Program Title: The Bolt Report Air date: 10AM July 10, 2011 Details of Your Complaint I wish

to submit a complaint in relation to the factual accuracy of Mr Andrew Bolt's opening editorial during The Bolt Report broadcast on Network Ten July 10, 2011. It is my contention that Mr Bolt's commentary breached the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice. Specifically clause 4.3.1 which states: In broadcasting news and current affairs programs, licensees: must broadcast factual material accurately and represent viewpoints fairly, having regard to the circumstances at the time of preparing and broadcasting the program; The details of my complaint are as follows: 1. Andrew Bolt stated that "for at least a decade the planet has not warmed even though emissions have soared". This claim was accompanied by a graph of UAH Lower Troposphere Mean Temperature data from 1995 to 2011 (inclusive) titled "Wheres the Warming". As can be seen here (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1995/to:2012/plot/uah/from:1995/to:2012/t rend/plot/uah/from:1995/to:2012/mean:13) the slope of the least squares line (trend) is 0.013 degrees per year or 0.13 degrees per decade or 1.3 degrees per century for the period 1995 to 2011. If the period is limited from January 2000 to December 2010 (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2000/to:2011/plot/uah/from:2000/to:2011/t rend/plot/uah/from:2000/to:2011/mean:13) or "at least a decade" as per the text of the commentary, the trend is 0.017 degrees per year or 0.17 degrees per decade or 1.7 degrees per century. By any measure the statement "the planet has not warmed" cannot be substantiated by reference to Mr Bolts preferred data set. 2. Andrew Bolt claimed "the flooding rains we were told would never fall again have returned". That statement is also factually wrong. As I have personally pointed out to Mr Bolt on a number of occasions, neither the IPCC nor any respected climate scientist has projected that flooding rains "would never fall again". As highlighted in section 11.1.1 of IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Working Group II the Third Assessment Report noted: Increased frequency of high-intensity rainfall, which is likely to increase flood damage. According to TAR 12.1: (http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/465.htm) The region's climate is strongly influenced by the surrounding oceans. Key climatic features include tropical cyclones and monsoons in northern Australia; migratory mid-latitude storm systems in the south, including New Zealand; and the ENSO phenomenon, which causes floods and prolonged droughts, especially in eastern Australia.

From 12.1.5.1: (http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/465.htm) To summarize the rainfall results, drier conditions are anticipated for most of Australia over the 21st century. However, consistent with conclusions in WGI, an increase in heavy rainfall also is projected, even in regions with small decreases in mean rainfall. This is a result of a shift in the frequency distribution of daily rainfall toward fewer light and moderate events and more heavy events. This could lead to more droughts and more floods. As far back as the 1997 IPCC Special Report on Regional Impacts of Climate Change it was noted: (http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/465.htm) Water Supply and Hydrology: Possible overall reduction in runoff, with changes in soil moisture and runoff varying considerably from place to place but reaching as much as 20%, was suggested for parts of Australia by 2030. Sharpened competition was expected among water users, with the large Murray-Darling Basin river system facing strong constraints. Enhanced groundwater recharge and dam-filling events were expected from more frequent high-rainfall events, which also were expected to increase flooding, landslides, and erosion. From The Australian Climate Group (2004) Climate change Solutions for Australia (Coauthor Professor David Karoly): (http://assets.wwfau.panda.org/downloads/cl020_climate_change_solutions_for_australia_ 1jun04.pdf) Small global temperature increases of only a degree or two can cause big changes in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events: heatwaves, storms with stronger winds and hail, intense rainfall and flooding, extreme bushfire conditions more often. The effect is amplified again in terms of damage to our buildings and infrastructure, because they have usually been designed to deal with historical weather patterns. We are also observing a widening gap between insured and economic losses. This difference in losses will ultimately have to be paid by the taxpayer. The report goes on: Flood damage shows a similar pattern. Extreme flood events, by their nature, occur more rarely and are more costly than moderate events...Climate change will bring more frequent floods and a greater cost to the community because when rain does fall, it will be more intense. 3. Andrew Bolt quoted a Victorian Department of Primary Industries FACE study that found "about a 20% increase in yield because of elevated CO2". The following was excluded from the quote: ...the caveat there is that you can see increases in yield, but you also have to have sufficient water and nitrogen still to grow the crop and considering changes in

climate, if this area of Australia, for example, has decreases in rainfall then we may not see the responses to be quite that dramatic in the future... Andrew also neglected to inform his audience that in addition to increased yield the study also found a decrease in plant quality due to lower protein levels and an increase in soil nitrogen uptake which could have negative impacts on fertiliser costs. According to the transcript Andrew quoted from: (http://new.dpi.vic.gov.au/agriculture/science-andresearch/research-capability/research-branches/future-farming-systemsresearch/transcript-national-wheat-face-array) Now, other results that are important to the agricultural industry is that we see a decrease in the plant nitrogen content. Now, nitrogen is a fertiliser, its what causes the green part of the plants to be green and thats important, what happens is that translates into less nitrogen in the grain, which is less protein. So that interacts directly with quality issues and the wheat industry would be quite interested in understanding that. So, the nitrogen content, the protein content goes down and were seeing that very consistently. However, whats interesting is that the total nitrogen extracted from the soil increases and thats because theres more biomass. So its just pulling a lot more nitrogen and that has potential impacts to future farming in terms of fertiliser requirements. Andrew Bolt failed to represent all the evidence fairly, instead he cherry-picked the data that suited his argument and ignored that data which did not. This is not honest commentary nor is it honest scepticism. It appears to me that Mr Bolt has not broadcast factual material accurately or represented view points fairly. I contend that Mr Bolt has misrepresented the science and has both misinformed and misled his audience. I respectfully request that Mr Bolt publicly acknowledge his erroneous statements and clearly and unambiguously correct the record at the earliest possible convenience. It would be preferable if Mr Bolt acknowledged his mistake with the same prominence and in the same format, namely on The Bolt Report, without deflection or obfuscation. Assistance in dealing with this matter promptly would be greatly appreciated.