<p>Investigation Report No. 2956</p><p>File No. ACMA2013/142</p><p>Broadcaster Australian Broadcasting Corporation </p><p>Station ABN Sydney</p><p>Type of service National broadcasting</p><p>Name of program Catalyst</p><p>Date of broadcast 15 November 2012</p><p>Relevant Code Standards 2.1 and 2.2 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011 standards Date Finalised 3 July 2013</p><p>Investigation No breach of standards 2.1, 2.2 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011 Outcome</p><p>ACMA Investigation Report 2956 – Catalyst broadcast by ABN Sydney on 15 November 2012 The complaint The Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) received a complaint about an episode of Catalyst broadcast by ABN Sydney (the ABC) on 15 November 2012 (the program). The complainant submitted that the program contained factual inaccuracies on the issue of climate change and its alleged effect on Australia. The ACMA has investigated the ABC’s compliance with standards 2.1 and 2.2 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011 (the Code). The program Catalyst is broadcast nationally on Thursdays at 8:00pm, and repeated on Fridays at 11:00am. It is described on its website in the following terms: At Catalyst we know that science is a dynamic force for change. Each week Catalyst brings you stories from Australia and around the world. Our passion to meet scientists at the forefront of discovery is matched by our fascination with science breakthroughs however big or small. Science changes all our lives. For better or worse, we are committed to showing you what our future holds.1 The program broadcast on 15 November 2012 had a duration of 28 minutes and reported on weather patterns throughout Australia during the past 100 years. It was introduced as follows: Has the weather changed in the last 100 years or not? So, I'm heading on an investigation that's all about the simple facts. Real tidal gauges, actual temperature records. And this will be a proper weather report, going round Australia to the places you and I live and play. It's time to take the temperature of Australia. The program involved the presenter travelling around Australia and speaking to a number of meteorological experts and commentators to attempt to establish if, and how, weather patterns, ocean temperatures and sea levels have changed over the past 100 years. Those interviewed included an expert from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (the weather expert), a snow expert, a vineyard owner, marine life experts and an oceanographer. A transcript of the program can be found at Attachment A. Assessment This investigation considered submissions from the complainant and the ABC’s response to the complainant, as well as a copy of the program provided to the ACMA by the ABC. Other sources 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 viewer’.</p><p>1 www.abc.net.au/catalyst/team/about.htm</p><p>ACMA Investigation Report 2956 – Catalyst broadcast by ABN Sydney on 15 November 2012 2 Australian courts have considered an ‘ordinary, reasonable viewer’ 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 affairs.2 The ACMA examines what the ‘ordinary, reasonable viewer’ would have understood the program to have conveyed. It considers the natural, ordinary meaning of the language, context, tenor, tone and inferences that may be drawn, and in the case of factual material, relevant omissions (if any). 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. Relevant Code standards Accuracy 2.1 Make reasonable efforts to ensure that material facts are accurate and presented in context. 2.2 Do not present factual content in a way that will materially mislead the audience. In some cases, this may require appropriate labels or other explanatory information. The Code requires that the standards are interpreted and applied in accordance with the Principles applying in each section. Relevant Principles in relation to accuracy include the following: Types of fact-based content include news and analysis of current events, documentaries, factual dramas and lifestyle programs. The ABC requires that reasonable efforts must be made to ensure accuracy in all fact-based content. The ABC gauges those efforts by reference to: • the type, subject and nature of the content; • the likely audience expectations of the content; • the likely impact of reliance by the audience on the accuracy of the content; and • the circumstances in which the content was made and presented. The ABC accuracy standard applies to assertions of fact, not to expressions of opinion. [...] The efforts reasonably required to ensure accuracy will depend on the circumstances. Sources with relevant expertise may be relied on more heavily than those without. Eyewitness testimony usually carries more weight than second-hand accounts. The passage of time or the inaccessibility of locations or sources can affect the standard of verification reasonably required. The considerations which the ACMA generally applies in assessing whether particular broadcast material is factual in character are set out at Attachment B.</p><p>2 Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden (1998) NSWLR 158 at 164-167.</p><p>ACMA Investigation Report 2956 – Catalyst broadcast by ABN Sydney on 15 November 2012 3 In applying standard 2.1 of the Code the ACMA generally adopts the following approach:  Was the particular material (the subject of the complaint) factual in character?</p><p> Did it convey a ‘material’ fact or facts in the context of the relevant segment?  If so, were those facts accurate?</p><p> If a material fact was not accurate, (or its accuracy cannot be determined) did the ABC make reasonable efforts to ensure that the ‘material’ fact was accurate and presented in context? In applying standard 2.2 of the Code, the ACMA usually adopts the following approach:  Was the particular material (the subject of the complaint) factual in character?</p><p> Was that factual content presented in way that would materially (i.e. in a significant respect) mislead the audience? Complainant’s submissions The complainant’s submission to the ABC included the following: This program showed false and misleading information to the Australian public. The sea level rise recorded in Perth doesn’t represent Australia as a whole. Why didn’t they show all the data, instead of cherry picking one small area? Do they know for example that in some parts the Indian ocean is 75 metres higher than the Pacific Ocean? Did they consider that it might be the land that is sinking and not the ocean that is rising. Note – All the world’s continents are floating on liquid magma, so therefore, they are unstable. The old fashioned temperature gauges that were used to measure temperature were only accurate to plus or minus one degree up until 2001. Therefore, if the temperature has increased by only one degree in the last 100 years, then this one degree is an invalid increase because the + and – accuracy is only one degree also. Note – The time period of the measurements was not mentioned in the program. Because the sun cycles have cooled in the last few years they probably didn’t include our recent much cooler temperatures. Note – Sun, planetary and galactic cycles cause weather pattern changes. None of these were mentioned on this program. [...] It is impossible to forecast the weather, either for tomorrow, next week or in a hundred years’ time. The weather is controlled by the Sun, moon, planets, solar system and other galactic influences. The climate has been changing for millions of years... The complainant’s subsequent submission to the ACMA included the following: [The ABC] states that the sea levels were measured over a one year period. Then, they state that the satellite records only go back to 1993? This represents a period of 19 years, not 100 years! Their only evidence is [the oceanographer] who said ‘Pretty well, yep, yep.’ They also stated their estimates were ‘only estimates and not fact.’ They failed to mention anything about the land rising and falling as a factor. They failed to mention another site where measurements have been taken. They failed to mention when they took their measurements at Port Arthur. They failed to address the temperature issue by stating that they trust the Bureau of Meteorology. They failed to address the issue of using old fashioned thermometers right up until 2001. These thermometers were only capable of measuring temperature to an accuracy of + or – one degree. Therefore, a change of one degree over a period of 100 years is a scientifically invalid number which doesn’t represent any change. Temperature change is caused by Sun Spot activity, planetary and galactic movements and has nothing whatsoever to do with human activity and pollution...</p><p>ACMA Investigation Report 2956 – Catalyst broadcast by ABN Sydney on 15 November 2012 4 ABC’s submissions The ABC’s response to the complainant included the following: In response to your concerns that ‘the sea level rise recorded in Perth doesn’t represent Australia as a whole’, [the ABC] note[s] that when discussing the issue of sea level, [the presenter] travelled to both Fremantle and Port Arthur and sought comments from expert oceanographer [expert’s name], who compared sea level rises in both areas and indicated that there had been an approximately 17cm rise. Although [the presenter] did suggest that ‘so that is a 100-year record, really, for Australia,’ and [the oceanographer] indicated in response, ‘Pretty well, yep, yep’, we note this was qualified and presented as an estimate rather than fact. The report then went on to include comment from Bureau of Meteorology expert [expert’s name] about sea level rises in Australia more generally: [The presenter] - So these are our current 'blood pressure', AKA 'sea level', readings. How are they looking?</p><p>[The weather expert] - So what we're looking at here is basically from the satellite record from 1993. And we can see sea levels have risen everywhere. Red on this part up the top of the continent is a lot of sea-level rise. And the blue parts down the bottom is where we've had rather less sea-level rise.</p><p>[The presenter (narrated)] - Sea level naturally goes up and down a lot from year to year, but we can see from the Fremantle record the trend line is relentless. [The ABC] note[s] that the report covered the issue of sea level rise generally as well as providing a comparative case study of two particular areas in Australia based on the research of a credible expert in the field. We do not consider that this was false or misleading, and are satisfied the segment was in keeping with standard 2.1. In response to your concerns that ‘The old fashioned temperature gauges that were used to measure temperature were only accurate to plus or minus one degree up until 2001. Therefore, if the temperature has increased by only one degree in the last 100 years, then this one degree is an invalid increase because the + and – accuracy is only one degree also’, [the ABC is] satisfied that it is reasonable for Catalyst to rely on the information provided by the Bureau of Meteorology, Australia’s national weather, climate and water agency, and their methods for obtaining that information. Finding The ABC did not breach standards 2.1 or 2.2 of the Code. Reasons The ACMA is satisfied that the statements about sea level rises, temperature increases and fluctuating weather patterns contested by the complainant are factual in nature – they are specific and are capable of independent verification. Statements about sea level rises In respect of the presenter’s statement (in bold) that: So this is the original Fremantle port's tidal gauge from 1897. Beautiful piece of machinery, isn't it? And this is the latest tidal gauge. And, between them, what they chart is on average a 1.5mm rise per year since 1900. The complainant submitted that: the sea level rise recorded in Perth doesn’t represent Australia as a whole. Why didn’t they show all the data, instead of cherry picking one small area?</p><p>ACMA Investigation Report 2956 – Catalyst broadcast by ABN Sydney on 15 November 2012 5 In reference to the weather expert’s statement (in bold) that: what we're looking at here is basically from the satellite record from 1993 [looking at a satellite image of the entirety of Australia]. And we can see sea levels have risen everywhere. Red on this plot up the top of the continent is a lot of sea-level rise. And the blue parts down the bottom is where we've had rather less sea-level rise. The complainant submitted that: the satellite records only go back to 1993? This represents a period of 19 years, not 100 years! As the complainant expressed concern about the statements made on rising sea levels being misleading - in particular, that the information presented was ‘cherry picked’ and did not cover a hundred year period - the ACMA has assessed the ABC’s compliance with standard 2.2 of the Code. During the program, the presenter examined the extent (if any) to which sea levels around Australia have risen in the past 100 years. She examined Fremantle port’s tidal gauge, which charted an average rise of 1.5mm in sea levels since 1900. She then spoke to the oceanographer in Port Arthur, Tasmania, who concluded that sea levels at that location had risen approximately 17 centimetres since 1841. This was comparable with the degree of sea level rise that had occurred in Fremantle, on the other side of the continent. The presenter then spoke to the weather expert, who referred to satellite data showing sea level rises across the country since 1993. The ACMA does not consider that the information about rising sea levels in the program was presented in such a way as to materially mislead the audience for the following reasons:  The presenter travelled to Fremantle and Port Arthur, places located at opposite ends of the continent, and discussed the issue with the oceanographer, who compared sea level rises in both parts of the country and concluded that there had been approximately a 17cm rise since 1841.  The weather expert explained that:</p><p>So what we're looking at here is basically from the satellite record from 1993 [looking at a satellite image of the entirety of Australia]. And we can see sea levels have risen everywhere. Red on this plot up the top of the continent is a lot of sea-level rise. And the blue parts down the bottom is where we've had rather less sea-level rise.  The program did not look at Perth’s sea levels in isolation. Rather, it analysed and compared sea levels from a number of different parts of Australia, including a nation- wide overview of sea levels. In relation to the complainant’s concerns that the satellite records ‘represent a period of 19 years, not 100 years’, the ACMA does not consider that the audience was materially misled as a result. While the majority of the program examined changing weather patterns over a period of 100 years, the chart referred to in this instance by the BOM Expert did not purport to do so. Rather, it was expressly dealing only with a 19 year period. This was made apparent by his statement ‘so what we're looking at here is basically from the satellite record from 1993’. Accordingly, the ACMA is of the view that the ABC did not breach standard 2.2 in respect of the statements.</p><p>ACMA Investigation Report 2956 – Catalyst broadcast by ABN Sydney on 15 November 2012 6 The complaint also raised concerns about these statements on sea level rises: Oceanographer: OK, the total sea-level rise since 1841 is about 17 centimetres. And that's the length of that stick. If you compare that with Fremantle on the other side of the country, about 17 centimetres again since 1897. Presenter: 1897? OK, so that is a 100-year record, really, for Australia. Oceanographer: Pretty well, yep, yep. The complainant submitted that ‘their only evidence [in relation to the sea level rise] is [the oceanographer] who said “Pretty well, yep, yep.”’ and that the figures were ‘only estimates and not fact.’ Given the program concerned the impact of climate change on Australia, the ACMA considers that the statement about the extent of sea level rises is a material fact, attracting the ‘reasonable efforts’ obligation in standard 2.1. The ACMA considers that the ABC made reasonable efforts to ensure that the statement was accurate and presented in context. The program reported the findings of an appropriate scientific expert, who explained his methodology and conclusions. Also, the program conveyed that the expert was giving an approximation – the expert referred to ‘about 17 centimetres.’ Accordingly, the ACMA is of the view that the ABC did not breach standard 2.1 in respect of the statements. Statements on temperature increases In the program, the weather expert stated that: Temperatures around Australia have risen by about a degree… less chills, more fevers. And some regional variation in that as well. So some regions are heating up more than others. The complainant submitted that: The old fashioned temperature gauges that were used to measure temperature were only accurate to plus or minus one degree up until 2001. Therefore, if the temperature has increased by only one degree in the last 100 years, then this one degree is an invalid increase because the + and – accuracy is only one degree also. Note – The time period of the measurements was not mentioned in the program. Because the sun cycles have cooled in the last few years they probably didn’t include our recent much cooler temperatures. In respect of the complainant’s concern that the statement about the one degree increase in temperature is inaccurate, the ACMA has assessed the ABC’s compliance with standard 2.1 of the Code. The ACMA considers that the statement conveyed to the ordinary, reasonable viewer that on average, temperatures across Australia have risen by close to a degree, with some areas having warmed more than others. This was a material fact in the context of the program. During the program, the presenter drew on the expertise of the Bureau of Meteorology (the Bureau) to assess the extent of any land temperature increases across Australia in the past 100 years. This included an explanation of the methods and equipment used by the Bureau in collecting temperature data, both now and in the past.</p><p>ACMA Investigation Report 2956 – Catalyst broadcast by ABN Sydney on 15 November 2012 7 The ACMA considers the ABC discharged its reasonable efforts obligation by consulting and relying on the Bureau, ‘Australia’s national weather, climate and water agency’3. The program included an explanation of the methodology used by the Bureau: Presenter - And how do we know this to be true? Well, because, frankly, the data collection behind it is mind-boggling. This is the Victorian regional headquarters of the Bureau of Meteorology. [...] Presenter – There are nearly 800 weather stations across Australia, with over 500 now fully automated. Of these, 112 sites have information that historically goes back far enough and is accurate enough to count as blue-chip and be used as part of the 100-year record. OK, so, to be in the top 100, you have to have a few things going for you. First of all - quality instruments. So this is a fully automated platinum temperature probe. Second, you have to have reliable records. So these platinum records go back to 2001. And then this old-fashioned but still accurate mercury goes back to 1910.  The sources relied on in the program have relevant expertise and the relevant Principles in the Code make it clear that:</p><p>Sources with relevant expertise may be relied on more heavily than those without. In respect of the complainant’s concerns that the program did not mention ‘the time period of the measurements’, the ACMA notes that the program contained several references to the timeframes under consideration, including:</p><p> The presenter - So you're going to run us through a national, 100-year Australia health check/weather report.</p><p> The weather expert – ‘If we start at the Snowy here, we've warmed by about 1.1 degrees since a century ago. And that's similar to Perth, Sydney. If we're looking over here at Cairns, it's almost 2 degrees since 1910.’</p><p> The weather expert - You can see here - Sydney through to Melbourne, Canberra, Hobart, they've warmed up by about 0.7 of a degree. And in some capitals a lot less. Adelaide - 0.3. But if you go over to the west - Perth - and into the centre - Alice Springs - you've got 1.1 to almost 2 degrees of warming. The presenter – Wow. In 100 years, the centre has heated up more than the coast.</p><p> The presenter - ‘Well, we're ready for the final report in Australia's 100-year health check.’ The ACMA considers that the ABC has complied with standard 2.1 of the Code in respect of these statements. Statements about fluctuations in weather The complainant submitted that the ABC neglected to state that ‘the weather is controlled by the Sun, moon, planets, solar system and other galactic influences. The climate has been changing for millions of years.’ The ACMA considers that the complainant’s main concern on this point was that the program was misleading by omission. As such, the ACMA has assessed the ABC’s compliance with standard 2.2 of the Code The ABC is not required to present all factual material available to it. However, a breach of standard 2.2 of the Code may occur where factual content is presented in a way that will materially mislead the audience.</p><p>3 www.bom.gov.au/inside/index.shtml?ref=hdr</p><p>ACMA Investigation Report 2956 – Catalyst broadcast by ABN Sydney on 15 November 2012 8 The ACMA notes that from the outset, the presenter made it clear that the objective and focus of the program was solely to identify whether or not the weather in has changed in the last 100 years. The program did not purport to explain the causal factors behind any change in the weather. Accordingly, the ACMA does not consider that the omission of any influences cited by the complainant rendered the program materially misleading. Further, the program included comments which made it clear that a range of varying explanations exist for global temperature increases: Interviewee - It's really extraordinary. If it was just by random chance alone, then there's only a 1 in 100,000 chance that that would have happened in the absence of human influence. Presenter - So, this bottle of red represents the chance that that run of temperature increase was caused by natural variability, sunspots or volcanoes. [...] Presenter - Essentially, what the records show is that global warming isn't something that's coming - it's here in our backyards already. It's pointless now to ask, 'Is this climate change or natural variability?' What we see is one acting on top of the other. The ACMA accordingly considers that the ABC complied with standard 2.2 of the Code.</p><p>ACMA Investigation Report 2956 – Catalyst broadcast by ABN Sydney on 15 November 2012 9 Attachment A Transcript Presenter (narrated) - Have you noticed anything odd round your place lately? A fish you've never caught before. Unusual events. Weird weather. Well, I've certainly noticed something odd round my home. I bought this place 12 years ago. And, in that whole time, it never flooded. Nor in the 20 years the old guy had it before me. In the last two years, it's flooded ten times. I've pretty much stopped mopping. And, like many of us, as I survey the damage, I wonder if this is Climate Change, a rogue La Nina or just a really rainy year. Has the weather changed in the last 100 years or not? So, I'm heading on an investigation that's all about the simple facts. Real tidal gauges, actual temperature records. And this will be a proper weather report, going round Australia to the places you and I live and play. It's time to take the temperature of Australia. And, when it comes to weather, there's one organisation perfectly placed to guide me. They formed 100 years ago. They are the Bureau of Meteorology. Presenter - Hello, [Weather expert’s name]. Weather expert - How's it going, [presenter’s name]? Presenter - Good. And... So you're going to run us through a national, 100-year Australia health check/weather report. Weather expert - That's right. Today we're going to do a national round-up of Australia's temperature, hydration and its circulation. Presenter - Fantastic. So I reckon we start straightaway with temperature, which means I'm heading... here. Presenter (narrated) - I don't want to start with the heat, but with the cold. Is it as cold as it used to be? And where better to view the cold than from our nation's frosty tips? Our enchanted, legendary snowy mountains... where I love to ski. You may think me elitist, but I prefer to think it's the genetic imperative of my Norwegian ancestry. And those Nordic genes of mine have a keen interest in what's happened to the snow. Well, this is 1964, the biggest dump on record. You look at photos like this, and you think things must have changed. But have they really? Is it anecdotal or real? To find out, you have to go to the records. We're off to Spencer's Creek, where the Snowy Hydro scheme has been taking snow-depth measures every week since 1954. [Snow expert] has been monitoring the snow for decades. Snow expert - We've got 65 inches, which... Presenter - Inches?! Snow expert - Yes, inches. It's been done since 1954. So they're not going to change their methods now. Presenter - (Laughs) Snow expert - Which is about... 162cm. Presenter (narrated) - Snow cover swings wildly from year to year. So the best way to see the signal in the record is to compress it into five-year average trends. Presenter - So, how are we going to do the trend line? Snow expert - We'll put this in as the trend line.</p><p>ACMA Investigation Report 2956 – Catalyst broadcast by ABN Sydney on 15 November 2012 10 Presenter (narrated) - Hmm. In 60 years, we've lost a third of our total snow cover. But there is some rough comfort for my skiing aspirations. And that is that the beginning of the season hasn't really changed. So, basically, since 1954, snow depth in July is much the same. When you reach September, it starts to drop off. So that by October it's noticeably less. Essentially, spring is coming earlier. It's even clearer when you look at the records for the thaw, now two weeks earlier than in the '60s. And the snowline appears to have lately moved up from 1,500m to 1,600m. Snow expert - This actually used to be a ski run, coming down here across the road. And now you wouldn't even dream of it. Presenter (narrated) - So what HAS happened to Australia's cold? Presenter - Right. Our first national round-up. So we're looking at minimum temperatures. And, [weather expert’s name], basically, this is how cold it gets at night. Weather expert - That's correct, [presenter’s name]. If we start at the Snowy here, we've warmed by about 1.1 degrees since a century ago. And that's similar to Perth, Sydney. If we're looking over here at Cairns, it's almost 2 degrees since 1910. Presenter - Two degrees, so hot nights. Weather expert - Well, hotter nights than they used to have, yeah - on average. Presenter (narrated) - And how do we know this to be true? Well, because, frankly, the data collection behind it is mind-boggling. This is the Victorian regional headquarters of the Bureau of Meteorology. Presenter - So how many things are kind of feeding into all of this? KP (Bureau representative) - Um, too much, really for the brain to comprehend, to be honest. And that's why we have a lot of alerts that help us. Presenter (narrated) - There are nearly 800 weather stations across Australia, with over 500 now fully automated. Of these, 112 sites have information that historically goes back far enough and is accurate enough to count as blue-chip and be used as part of the 100-year record. OK, so, to be in the top 100, you have to have a few things going for you. First of all - quality instruments. So this is a fully automated platinum temperature probe. Second, you have to have reliable records. So these platinum records go back to 2001. And then this old- fashioned but still accurate mercury goes back to 1910. Third, the station has to be well away from urban heat islands, so not in a big city. All this data is then fed by cables to central stations at the national bureau headquarters in Melbourne, where it ends up here. I'm on the secret level of the bureau now. This is the lair of the weather supercomputers. They have their own full-time staff of 22 IT slaves on 24-hour call making sure nothing upsets them. A gazillion cable feeds are swallowed here, digested and then spat over there. This temperature controlled block of pampered bits and bytes contains all the records. This, essentially, is the history of Australia's weather. And this is how the bureau knows how much minimum temperatures have gone up in 100 years. So that's night-time minimums, but I bet what most of you are more interested in is what's happened to daytime maximums. And, for that... I'm heading here. This is another one of my favourite spots in Australia - sassy, sexy, St Kilda, Melbourne. I lived here in my 20s, and, coming from Sydney and Perth, can I say Melbourne had a bit of a reputation for its weather? So, when I moved here, I bought a coat, a scarf, gloves, and these, but what no-one told me was how darn hot it was going to get. And I'm not the only one shedding her coat early. Butterflies are really temperature-sensitive. Melbourne's</p><p>ACMA Investigation Report 2956 – Catalyst broadcast by ABN Sydney on 15 November 2012 11 common brown butterfly now emerges from its chrysalis nearly two weeks earlier than in 1940. So, how much hotter has Melbourne got? Presenter - OK, Doctor, our national round-up of maximum temperatures. So what do we have? Weather expert - You can see here - Sydney through to Melbourne, Canberra, Hobart, they've warmed up by about 0.7 of a degree. And in some capitals a lot less. Adelaide - 0.3. But if you go over to the west - Perth - and into the centre - Alice Springs - you've got 1.1 to almost 2 degrees of warming. Presenter - Wow. Presenter (narrated) - In 100 years, the centre has heated up more than the coast. Presenter - So, the further inland you are, in Australia, the more the maximum temperatures will have gone up? Weather expert - As a general trend, yeah. Presenter (narrated) - Overall, averaging maximums and minimums, our nation's core temperature has gone up 0.9 of a degree. But, in 2009, Victoria's temperature spiked in a lethal fever. DJ - In Melbourne we saw the previous February record broken by more than 3 degrees. Presenter (narrated) - Melbourne hit 46.5 degrees. Hopetoun hit 48.8. DJ - We broke the Victorian record by 1.6 degrees. You know, these are records going back over 50 years. You know, you're not breaking 'em by... by, you know, a few tenths of a degree - you're breaking 'em by whole degrees or more. Presenter (narrated) - And you know what happened next. Of course, it became known as 'Black Saturday'. 173 people died in those fires, but they weren't the only casualties of this extreme heat event. When health researchers went back over the mortality records, it turned out an extra 370 people died during that week than you'd expect. Essentially, it means that they were tipped over the edge by heat stress. There's a rather confronting in-house term that's used for this. They call it 'premature harvesting'. And it isn't just humans feeling the heat. One day, on a country golf course way down south in WA, it started raining black cockatoos. It certainly surprised the locals, let alone the birds. The year was 2010, and the temperature hit 48 degrees. An entire flock of endangered Carnaby's cockatoos literally cooked where they roosted. And can you see what these are? Budgerigars. Budgerigars that fell from the sky during another WA heatwave in 2009. Presenter - All right, so this next diagnostic is... a measure of extremes. Weather expert - It is. And what we've seen is more and more stations are breaking extreme heat in the last 100 years, and less are breaking extreme cold. Presenter (narrated) - In fact, in the last ten years, the number of stations breaking extreme heat records has doubled those breaking extreme cold. Weather expert - So, frosty nights are becoming less common, but extreme heat days are becoming more common. Presenter (narrated) - Now, some of my friends like to joke that if things go really pear- shaped we can always move to Tassie. Well, one company already has. It's a company that makes something dear to many of our hearts – alcohol. I love the smell of baby wine growing in the morning. Two years ago, a famously Victorian company bought up big here in </p><p>ACMA Investigation Report 2956 – Catalyst broadcast by ABN Sydney on 15 November 2012 12 Tasmania. And they did so specifically to future-proof themselves against temperature. They are the family dynasty [BB], though I seem to have found myself a Brown sister. Presenter - So, had you actually noticed some damage to your bottom line, basically, due to temperatures? KB - Yeah. Um, we... Well, we put up with ten years of drought. Presenter - Yeah. KB - Um, and also, um, one of our vineyards in Victoria where we grow our top-quality sparkling wines... We got the warmer weather earlier, and the bud bursts had already come through, so the frost came in and actually killed all the shoots. That wiped out a whole vintage. Presenter (narrated) - The wine industry's detailed records show grapes in Australia's south are ripening, on average, 20 days earlier than in 1985. KB - Talking to our scientists, winemakers and viticulturists, um, they really pretty much turned to the board and said, 'We have to find this cooler-climate property because within decades we could see a 2-degrees temperature rise in our current vineyards in Victoria.' So, they pretty much told us that if we continued to want to do what we do best, make quality wine, we had to come south. Presenter (narrated) - And now I'd like to demonstrate a little game of chance. So the chance of one month being above-average temperature, is one in two. The chance of the next month also being above-average temperature, is one in four. The chance of the next month also being above-average temperature, is one in eight. So what do you think are the chances of having 330 months in a row of above-average temperatures? Because, since February 1985, we have had... 330 months in a row of above-average (global) temperatures. MH - It's really extraordinary. If it was just by random chance alone, then there's only a 1 in 100,000 chance that that would have happened in the absence of human influence. Presenter - So, this bottle of red represents the chance that that run of temperature increase was caused by natural variability, sunspots or volcanoes. MH - That's right. Presenter – Right! I think we should drink it. Cheers. Presenter (narrated) - So that's temperature. Next up, I want to check on Australia's state of circulation. I mean that stuff we're girt by - the sea. I'm still in Tassie because something odd has been happening in these waters - strange sightings, mysterious beasties where never before seen. I'm talking fish. And where there's fish, there's a fishing story. MN - It was about two years ago, and I can remember it vividly. I saw a small group of fish come towards us. I said to my son, 'Wheel in your rod as fast as you possibly can.' When suddenly - bang. It just took off. The reel itself was actually screaming. My son didn't know what to do. He said, 'Dad, Dad, what do I do, what do I do?' I said, 'Nothing, son. Just hang on to the reel and wait for the fish to slow down.' So that's what we did. It took us about 40 minutes, I suppose. Presenter - 40 minutes?! MN - 40 minutes because the fish weighed more than the line capacity. Presenter (narrated) - Brand spanking new to Tasmania, it was a yellow-tailed kingfish.</p><p>ACMA Investigation Report 2956 – Catalyst broadcast by ABN Sydney on 15 November 2012 13 Presenter - A real yellow-letter day. MN - That's it. Presenter (narrated) - It's exciting times for Tasmanian fishermen. With so many new fish arriving, they've teamed up with scientists to plot them. They've seen leather jacks, green turtles, dusky morwong... MN - It's actually really good news for Tasmanian fishermen, 'cause all the New South Wales fish are moving south into our waters. Presenter (narrated) - All in all, scientists have confirmed 45 new species have, like [BB], shipped on down to Tassie. Well, obviously, if fish from the big island are moving down, the water here must have got warmer. How much warmer? Presenter - It's not too bad. Ooh, yes it is! Alright, [weather expert’s name]. National round-up time again. 100-year health check. Circulation. Weather expert - Sure. What we're going to look at now, [Presenter’s name], is the sea- surface temperatures around Australia. And what we've seen is about a degree of warming over the last century. But you can see over the East Coast we have more warming than we do over the West Coast. There's some hot spots as well. And that's off the coast of Victoria, Tasmania. Presenter (narrated) - Sea temperatures here off Tasmania have risen an astounding 2.28 degrees. That's about four times the global ocean average. Weather expert - And we think that's got something to do with changes in the East Australian Current, but we're not exactly sure why. Presenter (narrated) - And, last year, West Australia's blood began to boil. Time to visit my childhood home. I'm a Cottosloe girl, Which means I grew up not noticing how wide the verges are... You can fit a whole Sydney house on this verge! ..and dodging sharks on my local beach. And over there is Rottnest - Perth's playground. I think I've swum in just about every rock pool round here. And, look, the water was lovely and warm. But what I'm about to tell you shocks me. Last year, on 28th February, the water in here hit 26.4 degrees. 26.4 degrees?! That's ridiculous. It killed the coral. Presenter - And has that ever happened here at Rottnest? DT - Not that we're aware of. Not in 40 metres of water. Presenter (narrated) - In fact, it was part of the biggest heatwave to hit Australia's waters ever. It began just north of Ningaloo Reef, hitting it heartbreakingly with the force of a pot of boiling oil. DT - In some places, up to 80% of what was there before is now no longer there. Presenter - Really just gone. Dead. So that's it. DT - Gone, dead, yeah. Covered in algae. Presenter (narrated) - It travelled 1,200km south, reaching all the way to the southernmost tip of WA. Presenter - Apparently, whale sharks were seen off Albany! Is that right? DT - Mm. Mm.</p><p>ACMA Investigation Report 2956 – Catalyst broadcast by ABN Sydney on 15 November 2012 14 Presenter - Whale sharks! Do you know how far south Albany is? That is not whale shark country. That is white shark country! Presenter (narrated) - Not that it's a laughing matter for the whale sharks. JM - They're effectively outrunning the hot water in search of cooler water and bait and feed to actually sustain them through that period. Presenter (narrated) - The whole event lasted five months. It's our most extreme hot-water event on record. Presenter - So there's actually something significant we should know about these rises that we've seen in sea temperature? Weather expert - Yeah, absolutely. Changes in ocean temperature around Australia really impact on the type of weather we receive. Presenter - So, the warmer the water...? Weather expert - The warmer the water, generally the more rainfall that you'd expect. Presenter - Well, still on our nation's circulation, what 100-year health check would be complete without blood pressure? I may be stretching the medical metaphor a little bit here, but I'm talking about sea level. This is the glorious old West Australian port town of Fremantle. And it's home to one of Australia's oldest continuous tide gauge records. Presenter - So this is the original Fremantle port's tidal gauge from 1897. Beautiful piece of machinery, isn't it? And this is the latest tidal gauge. And, between them, what they chart is on average a 1.5mm rise per year since 1900. Presenter (narrated) - Now, many of you may already be doing the maths on what that amounts to over 110 years. But, while you do that, I'm jumping back to the bottom of Australia - to Tassie's infamous Port Arthur, where there's a fantastic old marking that will answer that question. In 1841, the local storekeeper put in a tide mark, the oldest scientific one in the country. Oceanographer - OK. It's just down there. There's a little... Presenter - Oh! Right. Oceanographer - ...horizontal line with an arrow pointing down towards it. Presenter - Yeah. Presenter (narrated) - When the original records were rediscovered just a decade ago, [oceanographer] was able to work out what's happened. Oceanographer - OK, the total sea-level rise since 1841... Presenter - Yeah. Oceanographer - ...is about 17 centimetres. And that's the length of that... Presenter - Yeah? Oceanographer - ...that stick. If you compare that with Fremantle... Presenter - Yep. Oceanographer - ...on the other side of the country, about 17 centimetres again since 1897. Presenter - 1897? OK, so that is a 100-year record, really, for Australia.</p><p>ACMA Investigation Report 2956 – Catalyst broadcast by ABN Sydney on 15 November 2012 15 Oceanographer - Pretty well, yep, yep. Presenter - This is how much it's gone up. Oceanographer - Yep. Presenter - 17cm. Presenter (narrated) - And this seemingly small rise has dramatically changed flooding. Last year, Port Arthur copped it like never before. Using the historic Australian records, [oceanographer] has been able to show just how much each 10 centimetres rise in sea level has contributed to events like this. Oceanographer - So, if you raise sea level by just 10 centimetres... Presenter - Yeah. Oceanographer - ...you find you get a tripling of the number of flooding events. Presenter - A tripling? Oceanographer - And if you raise it by another 10 centimetres, it goes up by another factor of three, so that's a total of nine. Presenter - So... so we've got nine times, effectively, the number of flooding events for structures at sea level than we did 100 years ago? Oceanographer - Yes. That's right. Presenter - I am surprised by that. Oceanographer - It's a big change, yep. Presenter - Yeah. So these are our current 'blood pressure', AKA 'sea level', readings. How are they looking? Weather expert - So what we're looking at here is basically from the satellite record from 1993. And we can see sea levels have risen everywhere. Red on this plot up the top of the continent is a lot of sea-level rise. And the blue parts down the bottom is where we've had rather less sea-level rise. Presenter (narrated) - Sea level naturally goes up and down a lot from year to year, but we can see from the Fremantle record the trend line is relentless. Which brings us last but not least to the final round of our 100-year health check - assessing our nation's state of hydration. Well, lately, parts of Australia have been well hydrated. Overhydrated, in fact. My personal assessment is that it's barely stopped raining in the last two years. My cottage has sprung a leak. I'm thinking of calling it 'Newby Creek'. Our dams around Sydney and Brisbane are full. And there have been record-breaking floods... in Brisbane, Victoria, New South Wales. But, again, IS it new? What do the trusty old rain gauges from the bureau say? Presenter - So, now, the last two years' rainfall have been quite extraordinary, haven't they? Weather expert - They have. They've been record-breaking. So, over the last 24-month period, the two years, we've seen more rainfall in Australia for a 24-month period than we've ever seen in the historical record.</p><p>ACMA Investigation Report 2956 – Catalyst broadcast by ABN Sydney on 15 November 2012 16 Presenter - And tell me - does this have something to do with the fact that the ocean and the air temperatures are higher? Weather expert - Normally, when you get a La Nina event you'll get almost record rainfall in Australia. This time, what we saw was record sea-surface temperatures around Australia. And so we've got basically a perfect storm. We've got a La Nina event. We've got global warming going on in the oceans around Australia. And then we've got this record rainfall as well. Presenter (narrated) - But you'll see there's one part of Australia noticeably absent from this acute attack of fluid retention. It's my old stamping ground - the south-west of WA... which is where I am now, down amongst the karri trees. Well, underneath them, actually - inside glorious Jewel Cave. OK, so this is what I came here to show you. You see this black line? That's actually a water line, the high water mark from the late '60s. This was once a lake. Up to here. But, ever since then, the water has just drained away. The last of the water disappeared by the year 2000. And it's the same sad story across the region. The caves of Margaret River have lost their lakes and streams. Land use changes have compounded the problem, but this is a symptom of chronic dehydration. Weather expert - So what we've got here is basically rainfall during April to November. And, in the last 15 years, in particular in the south-east of the continent, here, is about a 10% to 20% reduction in that rainfall. Presenter - That much, yeah. Weather expert - That's right. And over here in the west we've seen the same thing, but that's actually occurred since about 1970, so they've had almost about four decades with much less winter rainfall than they used to have. Presenter - And now the big summary. What has happened to our weather? Well, we're ready for the final report in Australia's 100-year health check. So, hydration? Weather expert - Wetting up north, in the Tropics. Longer-term dehydration across the south, particularly in south-west WA. Presenter - OK. Circulation? Weather expert - Sea levels increasing all around Australia. Um... not lapping at our toes yet. Presenter - Finally - temperature. Weather expert - Temperatures around Australia have risen by about a degree. Um, less chills, more fevers. And some regional variation in that as well. So some regions are heating up more than others. Presenter (narrated) - Essentially, what the records show is that global warming isn't something that's coming - it's here in our backyards already. It's pointless now to ask, 'Is this climate change or natural variability?' What we see is one acting on top of the other. Weather expert - So, every parcel of air, every ocean current, every weather system is now about a degree warmer. And when you go through and do the physics, that's actually a hell of a lot of energy added to the climate system in general.</p><p>ACMA Investigation Report 2956 – Catalyst broadcast by ABN Sydney on 15 November 2012 17 Presenter (narrated) - You know, of all the things I learned on this investigation, it was that comment from [the BOM Expert] that really struck me. It was like, 'Aha! I finally get it.' There's one degree of extra heat across the whole planet. That's just a lot of new energy in our weather system. What happens when you add another degree? And another? So what WILL happen in the future? Well, I'm obviously going to have to spend some money on a retaining wall. And, like the rest of us, I'll try to do my bit. But I'll continue to toast my sunset, pray to my snow gods and get as much joy as I always have out of the parts of Australia I love. I do think I should do so with eyes wide open, though, and not pretend there's no change to see.</p><p>ACMA Investigation Report 2956 – Catalyst broadcast by ABN Sydney on 15 November 2012 18 Attachment B Considerations to which the ACMA has regard in assessing whether or not broadcast material is factual in character</p><p> The primary consideration is whether, according to the natural and ordinary meaning of the language used and the substantive nature of the message conveyed, the relevant material is presented as a statement of fact or as an expression of opinion.  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 listener/viewer.  The use of language such as ‘it seems to me’, ‘we consider/think/believe’ tends to indicate that a statement is presented as an opinion. However, a common sense judgment is required as to how the substantive nature of the statement would be understood by the ordinary reasonable listener/viewer, and the form of words introducing the relevant statement is not conclusive.  Inferences of a factual nature made from observed facts are usually still characterised as factual material (subject to context); to qualify as an opinion/viewpoint, an inference reasoned from observed facts would usually have to be presented as an inference of a judgmental or contestable kind.  The identity of the person making the statement would not in and of itself determine whether the statement is factual material or opinion, i.e. it is not possible to conclude that because a statement was made by an interviewee, it was necessarily a statement of opinion rather than factual material.  Statements in the nature of prediction as to future events would nearly always be characterised as statements of opinion.</p><p>ACMA Investigation Report 2956 – Catalyst broadcast by ABN Sydney on 15 November 2012 19</p>