Today, or yesterday morning now, I had to stomach another Alan Jones non-apology. . Yesterday he took to the airwaves to defend himself against the the Australian Communications and Media Authority's ruling that he breached the broadcast code and must submit to ''factual accuracy'' training.

Jones told his listeners that he was in error when he claimed human  beings produce .001 per cent of the carbon dioxide in the air. He claimed that all along he knew that "human beings produce 3 per cent of the carbon dioxide in the air, not .001 per cent." His excuse was simple.  "It might have been a late night or a very busy morning. We cover a lot of territory here in this programme.''

Fair enough, I've heard  him on numerous occasions say that human beings produce 3 per cent of the carbon dioxide in the air. I accept that he was confused and did not deliberately broadcast what he knew to be an inaccurate fact. So why am I seething with anger? Well, my anger stems from what he said next, "but I have offered the simple proposition on many occasions that if there is warming, how can the human beings be doing it when 97 per cent of carbon dioxide is produced by nature, 3 per cent by human beings." Certainly, the preposition on which he bases this proposition is, as Alan rightly suggests, uncontested. However, just as certainly, the proposition he proffers is moronic. While no credible scientist contests that human beings only produce 3% of the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere, no credible scientist denies that human beings are responsible for the 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 since industrialisation. This is simply because nature is currently emitting slightly less carbon dioxide than it is absorbing. That's right, Alan, natural processes aren't responsible for the current escalation, and if it wasn't for human beings, there would be 40% less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This too is an uncontested fact, an uncontested fact his listeners will never hear.

This has been explained to Alan on numerous occasions. I don't believe Alan is simple, so the only possible explanation is that he is lying by exclusion. The man is an amoral propagandist on par with Lord Haw Haw. The world is warming, we are responsible and the consequences of inaction are dire. In the year we broke the Arctic, it is time to hold accountable those who blatantly hide the truth from the public. I won't be purchasing products from anyone who wants to associate themselves with this man.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 4:22am:


It's not about shutting Alan Jones up. It's about telling Alan Jones that his behaviour is beneath contempt. It's about telling 2GB and their sponsors that we refuse to listen to a media outlet that employs broadcasters who deliberately mislead their audience. It's about telling sponsors we want no truck with companies that financially reward such reckless behaviour.

Quote:

stryder wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 6:34am:



Its been explained a million times by the worlds most respected experts in the field so if you and others cant grasp the concept its hardly anyone's fault but your own.

Quote:

MOTR wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 1:25am:


Maybe you'd like to explain to all us plebs why, if there has been such an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, global temperatures have not increased but have actually decreased for the past nearly two decades?

With regard to Alan Jones, the solution is simple. If you don't like him and/or what he has to say, turn off the radio or switch to another station, because no one is forcing you to listen to him. Calling for boycotts simply shows how narrow-minded you are and confirms that you're unwilling to listen to any point of view other than your own.

Quote:
adelcrow