The ABC bias swindle

Against these five were three sceptics. First, the journalist Michael Duffy - he was given the first question, which sought to elicit condemnation of the documentary from him on journalistic grounds, and following his response - a challenge as to why Jones was so tough on Durkin when he is so soft on pro-orthodoxy thinkers like Nicholas Stern, author of the Stern Review - he was entirely shut out of the debate.

The final two panelists were both bearded sceptical scientists. It is fair to say that we didn’t have our best foot forward. Professor Bob Carter, of James Cook University, just didn’t know how to deal with Karoly’s heckling (“it’s rude to interrupt” might have been a good start) and, as for the redoubtable Ray Evans, you just can’t speak that slowly on national TV.

They didn’t win the argument. Karoly was good, no question. He was also given the vast majority of the time by Jones. He was given dolly-up question after dolly-up question and spoke about four times as much as anyone else.

Nevertheless, I don’t think that the ABC did its favoured side any good last night in the way they chose to present this piece.

Please don’t misunderstand me. If climate change proponents were vigorously challenged in the way the sceptics were last night, then I would levy no criticism at Jones’ interview (though its editing still needs an explanation) - that would be fair enough. Indeed, Jones had clearly done his homework, the robust questions were asked well and they certainly revealed some problems in Durkin’s piece. But the aggression is all one way.

While being advocates for the accepted consensus in public discourse about our environment is undoubtedly an advantage for the proponents of the man-made climate change school, I’m not sure that the ad hominem attacks on sceptics does the climate change cause any good.

Increasingly, the treatment meted out to those who query the orthodoxy is akin to those accused of blasphemy in theocratic states. There will be some who watched last night and thought that Jones went a bit far in his attacks, and wonder why. Increasingly, there’s something delightfully subversive in opposing the climate change theory that some iconoclasts will find attractive per se.

Meanwhile, having seen it done for the single airing the sceptic cause had, one looks forward to a “this does not represent the view of the ABC” health warning the next time a pro-climate change documentary is shown. And the time after that, and the time after that …