Mark Scott's legacy may well be to see the ABC's reserve of credibility seriously eroded when its failure to fact check all the half truths it has portrayed as proofs of sea level rise over a decade finally addressed by scientists .(eg Kurabati )
The ABC does a really poor job of representing science in spite of its high advocacy. The reasons are documented elsewhere and by science prophets from the past. It would be amazing if the ABC reverse themselves out of the cul de sac by themselves , but as our forebears taught us - better to confess than go on in denial .
Like the attempt to shore up the shoreline on rising sea levels , the tide will turn and they will have, for the sake of history , to be identified as playing a role for a whole decade in muddying the waters .
If they can't get these political and scientifically sensitive matters right what other things should we trust them about ?
Its especially dangerous for our public broadcaster because the game of giving each side a fair go is often met ( in a statistical sense ) but not when the controversy runs deeper and the conservation needs to be deeper ( qualitative and speculative ) The idea of proving things work should not be left up to the media and political class. ABC needs to employ and publish work from practicing professional scientists.
. The ABC have yet to realise that it would be innovative and productive to link to sites which at least put another point of view . All Talk back hosts religiously guard their sense of control by not allowing sensible callers to converse with each other - which would mean the conversation would really move on . ABC are no better than commercials at the moment in not doing this . I no longer listen partly because of this monotony and predictableness. So much for festivals of dangerous ideas ,
