THERE is a publication in Australia where for every one story you read which agrees society should take firm steps to combat climate change, there are four stories suggesting we shouldnโt.
When climate change is viewed through the pages of this publication, most of the worldโs โexpertsโ think itโs either not happening, not worth worrying about or not caused by humans.
Advocates for strong action on climate change are variously described as โprophets of doomโ, โgreenhouse hystericsโ or โhair-shirted greenhouse penitentsโ.
As extreme as these positions might appear, this publication is not a newsletter from a fringe group or a bulletin from the Tea Party.
This is the divisive state of climate change science in the pages of the nationโs sole national newspaper The Australian, according to a 115-page examination of the publicationโs role in shaping how Australia thinks.
The essay โ Bad News (paywalled) โ is written by author Professor Robert Manne, one of the countryโs leading political thinkers.
In an excerpt from his essay, published in The Age, Manne writes
As we shall see, what The Australian has contributed on climate change under editor Chris Mitchellโs watch is a frightful hotchpotch of ideological prejudice and intellectual muddle
The Australianโs owner is Rupert Murdoch, who in 2006 said the planet deserved โthe benefit of the doubtโ and that it was now time to โtake a leadโ on the issue.
Manne analysed climate change articles printed by The Australian between January 2004 and April 2011 and found that 700 articles were โunfavourableโ to action on climate change.
That is, they either disagreed with the consensus of climate science, didnโt support Australiaโs ratification of the Kyoto protocol or didnโt support previous governmentsโ steps towards a carbon trading scheme.
Balanced against these 700 articles, there were 180 stories and columns โfavourableโ to action on climate change.
Climate skepticism and denial also heavily dominated the newspaperโs columns and opinion articles, Manne found.
Dozens of articles were published by โscientistsโ which rejected the consensual view.
Sceptics including Bob Carter, Ian Plimer, Christopher Monckton, Richard Lindzen, David Bellamy and John Christy were all given space in The Australian.
In particular, Bob Carter wrote nine articles, Bjorn Lomborg penned 25 and two members of the Australian โfree marketโ think-tank the Institute of Public Affairs, well known for dissemination of climate denial, wrote 16 articles.
Contributions from recognised climate science experts, such as James Hansen and the immediate past president of the Australian Academy of Science Professor Kurt Lambeck, were outnumbered by ten to one.
Among The Australianโs in-house regulars, Manne documents the โcomical degree of self-confidenceโ with which its writers disagreed with established climate science.
While in its official editorials, The Australian has said it accepts the science of climate change, Manne looks closer at the newspaperโs record.
In its coverage of climate change, The Australian had failed to acknowledge the distinction between genuine expertise and โcontrarians or cranksโ and had โthreatened the always vulnerable place of reason in public lifeโ.
Manneโs essay is just the latest to question The Australianโs coverage of climate change.
Astrophysicist Michael Ashley recently documented on The Conversation the newspaperโs questionable record and described its climate change coverage as resembling an โevent horizonโ where โour normal perception of reality is so completely overturnedโ.
In a long-running series, Tim Lambertโs Deltoid blog has been documenting The Australianโs โwar on scienceโ โ a list of errors and misrepresentations โ which is currently up to 70.
In a profile of The Australianโs editor Chris Mitchell, published in the August issue of magazine The Monthly, it was revealed that News Limitedโs environment and climate change manager Dr Tony Wilkins had himself canceled his subscription to The Australian over its coverage of climate change.
When a former journalist at The Australian complained during a conference last year that writing on climate change for the newspaper had been โtortureโ, Mitchell threatened to sue academic Julie Posetti, who had tweeted the comments.
Legal letters went backwards and forwards in what became known as #Twitdef โ the hashtag used by followers of the case on Twitter. The threat has not been withdrawn.
