"This article highlights how the ABC misled the Australian public, and Australian politicians, about the Carbon Tax in the lead up to passing of the legislation in November 2011. Tony Jones shows clear understanding that net emissions growth is the real issue (in China) but doesn't question Julia Gillard when she says a Carbon Tax will "cut carbon pollution" when facts prove a net increase will occur in Australia. QANDA bias is proven. Has the ABC done such a good job omitting the primary cause of emissions growth that nobody even understands it has happened?"
Suggested segments to watch (fast forward to the referenced time slots):
Time Slot 9.17
Is this a naïve Believer who actually doesn't understand the facts because the ABC has concealed the truth from her and all other Australian citizens? This is a complex issue, yet the Carbon Tax is being defined as a simple Magic Wand. The misunderstanding of the broader issues by the audience appears to be endemic, as would be expected of a people subjected to pro-Carbon Tax and pro-Population Growth propaganda.
Tony selling a perfectly good used car ... No emissions. It has a Carbon Tax converter.
Time Slot 16.45
Julia Gillard was asked to give a straight answer on the benefits of a Carbon Tax. She said "This will cut carbon pollution by 160 million tonnes in 2020. Imagine the amount of pollution 45 million cars generate. That’s the amount of pollution we will prevent going into our atmosphere in 2020 by putting a price on carbon pollution." This was a vast misrepresentation.
- First, she didn't mention that 100 million tonnes of this would be achieved by sending billions of dollars of taxpayer's money overseas to buy carbon credits from foreign carbon brokers.
- Second, she didn't mention that over 90 million tonnes of additional emissions would occur in 2020 due to predicted trends and unofficial strategy to continue Australia's extreme and autocratically imposed population growth. (Roughly 32% emissions growth and 32% population growth occurred from 1991 to 2011.)
- Third, she didn't mention that the EU (post Kyoto Protocol) had banned use of carbon farming to generate carbon credits in its Emissions Trading Scheme because of measurement uncertainties, and that it doesn't provide an incentive for transition from fossil fuels to alternative technologies. This made up a significant proportion of the hypothetical 60 million tonnes and remains widely discredited to this day
- Fourth, she didn't mention that Australia's emissions per capita are the highest on earth and therefore population growth management must form an integral part of any plan to manage emissions in the short to medium term
The truth was that there would be a net increase of as much as 30 million tonnes, even if the hypothetical target for the Carbon Tax reduction measures was achieved. It was the ABC's responsibility, in the public interest, to ensure that this was understood by its audience. The ABC did nothing of the kind, despite having full access to the facts.
"To have a debate based on the science, people have to show respect for the scientists and I think one of the worst features of what has been a long, divisive debate in our country is the lack of respect shown to the scientists....."
For Gillard the only science she was talking about was the evidence that more carbon in the atmosphere contributes to climate change. But all the other relevant, Australia-specific, science I have referred to above has been selectively ignored. "Cherry-picking" one part of the science and ignoring the rest is disrespectfully unscientific.
Just to remind us of what science is, consider these definitions:
- A branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
- Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
- Any of the branches of natural or physical science.
- Systematized knowledge in general.
- Knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
QANDA has never addressed any of the above-mentioned inextricably related scientific facts when broadcasting on Australia's climate change response options; and did not on this occasion. Why?
The choreographed omission of these issues from audience participation was evident.
"Aiming to equip audiences to make up their own minds is consistent with the public service character of the ABC. A democratic society depends on diverse sources of reliable information and contending opinions."
"A commitment to accuracy includes a willingness to correct errors and clarify ambiguous or otherwise misleading information. Swift correction can reduce harmful reliance on inaccurate information, especially given content can be quickly, widely and permanently disseminated. Corrections and clarifications can contribute to achieving fairness and impartiality."
For years the ABC has refused to formally apologise for its misconduct. This must occur, regardless of how long its takes for legitimate conduct to overcome past misconduct.
"The ABC takes no editorial stance other than its commitment to fundamental democratic principles including the rule of law, freedom of speech and religion, parliamentary democracy and equality of opportunity."
"Fair and honest dealing is essential to maintaining trust with audiences and with those who participate in or are otherwise directly affected by ABC content."
Time Slot 28.20
Listen to this and you will hear Tony Jones explain that he understands exactly the issue he is omitting from the discussion with Julia Gillard. He says at Time Slot 30.17:
"That's the problem isn't it. There are not overall less or fewer emissions (in China due to alternative energy usage). Overall their emissions are growing rapidly."
He applies the logic to China, but then doesn't mention its relevance to Australia? He talks about overall emissions in China growing rapidly, but watches Gillard repeatedly talk of "cutting emissions by 160 million tonnes" and makes no comment about Australian emissions being expected to continue to rise rapidly due to ongoing extreme population growth and chaotic expansion of our carbon based economy?
Note also that the decline in economic Key Performance Indicators all point to extreme population growth as a culprit, yet the ABC never mentions these facts. The ABC has direct access to all these facts.
The "Thank You For Saving Us" segments from young and old. Note how QANDA has placed the grateful child at the end of the show:
Time slot: 20.14
Time slot: 56.40
The youthful plea was followed by another iteration by Julia Gillard of the myth about "cutting 160 million tonnes of carbon pollution" in 2020.
QANDA has either been deliberately pro-Carbon Tax and pro-Population Growth biased in breach of its Statutory Duty, or cannot understand that it has been biased. It doesn't matter whether it was intentional or not. Manslaughter or murder; what's the difference to "the issue that has been killed" in breach of the public interest?
This misconduct by the ABC can be traced back to before 2008 and has arguably been an attack on the Australian people with the following consequences:
- It contributed to the hung parliament in 2010 because the ABC never questioned the Greens on their extreme population growth + Carbon Tax agenda
- It contributed to passing of Carbon Tax legislation as described above
- It supports continuation of undemocratic extreme population growth by stealth and without consensus
- It may be contributing to adverse economic outcomes, which would directly impact all Australians and Australia's capacity to provide philanthropic aid, both at home and abroad
In summary, the outcomes of ABC misconduct arguably bear similarities to those of organised crime.