Investigation Report No. 2956

File No. / ACMA2013/142
Broadcaster / Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Station / ABNSydney
Type of service / National broadcasting
Name of program / Catalyst
Date of broadcast / 15 November 2012
Relevant Code standards / Standards 2.1 and 2.2 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011
Date Finalised / 3 July 2013
Investigation Outcome / No breach of standards 2.1, 2.2 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011

The complaint

The Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) received a complaint aboutanepisodeof Catalyst broadcast by ABN Sydney (the ABC)on 15 November 2012 (the program).

The complainant submitted that the programcontained factual inaccuracies on the issue of climate change and its alleged effect on Australia.

The ACMA has investigated the ABC’s compliance with standards 2.1 and 2.2of the ABC Code of Practice 2011 (the Code).

The program

Catalyst is broadcast nationally on Thursdays at 8:00pm, and repeated on Fridays at 11:00am. It is described on its website in the following terms:

At Catalyst we know that science is a dynamic force for change. Each week Catalyst brings you stories from Australia and around the world. Our passion to meet scientists at the forefront of discovery is matched by our fascination with science breakthroughs however big or small. Science changes all our lives. For better or worse, we are committed to showing you what our future holds.[1]

The program broadcast on 15 November 2012 had a duration of 28 minutes and reported on weather patterns throughout Australia during the past 100 years. It was introduced as follows:

Has the weather changed in the last 100 years or not? So, I'm heading on an investigation that's all about the simple facts. Real tidal gauges, actual temperature records. And this will be a proper weather report, going round Australia to the places you and I live and play. It's time to take the temperature of Australia.

The programinvolved the presenter travelling around Australia and speaking to a number ofmeteorological expertsand commentators to attempt to establish if, and how, weather patterns, ocean temperatures and sea levels have changed over the past 100 years. Those interviewed included an expert from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (the weather expert), a snow expert, a vineyard owner, marine life experts andan oceanographer.

A transcript of the programcan be found at AttachmentA.

Assessment

This investigation considered submissions from the complainant and the ABC’s response to the complainant, as well as a copy of the programprovided to the ACMA by the ABC. Other sources have been identified where relevant.

In assessing content against the Code the ACMA considers the meaning conveyed by the relevant material. This is assessed according to the understanding of an ‘ordinary reasonable viewer’.

Australian courts have considered an ‘ordinary, reasonable viewer’ to be:

A person of fair average intelligence, who is neither perverse, nor morbid or suspicious of mind, nor avid for scandal. That person does not live in an ivory tower, but can and does read between the lines in the light of that person’s general knowledge and experience of worldly affairs.[2]

The ACMA examines what the ‘ordinary, reasonable viewer’ would have understood the programto have conveyed. It considers the natural, ordinary meaning of the language, context, tenor, tone and inferences that may be drawn, and in the case of factual material, relevant omissions (if any).

Once this test has been applied to ascertain the meaning of the broadcast material, it is for the ACMA to determine whether the material has breached the Code.

Relevant Code standards

Accuracy

2.1Make reasonable efforts to ensure that material facts are accurate and presented in context.

2.2Do not present factual content in a way that will materially mislead the audience. In some cases, this may require appropriate labels or other explanatory information.

The Code requires that the standards are interpreted and applied in accordance with the Principles applying in each section.

Relevant Principles in relation to accuracy include the following:

Types of fact-based content include news and analysis of current events, documentaries,

factual dramas and lifestyle programs. The ABC requires that reasonable efforts must

be made to ensure accuracy in all fact-based content. The ABC gauges those efforts

by reference to:

• the type, subject and nature of the content;

• the likely audience expectations of the content;

• the likely impact of reliance by the audience on the accuracy of the content; and

• the circumstances in which the content was made and presented.

The ABC accuracy standard applies to assertions of fact, not to expressions of opinion.

[...]

The efforts reasonably required to ensure accuracy will depend on the circumstances.

Sources with relevant expertise may be relied on more heavily than those without.

Eyewitness testimony usually carries more weight than second-hand accounts. The

passage of time or the inaccessibility of locations or sources can affect the standard

of verification reasonably required.

The considerations which the ACMA generally applies in assessing whether particular broadcast material is factual in character are set out at AttachmentB.

In applying standard 2.1 of the Code the ACMAgenerally adopts the following approach:

  • Was the particular material (the subject of the complaint) factual in character?
  • Did it convey a ‘material’ fact or facts in the context of the relevant segment?
  • If so, were those facts accurate?
  • If a material fact was not accurate, (or its accuracy cannot be determined) did the ABC make reasonable efforts to ensure that the ‘material’ fact was accurate and presented in context?

In applying standard 2.2 of the Code, the ACMA usually adopts the following approach:

  • Was the particular material (the subject of the complaint) factual in character?
  • Was that factual content presented in way that would materially (i.e. in a significant respect) mislead the audience?

Complainant’ssubmissions

The complainant’s submission to the ABC included the following:

This program showed false and misleading information to the Australian public. The sea level rise recorded in Perth doesn’t represent Australia as a whole. Why didn’t they show all the data, instead of cherry picking one small area? Do they know for example that in some parts the Indian ocean is 75 metres higher than the Pacific Ocean? Did they consider that it might be the land that is sinking and not the ocean that is rising. Note – All the world’s continents are floating on liquid magma, so therefore, they are unstable. The old fashioned temperature gauges that were used to measure temperature were only accurate to plus or minus one degree up until 2001. Therefore, if the temperature has increased by only one degree in the last 100 years, then this one degree is an invalid increase because the + and – accuracy is only one degree also. Note – The time period of the measurements was not mentioned in the program. Because the sun cycles have cooled in the last few years they probably didn’t include our recent much cooler temperatures. Note – Sun, planetary and galactic cycles cause weather pattern changes. None of these were mentioned on this program.

[...]

It is impossible to forecast the weather, either for tomorrow, next week or in a hundred years’ time. The weather is controlled by the Sun, moon, planets, solar system and other galactic influences. The climate has been changing for millions of years...

The complainant’ssubsequent submission to the ACMA included the following:

[The ABC] states that the sea levels were measured over a one year period. Then, they state that the satellite records only go back to 1993? This represents a period of 19 years, not 100years! Their only evidence is [the oceanographer] who said ‘Pretty well, yep, yep.’ They also stated their estimates were ‘only estimates and not fact.’ They failed to mention anything about the land rising and falling as a factor. They failed to mention another site where measurements have been taken. They failed to mention when they took their measurements at Port Arthur. They failed to address the temperature issue by stating that they trust the Bureau of Meteorology. They failed to address the issue of using old fashioned thermometers right up until 2001. These thermometers were only capable of measuring temperature to an accuracy of + or – one degree. Therefore, a change of one degree over a period of 100 years is a scientifically invalid number which doesn’t represent any change. Temperature change is caused by Sun Spot activity, planetary and galactic movements and has nothing whatsoever to do with human activity and pollution...

ABC’ssubmissions

The ABC’s response to the complainant included the following:

In response to your concerns that ‘the sea level rise recorded in Perth doesn’t represent Australia as a whole’, [the ABC] note[s] that when discussing the issue of sea level, [the presenter] travelled to both Fremantle and Port Arthur and sought comments from expert oceanographer [expert’s name], who compared sea level rises in both areas and indicated that there had been an approximately 17cm rise. Although [the presenter] did suggest that ‘so that is a 100-year record, really, for Australia,’ and [the oceanographer] indicated in response, ‘Pretty well, yep, yep’, we note this was qualified and presented as an estimate rather than fact. The report then went on to include comment from Bureau of Meteorology expert [expert’s name] about sea level rises in Australia more generally:

[The presenter] - So these are our current 'blood pressure', AKA 'sea level', readings. How are they looking?
[The weather expert] - So what we're looking at here is basically from the satellite record from 1993. And we can see sea levels have risen everywhere. Red on this part up the top of the continent is a lot of sea-level rise. And the blue parts down the bottom is where we've had rather less sea-level rise.
[The presenter (narrated)] - Sea level naturally goes up and down a lot from year to year, but we can see from the Fremantle record the trend line is relentless.

[The ABC] note[s] that the report covered the issue of sea level rise generally as well as providing a comparative case study of two particular areas in Australia based on the research of a credible expert in the field. We do not consider that this was false or misleading, and are satisfied the segment was in keeping with standard 2.1.

In response to your concerns that ‘The old fashioned temperature gauges that were used to measure temperature were only accurate to plus or minus one degree up until 2001. Therefore, if the temperature has increased by only one degree in the last 100 years, then this one degree is an invalid increase because the + and – accuracy is only one degree also’, [the ABC is] satisfied that it is reasonable for Catalyst to rely on the information provided by the Bureau of Meteorology, Australia’s national weather, climate and water agency, and their methods for obtaining that information.

Finding

The ABC did not breach standards 2.1 or 2.2 of the Code.

Reasons

The ACMA is satisfied that the statements about sea level rises, temperature increases and fluctuating weather patterns contested by the complainant are factual in nature – they are specific and are capable of independent verification.

Statements about sea level rises

In respect of the presenter’s statement (in bold) that:

So this is the original Fremantle port's tidal gauge from 1897. Beautiful piece of machinery, isn't it? And this is the latest tidal gauge. And, between them, what they chart is on average a 1.5mm rise per year since 1900.

The complainant submitted that:

the sea level rise recorded in Perth doesn’t represent Australia as a whole. Why didn’t they show all the data, instead of cherry picking one small area?

In reference to the weather expert’s statement (in bold) that:

what we're looking at here is basically from the satellite record from 1993 [looking at a satellite image of the entirety of Australia]. And we can see sea levels have risen everywhere. Red on this plot up the top of the continent is a lot of sea-level rise. And the blue parts down the bottom is where we've had rather less sea-level rise.

The complainant submitted that:

the satellite records only go back to 1993? This represents a period of 19 years, not 100 years!

As the complainant expressed concern about the statements made on rising sea levels being misleading - in particular, that the information presented was ‘cherry picked’ and did not cover a hundred year period- the ACMA has assessed the ABC’s compliance with standard 2.2 of the Code.

During the program, the presenter examined the extent (if any) to which sea levels around Australia have risen in the past 100 years. She examined Fremantle port’s tidal gauge, which charted an average rise of 1.5mm in sea levels since 1900. She then spoke to the oceanographer in Port Arthur, Tasmania, who concluded that sea levels at that location had risen approximately 17 centimetres since 1841. This was comparable with the degree of sea level rise that had occurred in Fremantle, on the other side of the continent.

The presenter then spoke to the weather expert, who referred to satellite data showing sea level rises across the country since 1993.

The ACMA does not consider that the information about rising sea levels in the program was presented in such a way as to materially mislead the audience for the following reasons:

The presenter travelled to Fremantle and Port Arthur, places located at opposite ends of the continent, and discussed the issue with the oceanographer, who compared sea level rises in both parts of the country and concluded that there had been approximately a 17cm rise since 1841.

The weather expert explained that:

So what we're looking at here is basically from the satellite record from 1993 [looking at a satellite image of the entirety of Australia]. And we can see sea levels have risen everywhere. Red on this plot up the top of the continent is a lot of sea-level rise. And the blue parts down the bottom is where we've had rather less sea-level rise.

The program did not look at Perth’s sea levels in isolation.Rather, it analysed and compared sea levels from a number of different parts of Australia, including a nation-wide overview of sea levels.

In relation to the complainant’s concerns that the satellite records ‘represent a period of 19years, not 100 years’, the ACMA does not consider that the audience was materially misled as a result. While the majority of the program examined changing weather patterns over a period of 100 years, the chart referred to in this instance by the BOM Expert did not purport to do so. Rather, it was expressly dealing only with a 19 year period. This was made apparent by his statement ‘so what we're looking at here is basically from the satellite record from 1993’.

Accordingly, the ACMA is of the view that the ABC did not breach standard 2.2 in respect of the statements.

The complaint also raised concerns about these statements on sea level rises:

Oceanographer: OK, the total sea-level rise since 1841 is about 17 centimetres. And that's the length of that stick. If you compare that with Fremantle on the other side of the country, about 17centimetres again since 1897.

Presenter: 1897? OK, so that is a 100-year record, really, for Australia.

Oceanographer: Pretty well, yep, yep.

The complainant submitted that ‘their only evidence [in relation to the sea level rise] is [the oceanographer] who said “Pretty well, yep, yep.”’ and that the figures were‘only estimates and not fact.’

Given the program concerned the impact of climate change on Australia, the ACMA considers that the statement about the extent of sea level rises is a material fact, attracting the ‘reasonable efforts’ obligation in standard 2.1.

The ACMA considers that the ABC made reasonable efforts to ensure that the statement was accurate and presented in context. The program reported the findings of an appropriate scientific expert, who explained his methodology and conclusions. Also, the program conveyed that the expert was giving an approximation – the expert referred to ‘about 17centimetres.’

Accordingly, the ACMA is of the view that the ABC did not breach standard 2.1 in respect of the statements.

Statements on temperature increases

In the program, the weather expert stated that:

Temperatures around Australia have risen by about a degree… less chills, more fevers. And some regional variation in that as well. So some regions are heating up more than others.

The complainant submittedthat:

The old fashioned temperature gauges that were used to measure temperature were only accurate to plus or minus one degree up until 2001. Therefore, if the temperature has increased by only one degree in the last 100 years, then this one degree is an invalid increase because the + and – accuracy is only one degree also. Note – The time period of the measurements was not mentioned in the program. Because the sun cycles have cooled in the last few years they probably didn’t include our recent much cooler temperatures.