This collective censorious approach succeeded in suppressing contrary views in the mainstream media, despite the fact that a growing number of distinguished scientists were challenging the conventional wisdom with alternative theories and peer reviewed research.

While claiming some of his best friends were journalists, Newman attacked the profession for uncritical group thinking on a range of issues (Enron, tech meltdown and the GFC) and further outing himself – with language that could only be described as that of climate skepticism.

Of course Newman is welcome to hold whatever views he wishes, that is not the issue.

As Friends of the ABC spokesperson Glenys Stradijot pointed out in a statement, “this looks like an attempt to influence ABC programming to be more favourable to global warming skepticism.

“Mr Newman needs to explain why he took the step of criticising the media’s coverage of global warming and why he addressed that criticism to ABC staff.”

Stradijot also alleged that Newman’s former position as chairman of the Center for Independent Studies (CIS) might be a factor in informing his world view on the subject.

A transcript of Newman’s interview and explanation with Brendan Trembath of the ABC can be found here.

Further reading: The inimitable Stilgherrian and Crikey’s Eric Beecher.

Quadrant Online previously reported that the ABC had invited Bob Carter to contribute to an online debate on The Drum following their publication of a series of five articles by Clive Hamilton.

Left internet newsletters and blog sites were outraged that sceptics were to be allowed to comment on their ABC.

Professor Carter submitted his article, on James Hansen and the Hansenism cult, and the ABC has rejected his article – which Quadrant Online is privileged to publish.

James Hansen is visiting Australia. We can only guess at the pressures which have been exerted on the ABC to close down criticism of Hansen – and the cowardice which saw them conform. So much for Australia’s brave freedom fighters of the press.

You can read the entire text of the voiceless Carters spiked piece at Quadrant.

Added commentary on the ABC’s ‘balancing act’ supplied by Media Watch’s Jonathan Holmes.

*All links added to the Quadrant pull quote are mine.

Next week: The Drum-Unleashed will feature a series of pieces commissioned from noted writers on the sceptic side of the climate science debate. Included will be Alan Moran, Tom Switzer, Mark Hendriks, Bob Carter and Jo Nova.

My questions to him are these:

Will the commissions be drawn against the ABC’s editorial policies that demand information be factually accurate?

Or will he give these already widely published writers a pass and allow them to disseminate their speculative theories without them having been drawn against the scientific facts for accuracy prior to publication?

Will this opinion at the Drum defy gravity; somehow exempt from objective fact?

Update I: Alan Moran is first cab off the rank and sure enough there is at least one big misrepresentation. A total misquote of Phil Jones’ position on the pace of warming.

Warming itself has appeared to have stopped, perhaps temporarily, a fact that even the defrocked high priest of the rising temperature trend, CRU’s Professor Phil Jones, has been forced to concede.

Moran cops a hammering from the smarter commenters but the usual denialist trolls come out to play, and Green cynically gets what he wants, with 498 comments to date.

Update II: John Quiggin gives us a whole post centered around Phil Jones’ quote. Another reason why Green should pull Moran’s post and abandon his misguided “project balance”.

Update: [by Mark] Bernard Keane takes aim at the ABC’s “balance without judgement” and rebuts Moran and Tom Switzer’s Drum post today.

We launched Google.cn in January 2006 in the belief that the benefits of increased access to information for people in China and a more open Internet outweighed our discomfort in agreeing to censor some results. At the time we made clear that “we will carefully monitor conditions in China, including new laws and other restrictions on our services. If we determine that we are unable to achieve the objectives outlined we will not hesitate to reconsider our approach to China.”

These attacks and the surveillance they have uncovered–combined with the attempts over the past year to further limit free speech on the web–have led us to conclude that we should review the feasibility of our business operations in China. We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China.

The decision to review our business operations in China has been incredibly hard, and we know that it will have potentially far-reaching consequences. We want to make clear that this move was driven by our executives in the United States, without the knowledge or involvement of our employees in China who have worked incredibly hard to make Google.cn the success it is today. We are committed to working responsibly to resolve the very difficult issues raised.

Update: Media watcher Jeff Jarvis has a blog post on this that’s well worth a read.

Update II: Rebecca MacKinnon gives us additional perspective with views from China.

Update III: This from William Moss, a public relations professional and writer working in China.

In this situation Google has undertaken a bet-the-farm confrontational communications approach in China. They will not have made this decision lightly. Dressed up in the polite language above is what is essentially an ultimatum: Allow us to present uncensored search results to our Chinese users or we’ll walk. The Chinese government is not likely to cave to an ultimatum from a foreign company, no matter how decorously delivered. As Richard Waters of the FT has pointed out, the language does leave some wiggle room for further negotiation. However, Imagethief cannot imagine a circumstance in which the Chinese government will give Google free reign, especially in the current, highly restrictive climate for Internet services. Barring some surprising developments, the clock would therefore appear to be ticking for Google.cn, if not Google’s overall operations in China. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out.

Update IV: In advance of new information, James Fallows in the Atlantic sees it this way.

In a strange and striking way there is an inversion of recent Chinese and U.S. roles. In the switch from George W. Bush to Barack Obama, the U.S. went from a president much of the world saw as deliberately antagonizing them to a president whose Nobel Prize reflected (perhaps desperate) gratitude at his efforts at conciliation. China, by contrast, seems to be entering its Bush-Cheney era. For Chinese readers, let me emphasize again my argument that China is not a “threat” and that its development is good news for mankind. But its government is on a path at the moment that courts resistance around the world. To me, that is what Google’s decision signifies.

Update V: [dk.au] Jason Wilson at New Matilda : Google No Champion Of Human Rights

NSW Premier Nathan Rees insists his leadership is “solid as a rock”, as Twitter is abuzz with allegations of a NSW leadership spill. Mr Rees emerged from Tuesday’s caucus meeting saying there’s “no change at all” in the NSW leadership amid speculation he could be overthrown by Treasurer Eric Roozendaal or former minister and Rockdale MP Frank Sartor.

The rumor mill has continued to churn ever since Rees outmaneuvered the Labor right hard heads at the party’s annual state conference, dismissing cabinet ministers Joe Tripodi and Ian McDonald in the process.

A day may be all the time Rees has left.

Update: Looks like it’s on.

Update II: Via the ABC, Premier Rees has called a presser for 9AM.

Update III: There will be a special caucus meeting held at 6pm. A transcript of Rees statement can be found here.

Update IV (by AW): Once more, a Labor party hands power to a woman to let her clean up the mess.

Kristina Keneally has become the first female Premier of NSW after defeating incumbent Nathan Rees 47 to 21 votes in a Labor caucus meeting this evening.

The leadership ballot took place after Nathan Rees quit the NSW Labor leadership.

Mr Rees lost the spill motion 43 votes to 25.

Caucus then annointed Ms Keneally, the planning minister, as the state’s 42nd premier.

As for Turnbull, well he’s not going down without a fight.

Meanwhile in news that makes complete sense, the Oz reports that Nick Minchin was a tobacco skeptic.

Senator Minchin wishes to record his dissent from the committee’s statements that it believes cigarettes are addictive and that passive smoking causes a number of adverse health effects for non-smokers,” the committee’s minority report says. “Senator Minchin believes these claims (the harmful effects of passive smoking) are not yet conclusively proved. . . there is insufficient evidence to link passive smoking with a range of adverse health effects.

To support his claims, Senator Minchin drew on a study commissioned by the Tobacco Institute of Australia that “concluded the data did not support a causal relationship between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and lung cancer or heart disease in adults.

Place your bets, and bon mots below.

Update: Tony Abbott wins the final ballot by one vote 42-41 over Malcolm Turnbull with Joe Hockey surprisingly eliminated in the first round.

Update [RM]: Details at The Age. Key piece of information – somebody voted informal.

Update [RM]: Possum points out that Fran Bailey, should she have been able to vote, would probably have voted for Turnbull. So would Kelly O’Dwyer and Paul Fletcher.

Update [RM]: Bob Brown said at his press conference that the Greens would not support referring the CPRS to a Senate committee and won’t be supporting the CPRS in its current form. The Liberals have now said that if the bill is not sent to a committee, they’ll vote it down. The upshot – unless there are a lot of Liberals crossing the floor, the CPRS will be defeated a second time in the Senate, and a DD trigger will be explicitly on the table (at least as I understand it).

Update [MB]: New post – CPRS defeated.

Ethics classes will be introduced in NSW schools, offering an alternative to religious studies for the first time in 100 years, the Premier, Nathan Rees, will announce today.

Beginning next year, and with the assistance of the the St James Ethics Centre, the trial will be held in 10 primary schools.

Judging by the rest of Clennell’s piece and discussion held this morning on Sydney’s ABC 702, it appears there is little real opposition to this idea from a battling Premier, who is clearly looking to (re)establish his ‘cleanskin’ credentials.

Update: Anglicans are taking issue with the plan.

Trialling special ethics classes was also a vote of “no confidence” in teachers, he said. Bishop Davis said the Government should realise that values of truth and honesty were modelled each day by teachers in the class room.

“Is there such an ethical hole in the current system?” Bishop Davis said.

“If so, then teach it as a part of the curriculum rather than allowing a non-religious group to enter the realm of the special religious education system.”

Bishop Davis said scripture had been taught in NSW schools for more than 120 years and provided a valuable link with local religious institutions.

“I can’t understand why the Premier doesn’t value that,” he said.

In handing down its report, the inquiry said it found no corrupt activity in relation to the land.

“It’s correct to say that we did not find any corrupt activity in that regard,” inquiry chair and Nationals MP Jenny Gardiner said.

However, the inquiry, which included two days of public hearings, more generally put the spotlight on the potential influence of property developers in the planning system.

As such, the report calls for wide-ranging reform of NSW election and campaign funding laws and in particular, tighter regulation of political donations.

This follows Premier Rees promises at the the eventful annual State Labor conference, held last week, to revamp how Government deals with lobbyists and developers.

The committee made eleven recommendations reinforcing the Premier’s earlier pledge to reform the system, and that, “….the Premier adopt the model for funding of the NSW electoral scheme proposed by the NSW Legislative Council Select Committee on Electoral and Political Party Funding, and implement the Committee’s recommendations in full.”

These include the banning of political donations by corporations and other organisations, a cap on individual donations and election spending, timely disclosures of donations and election spending, plus tougher policing and penalities for non-compliance.

In a dissenting opinion, Greens MLC Sylvia Hale singled out planning minister Kristina Keneally for having a fundamental misunderstanding of the Westminster system.

New South Wales, however, does not operate under a presidential system. Had the Minister been more conscious of this fact, she may have been more mindful in the execution of her parliamentary and legal responsibilities and less inclined to countenance the activities of developers and their lobbyists, activities that have undermined the integrity of, and public confidence in, the planning and development system of this State. Ministerial indifference to a department’s day-to-day affairs, its procedures and employment policies, may actually subvert the provision to ministers of “fearless and frank” advice.

However, this chapter isn’t entirely closed, with questions remaining to be answered by Labor Party mover and shaker and lobbyist Graham Richardson on his involvement.

A ministerial re-shuffle could be on the cards in New South Wales, with the Premier Nathan Rees yesterday given the power to sack ministers. Nathan Rees had the backing of both the left and the right factions at yesterday’s Labor Party conference in Sydney.

The ALP’s General Secretary, Matt Thistlethwaite, said it was important to give the Premier the power to choose his team. “In my view delegates, if we are going to be a modern Labor Party the time has come for us to back the Premier,” he said.

The speculation of a reshuffle, was spot on with Ports Minister Joe Tripodi and Primary Industries Minister Ian Macdonald immediately shown the door – both controversial figures in NSW politics.

There has been a shake-up in the New South Wales Government, with two senior ministers sacked. Finance minister Joe Tripodi is gone, as is the primary industries minister Ian Macdonald. Coming into the ministry is the MP for Heathcote Paul McLeay, and the Upper House MP Peter Primrose.

The Punch’s David Penberthy has written a lively account of the Rees coup that’s well worth a read.

Other important developments at the conference was the banning of developer donations and new rules on the conduct and role of lobbyists in how they do business with government.

Political donations from developers will be banned in NSW under sweeping changes to campaign funding announced by Premier Nathan Rees yesterday.

And lobbyists will be stopped from meeting departmental officials in coffee shops, with all meetings to be held on official premises or on the sites of proposed developments.

Mr Rees said lobbyists had a role to play, but contacts with government should be formal, with full minutes of meetings taken and retained.

Putting aside the possibility of a challenge to Rees leadership from the disaffected, what is clear from these moves is that the state party belongs to the Premier. He has successfully cleared the deck of two issues that negatively impact voter intentions, solidified his position and taken control.

It’s his team and rules and this is what he will be taking to the next election. Only time will tell if this conference was a turning point for Labor in NSW or if this was just another rearranging of the deck chairs.

Update: Imre Salusinszky gives his take on Tripodi and the Rees dumping.

Update II: Damien Murphy and Brian Robbins in the Sydney Morning Herald also explain Tripodi.

Update III: A good narrative of the weekend from the Sydney Morning Herald’s Andrew Clennell.

Final update: Quentin Demster on Rees stand against developers.

My favourite use for Twitter? Search for breaking news and to capture the zeitgeist and as a back channel for important events. It’s made watching popular TV fun. Which by the way is where I think it’s real potential lies – integrated with TV as a live mass media watercooler. For example, watching tonight’s Four Corners on the Liberal Party’s internal struggle with global warming and the CPRS while following the #4corners tag.

More comprehensively in The Naked Truth About Social v Broadcast Media, Jason Wilson writes about exactly that intersection of social and broadcast media.

The post stems from a recent event where Media Watch host Jonathan Holmes obliged his legion of fans on Twitter by uttering a single word.

The analogues between Media Watch’s stock in trade — biting criticisms of the failures and inadequacies of Australia’s media — and the fiskings, gotchas and flaming of blogwars were irresistible to some. And as a wry, occasionally smart-arsed presenter, Holmes had all the attributes required to become a minor social media and blogosphere icon. Starting with a tweet, then posts on his own blog and on the group blog Groupthink, Bridges offered a challenge: if Holmes would claim to have “pwned” a newspaper, television programme or radio station, he and others would run naked around the block. A meme was born: letters were written, and on Twitter, a style of live commentary developed — after each item, Twitterers would suggest that the target had been pwned. In the week leading up to last week’s final episode, Holmes dropped hints that the campaign might be having some effect on his script. The runners got ready, and over Monday night and Tuesday morning, videos and photos were published (Warning: nudity).

He goes on to demonstrate how, as he says, “broadcasters have an opportunity to add layers of significance to particular programs, and make it possible for different parts of their audience to engage with programs in different ways,” and how, “it’s possible that in doing all this, social media are in some small ways revivifying, in a post-broadcast era, the old habit of simultaneous viewing, and timeshifting the water-cooler conversation.”

Wilson claims that the “nudie run” would be largely marked down as a bit of internet silliness, but I disagree, the ABC and Holmes noticed, and quite a few other media watchers did too – I think the event highly instructional for the big media players – showing them a way forward in making their content relevant (and immediate) to audiences.

The moral of the story? Listen to your customers. They’re usually right.

You can follow LP on Twitter here.