The world as we know it

The Australian Press Council – 1 – With or without climate prejudice? Attitudes

“A free press is the most legitimate, and, at the same time, the most powerful weapon that can be employed to annihilate influence, frustrate the designs of tyranny, and restrain the arm of oppression” The honorable J J Spigelman AC

The global warming propaganda is the most illegitimate, and at the same time, through the MSM (main stream media) a powerful weapon that has been used for extreme undue influence, and for tyranny, with the ultimate aim of oppression of the people of the world. Twawki

The Australian Press Council 1 – With or without prejudice?

Also see The Australian Press Council 2 – Media Watchdog or UN Lapdog?

The Press Council on its website says “The Australian Press Council Incorporated is the self-regulatory body of the print media. It was established in 1976 with two main aims: to help preserve the traditional freedom of the press within Australia and ensure that the free press acts responsibly and ethically“.

Associate Professor Chris Nash, Director, Australian Centre for Independent Journalism, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Technology, Sydney says in Freedoms of the Press in Australiathe Australian constitutional framework for freedom of the press is weaker than in other liberal democracies, the commercial pressures are strong and the legislative and financial impact of recent national governments on public media alternatives has been detrimental”.

This then would highlight the need even more for the Press Council to take an active role help preserve the traditional freedom of the press within Australia and ensure that the free press acts responsibly and ethically. When we read more about the Press Council we find;

The Press Council in it’s Constitution and on it’s website further clarifies it’s role as;

  • Keeping under review, and where appropriate, challenging political, legislative, commercial or other developments which may adversely affect the dissemination of information of public interest, and may consequently threaten the public’s right to know;
  • Making representations to governments, public inquiries and other forums as appropriate on matters concerning freedom of speech and access to information;

As outrage over the longstanding and ongoing bias in the MSM (main stream media) with regards AGW reporting escalates worldwide the Australian Press Council is continuing its quiet over ongoing MSM breaches in Australia.  As society has endured decades of shrill baseless climate alarmism the question is why has the Press Council been inactive in its duty to ensure balanced reporting over the AGW debate? Over the years I have taken the Press Council to task a number of times over this issue where opinion is reported as facts and climate alarmism gets front page news where often the actual facts may only just make it to the readers comments pages. The responses I have received from the Council are typically well they are both getting press so whats your point.

Most recently the Council’s response to my complaint’s over ABC bias was to basically tate AGW is the ‘scientific consensus’ and then to claim that because the ABC finally allowed 4 pieces from what they called climate skeptics that this was balanced reporting. Where is the Australian Press Council endorsing free press when itslef has a biased one sided opinion?

Where is the Australian Press Council defended the Public’s right to know both sides of the argument?

Is the Press Council simply another NGO of gravy train bureaucrats sitting there being funded by the public purse and all the while ignoring what they claim they are there for?

I give an open invitation for Jack Herman (Champion debater and Executive Secretary of the Press Council) to educate us all and identify why he believes in the ‘scientific consensus’ on AGW. Maybe this way we can understand his opinions and does he think open debate on the issue is not warranted.

So it would seem the Australian Press Council has acted and is behaving in a way that goes against all the freedoms it so happily purports to support. The Council has a responsibility to do independent research and even a cursory understanding of the UN IPCC position on AGW would reveal at best they thought their theory was 90% likely – that does not make it a foregone fact and conclusion. Due diligence on the part of the Council and duty of care would have ensured it realised the debate is far from over and there is no scientific consensus. And yet we have a Council officer who curtails to the global warming religion rather than enforcing Independence in the press. To quote an article Mr Herman edited and annotated on the history of the APC from 1987 – 1997

In the ultimate analysis a news provider relies on one quality – credibility. Lose that and all is lost.

May I suggest Mr Herman that the same applies to the Press Council!

It is a very, very dangerous game for a government let alone a regulatory body that sets itself up to protect independence and then embraces an unproven theory on the climate that is at odds with climatic history and scientific method.

Public Media Bias and Climate Change, Liberal Media Bias, The left and fascism, Prosecuting climate alarmists!, Future police – armed drones monitoring civilians

Oh just in case those who want to accuse I’m paid for by big oil my Paypal Balance (via the donate page) is the same $2.33 as when I started blogging daily on here back in October last year! I have made a small profit selling TShirts via Redbubble (highly recommend it as a site if you are an artist/photographer/poet etc). Typically my blog payment has been the much appreciated occasional thankyou and feeling (rightly or wrongly) that I am contributing in a positive way to the future of this country and world.


To Mr Herman’s credit here is his prompt response;

This is a response in my own name, not that of the Press Council. This is not a Press Council endorsement of any position – other than that news should be reported fairly and all shades of informed opinion be given an adequate opportunity to be heard.
Despite the implications of your question, I have no objection to open debate as long as the facts adduced are accurate. Nor does the ABC website (as shown on The Drum over the past two weeks), nor the opinion pages of most mainstream Australian newspapers. Nor can my statement be taken to mean anything other than I have looked at the literature and seen that there does appear to be a consensus amongst scientists and scientific bodies about climate change.
In regard to that, the IPCC conclusions have been explicitly endorsed by, amongst others:
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specialising in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed or published the same conclusions as presented in the IPCC report:
NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

The best indicator of what individual scientists think is in the current scientific literature, where new and different is the paramount value and scientists are free to express their own ideas, as long as they’re supported by data and logic. What does the scientific literature look like in terms of the climate debate?

Naomi Oreskes did an ISI database search with the keyword phrase “global climate change”,  and then surveyed the resulting peer-reviewed studies published between 1993 and 2003 in refereed scientific journals. There were 928.

She then divided the papers into six categories:

– explicit endorsement of the consensus position,
– evaluation of impacts,
– mitigation proposals,
– methods,
– paleoclimate analysis, and
– rejection of the consensus position.

Oreskes’ key finding is that none of the papers fell into the last category, while 75 per cent fell into the first three. This is a surprisingly robust consensus of opinion, especially considering that the start date was a full two years before the first IPCC report.

Jack Herman


To which I reply the following;

What is more important – institutional ‘consensus’ or scientific merit? Most groups these days have their funding dependant on supporting the AGW hypothesis, with their funding removed when they oppose it. More recently with Climategate it has been revealed that the so called science by Phil Jones at the UEA was not peer reviewed, not open to independent assessment and not transparently available for scrutiny as is standard practice.And yet this is the basis for a theory on which billions have been spent and trillions more requested! In recent days some of these institutions have spoken out as follows;

The Institute of Physics says; “The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context”.

The Royal Society of Chemistry saysit is necessary to investigate the email exchanges which were discovered along with other relevant CRU information to establish whether data have been manipulated or suppressed. This is, not only needed in order to identify any unacceptable behaviour, but also to verify the results which have been published. This is vital in clarifying the severity of the acts carried out by those scientists at the CRU involved, i.e. whether it was a misguided protection of their work or a malicious misrepresentation of data“.

The Royal Statistical Society says; “The RSS believes that the debate on global warming is best served by having the models used and the data on which they are based in the public domain. Where such information is publicly available it is possible independently to verify results. The ability to verify models using publicly available data is regarded as being of much greater importance than the specific content of email exchanges between researchers“.

Yet this has never been the case for the data that forms the basis of the AGW theory.

Furthermore looking at the structure of the UN IPCC we find (as quoted from John Mclean);

The charter of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is

… to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy.”.

This make it a high-profile single-focus organization whose existence depends on its own reports. In other words it has a vested interest in promoting claims that would guarantee its funding and justify its continued existence.

And furthermore from Mr Mclean;

An example of rampant misrepresentation of IPCC reports is the frequent assertion that ‘hundreds of IPCC scientists’ are known to support the following statement, arguably the most important of the WG I report, namely “Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.”

In total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical chapter 9, “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”.  Of the comments received from the 62 reviewers of this critical chapter, almost 60% of them were rejected by IPCC editors. And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial.

Two of these seven were contacted by NRSP for the purposes of this article – Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand and Dr. Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph, Canada. Concerning the “Greenhouse gas forcing …” statement above, Professor McKitrick explained “A categorical summary statement like this is not supported by the evidence in the IPCC WG I report. Evidence shown in the report suggests that other factors play a major role in climate change, and the specific effects expected from greenhouse gases have not been observed.”

So if the basis for the UN IPCC theory on AGW is as yet not proven (UNIPCC acknowledges this), is at odds with observation (global temperatures have not risen according to the AGW theory), has not been done according to scientific method (as yet there is no absolute, non model proof), has not been open to independent peer review (now it is claimed a lot of the original data is lost), and now through Climategate it has been exposed that ‘scientific practices’ have been lacking by those at the heart of the UN IPCC group of scientists and finally Scientific Institutions are starting to question the reliability of data and research supporting AGW, then how strong is your case on consensus.
And this is all in addition to the many world leading scientists who have already spoken out is opposition to the AGW scam.  Science isn’t proven by consensus but the fact also remains is that as the lack of science is being exposed then the AGW climate consensus is crumbling.
His response;
By all means lets have the debate but don’t misrepresent the facts. Jones’ data was available for those who wanted to replicate his results. So far those results stand. The IOP has backed away from its initial submission to the UK inquiry. It won’t even reveal who wrote it – an interesting irony on a claim that there was a failure to release information. The RSS statement says “don’t overly dramatise the emails, worry about the data”.
You asked me why I said there was a scientific consensus. I provided you with my reasons. At this stage none of the national academies nor any of the leading bodies in the field have resiled. There has been a great deal of ad hominem argument (from both sides) but the science stands on its merits, it ability to be replicated and whether the theory matches subsequent observations.
Let that be the debate. Let the data talk for themselves.
And then mine;

No Jones refused FOI requests therefore the data was not available to those who wanted to replicate it. Then he stated he lost the data.


How can the results stand when;

1. They claim they lost the original data so there is no way to verify their results

2. The data they present is not the raw data but the adjusted data with a warming bias which is not replicable

3. Jones is being caught out on numerous fronts from adjusting the data, refusing FOI requests, etc

4. Where is the proof that CO2 causes warming?

I asked you why you thought there was one, I gave you the reasons that show your argument wasnt robust largely because it was out of date. It may have applied a few years ago but the scientific landscape has changed.

Which data are you talking about – the lost data, the adjusted data, the selective data or the cherry picked data. Because at it stands there seems to be little climate data that could even remotely support the AGW hypothesis.



(Doug’s responses interspersed in red)


I’m talk ing about what arose from Phil Jones interview with the BBC (which has been misrepresented to say that he has seen no warming in the last 15 years (he said “there has been no statistically significant warming for the past 15 years), when he said no such thing) and from his evidence to the Commons Committee last week. He has no special access to raw data (he has access to the data – he is a climate scientist). The raw data comes from a variety of sources that measure temperatures around the world, including NASA. He compiles it from such sources that anyone else could have access to. His methodology is published in the literature and (this is one of the interesting things that came out of the Commons hearing) it seems has been reproduced by the MET Office from Jones’ methodologies, producing identical results (yes he and the met office are in cakoots – anyone independent was denied access to his chosen data and methodologies). Not from simply re-running Jones code, but from following the methodology he describes in papers to arrive at fresh code written in Perl rather than Jones’ Fortran. (his work is not transaprent, not open to review and not replica table to independent sources)

In short – the raw data are available from the original sources. The methodology is available in the literature. Computer code for processing the data is freely available from the MET Office (if this were true then why did he need to stonewall and refuse FOI, and why did others need to issue the FOIs in the first place) The results are freely available from CRU (yes the results but not the mechanisms – that is the issue) . Jones’ work is reproducible (it was in the ory only but not in practice). HadCRUT is confirmed by independently produced data sets from the US, Russia and Japan (where is your proof)

Jones and Li replicated the 1990 work in an updated paper in 2008 with near identical results. (which have since been shown to be error prone)

But we’re back to attacking individuals, based on a few extracts from a couple (over a thousand, and a similiar amount of files) of many emails hacked from CRU. The hacked emails do not contradict the science (the emails show that at best the science was sloppy, incomplete, maladjusted and fudged), even if they might say something about the people and about email.

The question you asked was the basis for my assertion that there is a scientific consensus. The fact remains that the academies and institutions, and the scientists writing peer-reviewed papers in the field, agree. The facts speak for themselves.

For the interpretation of the facts – let the debate continue – but without me for a while – I have to look after the people complaining about press reports – including the way the press reported Phil Jones’ BBC interview.


Now it is becoming obvious that the real scandal is that climate scientists at the IPCC and environmentalists have behaved like everyday politicians. In other words, they have rigged the results to protect their revenue sources.



Ok thats cool, appreciate your time and responses will need to do some research myself. Appreciate your comments so far. Thankyou



Some salient points;

Original uncorrected transcript of oral evidence regards


located here

1. That an institution says it supports AGW does not mean the members do!

2. There are a huge amount of scientists who do not agree with the AGW hypothesis

3. The AGW hypothesis is still UNPROVEN by both observation and scientific method.

Consensus exposed – hide the decline, AGW is not a proven fact

Some comments on Jones


Filed under: Uncategorized

12 Responses

  1. […] The Australian Press Council – 1 – With or without prejudice … […]

  2. handjive says:

    Great post.
    It will be interesting to see which data ‘will do the talking’ for him.
    It is a sad state of affairs when ‘keeping the buggers honest’ includes ‘the reporters of the news’ as well, not just politicians.
    P.S. Welcome back!

    • twawki says:

      Thanks Handjive – I think I need help I have a serious blogging dependency lol or maybe its just a desire to want to see the truth and good governance. I think I need to quit work and blog lol

      • susan says:

        There doesn’t seem to be much money in blogging though..and we all have families to feed and bills to pay. Perhaps I’m simplistic..but if the world is truly going to hell in a handbasket with all this, I can actually think of a million ways to cut emissions that I believe would work without the need for this moneygoround, as that’s all it is.

        I believe in addressing pollution, which most people don’t appear to care about, the lemming/throw money around approach seems to please and ease their guilt better. I don’t believe in the global warming theory or that the carbon tax will fix the world we’re poisoning.

        There is a stream in the bush here, that we used to swim in when we were kids..I wouldn’t even like my dogs to drink from it now. There is rubbish in that same bush, dumped by lazy people that just wants to make me cry. Old mattresses, builders rubble, tin cans, plastic toys, discarded plants that rot then sprout (causing it’s own problems.) Once my bush was clean and pristine with clear running water..not this rust coloured, murky sludge we have now.

        When I was a child there were trains running from my little town to the city that were always full of workers and school kids..that’s gone so there are way more cars on the roads.

        Once the butcher and the greengrocer came to our house, saving trips to the shops…the grocer fill our recycled paper bags with sugar, flour and biscuits from large drums, there was a grocery store in every small town..now we are forced to travel to a mall/shopping strip to shop in a supermarket the size of Denmark and buy our food in enough packaging half the time to wrap the Antarctic.

        A lot of this stopped because of health issues…but I cannot see where the population is any healthier..the opposite actually.

        Once kids received one or two toys for xmas…now they receive a ton of plastic rubbish that’s discarded (often in the bush) by the next xmas…I know this, because I see these toys in my bush..broken and useless..

        Once there was a hardware store in every small town..most are gone now so we travel to a Bunnings store however many k’s away they may be..ok..I like shopping at Bunnings but I’m sure you get my drift…

        How did all this happen? I don’t know…but I doubt a carbon tax will fix it…..can we go back to commonsense? I doubt that also.

        I also don’t believe the planet will die because of it all…but I do believe the human race probably will.

        Am I too simplistic? I could actually go on forever with my simplistic ideas…..cheers..Susan. (Yes..I’m old..65. 🙂 )

        • twawki says:

          Yes for many of us who blog it has come at a significant cost – financial and otherwise.

          Many of those in climate sciences who have stood up to the lies of global warming have lost their jobs, lost promotions, refused publication of their research. And we all know what happens if you are honest in the ALP – turfed out on your ear whilst the crooks are promoted.

          Soon if the woman in the most powerful position in Australia gets her way then those who want to hold her & the corrupt ALP to account could face jail.

          Yes if real environmentalism was reinstated we would stop using toxins & clean up waste instead of using a harmless trace gas that is plant food as a way to tax our nations into poverty & then use those taxes to build socialist global governance. Whilst funding to community organisations has been cut activist organisations like WWF & Greenpeace have profited obscenely. The people are no longer getting the government they want but elitists that rule for their own corruption.

  3. […] Twawki. The Australian Press Council 1 – with or without climate prejudice? […]

  4. Enzo says:

    I do appreciate to read your articles, yes you’re maybe addicted to write, but i think your message is clear… For my part i prefer to read and listen something which catches my attention than lot of lies.
    Thanks for your good work.

  5. […] of censoring skeptics because they are outside the ’scientific consensus’. See here and here. How long will these people abuse their positions of power by refusing debate on what they all seem […]

  6. Lee Thomas says:

    There seems to be an awfully strong desire world wide to grasp Global warming and to make world wide policy based upon science that is basically still in its infancy.

    Oceanography is essentially a new science and yet even the IPCC says that the oceans should be considered the main drivers of climate.

    If that is so then how can a science that is still evolving and has way more questions then answers be the ultimate authority?

    Climate is changing. The earth is warming. Co2 is rising. None of this is really questionable. The questions are WHY?

    As of yet I see no preponderance of evidence to suggest that AGW is going to be rectified by reducing 2 percent of the total annual co2 entering the atmosphere by reductions in burning fossil fuels by 40 percent.

    • twawki says:

      Agreed – even the IPCC says its still not sure but that wont stop them all spending billions on creating not environmental solutions but a green bureaucracy to regulate and control us all.

What do you think?

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

The New Rich

We fight not to enslave, but to set a country free, and to make room upon the earth for honest men to live in. Thomas Paine

Above all, we must realize that no arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. RONALD REAGAN,
My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular. Adlai E. Stevenson Jr
If you want to be free, there is but one way; it is to guarantee an equally full measure of liberty to all your neighbors. There is no other. Carl Schurz
The First Amendment is often inconvenient. But that is besides the point. Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation to tolerate speech. Justice Anthony Kennedy
Self-reliance is the only road to true freedom, and being one’s own person is its ultimate reward. Patricia Sampson
Many politicians are in the habit of laying it down as a self-evident proposition that no people ought to be free till they are fit to use their freedom. The maxim is worthy of the fool in the old story who resolved not to go into the water till he had learned to swim. Thomas Macaulay
The law will never make men free, it is men that have to make the law free. Henry David Thoreau
If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter. George Washington

%d bloggers like this: