Tim Stephens

The ABC is planning to screen a discredited program on climate change (the Great Global Warming Swindle) that went to air a while back on Channel 4 in the UK. And there are troubling claims floating around that this is because the ABC Board has put pressure on ABC TV to show the 'documentary.'

As George Monbiot points out in today's Sydney Morning Herald, the program is junk science of the highest order, and has not stood up to scrutiny. It should not be given any exposure, let alone by a reputable outlet such as the ABC.

Monbiot notes that dissent in science has always been important in driving scientific knowledge, but there is a big difference between legitimate questions raised through scientific investigation and bold criticism founded on little more than a hunch, or a bizarre conspiracy theory:

Cherry-pick your results and choose work which is outdated and discredited, and anything and everything becomes true. The twin towers were brought down by controlled explosions; homeopathy works; black people are less intelligent than white people; species came about through intelligent design. You can find lines of evidence which appear to support these contentions and professors who will speak in their favour. This does not mean that any of them are correct.

You can sustain a belief in these propositions only by ignoring the overwhelming body of contradictory data. To form a balanced, scientific view, you have to consider all the evidence, on both sides of the question. The failure to understand the scientific process just makes the job of whipping up a storm that much easier. The less true a program is, the greater the controversy.

Great new paper out today from The Australia Institute on aviation and climate change policy in Australia. This is timely given the rush by some airlines such as Virgin Blue to go green through promoting carbon offsets.

Andrew Macintosh and Christian Downie analyse the contribution of aviation to Australia's emissions footprint, and call for the introduction of a $30 greenhouse flight charge to reduce demand. Demand side solutions are critical in reducing emissions from aviation as there is no technological fix to the problem (you can't have an electric-avgas hybrid jumbo for all sorts of reasons!).

Key findings by Macintosh and Downie are:

- If Australia adopts a 60 per cent reduction target, aviation could account for between 32 and 51 per cent of Australia's total greenhouse gas allowance by 2050;

- If Australia adopts an 80 per cent reduction target (which is preferable), aviation could account for between 69 and 109 per cent of the total greeenhouse gas allowance by 2050;

- Aviation carbon dioxide emissions should be included in a national emissions trading scheme.

- In the absence of a major technological breakthrough (which is nowhere on the horizon), the amount of air travel by Australians will need to be reduced.