I'm stunned. Read this:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/clim...251&page=4

This is ABC? Did a new ABC ride in and take over this week without me hearing about it? Just a couple of months ago there was nothing to be found on their website about Climategate long after all the others had at least acknowledged it.

But now they are actually interviewing skeptics and not qualifying their answers in the next sentence?

They are asking real questions like a journalist should?

Quote:Briffa's unusually declining temperature graph points to a serious conundrum that no one has been able to explain yet: Since the 1960s, the tree-ring data no longer reflect actual temperature changes. But why, then, should tree-ring data be valid for periods before that?

Quote:Chapter 1.3.8, for example, contains a discussion of the possible relationship between climate change and the increased incidence of natural disasters, which, after Hurricane Katrina in the United States, have now become a politically charged issue.

At the IPCC report, the damage associated with such events "are very likely to increase due to increased frequencies and intensities of some extreme weather events" (italics in original). The report cites as evidence a study that supposedly demonstrates precisely this trend.

The only problem is that the study in question had not been subjected to outside peer review before the IPCC report went to press. This has since been done, and the conclusions are surprising: "We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and normalized catastrophe losses," read the report published in the compendium "Climate Extremes and Society."

Roger Pielke, a leading expert in this field, wrote in his blog: "The claims were not just wrong. The claims were based on knowledge that just doesn't exist."

If ABC is jumping ship...AGW is really in trouble.

Well, it is ABC International,

"Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan".

Does Mr. Sultan still work for ABC?

Quote:One of the problems is that working for the IPCC is a time-consuming honorary appointment for scientists. "This means that it is not always the best people in their field who are willing to contribute their time and effort," says epidemiologist Reiter.

On the other hand, the community is sometimes reluctant to include troublesome critics in its efforts. For instance, when the IPCC recently set up a special working group to address natural disasters, the US government nominated ecologist Pielke. The IPCC declined to appoint him.

So ABC only now see the problem?

Gosh I knew that a few years ago.

It is interesting that the IPCC turned down a known LUKEWARMER scientist.

And then there is ABC in Australia -

"Debate" between Lord Monckton and Rupert Posner (The Climate Group) "moderated" by Jon Faine

You can probably figure out how "fair and balanced" the "debate" will be simply by reading this Introduction:

Quote:Lord Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, former advisor to Margaret Thatcher, architect, mathematician and climate change sceptic is on a speaking tour of Australia to spread his message that climate change activists are 'bed-wetters and liars'.

He came on Mornings with Jon Faine to debate Rupert Posner from The Climate Group, who claims dangerous man-made global warming is occurring and action must be taken to stop it now.

I'm sure the primary message Lord Monckton is spreading is that "climate change activists are 'bed-wetters and liars'".

Well, maybe not the "bed-wetters" part, anyway.

Sometimes Monckton goes over the line.

monckton was in our city last year giving a speech about the lies the hippies were spreading. The hippies were not impressed by his visit.

Did they lie about what he said in his speech?