Jo Nova and the ABC

Jo Nova has just posted for the second time on her interview with ABC. For those unfamiliar with Jo Nova, she is the most well known Australian skeptic, and her website attracts considerable attention. As a result, the Australian ABC chose her, and her husband, to represent the skeptical side of the climate change debate. Having seen other skeptics abused in the editing process, Jo asked for an independent cameraman to film the interview as insurance against bad editing. I forget her exact words, but it was something along the lines of ‘protecting our reputations’. Jo has now published the full copy of the interview, and contrasts it with the way that their views were presented by ABC. Jo gives an account of what was used from 2 hours of interview for herself below:

Jo:                Carbon dioxide.

Jo:                There’s some small immeasurable amount.

Jo:                The data says –

Joanne:      (Laughs)

Jo:                The planet is not going to be destroyed.

Jo summarises how they presented their argument thus:

David and I made it absolutely clear that we held our positions because of the evidence (between us we mentioned the word “evidence” nearly 100 times). But this wouldn’t have fitted with the theme later in the show where Smith and Nasht get psychologists to explain that it’s really all about “ideology”, and skeptics are skeptics because they’re old white males. (Like Jo right?) An honest doco would have taken care to at least let David and I explain our position. David showed four pieces of evidence that showed the models are wrong, yet the editors completely removed any reference to three of the four key pieces of evidence. This is despite the graphs being filmed twice, and referred to repeatedly by both David and myself in preps and in the filming. Indeed, I mentioned “28 million radiosondes” five times (a reference to the missing hot spot).  Later, David pointed out that ignoring the poor siting of thermometers is one way the modelers conceal the failure of their models. The editors jumbled these two aspects together with tricky snipping to suggest that the photos of thermometers were one of our “two” key points of evidence for the failure of the models.

That number is important: we clearly presented four pieces of evidence (1. models overestimated air temperatures from 1990, 2. models overestimated ocean warming since when we started measuring it properly in 2003, 3. models predict a pattern of atmospheric warming — responsible for most of the warming in the models — that is entirely missing from copious weather balloon measurements, and 4. models predict outgoing radiation increases with surface rising surface temperature when satellite measurements show the opposite). But they moved David’s words around (by cutting and pasting) to make it appear he said he presented two pieces (which he never said), and to make it appear as if the dodgy land thermometers were one of those two pieces of evidence. Net result: they actively concealed from the audience, by trickery, the evidence that mattered and that we presented four independent sets of data in support of our position.

In looking at the transcript and video, it is very apparent that they were, in no way, presented fairly in the ABC documentary. Indeed, an emphasis on the evidence by Jo and her husband David was the main theme of their argument. In response, the interviewer instead continually pointed to authority (e.g. the IPCC) instead of actually engaging with the argument based upon the evidence, or turned the subject to smears regarding funding. There were a few exceptions, but these simply highlighted the interviewer’s poor knowledge of the science in question.

Overall it is a very shabby incident. For those who are new to the climate change debate, I would strongly recommend taking a look at the video of the interview. It delves into some technicalities which are difficult if you are unfamiliar with the climate change debate, so parts of the interview may be hard going. However, if you can take the time to watch it, note how the debate plays out; the presentation of observational evidence that contradicts the climate models, the refusal of the interviewer to engage with that evidence (mostly), and the switches to appeals to authority and ad hominem attacks. In the final edit for the documentary, the arguments put forward by Jo and David are distorted, and the result is, by any reasonable standard, an extremely biased presentation. If you have any doubts, the transcript of the broadcast can be found as a link at the bottom of the page here, annotated by David.

I highlight this as it is a good illustration of the problems with the portrayal of the skeptical case. There are no startling revelations in the interview, but a presentation of the skeptical case based upon evidence. To those familiar with the debate, there is nothing new, but for those unfamiliar with the debate, it gives an opportunity to see how a media outlet may be in thrall to alarmist arguments, and seek to hide/distort the skeptic view. It is important for this reason alone; for those unfamiliar with the debate, it shows that much of the media cannot be trusted on this issue.

About these ads

50 responses to “Jo Nova and the ABC

  1. Deniers need to get a grip. When Jo is parroting the silly “not enough human CO2″ nonsense, she SHOULD be ridiculed for it.

    And repeatedly claiming that she is basing her anti-science views on evidence does not make it so. What matters is what you actually are doing. For example, a dictatorship with the name “Democratic” in it does not magically make it democratic.

    Jo is just spewing denialist talking points. She’s dishoenst and ignorant at the same time. A dangerous combination. Even the list of talking points she thought ABC should have aired was just the same old bunch of crap.

    I’m glad ABC didn’t allow themselves to be fooled into giving anti-science demagogues too much of a chance to spew their lies.

    • You clearly have not bothered to read the transcript or video. When you have done so, and have something to say about what was actually said, you might find a more welcoming response here. Why is it, for example, that the points made in the interview do not appear in the documentary? The documentary was supposed to allow the skeptics to make their case, but did not do so. Why?

      • Jo is a denier, and has no “case.” She is just parroting the same old long since debunked lies. I already pointed out that her “points” are just thee same old blatant lies.

        Deniers are just spewing out tons of garbage. Their Gish Gallops rival those of creationists.

        • But if they wish to present the skeptic case, why not present it? That is what they told the audience; that they would allow the skeptics to present their case. Why did they not do so. You do not answer this question. If there is nothing to the case, why distort and not present the case as it was presented in the interview?

          Instead, you (as usual) still use rude description in place of an argument, whilst still having failed to identify exactly what science ‘deniers’ are denying. As usual, you offer nothing but rudeness as an argument.

          • They only have limited time, and when the deniers’ arguments are so ridiculous the correct way to present them is to accurately portray the idiocy of the denialist talking points.

            I have already explained that deniers deny scientific facts. And they generally behave just like creationists (attacking the science, using straw men, lying, Gish Gallops, etc.).

          • What scientific facts, though? i.e. I keep on asking about the facts that Judith Curry is denying, and your response was not to point to facts, but rather to complain that she says that there is uncertainty in the science. That is not denying anything, but accepting uncertainty. You still have not given an example that you are willing to stand by.

            As for your comment on Jo’s interview, as usual, you evade the questions asked. If a documentary says it will give the skeptics a chance to present their views, why did they then not present their views as they were given? You may disagree, with the skeptical views, but if a documentary claims they will present their views, why would they then not do so? This was the point of the documentary, to examine both sides, so time should not be an issue.

          • That’s the whole point of the Gish Gallop: Spewing huge amounts of bullshit. There just isn’t enough time to do so, so they had to present a representative sample of the deniers’ bullshit claims.

          • Still not answering the question……

          • There just isn’t enough time to do so, so they had to present a representative sample of the deniers’ bullshit claims.

            You don’t “have time”, yet you have time to come here and make content-free abuse in reply to every comment

            I notice that you only seem to do this in response to posts that reference “deniers” (sic) that you seem versed in. For example, you do not respond to threads that discuss wind energy.
            Are you only trained in one area? I am genuinely interested in the Pavlovian style responses to these posts.

          • You don’t “have time”, yet you have time to come here and make content-free abuse in reply to every comment

            Huh? I didn’t say anything about whether I have time or not. I said that ABC didn’t have time to air the whole Gish Gallop, so they had to air a representative sample of the denialist bullshit.

            For example, you do not respond to threads that discuss wind energy.

            So? I don’t give a crap about wind energy.

      • I did answer the question. A representative sample of their inane bullshit was given air time.

        • No, that does not answer the question. If they say that they are going to give skeptics an opportunity to present their case, then that means represent their case. Not one example, distorted, and set out of context. That is not representative of anything. It is a distortion. Why, if they claimed that they were going to give the skeptics a chance to be heard, did they do this?

          • I did answer the question. I explained that they had to choose a representative selection. They couldn’t just let these crazies ramble on forever. They have time limits, you know.

          • As I said to another commentator, you do the skeptical argument a favour. You simply will not address the questions put before you.

          • As I said to another commentator, you do the skeptical argument a favour. You simply will not address the questions put before you.

            I have addressed them, but you keep asking again, over and over, in a desperate attempt to move the focus away from the scary facts.

            If I do the skeptical argument a favor – great! Because you are not skeptics. You are deniers. True skeptics will actually look at the evidence, and the evidence clearly points to AGW.

      • This comment does need to be posted just wanted to show how few places this king troll has been posting on the internet while he very commonly comes here to pollute your blog with substanceless crap.

        http://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbo=d&nfpr=1&q=snerkersnerk&sa=X&ei=D_ncUOjKEIz2igKcy4H4AQ&ved=0CC8QvgUoAQ&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.cGE&fp=a7e118819f5e1e5b&bpcl=40096503&biw=1600&bih=691

        I think he has been banned all over the place and you are one of the few left who still allow him to post his ugly unsubstantiated drivel.

        Cheers.

  2. There doesn’t appear to be much point in engaging with Snerker as all (s)he wants to do is disrupt the thread with abuse and not bring any constructive dialogue to the discussion.

    • You are right in some respects. However, I think of readers who have not got a clear view on the climate change debate. snerksnerk makes the skeptic case for us. Anyone who reads his comments….I think that they can only raise doubts about the alarmist case.

      • How come you claim that people who accept the scientific consensus are alarmist, while at the same time subscribing to an insane conspiracy theory where the whole scientific establishment and most governments of the world are part of a massive conspiracy?

        Now THAT is alarmism.

        And hypocrisy is as commong among climate deniers as it is among creationists.

        • Here you go again, nothing substantive to say, so you report to name calling (yet again).

          • Actually, it is you who avoid my actual point and use the fact that I call a spade a spade as a red herring to distract the reader from the fact that I’m pointing out how your insane conspiracy theory is true alarmism, and how you are therefore a hypocrite.

          • This is just descending into mindless drivel…..

          • This is just descending into mindless drivel…..

            Yes, that’s what denialist arguments are. And your desperate attempts to escape my actual points by whining about “name calling” just proves my point.

            One of my points being that your insane conspiracy theory is true alarmism. Which you have failed to address.

          • This is just getting dull.

            Andy, you are right, this is not worth the bother.

    • That is because he does not know what to say that is rational and constructive.

      He is just a number among internet trolls who have been brainwashed with an odious ideology and wants to beat everyone else down who does not share with that ideology which is brain dead stupid but hey when most people are profoundly ignorant of the particular details of the IPCC backed scam he gets some traction but with people like us who actually read and think rationally on the topic they scream with ugly bile knowing they can’t discuss anything beyond the level of a runny egg.

      So just sit back and laugh at these people who speak with two left feet.

      • He is just a number among internet trolls who have been brainwashed with an odious ideology and wants to beat everyone else down who does not share with that ideology which is brain dead stupid

        sunsettommy looks in the mirror again.

        when most people are profoundly ignorant of the particular details of the IPCC backed scam he gets some traction but with people like us who actually read and think rationally on the topic they scream with ugly bile knowing they can’t discuss anything beyond the level of a runny egg.

        You wouldn’t be capable of rational thought if your life depended on it. All you have done is to listen to anti-science propaganda and become a useful idiot.

  3. As part of the series, Anna Rose and Nick Minchin went to visit Marc Morano

    This meeting is quite an eye-opener. The lack of argument and dogma evident from Ms Rose is amazing

    • I love the way deniers always use anti-scientific frauds as sources. Marc Morano, Monckton, Jo Nova, etc. Laughable.

      • I forgot to mention one of the most obvious frauds: Watts!

      • I love the way deniers always use anti-scientific frauds as sources. Marc Morano, Monckton, Jo Nova, etc. Laughable.

        I was providing a clip from the TV series. What is “laughable” about this?
        Did Ms Rose, the lemon-lipped “climate activist”, who refused to engage with Morano on any level, come out on top in this clip?
        If she did not want to engage, she should have refused the interview altogether.

        As it is, she comes across as yet another intolerant activist with no arguments to present.

        The recent interview between Michael Mann and Morano also had some similar qualities, in that Mann flatly refused to engage directly with Morano, and had to route all comments through the interviewer

        • I was providing a clip from the TV series. What is “laughable” about this?

          What’s laughable is that you are publishing a clip with one of the typical morons that science deniers claim to be authorities. That includes Morano, Monckton, etc. And yet, Morano is just another anti-scientific fraud. Just like Monckton and the rest of the fraudsters.

          You have no real science, so you resort to frauds.

      • I see that you did not specify what actually bothers you and probably you can’t because as I show below you don’t investigate.

        If you bothered to think a little longer you would notice that it was POSTED by a CAGW believer Rod Adams:

        “In April 2012 ABC (Australian Broadcasting Company) produced a documentary matching a climate change activist against a career politician who favors Australia’s continued use of cheap coal. The politician, Nick Minchin, introduced Mark Moreno, who blogs at Climate Depot (http://climatedepot.com/). Mark attacks Anna Rose, the climate change activist, while Anna refuses to take the bait of a point by point debate with someone who “makes stuff up.””

        Who tried vainly to support a woman who is obviously ignorant as shown in the video and speaks like a person who does NOT know what a Scientific Method is or what a NULL Hypothesis is either.

        ROFLMAO!

        It is OBVIOUS that you did not check the source of the video because you are too busy being a clueless troll.

        Carry on……..

        • Just a little thought on the tone. I know that snerksnerk can be aggravating, and I have sometimes also responded in frustration. However, let’s try to keep the tone less emotive. As I have mentioned in earlier comments, snerksnerk does an unintended service for the skeptic argument.

          However, I do appreciate your comments, and hope you will continue to comment here, including the link to your post when ready.

          • snerkersnerk

            As I have mentioned in earlier comments, snerksnerk does an unintended service for the skeptic argument.

            Which is good, because you deniers are not skeptics. The true skeptics are the ones that actually look at the evidence. And they will always come to accept AGW because only 14 year old boys called Tommy and people blinded by their ideology will continue to insist that the facts are false, and that everything is a huge conspiracy by tens of thousands of scientists around the world.

          • And you surpass yourself now. Your service for the skeptical case is just getting greater and greater. When people see your inane and rude commentary, I think they will be enlightened.

          • snerkersnerk

            If rudeness is the determining factor, then you deniers have lost.

        • If you bothered to think a little longer you would notice that it was POSTED by a CAGW believer Rod Adams:

          How on earth does it matter who posted the original video? It wasn’t he who used Morono as a source. It was scrase who used the Morono clip here.

          Man, you science deniers are thick.

    • The troll fails to see the obvious deception made by ABC as clearly shown at Jo’s blog where with additional cameras showed just how much editing ABC Made to distort what Jo and David where talking about and then broadcast on television.

      But trolls are notorious for shooting from the hip in their bid to appear educated when actually they are the drecks of society for corrupting the conversation.

      Carry on kid.

      • The troll fails to see the obvious deception made by ABC as clearly shown at Jo’s blog where with additional cameras showed just how much editing ABC Made to distort what Jo and David where talking about and then broadcast on television.

        I love it when science deniers are presented accurately on TV. They always look stupid. And when they realize, they try to rationalize.

        No, dear child, this is how you science deniers are! You really are this ignorant and thick.

  4. Bwahahahahahahaha!!!

    I see that this ugly troll fails to articulate a single point of objection to what Jo and David presents and this is the best he can come up with which is why he is pathetic in his emptyheaded replies.

    I recently blasted Glenn Tamblyn at a blog several times and he completely ignored me because he knows that the last two IPCC reports does not follow the SCIENTIFIC METHOD at all because their temperature models that runs to 2100 and even as far as year 3000 based on the never verified CO2 “heat trapping” capability are not VERIFIABLE or TESTIBLE!

    Here is a good description of the Scientific Method that you CAGW believers needs to learn:

    Introduction to the Scientific Method

    http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

    CO2 is a trace gas with a feeble IR absorption window that is partially overlapped by WATER VAPOR and does very little in the tropics where the vast amount of solar energy lands on.

    Now watch this nasty substanceless troll explode!

  5. Tomorrow I plan to make a post showing how bereft troll arguments really are since they show no curiosity on what is happening on the climate since they are programmed by the media,the few dishonest scientists and the worst of all to spew out ugly malicious bullcrap.

    I have at least three in mind as an expose of just how stupid CAGW trolls really are and deserving the scorn they earned.

  6. He he,

    I have been busy and you just keep building evidence that you have nothing to offer but snotty factless replies as trolls are known to do.

    By the way have you looked up the definition of the scientific method yet and know what the NULL hypothesis is?

    • What was that about snotty factless replies again, Thomas? Oh, that describes you in a nutshell! Aren’t you also the guy who admitted that to accept AGW denial, one must also deny the greenhouse effect?

      The scientific method? You have no clue what that is, of course.

  7. You still can’t come up with a comment that is on topic.

    The post simply shows that Jo exposed the dishonest editing of her interview which was in her own home by showing the unedited back up cameras.

    Why not acknowledge that she was mistreated by ABC?

    • Sorry for the delay on approving your comment. Not sure how I missed it.

    • No, the post shows that deniers are so removed from reality it’s really quite amazing. Deniers spew all sorts of nonsensical garbage, and yet get all whiny when someone picks a representative sample of their crap.

      She was not mistreated. Her insane and science-hating nonsense was accurately reflected in the editing. She really IS that stupid and insane.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s