The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > OLO Source Watch - Climate Change Denial Monotony

OLO Source Watch - Climate Change Denial Monotony

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Okay, this is starting to get ridiculous. I am more than happy for OLO to publish any kind of article it deems fit, no matter how much I might disagree; however, most publications, for very good reason, don't use that presumptive freedom from their readership as a license to publish endless iterations of the same voices, who utilise the same talking points, even where editors may be sympathetic.

So, with that in mind, I feel I must take issue with the barrage of articles OLO has published in the genre of triumphalist climate change denial, by IPA contributors under the guise of being independent voices. First, Jennifer Marohasy, whose association with IPA was at least disclosed in her bio line, but then we had Bob Carter as a plain scientist, and finally Max Rheese as part of the IPA front the “Australian Environment Foundation”, in as many days.

This is not what I call a plurality of voices – not in terms of the whole debate, nor even from within climate denial circles. This is effectively one group of pro-industry people; the same stakeholders, who OLO has uncritically published over a week as if they were disparate and independent of each other. Surely this amounts to a lapse in editorial judgement and is a gross disservice to the readership here and the OLO brand which I'm sure would be concerned with striving for a robust rebate and plurality
Posted by BBoy, Wednesday, 2 April 2008 2:57:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yeah, I'm feeling a bit bruised and battered of late. Can't wait for Andrew Bolt and Ray Evan's to 'check in'.

Wouldn't mind so much except for the ad-homs - talk about shrill.
Posted by Q&A, Wednesday, 2 April 2008 5:25:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Conventional wisdom once told us that the world was flat,now conventional wisdom tells us that CO2 is the prime driver of climate change with no conclusive scientific evidnence to back it up.

Apparently it is so because they tell us to accept that a minor global warming gas is the murderer based on association/heresay and not on hard scientific evidence.Where is the hard scientific evidence to link co2 with Global Warming?
Posted by Arjay, Wednesday, 2 April 2008 9:23:02 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree. There certainly seems to be a preponderance of IPA and other anti-environmental content lately - which always draws the same salivating wingnut comments.

For those of us who are interested in these issues but not necessarily obsessed by them, it's become very difficult to participate in OLO discussions concerning climate change, resource depletion, overpopulation etc, largely because they have already descended into a feeding frenzy before you've had a chance to read the article and think about it a bit.

I'm almost expecting an article from Tim Blair about global 'warmening'.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 2 April 2008 9:39:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay "Where is the hard scientific evidence to link co2 with Global Warming?"

I Agree Arjay.

Soft, inadequately tested theories based on models which use insufficient and untested (to significance) data, incapable of passing the basic test of scientific "Truth".

The easiest way of resolving these things, I always say, just follow the money.

From your and my pocket into nice shiny reseach centres and government troughs for fat-cats and prestigious titles for the ambitious.
Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 2 April 2008 9:47:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bboy

I am in complete agreement with you.

When I had the temerity to suggest that there is a clear bias towards the 'business as usual crowd' AKA climate change dismissers; I was advised by one of the editors, SusanP, that they would be publishing a David Suzuki article, of course this gem in the dung-heap has been completely offset by the plethora of articles as listed by Bboy.

I am amazed, Bboy that you were even given the authorisation for this discussion thread, did you know that GrahamY can delete your comments even if they are not inflammatory and are on topic, simply because he deems them as "unnecessary"?

Must copy and paste this post before it too meets the OLO censor.

;-)
Posted by Fractelle, Thursday, 3 April 2008 8:59:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm certainly not in the climate change denial camp, but I've seen enough by way of pretty harsh commentary to know that the OLO editors rarely censor, Fractelle.

I sincerely doubt they would remove this thread just because it criticises OLO, and I don't think that comment is particularly fair on them, when they do exercise a light touch, and this probably means they're going out on a limb at times.

As for the preponderance of climate change denial articles, I can see some reasoning there, even though I don't see many credible ones - if there is an established orthodoxy, then it's important that there are plenty of articles that challenge that orthodoxy.
As for the articles, it may depend on availability. Yes, there's a lot of them, but provided they're reasonably written, I don't see why they should be censored either.

Global warming is of course, a global issue, and if there are those that dissent, it's important they're heard.

Yes, there may be a glut of them. But that will happen from time to time and this bizarre run of global warming/porn is evil articles will pass, and next it may be the evils of obesity or overpopulation. Who knows?
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Thursday, 3 April 2008 9:35:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry to have to tell you TRTL,

My morning's comment was deleted, censored and I was threatened by suspension.
Posted by Q&A, Thursday, 3 April 2008 9:43:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh O & A - give them a break!
The more that Jennifer Marohasy, Bob Carter, Max Rheese publish their global warming denials, posing as independent thinkers - but sticking to the IPA line - the more they reveal themselves and the “Australian Environment Foundation” for what they are.

So - people wake up to the truly anti-environmental nature of their "spin". It is indeed repetitive. It looks pretty ridiculous along with graphs showing the correlation of carbon in the atmosphere and average global temperatures , - as well as film of glaciers melting.

Let them publish away - let readers wake up to anti-environment "fronts" and "think tanks" like the Institute of Public Affairs and the “Australian Environment Foundation”
Christina Macpherson www.antinuclear.net
Posted by ChristinaMac, Thursday, 3 April 2008 9:44:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Get used to what you incorrectly call 'denial'. We are not all sheep who want to cosy up to the majority. What is silly is that the easily led, easily frightened, majority who believe the doomsdayers are so upset by the minority having the 'cheek' to post their opinions.

Climate change is real. The childish belief that we can do anything about it is unreal. The climate will change again - when the forces of nature are ready.
Posted by Mr. Right, Thursday, 3 April 2008 10:00:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I thought I would step into this discussion to bring you some facts about exactly what OLO has published in the last four weeks (back to and including March 7). Bearing in mind that the only developments lately on this topic in the news have been discussing the question of “consensus”: I will leave you to make up your own minds about the bias or otherwise of OLO’s coverage of the complex topic of climate change.

Global warming articles:
Letter to Kevin Rudd: stop coal plants now (April 3)
The challenge of the 21st century: setting the real bottom line - part 2 (April 1)
The challenge of the 21st century: setting the real bottom line - part 1 (March 31)
A food conversation (March 25)
Kyoto, Australia and honesty (March 17)
Putting policy into practice - reducing government emissions (March 17)

Articles discussing emissions trading schemes, advertising “green” products etc, so in effect recognising climate change i.e. pro climate change:
Cut tax, carbon to green economy (April 1)
Come clean on sustainability (April 1)
Negotiating the future (March 28)

Articles querying the causes of global warming and/or the science used by the IPCC (note not necessarily denying that climate change is happening but suggesting the jury is still out on how it is caused):
Are environmentalists on the road to Damascus? (April 2)
The IPCC: on the run at last (March 31)
Paddling upstream on a hope and a prayer (March 27)
The Green religion (March 26)
Carbon rationing or freedom (March 14)

And Fractelle, there is only myself working on the articles for On Line Opinion. Graham Young does many, many other things, including looking after the Forum.
Susan Prior - editor
Posted by SusanP, Thursday, 3 April 2008 10:15:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SusanP

4 weeks does not constitute as sufficient time period, to indicate ANY bias in either direction.

Is this not an opinion page? Well consider that I beg to differ.

TRTL

I can set up a temporary email address (my privacy is of utmost importance) if you would like to see a copy of Graham's email to me, then you can make an informed decision as to whether his deletion of my comments was warranted.
Posted by Fractelle, Thursday, 3 April 2008 10:24:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To be honest Fractelle, I don't have the time to go revisiting articles on the site going back over a longer length of time. I picked the last month as an arbitary "pluck a reasonable time span out of the air". I was just illustrating that your perception of bias may be somewhat erroneous. I have no drum to beat, no political bias and work with the material I can obtain. I accept articles from people from all walks of life and from all points of view. I try to put together a journal that I think will broaden the depth of discussion and enhance our understanding of topics that are of interest to all Australians and many others besides. I am sure there are many online sites that can furnish you with opinions with which you agree. Susan Prior - editor
Posted by SusanP, Thursday, 3 April 2008 10:45:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ChristinaMac,

I agree with the concept that all who respect liberty also respect the right to freedom of speech. Journo’s and the media in the ‘free world’ would have it no other way and would be the first to defend and remonstrate if it were not so.

Of course, let them publish away (btw, I think SusanP is providing a balanced range of articles).

However, my ‘bone of contention’ is;

This morning I was told that OLO’s chief editor and founder was “getting a bit sick and tired of ‘my’ provocative comments.” He deleted my comment and threatened me with suspension if I continued to be ‘provocative’.

Now, I agree that ‘freedom of speech’ does not mean the right to say anything that incites violence, defames, slanders, libels, but the act of being ‘provocative’ IMHO is not a caveat and therefore not a reason why my comment should have been deleted or myself threatened with suspension.

Socrates said, “The irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and provocative have a right to be heard.” I agree and we only have to look at some OLO posts to see this.

It is evident some posters on OLO don’t like what I say and go on to besmirch my integrity or honesty, but I see no reason to silence them. However, they want to gag and silence me.

This is extremely hypocritical and in direct contrast to what they expect for themselves – freedom of speech.
Posted by Q&A, Thursday, 3 April 2008 12:44:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry to have to tell you Q&A

My post of last night was also deleted, censored and I too was threatened with suspension.

Methinks Dickie's days on OLO could be numbered.......!
Posted by dickie, Thursday, 3 April 2008 1:06:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Susan, thanks for taking the time to respond. It's good to know OLO is responsive to their readers concerns, and is explicitly commitmented to achieving a balance of viewpoints over time.

I would just say, though, that my point was not so much about the lack of countervailing views in any 3 month period, but that the IPA was allowed to saturate their exposure so much over a single week by simply having a diffused media strategy. I don't object to, nor do have a right to object to, the publishing of IPA anti-AGW articles. The point I am trying to make is that after Jennifer's piece, we had one from the "Australian Environment Foundation", as if this was a non-partisan scientific body of long standing, rather than a pure extension of the IPA's forays into media advocacy, and then Bob Carter's piece, which failed to disclose his position as an IPA research committee member. So, what I'm saying is we should call a spade a spade here - this is a diffused media strategy which has enabled the IPA to skirt the normal rules of the editorial balance that everyone else operates under.

My points is that if these articles were all properly labelled as being under the IPA affiliate banner, it would have not only been far more transparent and less misleading to the readers of this site, but that it is doubtful that they would have been published over a single week at all - given that single organisations, no matter how well esteemed, are never given that kind of licence in other media fora.

Now I don't know whether OLO simply didn't know that the aforementioned voices were IPA affiliates or not. But I do think it should be your business to know, and maintain transparent bio lines in response so everything is transparent and everybody is playing by the same rules.
Posted by BBoy, Friday, 4 April 2008 8:22:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am in complete agreement with TRTL.

It is important for the climate change debate and for science to challenge conventional wisdom otherwise there would be no scrutiny. OLO does provide a wide cross section of opinions even if on occasion there may be a proliferation of one view or another. OLO allows for dissent of the view offered via the Forum.

There is no danger that the AEF (IPA) will convert the true believers and it is important that there are challenges albeit in this case transparent ones. I would rather an article from a GW non-believer who is not pretending to be an "evidence based green" (inferring all other environmentalists are anti-science) but sometimes you take the good with the bad.
Posted by pelican, Friday, 4 April 2008 9:38:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The title of this thread is

“Climate Change Denial Monotony”

Suitable if considered as a contrast to

“Climate Change Dogma Monopoly”

Most of the complaining by the Climate Change zealots.

I have been banned (reasonably in hindsight) from this site in the past and have corresponded with GY on some posts which he declined recently.

Whilst I may disagree with the operators of the site in curtailing some particular unfettered statements, I still respect their ultimate right to decide on site content. If I did not I would not post at all.

I think the site would be a lesser place without input from climate change zealots, however, they should grow up and realize, their view is not omnipotent and the voice of dissent to their views has an equal right to be heard

or we will all end up in a worse place.
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 4 April 2008 11:36:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Way to deliberately misrepresent the thread Col. I painstakingly and explicitly wrote that I do not have any desire to curtail debate over AGW in the negative so stop implying otherwise.

You can self-identify as whatever label you like it's irrelevant to this thread, the point is my substantive content was clearly objecting to the concentration of IPA contributors over a single week, and the failure to identify them as affiliates, and NOT anything to do with the pieces themselves having a certain position. I went to the trouble of even pointing out that the IPA affiliates don't even represent all the voices in the anti-AGW camp anyway.

Anyway, you can generalise and think whatever you like. I'm not a green voter. I'm not zealous. I don't want to censor anybody. I just think affiliates, fronts, and subsidiaries, should be noted in bio lines - and for the purposes of editorial selection, should be counted as part of the one organisation as goes to how many contributions they can get accepted in a single period. It's a reasonable point.
Posted by BBoy, Friday, 4 April 2008 12:46:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BBoy “I painstakingly and explicitly wrote that I do not have any desire to curtail debate over AGW in the negative so stop implying otherwise.”

I think you are being just too precious.

“the point is my substantive content was clearly objecting to the concentration of IPA contributors over a single week,”

I see no one else making particular references or declarations to their political, social or marital associations, so why get so high-and-mighty about API, unless you are frightened by them (ahhh…. The API bogey men are coming to suck the lifeblood out of the children)

“for the purposes of editorial selection, should be counted as part of the one organisation as goes to how many contributions they can get accepted in a single period. It's a reasonable point.”

I am happy to leave that with the errr…. Editorial staff.

I would suggest you maybe need to consider a longer time period of testing before claiming any particular bias.

For instance, I see a flurry of anti-porn articles recently and an absence of (say) abortion choice articles. So what! Things which get presence are invariably “topical” and that means a greater prominence to a topic which will wax and wane accompanied by the availability of suitable articles which suddenly proliferate then decline accordingly.

As I wrote before

“I think the site would be a lesser place without input from climate change zealots, however, they should grow up and realize, their view is not omnipotent and the voice of dissent to their views has an equal right to be heard “

and btw, I misrepresented nothing but you know that, you were merely trying to score a cheap point.
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 4 April 2008 3:59:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge,
You hit the nail on the head. Topics come in and out of the national conversation depending on what is hot at the moment and what isn't. But as I have said before, and in danger of sounding repetitious, I always try to get some balance happening. But it doesn't always work out that we achieve one article "for" followed by one article "against" in a nice smooth flow. Apart from which many topics, including climate change, are a great deal more nuanced than that.
Regards
Susan P - editor
Posted by SusanP, Friday, 4 April 2008 4:09:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Susan P "I always try to get some balance happening. But it doesn't always work out that we achieve one article "for" followed by one article "against" in a nice smooth flow"

Yes Susan, I am reminded of the Abraham Lincolns Maxim

"You can please some of the people all of the time...."

You and Graham do a good job for which you receive, from the posters, too few signs of appreciation.

Posting here is my choice and reflects the high regard which I hold this site and its staff in (even if I do go over the top sometimes).
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 4 April 2008 9:48:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'I think you are being just too precious.'

That's just evasion. I called you on your attempt to mischaracterise this thread, and my intentions, as being against anti-AGW articles, (and I note Susan is still confused about this) and rather than fess up that you jumped to conclusions without reading what was actually said - you then come up with this lame red herring. Clearly the thread was about attribution issues, yet you didn't call it precious first, you chose to attack it without thinking as a call to censorship.

'I see no one else making particular references or declarations to their political, social or marital associations, so why get so high-and-mighty about API, unless you are frightened by them (ahhh…. The API bogey men are coming to suck the lifeblood out of the children)'
It's the IPA (not API), and the reason this thread exists is because nobody else on OLO has managed to bypass the usual cooldown periods that exist in most op-ed pages for tink-tanks/organisation in a single period, and in doing so, through the use of unidentified affiliations. Please try to keep my remarks in context. I'm not raising a storm, I'm certainly not saying IPA shouldn't contribute. I'm simply saying that if the OLO editors want to not be complicit in a diffused media strategy, that bypasses the rules that other organisations are subject to in getting their agenda's in the marketplace of ideas, then it would be a good idea to look at this for the future.

As you say, it is a matter for the editors. But they can do a good job of this, take their readers views on board, and operate their publication rules in a way which doesn't not prejudice organisations who play by the rules and do not use fronts to bypass the usual cooldown periods.
Posted by BBoy, Monday, 7 April 2008 9:05:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Beautifully and succinctly said, Bboy.

While there is much that is great about OLO - we do need transparency with regard to the organisations behind the publications. Otherwise Online Opinion is appearing to be Orwellian Opinion.

Just the fact that Col Rouge has heaped praise indicates a certain bias does it not?

Basically if everyone feels that OLO is biased, THEN it probably isn't. Counter intuitive, I know, but it is true.
Posted by Fractelle, Monday, 7 April 2008 9:37:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Fractelle.

'While there is much that is great about OLO - we do need transparency with regard to the organisations behind the publications. Otherwise Online Opinion is appearing to be Orwellian Opinion.'

Exactly. This isn't rocket science - every publication with op-eds deals with this kind of issue on a daily basis - and there can be no denying that transparency and impartial rules are helpful for the brand and will help attract new readers and keep older ones. I certainly don't think it is too much to point out to the OLO editors that 3 anti-AGW articles by IPA contributors in single week, treading almost identical ground, is, any way you put it, an aberration. Fact is, it doesn't happen elsewhere, and wouldn't be possible here with accurate bio lines for contributors.

Now, I don't expect a huge expenditure of effort through investigative journalism, but when an affiliation is fairly trivial to find, but perhaps not for a Mum and Pop, (see: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Australian_Environment_Foundation) it is hard to deny no effort has been made by OLO to prevent this type of scenario, where an organisation uses a clever diffused media strategy to bypass the cooldown period.

'Just the fact that Col Rouge has heaped praise indicates a certain bias does it not?'

I wouldn't say that, though I did find it somewhat odd that Susan apparently saw fit to give unqualified endorsement to a poster who jumped into this thread, without reading it, to heap invective and scorn on objections that were offered in a civil manner and in good faith. I do attribute that to malice, however. I just think she hasn't bothered to read the thread closely either. I think she has fixed in her head that this is an attack on the editors, by passionate greenies who are obsessively counting pro and against articles.
Posted by BBoy, Monday, 7 April 2008 10:43:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry. That was meant to say "I do NOT attribute that to malice, however".

But there is little I can do about it except repeat my point, in clear language, and try to dissuade those who are determined to misread me by specifying again and again that I am not talking about the count of for and against articles in a period, (obviously one week is a poor sampling period to try to assess balance), nor am I calling for censorship of any kind (either against anti-AGW articles or the IPA as a whole on any issue).
Posted by BBoy, Monday, 7 April 2008 10:49:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BBoy “rather than fess up that you jumped to conclusions without reading what was actually said - you then come up with this lame red herring.”

I repeat, you are being just too precious… YAWN

Fractelle “Just the fact that Col Rouge has heaped praise indicates a certain bias does it not?”

Think what you want. I am free to praise the work of some just as I am free to criticize the small mindedness and “preciousness” of others.

BBoy “I did find it somewhat odd that Susan apparently saw fit to give unqualified endorsement to a poster who jumped into this thread,”

The part of my post which SusanP was supporting was

“I would suggest you maybe need to consider a longer time period of testing before claiming any particular bias.

For instance, I see a flurry of anti-porn articles recently and an absence of (say) abortion choice articles. So what! Things which get presence are invariably “topical” and that means a greater prominence to a topic which will wax and wane accompanied by the availability of suitable articles which suddenly proliferate then decline accordingly.”

The editorial staff are free to concur with reasoned observation just as they are free to delete some posts, without referral to yourself.

BBoy “I just think she hasn't bothered to read the thread closely either. I think she has fixed in her head that this is an attack on the editors, by passionate greenies who are obsessively counting pro and against articles.”

Yep, too precious.

As for “(obviously one week is a poor sampling period to try to assess balance),”

Sounds like you are actually starting to agree with me. Strange.
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 7 April 2008 5:26:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy