests.

  57. RobK

    Well done Beliaik,
    I think your method is worthwhile. Where the facility for complaint exists and is not utilized, it is open to be interpreted that no complaints exist. Your method, with support will have effect.

  58. Daisy

    So Bolta has now linked to this. Well done !!!

  59. spangled drongo

    Congratulations Beliaik! I too have complained to the ABC Caesar but nowhere near as well as you have.

    What is so frustrating is the fact that a LNP govt does NOTHING about their arrogance.

    Please keep up the pressure.

  60. MJ

    Yes Hear what you say., Beliaik and Tim. I guess I can record the good stuff on commercial stations and skip the ads. The negatives, given the $1 biilion p.a., far outweigh the positives.
    Just have to get better organised.

  61. Nerblnob

    I don’t think getting drawn into a climate-change discussion is a good idea.

    You’re fighting on their ground, about their modelling and predictions, for an audience that thinks cuddly-bunny zoologists and hobby botanists represent “science”.
    I mean,”The Science”.

    The whole field of “climate science” only exists to employ these people. What happened to Meteorology?

    Better to go for the real stuff, like practical energy provision, and the ruinous policies we are lumped with. Because even by alarmists standards these are doing more harm than good.
    Alan Moran is the only one who gets airtime on this but there are plenty of competent people who never get a look-in, compared to the tsunami of pro-wind and solar propaganda. And batteries, FFS.

    It’s inevitable that Alan is portrayed on TV (from what brief coverage I’ve seen) as a bit of an angry nutter, an outlier. This is so far from the truth that it’s verging on criminal.

  62. Nelson Kidd-Players

    So Bolta has now linked to this. Well done !!!

    All credit to our Gab, I think. She still has a place in Bolta’s heart.

  63. jupes

    I don’t think getting drawn into a climate-change discussion is a good idea.


    Fight them on every front.

  64. cohenite

    Great post and great work. From a scientific viewpoint this is the key point:

    Kathryn didn’t ask Professor Baird if he was aware that infrared radiation will not penetrate water – (which is why infrared firefighting cameras are useless in searching a waterway for a submerged person). It would’ve have been informative to be aware of the limitations of a marine ecologist’s knowledge of physics.

    Backradiation from CO2 in the atmosphere supposedly heats the Earth and ocean; but as you note CO2 emitted radiation is the IF spectrum and that cannot penetrate and therefore heat the ocean. If CO2 cannot heat the ocean it is heating nothing because the surface will simply emit more in response to any extra radiation from the extra CO2 and according to Stefan-Boltzmann that extra radiation emitted by the surface will simply be radiated to space as satellite measurements of OLR show:

  65. Nerblnob

    I don’t think getting drawn into a climate-change discussion is a good idea.


    Fight them on every front.

    That’s what they want you to do.

    Fuck that. Pick your battles, fight to win.

  66. Rayvic

    The ABC is grossly biased — particularly with respect to climate change. It takes a position on social issues, when it should be impartial.

    There are alternative providers of all ABC services these days. It has reached its ‘use by’ date.

    Sadly, the government lacks backbone to do anything about the out-of-control ABC. At the very least, it should hold a review of the ABC with terms of reference that call for reasons why the ABC should not be privatised.

  67. Rafe

    Great work!
    Drop me an email and we can discuss more letters.

  68. Hamish Marshall

    Great work. The ABC is to post Menzies Australia what Der Stumer was to Germany prior to 1945.

  69. Louis Hissink

    One is reminded of an elderly Knight, a dim retainer, and equally old horse and donkey and some windmills, for the tilting of.

  70. Beliaik

    Cats, my system (relaxivism) is similar to lying in cover on a ridge as a battlefield sniper, firing targeted shots to harry enemy troops. It’s not about “goals” or “wins” – it’s about maintaining a distracting barrage.

    My main mechanism is letters to the editors of my local papers. It’s cheap, easy, fun and reaches those who’ve never heard of the blogosphere. Here’s today’s submission (h/t Johanna).

    Anyone who wants to can use any or all of it as their own – words are just bullets in the war on stupid. It matters not who fires them as long as they are fired.

    The Editor
    (insert newspaper name here)

    In the last ten years the ABC has published just over 10,500 “climate alarm” articles across its many platforms.

    The ABC are huge supporters of the (fake) “97% consensus” and use it to justify their very biased reporting.

    But, wait! The ABC’s Code of Practice requires it include all views, no matter how diverse.

    Therefore there should be about 325 climate articles that represent the “other 3%”, right?

    So where are they? Intensive searching yielded none.

    The ABC were asked for them under Freedom of Information laws. They couldn’t find any either!

    This is proof, if you still needed it, of the blatant bias of our public broadcaster. They appear to have abandoned any pretext of sound journalism.

    The ABC is now nothing more than the political left’s propaganda machine – at a cost to taxpayers equivalent to building four new major hospitals each and every year.

    To add insult to injury the ABC just advertised for a “twitter manager” for 4 Corners – with a salary package of over $100,000 per annum.

    It is time to sell the ABC. Let it compete with other media companies on its own merits – if it can.

    Yes, the left will scream. But they can put the money where their mouths are and buy it. At least then they’d be its legal owners and not an occupying force.

    (225 words)
    (The 10,500 figure for climate articles was pulled out of my ar… computer models.)

  71. incoherent rambler

    I don’t think getting drawn into a climate-change discussion is a good idea.


    Then it is ok to keep building and paying for electricity generation systems that contribute nothing to baseload power?
    Of course not.

    The Climate Madness™ has made our energy systems costly and fragile. Third worldness awaits unless we fix our generation systems. This means building some large scale generators (coal/nuke), now.

  72. Louis Hissink

    What happened to Meteorology?

    Originally the study of meteors or other atmospheric apparitions?

  73. stackja

    #2384653, posted on May 19, 2017 at 9:50 pm
    I don’t think getting drawn into a climate-change discussion is a good idea.


    Fight them on every front.

    That’s what they want you to do.

    Fuck that. Pick your battles, fight to win.

    We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.

    Nobody ever defended anything successfully, there is only attack and attack and attack some more.
    George S. Patton

    Americans play to win at all times. I wouldn’t give a hoot and hell for a man who lost and laughed. That’s why Americans have never lost nor ever lose a war.
    George S. Patton

  74. Neville

    Well done, sir! I think we ALL all thank you for taking the time and and effort pursue this disgrace.
    More power to your arm!

  75. Bob of Brisbane

    Beliaik, you deserve a Pulitzer Prize for Investigative Reporting. You put my meagre efforts to pin down the ABC to shame – though you’ve suffered the same fate as I have. You have been repeatedly fobbed off.
    Could I suggest your next target should be to bring to the public’s notice the shameful agreement to the UN’s Agenda 21 by the Keating Government in 1992? It’s a Trojan Horse hiding in our governance and almost nobody knows about it because it was done without explanation to the people or reference to Parliament and has been tacitly adopted by every government since. Agenda 21 (now Agenda 2030) is a working plan to introduce a One World Government under the control of the UN. Once people know about it they will understand so much of our government’s questionable policies, including the Climate Change hoax, but no media commentator or media outlet will refer to it or acknowledge it exists.

  76. Beliaik – Excellent Post & research into the vagaries of ‘Their ABC’. Your 2384216 above – “I’d like to form a group to combat nonsense greenie climate science…” refers.
    If you’re located nearby, I’m the Convenor of such a Sydney based Group (The Climate Realists of Five Dock). We typically meet weekly (engineers, physicists, naturalists, former business executives etc) with links to other like Groups around Oz sceptical of the CAGW mantra & engage in like activities that you allude to. Rafe’s an occasional participant.
    If you feel there might be merit in getting together to see how we can compliment one another give me a ring on 0417 285 884 for more details. We’d be happy to work with you and/or other Cats.

  77. Phill

    Perhaps you could point out that even if their 97% theory were true, that would leave 3% who disagree. According to the ABS website 3% of the population is Aboriginal but their opinions are frequently trumpeted by the ABC. A study by Roy Morgan of 180,000 Australians says in 2014 3.4% of people agreed they were gay, but the gay couples seem to feature heavily on the ABC too. It looks as though the ABC likes to promote the voice of the 3% minority.

  78. maman

    Hey, Beliaik, Monash University, in April, released it’s inaugural advertising campaign. 🙂 You won’t believe what it is:
    “Progress doesn’t accept answers, it questions them” How cool is that? 🙂 How much fun can be had, using this statement, with ABC types and Climate Catastrophists. And then perhaps to point out to prospective Monash students just how career destroying it can be to ‘question the answer’.

    PS. your post is brilliant – so much easily accessible material to ‘let slip’ 🙂 in conversation. Thanks for putting it all together and posting here so we can refer and release.

  79. maman

    Forgot to say this campaign is plastered over billboards along some of Melbourne’s main roads and there is also an online video with, ah, David Wenham?? Apologies for the smiley faces above, bit late.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *