5RN Melbourne (ABC) - ACMA Investigation Report 2595

Investigation Report No. 2595

File No. ACMA2011/1012

Broadcaster Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Station 3RN Melbourne

Type of Service National broadcasting

Name of Program The Science Show

Date of Broadcast 21 August 2010

Relevant Code Clauses 5.2, 5.3 and 7.2 of the ABC Code of Practice 2007

Date finalised 19 October 2011

Decision No breach of clause 5.2 [impartiality] No breach of clause 5.3 [accuracy of factual content] Breach of clause 7.2 [respond to complaint within 60 days]

ACMA Investigation Report 2595 – The Science Show broadcast by 3RN on 21/8/10 Error: Reference source not found

The complaint On 19 May 2011, the Australia Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) received a complaint about a segment of The Science Show broadcast on 21 August 2010 by the ABC on 3RN. The complainant alleged that the segment contained factual inaccuracies and was biased. The complainant also requested that the ACMA investigate the ABC’s failure to respond to his complaint within 60 days. The investigation has considered the ABC’s compliance with clauses 5.2, 5.3 and 7.2 of the ABC Code of Practice 2007 (the Code).1

The program The Science Show is a program devoted to scientific issues and is hosted by Robyn Williams. The segment that resulted in the complaint was introduced as follows:

On Monday, just a few days ago, the Australian Academy of Science launched their climate document, [The Science of Climate Change] Questions and Answers. They did so then not because of an election but to mark National Science Week. The intention is to give you and me an authoritative guide to cut through the confusion and let us know what the science is really saying. This is a brief extract from the press conference at the Academy with Ian Allison and Mike Raupach.

Dr Ian Allison and Dr Mike Raupach, members of the Working Group which prepared the document, provided a brief summary of the document which deals with climate change through the earth’s history and the role of human activity as a likely cause of recent climate change. A transcript of the segment is at Attachment A.

Assessment The assessment is based on an audio recording of the segment supplied to the ACMA by the ABC, submissions from the ABC and the complainant and email correspondence between the ABC and the complainant. Other sources used have been identified where relevant. In assessing content against the Code, the ACMA considers the meaning conveyed by the relevant material. This is assessed according to the understanding of an ‘ordinary, reasonable listener’. Australian courts have considered an ‘ordinary, reasonable listener’ to be:

A person of fair average intelligence, who is neither perverse, nor morbid or suspicious of mind, nor avid for scandal. That person does not live in an ivory tower, but can and does read between the lines in the light of that person’s general knowledge and experience of worldly affairs2.

1 Sections 150-151 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 set out the procedure in relation to complaints relating to national broadcasting services provided by the ABC. 2 Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158 at 164–167 (references omitted).

2 The ACMA asks what the ‘ordinary, reasonable listener’ would have understood this program to have conveyed. It considers the natural, ordinary meaning of the language, context, tenor, tone and inferences that may be drawn. Once this test has been applied to ascertain the meaning of the broadcast material, it is for the ACMA to determine whether the material has breached the Code.

Issue 1: Impartiality and the demonstration of a diversity of principal relevant perspectives

Relevant section of the Code The Science Show has been categorised by the ABC as a program with topical and factual content.

Topical and factual content

5.2: The ABC is committed to impartiality: where topical and factual content deals with matters of contention or public debate, a diversity of principal relevant perspectives should be demonstrated across a network or platform in an appropriate timeframe.

Complainant’s submissions The complainant submitted, in his complaint to the ABC of 25 October 2010, that:

… The complaint is that the programme supported only the OPINIONS of “the consensus”, and some of the science employed to support those opinions, or doubtful interpretations of the data. However, there is much highly credible science that highlights great uncertainty, or is contradictory, but which had no mention. Thus, “The Science Show” was misleading to the public, which amounts to bad journalism.

Consideration should also be given to the recent policy changes made by the BBC, which should result in fairer presentation of both sides of the science over there (together with increasing awareness of the problem in various institutions and publications etc, since about November 2009)

Broadcaster’s submissions The ABC submitted to the ACMA, in a letter of 29 July 2011, that:

In the case of The Science Show of 21 August 2010 and [the complainant’s] specific complaint, the relevant platform is Radio National.3

The elements that must be satisfied for the impartiality requirement to apply and to be met are:

1. the content deals with a matter of contention or public debate;

2. a diversity of principal relevant perspectives are demonstrated across the relevant network;

3. these perspectives are presented in an appropriate timeframe.

While the ABC acknowledges that climate change science is somewhat contentious within the community, a judgement about whether the impartiality requirement is invoked requires

3 ABC Editorial Policies, revised 1 March 2009, p 5.

ACMA Investigation Report 2595 – The Science Show broadcast by 3RN on 21/8/10 3 Error: Reference source not found

consideration of the material actually broadcast. In this case, the tone and content of the broadcast was measured and factual; it was neither provocative nor argumentative. It did not urge action or stridently advocate for a viewpoint. Rather, it was a straightforward, dry account of the science of climate change. As Robyn Williams stated in his introduction, “The intention [of the document being launched] is to give you and me an authoritative guide to cut through the confusion and let us know what the science is really saying.”

In our view, listeners would not have understood the item to be conveying a “perspective”, in the subjective sense usually conveyed by that term. This was not an “opinion”, but rather an attempt to explain in simple terms some complex scientific concepts and the conclusions drawn from scientific research. In this way, the ABC regards this broadcast as not at all dissimilar to the material which was the subject of the ACMA’s Investigation Report No. 2446, in which the ACMA observed:

Impartiality essentially concerns how perspectives or viewpoints are treated. In this broadcast, the delegate does not consider the segment was presenting a viewpoint.

In our view, there was no perspective ventilated in this particular broadcast which necessitated the airing of alternative perspectives. Furthermore, it is beyond doubt that the weight of scientific evidence favours the position articulated in the 21 August broadcast, a fact which [the complainant] acknowledges in his reference to these views as representative of “the consensus”. The ABC strives for a balance that follows the weight of evidence. Over-attention to views which have little support within the scientific community creates a ‘false balance’ which can undermine impartiality and damage trust.

Notwithstanding this, and in the event that the ACMA may disagree with this view, it is abundantly clear that a diversity of principal relevant perspectives about climate science have been demonstrated across Radio National…

The ABC provided several excerpts.

In view of the above, the ABC is satisfied that a diversity of perspectives about the reliability and integrity of climate science has been presented by the network, demonstrating the ABC’s commitment to impartiality in coverage of this subject.

The third element of the impartiality test relates to the timeframe in which the required diversity of views is to be presented. Neither the Code nor the ABC’s Editorial Policies set out a specific timeframe: judgements must be made based on the type of material presented, its topicality and the availability of other perspectives, the knowledge and expectations of the audience, and the desirability of providing a mix of subject matter to provoke and sustain audience interest. For the more topical subjects dealt with on specialist programs, the ABC’s rule of thumb is to expect platform impartiality to be achieved within a 12 month period, unless good reasons exist to justify a longer period.

It can be seen from the above that a diversity of perspectives were presented on the network well within a twelve month period. Some of these items were broadcast earlier in the year when Lord Monckton was touring Australia; others were broadcast closer to the time of the 21 August program. The particular timing of various interviews clearly depends on many factors, not the least of which is the availability of the interviewee. The Monckton interviews were both timed to coincide with his visit to Australia, whereas the 21 August item was timed to reflect the launch of the Academy of Science document.

4 For the reasons set out above, the ABC is satisfied that whether or not the 21 August broadcast invoked the impartiality requirement, the network has achieved platform impartiality in its coverage of the contentious elements of climate change science within an appropriate time frame. No breach of the ABC Code of Practice has been demonstrated.

Finding The ABC did not breach clause 5.2 of the Code.

Reasons The requirements of clause 5.2 of the Code apply where topical and factual content deals with matters of contention or public debate. If so, clause 5.2 requires that a diversity of principal relevant perspectives should be demonstrated across a network or platform in an appropriate timeframe. An assessment has therefore been made as to whether:  topical and factual content dealt with matters of contention or public debate and, if so;  in relation to the matters of contention or public debate, a diversity of principal relevant perspectives was demonstrated across a network or platform; and  this occurred in an appropriate timeframe.

Whether topical and factual content dealt with matters of contention or public debate The ABC has submitted that the impartiality requirement is only invoked if a perspective has been conveyed. In this case, the ABC submitted that the broadcast was an explanation of “some complex concepts and the conclusions drawn from scientific research” and did not advocate a viewpoint. Consequently, it contended that the broadcast did not necessitate the airing of alternate perspectives. The ACMA does not accept the ABC’s interpretation of clause 5.2. The threshold test required by clause 5.2 is to establish that a broadcast includes “topical and factual content” which deals with matters of “contention and public debate”. The clause does not require that a perspective must first be identified before invoking the obligation to demonstrate a diversity of principal relevant perspectives. In this regard, the ACMA notes that the ABC acknowledged that the broadcast was factual and that climate change is “somewhat contentious”. The ACMA considers that the program reported factually on the release of a document which sets out evidence of climate change in the earth’s history and supports the view that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are the likely cause of recent climate change. It is also considered that climate change is a highly topical issue of contention and public debate. Accordingly, the ACMA is satisfied that the relevant broadcast dealt with a matter of contention or public debate and that the requirement of clause 5.2 of the Code that ‘a diversity of principal relevant perspectives should be demonstrated across a network or platform in an appropriate timeframe’ is therefore applicable. Whether there was a diversity of principal relevant perspectives demonstrated across a network or platform

Clause 5.2 requires that a diversity of principal relevant perspectives be demonstrated across a network or platform as opposed to a single program. The program that was the subject of the complaint was broadcast on the ABC’s Radio National. The ABC’s website sates that:

With 60 distinct programs each week, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s Radio National is unique. It has become known as the Ideas Network, where people can hear the latest in science, books and publishing, religion, social history, the arts and current affairs.[…] What’s being broadcast on Radio National at any one time varies across at least 4 time zones and 10 different regions.4

The ACMA considers that for the purposes of this investigation the relevant network is Radio National. The ABC has cited various broadcasts as evidence of it having demonstrated a diversity of principal relevant perspectives in relation to the views raised in the broadcast of The Science Show on 21 August 2010 being views that the increase in greenhouse gases are responsible for global warming. The ACMA has accessed the ABC website and viewed transcripts of the relevant broadcasts where necessary. 1. The following Five Radio National broadcasts were referred to in the ABC’s submission to the ACMA above:  Two interviews with Lord Monckton that were broadcast during his visit to Australia in January 2010. Lord Monckton is described on the ABC website as ‘a leading critic of the castastrophic (sic) global warming scenario’. During these interviews Lord Monckton discusses his views on climate change and is highly critical of the way in which scientists supportive of the idea of human-induced global warming have, in his opinion, distorted, fabricated and destroyed scientific evidence and data.  An interview with Professor Kellow from the School of Government at the University of Tasmania, broadcast on 27 September 2010. In the interview Professor Kellow discusses the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which supported the notion that climate change may prove to be catastrophic, and the subsequent review of IPCC procedures commissioned by the United Nations. Professor Kellow is highly critical of the processes and research methods used by the IPCC and the quality of the IPCC Report.  An interview with American weatherman Mr Anthony Watts, broadcast on the program Counterpoint on 7 June 2010. Mr Watts’ has published research suggesting that the earth’s surface temperature records are unreliable. In the interview, Mr Watts questioned the way in which some of his data has been used by those critical of his findings.  An interview with Mr Matt Ridley, a former science editor with the magazine The Economist, broadcast on The Science Show on 11 September 2010. During the interview, Mr Ridley discussed why he believes that the outlook for the planet with respect to global warming is not as worrying as many scientists would have

4 http://www.abc.net.au/rn/about/

6 us believe. He is also highly critical of certain papers published in scientific journals that he says grossly exaggerate the effects of global warming. The above broadcasts indicate that Radio National aired a number of different perspectives on the issues raised in The Science Show on 21 August 2010 and that these perspectives differed to those put forward by Dr Allison and Dr Raupach in that program. While Drs Allison and Raupach summarised evidence in support of the view that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities have caused recent climate change, the above broadcasts contained strong criticisms of the quality of claims made and methodology used by those who have published material supporting the notion of human-induced global warming. The ACMA considers the above broadcasts demonstrated a diversity of principal relevant perspectives across the Radio National network with respect to the matters of contention discussed during The Science Show broadcast of 21 August 2010, including the history of climate change and the likely role of human activity in recent climate change. Whether this demonstration of a diversity of principal relevant perspectives occurred in an appropriate timeframe In regard to the broadcasts and website postings cited by the ABC as evidence of it having demonstrated a diversity of principal relevant viewpoints in relation to the issues raised in the broadcast of 21 August 2010, the ACMA notes that: 1. The two interviews with Lord Monckton on the Counterpoint and Breakfast programs were broadcast on 25 January 2010 and 28 January 2010 respectively, during Lord Monckton’s visit to Australia. 2. The interview with Mr Anthony Watts was broadcast on the program Counterpoint on 7 June 2010. 3. The interview with Mr Matt Ridley was broadcast on The Science Show on 11 September 2010. 4. The interview with Professor Kellow was broadcast on the program Counterpoint on 27 September 2010. The ACMA notes that the Code does not provide any guidance as to what constitutes an ‘appropriate timeframe’ for the purposes of assessing compliance with clause 5.2. However, it is considered that the demonstration of a diversity of principal relevant perspectives in an appropriate timeframe would require that this demonstration, with respect to the issues being discussed during the broadcast of the relevant program, occur:  while these issues are still topical and the subject of public debate; and  in reasonable proximity to the broadcast of the relevant program.

In its response to the ACMA’s request for comments the ABC stated that ‘the ABC’s rule of thumb is to expect platform impartiality to be achieved within a twelve month period, unless good reasons exist to justify a longer period’. With this in mind, and noting that the two interviews with Lord Monckton and the interview with Mr Watts were broadcast earlier in 2010 and that the interviews with Mr Matt Ridley and Professor Kellow were broadcast one month after the broadcast of 21 August 2010, the ACMA is of the view that the broadcast of these diverse viewpoints occurred in reasonable proximity to the broadcast of The Science Show on 21 August 2010 and within an appropriate timeframe.

The ACMA is therefore of the view that, with respect to the issues raised during the broadcast of The Science Show on 21 August 2010, a diversity of principal relevant perspectives was demonstrated by the ABC across a network or platform in an appropriate timeframe.

Issue 2: Accuracy of factual content Relevant section of the Code

5 Topical and factual content

5.3 Every reasonable effort must be made to ensure that factual content is accurate and in context and that content does not misrepresent other viewpoints.

The ACMA’s general considerations in relation to assessing whether factual content is accurate are found at Attachment B.

Complainant’s submissions The complainant submitted to the ACMA that:

I made a complaint to A&CA about five errors or misrepresentations in a single show…The original complaint is contained in the attached MS Word file, where the five claims are shown to be false according to known facts and highly authoritative data…

The complainant submitted in his complaint to the ABC of 25 October 2010 that:

a) “…The blue dots here are all measurements, they match up almost perfectly with the ice core record, so we have a record going back here 2,000 years but overall 800,000 years to show us that past history. And this level of CO2 we have now at over 380 parts per million is greater than any concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere for 800,000 years…”

Comment: It is true that ancient ice-cores contain entrapped air bubbles which when chemically analysed give a proxy inference of varying CO2 levels that are lower than those actually measured in recent decades. However, there was no mention of the parallel proxies whereby air temperatures at the time of deposition were also inferred via gaseous isotopes analysis. Putting aside some controversy about the accuracy of these two types of proxy, there are nevertheless abundant scientific papers giving that past temperatures were a response to changing CO2, showing significant lag*. (That is to say: whenever CO2 levels rose, it was some hundreds of years later when the air temperature then followed upwards, and vice versa). This was not mentioned, and it very strongly contradicts the conclusions made in the programme. It gets into the highly controversial estimations of various feedbacks and CO2 sinks, that are claimed by “the consensus” (and that are assumed in the various ensembles of climate prediction models that are the main basis for IPCC opinion on the potential magnitude of AGW)

*For example, check out ‘Caillon et al 2003‘: http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf There are a swag of other studies describing lags of differing magnitudes, and in different ways, but they are all broadly in agreement. Here is a good summary of the various papers: http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N26/EDIT.php

b) “…Another way that indicates that there is a cause and effect relationship between rising greenhouse gases and the current observed rise in temperatures is that if we look for alternative explanations we're very hard pressed to find any…”

8 Comment: Well, putting aside the vague language; they must also be “very hard pressed” to find an explanation for the longer warming period of similar strength between about 1910 and 1940. That was before there was any significant increase in CO2, so it must have been caused by something other than CO2 increase. So why should the recent warming period be any different? The temperature curve below [diagram shown] is up and down in about a 60- year cycle, and is clearly lacking of any correlation with steadily increasing CO2 which only got going after about 1940:

There was no mention of (non CO2) natural cycles, or the remarkable match between temperature and the PDO cycle of about 60-years (and also the smoothed ENSO cycle of about 60-years). For an example in this ever increasing discussion, see:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-natural-response/ And:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/06/update-on-the-role-of-the-pacific-decadal-oscillation-in- global-warming/

c) “…Certainly the Sun won't account for this rise. The Sun's output [he means of sunlight?] over the last few decades has been trending in the wrong direction to account for that increase…”

Comment: There is no mention that there has been a plateau in warming over the past decade or so. (BTW; professor [PJ] of UEA has agreed in an interview, that warming has not been statistically significant over the last 15 years).

There was also no mention of OTHER seemingly important solar outputs or of the ongoing massive “CLOUD” experiment at CERN:

“The CLOUD experiment [at start-up] involves an interdisciplinary team of scientists from 18 institutes in 9 countries, comprised of atmospheric physicists, solar physicists, and cosmic-ray and particle physicists“.

http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/research/CLOUD-en.html

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1180849

More: if you Google: ‘cern cloud‘ (and don’t forget the “Maunder Minimum’ when sunspot activity was at a sustained low)

d) “…but one of the projections of climate models is that we see a band of drying across the southern part of the continent, in south Western Australia and Victoria and extending roughly up to the latitude of the ACT. That is a predicted consequence of climate change…”

Comment: Oh really? Please study these rainfall graphs [diagram shown] published by our BOM.

Or, how about this first photo [photo shown]: “Dry river bed of the Murray river at Myall near Kerang, Victoria, 1914. During the Federation drought it stopped flowing for about 6 months.” Or, secondly, upstream at Mildura; camels crossing. Nowadays of course, this is the realm of houseboats, and summer deaths in boating and water sports reportedly exceed those on the roads in the region.

And, on a more romantic but highly relevant note, check out that magnificent poem of 1904 by Dorothea MacKellar, describing horrible drought, a decade before those photos. (the first verse compares England) http://www.lancescoular.com/my-country-by-dorothea-mackellar.html

The following graph [graph shown] is currently showing improved Victorian regional water reserves in the past eight years through to end of October 2010. That was before the big rains and floods in November-December. Melbourne storages are also at the highest level in 5 years.

e) “…We also see wettening trends in the north and those, as Ian showed a moment ago, have been observed in the records over the last 50 years in particular. So while there is a lot of uncertainty around rainfall projections, there is some evidence that climate changes are being manifested in Australian rainfall patterns already…”

Comment: And there is some evidence that there is nothing unusual in monsoonal rainfall volatility in the last 50 years up north [graph shown].

Broadcaster’s submissions The ABC submitted, in its response to the complainant of 2 March 2011, that:

We note the analysis you provide in response to points made during the excerpt of the press conference which was broadcast, however, as with the Bob Ward interview, I can only consider the content of the broadcast in the context of the accuracy requirements for topical and factual content…On review, the addresses by Ian Allison and Dr Mike Raupach are considered to be their expert opinion as co-chairs of the Academy committee who produced the document. To the extent that their address includes statements and statistics to support their main thesis, Audience and Consumer Affairs is satisfied that considering the highly specialist nature of the content, the fact that the speakers are well credentialed to discuss content, and the clear attribution of the piece, we are of the view that it meets the accuracy requirements for topical and factual content.

Finding The ABC did not breach clause 5.3 of the Code.

Reasons The complainant alleged that four statements made by Dr Raupach and one statement made by Dr Allison in the broadcast were inaccurate. The bulk of the broadcast featured extracts from a press conference regarding the launch of the document The Science of Climate Change: Questions and Answers, by the Australian Academy of Science. Doctors Raupach and Allison, who were the co-chairs of a committee which produced the document, summarised the content of the document. Dr Raupach introduced the structure as follows:

…we chose to construct this document as a narrative, as the story of why those of us who are in climate science have reached the opinions that we have. And in doing that narrative we chose two ways of telling the story and the first is to examine the lines of evidence that climate science uses in order to reach its conclusions and which point towards the conclusions laid out in this report. The second way is to identify seven questions which form the structure of this narrative…

Doctors Raupach and Allison then proceeded to briefly explain the four lines of evidence and the seven questions referred to above. The seven questions were: 1. what is climate and what is climate change? 2. how has Earth's climate changed in the past?

10 3. what are the causes of these changes, what role human induced activities have on climate? 4. what are the changes we might expect in the future and what might the consequences of those be? 5. what are the uncertainties in our science and what do we do about those? 6. what evidence is there that these increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for the warming? 7. whether recent Australian climate changes can be attributed to increasing greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere? The broadcast closed with the host of the program referring to the conclusion that ‘yes warming is on, humans are affecting change, and action needs to be taken’. The statements identified by the complainant relate to questions 5, 6 and 7. The first issue to determine is whether the statements amount to factual content or expressions of opinion, the latter of which are not subject to the accuracy requirements in the Code. The ACMA assesses what the relevant material would have been understood by the ordinary reasonable listener. In that regard, the relevant statements must be evaluated in their context, i.e. contextual indications from the rest of the broadcast (including tenor and tone) are relevant in assessing the meaning conveyed to the ordinary reasonable listener.

5 The ABC submitted that the broadcast was not an opinion or a viewpoint, rather it was a factual explanation of scientific concepts and the conclusions drawn from scientific research. The ABC compared this matter to ACMA Investigation Report 2466 in which the ACMA considered that the segment presented a viewpoint. The ACMA notes that Report 2466 related to a broadcast which reported on the findings of a mammogram screening study. The ACMA considered that the ordinary, reasonable listener would have understood that the purpose of the segment was to convey findings of a particular scientific study into the correlation between mammography screening and mortality rates as opposed to presenting a viewpoint in the broader debate or discussion on the benefits of mammography. The ACMA considers that Report 2466 may be contrasted to the broadcast in question on the basis that Report 2466 dealt with specific findings of a study whereas the segment in The Science Show reported on the views of the scientists who produced the document outlining the evidence for climate change over time and the role of human activities as the likely cause of recent climate change. The ACMA considers that the complaint relates to those viewpoints broadcast in the program by Doctors Raupach and Allison. In this regard, it is noted that Dr Raupach referred to the content of the document as an “opinion”. It is also noted that the ABC stated in its letter to the complainant of 2 March 2011 that the addresses of Doctors Allison and Raupach “are considered to be their expert opinion”. The ACMA is of the view that the broadcast would have been understood by an ordinary, reasonable listener as a summary of one scientific theory regarding climate change, which would be one of many contestable theories on the subject.

5 In relation to Issue 1

Accordingly, the ACMA finds that the statements identified by the complainant amount to opinions, having regard to the context in which they were made, and therefore are not subject to the accuracy requirement in clause 5.3 of the Code. In conclusion, the ABC has not breached clause 5.3 in this instance. The complainant also submitted that the ABC failed to comply with clause 5.4 of the Code in relation to the correction of significant errors of fact given that that it did not “challenge” his claims within 60 days of receipt. It is important to note that clause 5.4 is only activated once it has been established that the ABC breached clause 5.3 by failing to make every reasonable effort to ensure that factual content is accurate. Given that the ACMA has found that the ABC has not breached clause 5.3, there is no requirement to consider the application of clause 5.4.

Issue 3: Respond to complaint within 60 days Relevant section of Code 7 Complaints

7.2 ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs. Complaints that the ABC has acted contrary to this Code of Practice should be directed to the ABC in the first instance. Phone complainants seeking a written response from the ABC will be asked to put their complaint in writing. All such written complaints are to be directed to ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs, GPO Box 9994, in the capital city of the complainant’s State or Territory. The complainant will receive a response from the ABC within 60 days of receipt of their complaint.

The ABC makes considerable efforts to provide an adequate response to complaints about Code of Practice matters, except where a complaint is frivolous, vexatious or not made in good faith or the complainant is vexatious or not acting in good faith.

Complainant’s submissions The complainant submitted to the ACMA that:

I made a complaint to A&CA about five errors or misrepresentations in a single show. However, despite many related email exchanges…they failed to give a ruling within 60 days, whilst apologising for an oversight on their part.

The complainant provided copies of emails sent to the ABC which referred to his original complaint about the broadcast on 21 August 2010:  On 25 October 2010, the complainant’s email to the ABC Corporate Affairs was titled, “My Complaint No 3; The Science Show” and attached a lengthy complaint about the program of 21 August 2010.  On 4 November 2010, the complainant emailed the ABC Chairman referring to his “third complaint”.  On 10 November 2010, the complainant emailed the ABC Corporate Affairs referring to its response to his first two complaints and asked if the ABC had received files attached to his “Complaint No 3” without the images.

12  On 24 November 2010, the complainant emailed the ABC Corporate Affairs stating that he had not received a response to his email of 10 November;  On 8 December 2010, the complainant emailed the ABC Corporate Affairs and referred to the ABC’s Editorial Policies and stated “see particularly my complaint No {3}”.  On 14 December 2010, the complainant emailed the ABC Corporate Affairs and stated that “as far as you are concerned, my complaints numbered {1}, {2}, & maybe {4}, are closed, just a little short of the statutory period of 60 days” and reattached his “complaint No 3” as a Word document in order to avoid formatting problems.  On 12 January 2011, the ABC Corporate Affairs emailed the complainant stating that “it is a statutory requirement that the ABC responds to complaints of any breaches of our Code of Practice within 60 days of receipt of them. We have done this in the case of our correspondence to you”. The ABC stated that it has passed on the complainant’s “Word document” to the Radio National Science Show team.  On 25 January 2011, the complainant emailed the ABC Chairman referring to his “complaint” lodged on 25 October 2010 and that he had not received a response within 60 days.  On 27 January 2011, the complainant emailed the ABC Corporate Affairs stating that he had not received a response to his complaint lodged on 25 October 2010 within 60 days.

Broadcaster’s submissions The ABC submitted that:

In relation to the handling of [the complainant’s] complaint which he titled no 3 and first submitted on 25 October 2010, we note that the Code requires that the ABC make “considerable efforts to provide an adequate response to complaints about Code of Practice matters”, except in specified circumstances.

The ABC did make considerable efforts to address [the complainant’s] complaints from his first email received by the ABC on 7 October and the six following which detail his concerns about The Science Show.

For your reference I have included the full trail of correspondence between the ABC and [the complainant] from 7 October until 2 March when his complaint no 3 from 25 October was fully addressed.

Please note that this email trail does not include all the email exchanges between [the complainant] and the Director of Editorial Policies [PC], the Chairman of the ABC Board [MN], and his assistant [AP]. Nor does it include a comprehensive set of his exchanges with staff from The Science Show, particularly [DF], and Robyn Williams. The trail below does include all emails relevant to the editorial concerns he has expressed between 7 October and 2 March which required consideration under the Code of Practice. [The complainant] has two further complaints currently under investigation by Audience and Consumer Affairs.

For the purposes of demonstrating that the ABC made considerable efforts to provide an adequate response to Code of Practice matters, I have set out the chronology of our

correspondence with him up to and including our reply to him on 2 March when we acknowledge and express regret that we had missed his complaint no 3 from 25 October.

 7 October - The ABC received the first email from [the complainant].

 11 October - The ABC sent [the complainant] an acknowledgement asking him to clarify if he would like his concerns to be treated as a formal complaint.

 13 October - [the complainant] responded with further details about his complaint.

 18 October - [the complainant] emailed further details about his complaint.

 18 October - [the complainant] emailed again with further details about his complaint.

 20 October - [the complainant] emailed the Chairman’s office with further information.

 20 October - Audience and Consumer Affairs sent an acknowledgment and clarified role.

 25 October - [the complainant] sent email titled “Complaint no 3”. On receipt of the email, the investigator responsible assessed that it was a comment rather than a complaint. I am of the view that this was a reasonable interpretation of the submission. His actual complaint about the broadcast is only clearly articulated in a footnote (no 4) at the bottom of the email.

 4 November - [the complainant] emailed the Chairman’s office again referring to his previous complaints.

 8 November - Audience and Consumer Affairs provided a lengthy and comprehensive response which attempted to cover all the issues he had raised over his seven emails received to that date.

 10 November- [the complainant] wrote in response to Audience and Consumer Affairs. He included in this email copies of correspondence with The Science Show team. He referred to complaint no 3 and the formatting of it but did not state that Audience and Consumer Affairs had failed to address the issues raised therein.

 24 November - [the complainant] wrote asking for an acknowledgment that his email of 10 November had been received.

 29 November - Audience and Consumer Affairs responded again noting that his graphics in complaint no 3 had come through. Audience and Consumer Affairs asked him to use the online complaints form. As he had been emailing many different contacts through the ABC, we were concerned that some emails may be missed by the individuals who monitor the various addresses.

 7 December - [the complainant] sent a message through the complaints form but duplicated this by emailing through to Audience and Consumer Affairs also.

 8 December - [the complainant] emailed referring again to The Science Show featuring Bob Ward.

 13 December – Audience and Consumer Affairs responded again in detail.

14  14 December - [the complainant] wrote again. He referred again to complaint no 3 and attached it. Again it was read by Audience and Consumer affairs as a comment.

 12 January - Audience and Consumer Affairs responded stating: “Our assessment in Audience and Consumer Affairs is that we have dealt with all the allegations of editorial breaches which you have raised in all your emails, as required under our Code of Practice and Editorial Policies. “

 17 January - [the complainant] asked about other Code provisions. He made no reference to complaint no 3.

 25 January - Audience and Consumer Affairs responded and expressed regret that [the complainant] was dissatisfied. He was again urged to use the online complaints form.

 25 January - [the complainant] replied to the Chairman. This email for the first time highlighted that his 25 October message was a complaint.

 25 January – [AP] from the Chairman’s office sent an acknowledgement.

 31 January - [the complainant] wrote to the Director of Editorial Policies (this is in addition to other email exchanges with Mr [C] which are not provided, but we can follow up if the ACMA considers these to be relevant.)

 8 February – [the complainant] wrote to [AP] again

 2 March - Audience and Consumer Affairs responded stating:

"In going over the correspondence we have had with you to date, it is apparent that we missed a concern that you expressed in your email of 25 October. It was only in reading your email of 25 January to the Chairman and subsequently re-reading your complaint of 25 October, that it was made clear to us that you were concerned about the Science Show story on the launch of the Australian Academy of Science’s climate document The Science of Climate Change: Questions and Answers”. I sincerely regret this oversight. On review of the segment of the program which caused you concern....". The response goes on to address his concerns.

In summary, Audience and Consumer Affairs did not assess [the complainant’s] email which he originally submitted on 25 October to be a complaint. Rather it was considered to be a comment. This was an honest mistake and occurred (and re-occurred) while the ABC was making considerable efforts to keep track of [the complainant’s] correspondence, to examine his concerns. [The complainant’s] habit of submitting a confusing number of emails and attachments, and resubmitting complaints in different formats, and the lack of prominence accorded to his complaint in his 25 October email, materially contributed to the error made in relation to his complaint. This error occurred in the midst of the ABC making considerable and repeated efforts to deal with [the complainant’s] complaints. It is quite different to a situation where for example the ABC had simply brushed off a complaint.

Had [the complainant] used the ABC’s online form, as we have frequently encouraged him to do, it would have been apparent to us that his message was a complaint, as this is a required field when submitting messages via the form.

ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs has given serious attention to [the complainant’s] many complaints. Given the particular circumstances of this case, the ABC is satisfied that the requirements of section 7.2 of the Code were met.

Finding The ABC breached clause 7.2 of the Code.

Reasons Clause 7.2 of the Code provides that a complainant will receive a response from the ABC within 60 days of receipt of a written complaint addressed to ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs. In this case, the ABC submitted that it did not respond to the complaint within 60 days as it made an “honest mistake” and considered that the complaint was a comment. The ABC stated that the number of emails sent by the complainant “materially contributed to the error made”. The ACMA notes that the complainant’s original complaint to the ABC dated 25 October 2010 was titled, “My complaint No 3: The Science Show” and that his subsequent seven emails to the ABC following up a response to his complaint referred to his “third complaint”, “Complaint No 3” and “complaint No {3}”. It is also noted that the complaint commences with the following statement: “Here…is my third of four complaints of bad journalism/bias in recent radio “Science Shows”…”. The ACMA considers that whilst the complainant had lodged many complaints with the ABC and sent numerous emails, it was clear from his correspondence that he had lodged a complaint. Given that the ABC did not respond to this complaint within 60 days of receipt, the ACMA finds that the ABC has breached clause 7.2 of the Code in this instance. In response to the preliminary finding, the ABC submitted that it responded to the complainant’s emails of 7, 13, 18, 20 and 25 October 2010 and 4 November 2010 in a letter dated 8 November 2010 in which it attached copies of these emails and the ABC’s interim replies. The ABC further submitted that:

We accept that our 8 November reply overlooked one element raised by [the complainant]. When this oversight was identified, we immediately wrote to him6, apologised for the error and augmented our initial response to explain why…the broadcast had complied with the accuracy standards in the Code…

…we understood that his 25 October email to be in the form of commentary rather than complaint…the nub of his concern was only able to be discerned from the commentary included in his fourth footnote.

…the relevant test for the ACMA is that which is implicit in the second part of Clause 7.2, that is, whether the ABC made considerable efforts to provide an adequate response to a complaint about a Code of Practice matter. For the reasons set out in our first submission, we believe that considerable efforts were indeed made to manage and provide an adequate response to [the complainant’s] correspondence. We note that this test was applied by the ACMA in

6 In a letter dated 2 March 2011

16 Investigation Report 2538, in which the ACMA accepted that the ABC had made considerable efforts to provide a response to a complainant, even though an adequate response to the substantive matter was not provided within 60 days.

Having now the benefit of the ACMA’s findings on the substantive issues in [the complainant’s] 25 October complaint, we would additionally make the point that there was nothing in our 2 March response to [the complainant] which added anything of substance to the reasoning set out in the replies we had given him prior to the expiration of the 60-day deadline…

As indicated above, the complainant’s email to the ABC of 25 October 2010 was titled, ‘My complaint No 3: The Science Show’ and related to the broadcast on 21 August 2010. The complainant identified five statements made in the program by Drs Raupach and Allison and provided reasons why he believed each statement was inaccurate under the title ‘Comment’. For instance:

b) “…Another way that indicates that there is a cause and effect relationship between rising greenhouse gases and the current observed rise in temperatures is that if we look for alternative explanations we're very hard pressed to find any…”

Comment: Well, putting aside the vague language; they must also be very hard pressed to find an explanation for the longer warming period of similar strength between about 1910 and 1940. That was before there was any significant increase in CO2, so it must have been caused by something other than CO2 increase. So why should the recent warming period be any different? The temperature curve below is up and down in about a 60-year cycle, and is clearly lacking of any correlation with steadily increasing CO2. (which only got going after about 1940, when there was actually a decline in temperature)…

The ACMA considers that it is clear from the document that the complaint related to factual accuracies. The end of the document also listed four footnotes, one of which raised the issue of bias:

[4] Please note that I am NOT seeking adjudication on any of the science: The complaint is that the programme supported only the OPINIONS of “the consensus”, and some of the science employed to support those opinions, or questionable interpretations of the data. However, there is much highly credible science that highlights great uncertainty, or is contradictory, but which had no mention. Thus, “The Science Show” was misleading to the public, which amounts to bad journalism. Consideration should also be given to the recent policy changes made by the BBC, which should result in fairer presentation of both sides of the science over there. (together with increasing awareness of the problem in various institutions and publications etc, since about November 2009)

Whilst the ABC’s letter to the complainant of 8 November 2010 attached the email of 25 October, the response only addressed the broadcast of The Science Show on 2 October 2010 and the program’s broadcast of Senator Kim Carr’s speech at the Eureka Science Prizes for 2010. Accordingly, the ACMA does not accept the ABC’s submission that it responded to the complaint about the 21 August broadcast within 60 days of receipt. The ACMA also does not accept that the ABC’s submission that its response regarding the broadcast on 2 October extends to the broadcast of 21 August. Whilst the complaint about both programs concerned the issue of impartiality relating to climate change, the programs focused on different individuals concerning the subject matter.

In regard to the ABC’s efforts to provide a substantive response, the ACMA considers that Investigation Report 2538 referred to by the ABC above may be distinguished from this case. In the former report, the ACMA found that the ABC had made considerable efforts to provide a substantive response in the particular circumstances, namely: … When the complaint was first received by Audience and Consumer Affairs, it was passed on to ABC News seeking their comments and a copy of the relevant content. The Abbott/Afghanistan story was promptly retrieved and reviewed, and the relevant comment not found. Indeed, news sought and reviewed both the ABC News 24 bulletin and the 7pm News bulletin in an attempt to locale the specific phrase, but were unable to find it. Audience and Consumer Affairs was advised of this and conducted its own review of the material, which confirmed that the language identified in [the complainant]’s complaint was not contained in the story. Concerned that the wording could not be found in the story, Audience and Consumer Affairs proceeded to review the opening headers for the news bulletin, the mid-headers and the 6:30 pm promotion to try to locate the use of the word ‘belated’, but it was not to be found. On this basis, a response was prepared and forwarded to [the complainant]. Of course, we now know that an error was made in identifying the relevant bulletin…7

In this case, the ACMA does not consider that the ABC addressed any of the complainant’s concerns regarding the program broadcast on 21 August 2010 in its letter of 8 November 2010. Accordingly, the ACMA is not satisfied that the ACMA made considerable efforts to provide an adequate response to the complaint of 25 October 2010. For these reasons, the ACMA reiterates its finding that the ABC failed to comply with clause 7.2 in this instance.

7 Submission made by the ABC in relation to Investigation 2538

18 Attachment A Transcript of The Science Show – 21 August 2011

Robyn Williams: On Monday, just a few days ago, the Australian Academy of Science launched their climate document, Questions and Answers. They did so then not because of an election but to mark National Science Week. The intention is to give you and me an authoritative guide to cut through the confusion and let us know what the science is really saying. This is a brief extract from the press conference at the Academy with Ian Allison and Mike Raupach. Mike Raupach: When we confronted the challenge of how to write a document such as this, we fastened on a person who we would address and this person...we each selected an individual who we knew, and this person is an intelligent non-scientist who is curious about climate change, is perhaps a little confused by the contemporary debate and wants to understand as best as possible the way things are really happening. And for that reason we chose to construct this document as a narrative, as the story of why those of us who are in climate science have reached the opinions that we have. And in doing that narrative we chose two ways of telling the story and the first is to examine the lines of evidence that climate science uses in order to reach its conclusions and which point towards the conclusions laid out in this report. The second way is to identify seven questions which form the structure of this narrative. I'll touch briefly on the first of those before handing over to Ian. We identified four principal reasons, four lines of evidence why climate science has reached the conclusions that it has as reflected in this document. The first of those consists of basic physical principles. Most of these have been known for a long time, that some gases in the atmosphere carbon dioxide, water vapour and others interact with radiation and in doing so they trap heat and keep the Earth's surface warmer than it otherwise would be. The second line of evidence is to examine the record of the distant past, running back over many millions of years. And that tells us that climate has varied enormously through that time, not always in response to obvious forcings. In fact, that line of evidence tells us that climate is sensitive to small disturbances. The third line of evidence is the measurements that we have of climate change and variability over the recent past running back 100 or slightly more years, the period through which we have trustworthy instrumental records of the way that climate has changed in that period. That line of evidence tells us that the Earth has indeed warmed over that period by something like 0.8 degrees since the mid 19th century to the present. And the fourth line of evidence, only the fourth, is the climate models that are used to project how climate change will evolve in the future, and those tell us that climate indeed is likely to continue to warm if emissions of human induced greenhouse gases continue at business-as- usual rates and continue to grow at those rates. So with that brief survey of the lines of evidence that enter this document, I'll hand over to Ian who will introduce the seven questions around which the document is framed. He'll go through the first three-and-a-half of them and I'll return and carry on with the remaining questions. Thanks Ian.

Ian Allison: As Mike said, we have four lines of reasoning of why we come to the conclusions we do. We based this document around seven questions. I'll just briefly introduce the seven questions now. Our first question really is what is climate and what is climate change? What do we mean by those terms? Then, how has Earth's climate changed in the past? And we talk first about the distant past, the period before instrumental record, going back to geological record of millions of years. And what are the causes of these changes, what role human induced activities have on climate? From that, what are the changes we might expect in the future and what might the consequences of those be. And finally we'll finish up with a brief session on just what are the uncertainties in our science and what do we do about those? But since the Industrial Revolution there's been a tremendous increase in the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere. The blue dots here are all measurements, they match up almost perfectly with the ice core record, so we have a record going back here 2,000 years but overall 800,000 years to show us that past history. And this level of CO2 we have now at over 380 parts per million is greater than any concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere for 800,000 years. I'll hand over to Mike now. Mike Raupach: Thank you Ian. The next question is what evidence is there that these increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for the warming. We have a cause, but do we have a direct response and the effect? And there are a number of lines of evidence which indicate that that is so. One of the major ones is that if we look for fingerprints of change in climate that we would expect to see from greenhouse gases in the record over the last few decades, we do in fact find them. For example, we expect greenhouse gases to warm the lower atmosphere and the Earth's surface, we see that. We also expect them to cool the upper atmosphere, the stratosphere, the region about 15 kilometres and higher from the Earth's surface, and we see that and that is observed in the satellite records. Another way that indicates that there is a cause and effect relationship between rising greenhouse gases and the current observed rise in temperatures is that if we look for alternative explanations we're very hard pressed to find any. Certainly the Sun won't account for this rise. The Sun's output over the last few decades has been trending in the wrong direction to account for that increase. Volcanoes as a source of atmospheric CO2 emit something like 100 times less CO2 than human activities currently do, that's the average of volcanoes over the last century. So we can dismiss volcanoes as a source of the current temperature rise with great confidence. We can then look at the question of whether recent Australian climate changes can be attributed to increasing greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere, and there is some evidence that this is the case. This is an area of much greater uncertainty, but one of the projections of climate models is that we see a band of drying across the southern part of the continent, in south Western Australia and Victoria and extending roughly up to the latitude of the ACT. That is a predicted consequence of climate change. We also see wettening trends in the north and those, as Ian showed a moment ago, have been observed in the records over the last 50 years in particular. So while there is a lot of uncertainty around rainfall projections, there is some evidence that climate changes are being manifested in Australian rainfall patterns already. Robyn Williams: Dr Mike Raupach and Ian Allison, co-chairs of the committee of our top scientists who spent about 1,500 hours producing the document The Science of Climate Change: Questions and Answers. It's only 16 pages long, well illustrated, and to see or

20 download a copy, go to the Academy of Science website, links on our own ABC Science Show website. And the conclusion, yes, warming is on, humans are affecting the change, and action needs to be taken.

Attachment B In determining whether or not material complained of was factual content, and therefore subject to the ABC’s obligations as to accuracy under clause 5.3 of the ABC Code of Practice, the ACMA generally has regard to the following considerations:  The meaning conveyed by the relevant material is assessed according to what an ‘ordinary, reasonable viewer’ would have understood the program concerned to have conveyed. Courts have considered an ordinary, reasonable viewer/listener to be: A person of fair average intelligence, who is neither perverse, nor morbid or suspicious of mind, nor avid for scandal. An ordinary, reasonable listener does not live in an ivory tower, but can and does read between the lines in the light of that person’s general knowledge and experience of worldly affairs.8

 Expressions of opinion do not constitute factual content and are not subject to the requirement at clause 3.2 of the Code. Therefore, the ACMA must assess whether the relevant material would have been understood by the ordinary reasonable viewer/listener as factual content or an expression of opinion. The primary consideration would be whether, according to the natural and ordinary meaning of the language used and the substantive nature of the message conveyed, the relevant material presents as a statement of fact or an expression of opinion. o In that regard, the relevant statement must be evaluated in its context, i.e. contextual indications from the rest of the broadcast (including tenor and tone) are relevant in assessing the meaning conveyed to the ordinary reasonable viewer/listener. o The use of language such as ‘it seems to me’ or ‘we consider/think/believe’ tends to indicate that a statement is presented as an opinion or perspective. However, a common sense judgement is required as to how the substantive nature of the statement would be understood by the ordinary reasonable viewer/listener, and the form of words introducing the relevant statement is not conclusive.  Inferences of a factual nature made from observed facts would usually still be characterised as factual content (subject to context); to qualify as an opinion/perspective, an inference reasoned from observed facts would usually have to be an inference of a judgemental or contestable kind.  While broadcasters are not required to present all factual material available to them, if the omission of some factual material means that the factual material actually broadcast is not presented accurately, that would amount to a breach of the clause.  In situations where witnesses give contradictory accounts—if there is no objective way of verifying the material facts, the obligation to ensure that factual content is accurate probably requires that the competing assertions of fact be presented accurately as competing assertions.  The identity of the person making the statement would not in and of itself determine whether the statement is factual content or perspective, i.e. it is not possible to

8 Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited (1998) 43 NSWLR 158 at pp.164-167

22 conclude that because a statement was made by an interviewee, it was necessarily a perspective rather than factual content.  Statements in the nature of prediction as to future events would nearly always be characterised as statements of opinion.

ACMA Investigation Report 2595 – The Science Show broadcast by 3RN on 21/8/10 23