From the “fact check” unit that missed a talking rodent in pants

IN November 2019, the ABC fell for a climate change petition purportedly signed by 11,000 scientists. After I delved deeper into the document itself (via links not provided by the ABC), I found that 2,610 of the signatories described themselves as “student,” “researcher” or “retired.” Scores had qualifications unrelated to the ‘crisis’ they were warning the world about. Andrew Bolt looked again and discovered the petition was also signed by Mickey Mouse. Organisers had sought to hoodwink the public with a bloated, doctored petition. It’s not quite right, in fact, to say the ABC’s climateers “fell” for this dodgy mayday. They accepted and promoted it on faith because it was religiously correct and politically useful.

By stark, disturbing contrast, an ABC probe by two “Fact Check” gumshoes published this morning examines a crisis-sceptical climate petition posted to Facebook by Liberal backbencher Craig Kelly in October 2019. Online editor Matt Martino and his assistant, Christina Arampatzi, sought to contact the 75 Australian signatories by telephone, email and LinkedIn. Their goal was to verify the 75 did indeed sign the petition and ask them about their vocational credentials. After a bizarre snoop-a-thon that must have included hundreds of phone calls and emails, Martino and Arampatzi tracked down only 29. When cold-called using internet-stalked contact details, many signatories understandably refused to speak to the pair (re a petition they signed more than four months ago). Long story short: they are an impressive group with diverse qualifications and experiences. But just like Mickey Mouse and the thousands of phony experts among the infamous 11,000, they’re not “climate scientists.” That’s supposed to be a gotcha that justifies the investigation of private citizens. The state broadcaster is now running background checks on anyone who publicly doubts ‘climate change.’

This entry was posted in Fake News, Media. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to From the “fact check” unit that missed a talking rodent in pants

  1. More on the Climate Emergency declaration by 11,000 scientists.

    https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/12/23/climateemergency/

    The first 36 paragraphs present the climate science view. Critical commentary begins after para#36

  2. candy

    Which is why any poll or quiz asking people if they are distressed about climate change or other controversial issue they will go along with saying yes or whatever it is the interviewer/group supports in case their identity is revealed.

  3. Lee

    I’d like “background checks” done on all ABC employees, their views on climate change, politics, etc.

    Imagine the squeals of outrage if they were carried out.

  4. Roger

    The state broadcaster is now running background checks on anyone who publicly doubts ‘climate change.’

    And a former PM wants the public debate shut down.

    If their science is so sound what have they to fear?

  5. Their ABC has discovered a new role. More funding please.

  6. Lee

    And a former PM wants the public debate shut down.

    And who fibbed when he claimed when he left politics that he was not going to be a “miserable ghost,” like certain other former PMs.

    It’d be a first if he disclosed his family’s interest in renewables, every time he comments on climate change.

  7. MACK

    The ABC is now just an audio-visual version of the Women’s Weekly.

  8. a happy little debunker

    The ABC – your National Climate Emergency Broadcaster!

  9. Leo G

    IN November 2019, the ABC fell for a climate change petition purportedly signed by 11,000 scientists.

    Who’d accept a consensus opinion on a complex multi-field scientific issue from a group of scientific method deniers?

  10. Colonel Bunty Golightly

    The Morrison government simply rolls over and takes it up the clacker. Weak man and a weak government

  11. Old Lefty

    Denunciation in Pravda was often the precursor to the KGB hammering on the door. Any signatories in Yarragrad should be on the alert for Fatty Ashton’s KGB Keystones. A few more fabricated child abuse charges, anyone?

  12. Geoff Derrick

    Yep, I signed the European Climate Declaration in October 2019, and was listed as No. 19 in the Australian list. Fellow geologists Viv Forbes was No. 1, David Archibald was No. 3, and Ian Plimer No. 53. As sure as God made Two Thick Planks, along come our ABC friends based out of Monash University, Martino and Christine, to ask us were we really qualified to comment, and what were my credentials.
    As I recall, P**s Off was a common refrain. Fully blown wankers, both of them.

  13. jupes

    Good on you Geoff. Good work.

  14. cuckoo

    I’d like “background checks” done on all ABC employees, their views on climate change, politics, etc. Imagine the squeals of outrage if they were carried out.

    Had a good laugh recently when an ABC manager was on tv whining about the AFP raid on Festung Ultimo, that the feds were “rifling through confidential documents”. Of all the nerve! Don’t they know that’s the ABC’s job?

  15. Spurgeon Monkfish III

    I’d like “background checks” done on all ABC employees, their views on climate change, politics

    Sacré bleu! Perfesser Davidson gets fact checked by the ALPBC on the former’s assertion that ALPBC staff are a bunch of tofu hoovering greenfilth loving commie hippies.

  16. min

    Yesterday a friend gave a presentation on bushfires at a current affairs group of retirees numbering about 90. I suggested that he asked them first who thought that climate change was major cause and majority of hands went up.
    He showed a BBC broadcast on the bushfires that was all climate change and wildfires increasing content except for scientist who said that wildfires Had not increased and the reasons . The next piece was Peta Credlin and Roger Underwood, ex researcher on bushfires with CSIRO and David Pakenham a forester and land management expert with 100 years experience between them explaining how loads happened in Australia and the amount that was manageable when burning . Last piece was an ABC programme decades old showing drought and how poor land management had damaged land,as now scrub grew and not grassland . Not a mention in this of climate change and doubt if it would be played today on the ABC.
    He was told it was biased and we do not think they changed their minds.

  17. a happy little debunker

    Another element to this Fact Check was regarding the bonafides of an actual scientist.
    The article quotes the Australian Academy of Science

    However, if their science is not open to the scrutiny of the scientific community at large, it must necessarily be treated with a certain level of scepticism. A scientist talking about unpublished data or proprietary results, in any setting, would be treated with caution.

    Dr Michael Mann, celebrated by the ABC as a climate scientist for his ‘hockey stick graph’ – refused to release data and proprietary results ordered by a Canadian Court in the libel matter of Mann vs Ball, where Dr Ball had asserted the ‘truth defence’.

    The ABC certainly has held no reservations or expressed any caution in regards to Dr Mann’s work and opinions.

    Using the ABC’s own fact check we can declare Q&A, ABC Radio (with Wendy Harmer) & ABC Radio (PM) with the highly coveted rating of ‘4-5 pinocchio’s’.

  18. Turtle

    They had a problem with signatories being geologists or engineers. Geologists are highly sound on climate, given their understanding of the broadest time scales. Good geologists invariably work for mining companies and not universities. This, they claim, discredits their views. Yet government funded university scientists who rely on the scare for funding somehow magically have no vested interests. The same goes for engineers. It’s like Thomas Sowell said, when economists who work in the private sector come back to visit the university, they are treated like they have returned from working for the enemy.

  19. calli

    He was told it was biased and we do not think they changed their minds.

    Min, some would have thought about it. These groups have a great number of queen bees (and queen drones), and sadly cowardice means not speaking one’s mind.

    I find that when I pipe up and call it a load of hooey, many of the timid ones nod and smile and agree. Of course I get push back, but the Cat has provided me with an armoury of questions to ask the true believers. And I ask them humbly and with kindness.

    They crumble. Because they just don’t know the answers. I don’t know if I convince them and I don’t care. It’s the heartened ones who are important.

  20. RobK

    Only slightly on topic:
    After responding last week to a Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER) (WA)Customer Feedback email, where I left them with comments that could not be misconstrued as having any confidence in their competence, today I received a call purportedly from a government department wanting to know my views on local marine parks. When I asked which department, he said he could only reveal that after the survey, to avoid bias. It was a short call after that.

  21. a happy little debunker

    When I asked which department, he said he could only reveal that after the survey, to avoid bias

    Got one of those types yesterday – where the client is undisclosed, but am always happy to participate (just cause I like judging the data gathering).
    It focussed on adult literacy. like where to get information and help yada-yada-yada.
    My responses were generally ‘the local library’.
    At the end of the questionnaire it was revealed that the client was Libraries Tasmania.

  22. David Brewer

    Two things about this are outrageous.

    First, what facts have they checked? None. There is absolutely nothing in their enormous article about any factual assertion made by the signatories. Yet they claim that:

    RMIT ABC Fact Check determines the accuracy of claims by politicians, public figures, advocacy groups and institutions engaged in the public debate.

    Yet if you check their own factual claim about what they do, you find it’s false.

    Second outrage: the money. Fact Check…

    …is funded jointly by RMIT University and the ABC. The ABC is a publicly funded, independent media organisation

    So the hundreds of hours of prying and snooping and harassing that this article required – to find no facts – was on our dime.

    Craig Kelly or one of his mates should raise this illegitimate use of public money in parliament, since these frauds also boast that:

    RMIT ABC Fact Check is accountable to the Australian Parliament

    But you know what really gets me? Their utter gall in claiming that…

    Fact Check is an agenda-free zone; it fearlessly follows the facts no matter where they lead.

    Makes you sick.

  23. nb

    ABC getting in good with Stasi.

  24. Squirrel

    “lies, damned lies, and statistics” – and “fact-checking”, and “modelling”

  25. John64

    They had a problem with signatories being geologists or engineers.

    Most strange that TheirABC has never questioned the qualifications of one of their most favoured experts on climate change who happens to be a palaeontologist.

  26. duncanm

    Posted in the OT earlier today.. I’ll repeat it here.

    The piece was a disgusting hit job, and the ABC Factless unit couldn’t even fact-check their own sources, against the letter they were dismissing.
    —snip—

    The ABC Fact Check is a disgrace. That linked article is a typical attack-smear on people not toeing the climate catastrophe line.

    They can’t even check the facts in front of them

    From the ABC Fact Check article:

    However, six scientists, enlisted by Climate Feedback reviewed the claims shortly after the petition was released.
    In the summary of Climate Feedback’s review it says:
    … The letter claims, for example, that climate models ignore the benefits of increased CO2 on plant growth. This is false, as many climate models simulate the response of vegetation to increased CO2— and the climate change it causes.

    This is a complete misquote, and the letter says no such thing. What it does say, is this:

    Climate policy relies on inadequate models:
    [Climate models] .. ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.

    CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth:
    ..More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass.

    The claim was that increased plant growth is a benefit – to the earth and humanity – not that it feeds back into the climate models.

    The climatrophists are so blinkered they can think of nothing else but their models. Humanity certainly does not figure into it.

  27. Professor Fred Lenin

    Johnno dem bones dem bones dem very dry bones flannery a Leg End , some cats call rain flanneries , the sea will rise 50 metres , dont build dams it will never rain again , Perth will be a ghost town through lack of water ,the North Pole is melting , Greenland is melting , the Antarctic is shrinking, it will never snow again did I miss any ? Probably yes there were so many disasters that never happened ,and this Tosser is an Expert ? –

  28. Nob

    Questions I’d like answered:
    What is a Climate Scientist?
    Is it a special degree?
    Since when?
    What is the course content?
    Over what period?
    Does it include such hard scientific disciplines as physics, engineering, geology?

    I don’t have endless time to google but most of the “climate scientists” quoted in the media seem to be simply spouting projections of what the effects of climate change will be , having taken the extent of change for granted.

Comments are closed.