If Wendy Bacon cannot add to 100, can she understand warming science? Tony Thomas fact-checks journalism academic Wendy Bacon's report on how newspaper's cover global warming, and discovers, well, very poor journalism indeed. Not that the ABC's Media Report noticed, of course. Professorial Fellow Wendy Bacon says her's 222-page study of Australian newspapers" coverage of climate change is the largest Australian research project of its kind. I'd add that it's also the worst of its kind... Bacon led a team of about 15 researchers to produce her report. Those hoping to compare The Australian's coverage with that of, say, The Age, will be disappointed. All 16 on the team failed to notice that The Age's total of climate articles is mis-stated as 50, rather than summing to 77 (though 77 is also wrong, the correct figure is 71). The Age articles" stated breakdown in terms of sceptic doubt and rejection is 18% and 10% respectively, somehow identical with those of the Advertiser, run by the reviled Rupert. The percent of all The Age's climate article stances add to 119%, instead of the required 100%. Four of the table's five grand totals are also wrong... As for methodology, Bacon sprawls at the first hurdle. She has to distinguish between orthodox climate scientists pushing the dangerous global warming hypothesis, and sceptics claiming â¦ what, exactly? A reasonable answer is that sceptics dispute that climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is between two and six degrees, the latter the supposed upper range and potentially disastrous for the planet). Well-informed sceptics would plump for a sensitivity number in the 0.5degC to, maybe, 1.5degC, and they would argue that such modest warming is likely to be beneficial. Sceptics also put much greater weight on natural climate variability, which could well swamp any man-made effects of CO2. Doubters continue to ask for empirical proof that most of the 0.8degC warming in the past century is "extremely likely" due to man-made factors, which is the latest claim of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Bacon, however, galumphs in with ludicrous definitions of "the consensus" and sceptics" position against it. She writes: Scientists (over 97%) overwhelmingly agree that the activities of human beings cause climate change. This is referred to as the consensus position. The term âclimate sceptic" refers to those who do not accept this consensus position...." Dear Ms Bacon, be advised that no sane person disputes that "humans cause climate change..." The real issue is, "How much change?" So all the Bacon team's laborious coding of articles according to "accepting," "rejecting" or "doubting" that the Pope is a Catholic, doesn't make sense. Adding to the confusion, a few pages later we read, The number of articles about climate science fell between 2011 and 2012 but the number not accepting the scientific consensus that human beings are causing dangerous climate change grew.? My emphasis. There she introduces the key term "dangerous" to her definition. For a moment, rationality appears. Warmists and sceptics can have an objective disagreement about the degree of danger. But for the entirety of the rest of the report's 220 pages, "dangerous" climate change is never again mentioned. However, right at the end of her report, her definition of the "consensus" changes again, this time to signify that human beings are "the main" contributors to global warming. Given that Bacon now has three seriously different definitions of "consensus," how did her dozen junior assistants manage to code 602 articles into "accepters," "doubters" and "rejecters" of "the consensus"?... And of course she cites the notoriously flawed paper this year by John Cook et al that 97.1% of abstracts agree about human-caused warming. The reality is that Cook's paper showed only 0.3% of 11,944 abstracts tested, endorsed the Cook-specified IPCC view "that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW) ." A distinction between 97.1% and 0.3% was too subtle for Bacon and her large team to notice. Should I keep our pet bunnies inside at night? Bacon's paper makes 157 references to Andrew Bolt in its 222 pages, perhaps indicating a need for some counselling. In her worldview, Mr Bolt is a simulacrum of Austin Power's Dr Evil, single-handedly destroying the planet with his super-weapon ofâ¦well, what? Bolt is just a commentator. If he's influential, why would that be? Something to do with a large and existing body of sceptical opinion perhaps? Thomas is unimpressed by Bacon's various conspiracy theories, such as this: News Corp has selected Bolt to play a powerful strategic role in the communication of climate change to Australian audiences... While some of these editors claim to accept the consensus position, they accord him the power to promote scathing critiques of climate scientists and other media that accept the consensus position. Actually, Ms Bacon, my editors just believe in letting a columnist follow their conscience and their reasoning, even if it takes them to conclusions different to their own. It's called promoting free speech and a healthy debate - concepts that seem to jar with a Leftist. Tony Thomas demolishes Bacon's story of editors using me to further a sinister Murdoch plot: Nice try, but even Anne Summers has reported Bolt defying, not supporting, News Corp boss Rupert Murdoch's pro-orthodox climate views: " âHe (Bolt) took on the chairman (Murdoch) about climate change during a Murdoch visit to Melbourne," says Bruce Guthrieâ¦ "They ended up agreeing to differ. âIn some ways he is quite brave to take on the Murdochs on that issue," says Stephen Mayneâ¦ âIt is very unusual for a News person to take on management."" Read the whole take-down. It says so much about the state of green thought, the decline of reason and the indoctrination of student journalists.