Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

Climate change: what is really going on?

By Emily Arlidge - posted Thursday, 19 March 2015

Once upon a time there was a global crisis called climate change. Apparently. So some people have said. Like Tim Flannery. And Clive Hamilton. And not The Australian newspaper.

If you’re undecided about climate change, as statistics indicate many of us are, you might be comforted to know that scientists are as well. If you take Australian media’s word for it, one half of scientists think there’s a problem and the others say nay.

Every now and then, Australia’s national broadcasters might let environmentalists stress to the public that “97 per cent of climate change scientists believe in global warming, only three per cent don’t”. But just because you are being presented with a statistic like that, doesn’t mean it skips the “99 per cent of statistics are made up” basket. At least that’s what commentators like Keith Orchison say. If he were adjudicating the climate change debate, chances are that statement would be off limits.


Other days, the media will give voice to people like James Taylor, who fails to mention in his bio in this article published by that he’s an energy and environment writer associated with the Heartland Institute, an American political organisation which strongly advocates climate change denial. Unfortunately, it’s not required that people state their full occupation, political standings and views on climate change when they publish these types of articles. If they did, we might be one step closer to being able to draw our own conclusions. You can see full details about my sources here.

Orchison says he’s not to be mistaken as a climate change sceptic. If you’re on the fence and looking for some remnants of objectivity on this subject, think of him as someone who strives to look at all the angles. Orchison is a communications commentator with a background in energy. He was formerly Managing Director of the Electricity Supply Association of Australia.

While climate scientists and journalists might not care for some of his opinions about climate change, it’s fair to say that he summarises their problems with communicating the issue very well.

Orchison says two questions should be considered: first, what is really going on with climate change? “Only the scientists can tell us and we need to be aware that, whether or not global warming exists, our communication of it is only getting worse.” Second, how is it being conveyed to the Australian public through the media “and what impact is that having on policy-making?”

Bored yet? Peta Ashworth is a lead researcher at the CSIRO. She says that the level of interest and engagement held by people on scientific issues such as climate change or coal seam gas is dependent on how close that issue the individual is. See more on public engagement with science through social media here.

So how much do you really care? Is the media responsible for you dozing off while watching ‘An Inconvenient Truth’? If the media were getting it right, would we be any closer to saving the world’s glacial ice, or securing a future for your children’s children?


Orchison has an opinion on the way newsrooms run and how that affects climate change communication. “I think all publications should have a clear understanding that in the sort of the world we live in where communications are such an important part of our lives, they can’t afford to be lazy. They can’t afford to play games with information. They can’t afford to pretend that what they’re doing is providing balance when all they’re doing is providing biff and bash.”

Why journos do the things they do

Journalists are concerned with ratings – who is looking at/reading what they present. Thanks to the digital age, every time you change channels or switch pages, the media companies know it. They live for you to turn back on again. If you’re going to switch off mid-climate change story, there is a strong disincentive to cover it. If they put Tim Flannery on the telly and you know that Flannery tends to make problematic television talent, then you’ll keep watching. And they will keep giving him airtime. Suddenly, he’s the go-to guy for climate change stories. But, as Orchison points out, he’s a palaeontologist, not a climate scientist.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

This article was first published on Emily Arlidge.

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

10 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Emily Arlidge works in television news and social media. You can follow her on Twitter @emarlidge.

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Emily Arlidge
Article Tools
Comment 10 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy