The Irish National Broadcasting Code

Judging from Peter Campion’s prolonged exchange of letters with the ABC they practice what is formalized in Ireland. A year or two ago Peter lodged a complaint about the ABC providing no platform for people who deviate from alarmist orthodoxy. As I recall the line he got back after he made the case that plenty of reputable scientists are not alarmists is that the ABC is simply standing by the best scientific advice that they have.

This is a comment in a thread on the Greenland glaciers that are growing instead of shrinking as they are supposed to do.

We have long past reached Peak Hype on Greenland etc. Just watched an edition of the Irish equivalent of Meet The Press in relation to the media and political consensus to railroad through savage carbon taxes; ban the sale of petrol/diesel private vehicles by 2030; and to outlaw new installations of fossil fuel home heating by 2025. In the codes for broadcasters in our national Broadcasting Authority of Ireland there is a Guideline which says that “views and behaviour that damage the environment” should not be permitted and that “artifical balance” is not required. In tonight’s programme a Labour politician was worried that cold and wet Ireland would soon become a “sizzling wasteland”. Game over. Greta rules.

Perhaps if that was formalized in a Guideline Alan Jones would not have got a place on Q&A. I wonder if that will happen again!

This entry was posted in Global warming and climate change policy, Rafe. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to The Irish National Broadcasting Code

  1. Cardimona

    There is a hard core of individuals at TheirABC who aren’t deluding themselves about meeting the requirements of their charter; they know full well they’re ignoring it.

    It is an enormous megaphone for their ideology, paid for with other people’s money – and they are damned proud to have captured it and subverted it.

  2. PB

    “Greta” is a potato. When did potatoes become the conscience of humanity?

  3. Bruce of Newcastle

    A long time ago I complained to the ABC about the errors and omissions about the Tampa incident.
    It was the only time I’ve ever contacted them. I got a reply. Astoundingly.
    It was such boilerplate bullshit that I’ve never communicated with them since.
    Their understanding of the climate data is below inadequate.
    Shut them down. Fire them all.

  4. Rafe Champion

    There is boilerplate for standard situations – I know it well from drafting Ministerial correspondence. Peter was not satisfied by the standard response and pressed them on points of fact and detail. He got no satisfaction but he created a paper trail that may be interesting sometime if ever there is some serious public discussion of the ABC charter.

  5. …outlaw new installations of fossil fuel home heating by 2025

    Can someone explain what heating options are left?

  6. Turtle of WA

    There is a hard core of individuals at TheirABC


    Alan Jones really threatened them by showing that Alice Workman, who scoffed at him just for talking about global warming and was then shown to be ignorant of something as basic as “How Much CO2?”.

  7. Turtle of WA



  8. Turtle of WA

    Sorry, the above comment is gibberish upon rereading.

  9. NuThink

    the ABC is simply standing by the best scientific advice that they have.

    In order to judge if you are getting the best scientific advice you need to be able to assess and verify that scientific advice, and therefor understand and abide by scientific principles. How do the gurus at the ABC do that because their knowledge of science and understanding of what science is all about and the principles upon which science is based is seriously lacking IMHO?
    Besides they lack principles themselves.
    The ABC also confuse opinion with science. They also confuse opinion with reporting and news, after all they have News (dog’s) breakfast, which should more aptly be described as Opinews.
    The ABC is good at converting opinion into both science and news, the modern Alchemists.
    In the climate science debate they are trying to base science on chaotic systems, and so science which should allow things to be measured and allow repeatability is saying that chaos will predict chaos.
    Hope I am not too confusing here – if I spent a lot more time I could simplify but hopefully you get my meaning.
    PS If news gets rehashed on a daily basis it is no longer news (the name is a dead giveaway).

  10. NuThink

    the ABC is simply standing by the best scientific advice that they have.

    The bar can be set very low.
    The best scientific advice that they have can technically be very low, like from a kid at kindergarten. There is no reference given, and best is a relative term, not an absolute.
    So they are actually telling the truth, but that does not mean that the science is any good or of a high quality.
    If the only book you have on railways is from Isambard Kingdom Brunel, it would not be as good as the engineering from the designers of the Japanese Shinkansen (bullet train) or the French TGV (Train Grand Vitesse).

    PS Over the Shinkansen’s 50-plus year history, carrying over 10 billion passengers, there has been not a single passenger fatality or injury due to train accidents.

  11. Tim Neilson

    the ABC is simply standing by the best scientific advice that they have.

    English translation: The ABC is standing by the advice they have received from scientists with the best references from the climate alarmist industrial complex.

  12. Brian

    the ABC is simply standing by the best scientific advice that they have.

    Curious – it is not a standard they use with any of their other reporting?
    And if they did, how much of their content would disappear?

Comments are closed.