data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/cd66e/cd66e3bd46a657d482bd4f7b7253938aebe7cdcf" alt="The climate denialist IPA and its 'public interest' charity status"
The climate denialist IPA and its 'public interest' charity status
Since the IPA and CIS organisations argue against the scientific consensus on the climate change emergency isn’t that against the public interest? Why, then, are they classified as 'charities'?The reviews by the ACNC in January 2014 of the charitable status of these two registered charities, in this light, needs to be reviewed again. This is particularly so of the IPA with its increasing focus on spreading misinformation (none of which stands up to proper scientific scrutiny) since 2014.
But there are also other issues which need clarification in order that better transparency occurs, such as better definitions of income and expenditure, the question of influence by foreign entities and perhaps what is key: whether charity funds being used by these organisations is for a purpose that may be deemed as being of detriment to the community. Charitable status should be relinquished under these circumstances.
Last week Andrew Bolt was promoting the IPA film as the "scientific truth" about the GBR. This is the work of the organisation that claims Charity Status here in Australia. (ODT)
A coral scientist whose work is attacked in a mini-documentary from the Institute of Public Affairs says the rightwing thinktank has misrepresented her study.
The IPA says its YouTube film, Beige Reef, is a “must watch” because it shows healthy Acropora corals living at Stone Island, near Bowen. This, the film claims, is in a place where a study published in 2016 claimed all those corals had died.
But Dr Tara Clark, of the University of Wollongong, says the film’s central claim is wrong because her 2016 study did not make any such statement and the IPA’s film had focused on a different location.
Great Barrier Reef: scientists find high levels of pesticides and blast chemical regulator
Read more
Clark told Guardian Australia: “Our work has clearly been misrepresented.”
The IPA, which has been heavily funded by the mining magnate Gina Rinehart, is known for promoting fringe views on human-caused climate change.
Scientist says rightwing thinktank misrepresented her Great Barrier Reef study | Environment | The Guardian
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/55200/5520067bbe9c07b36c46ee7394cb931de8539dab" alt="Housing card game Playing cards in the shape of a house."
Warnings over Australia's high level of household debt
Australian households have borrowed almost twice as much as they earn, and that's a massive risk for the economy.
Remember the days when there was a genuine middle class with a house and only one adult required to work to maintain a lifestyle full of choices at a minimum of risk?
FAKE AND TWISTED NEWS
CHINA TESTS THE WORLD: KEATING AND ABC FAILS
An aggressive communist China is testing the world - crushing freedom, ripping organs out of prisoners, jailing 900,000 Muslim Uighurs, jailing an Australian writer. In Hong Kong, students are fighting back. In Australia, we hear the voices of surrender. My editorial from The Bolt Report.
Bolt's comments are as factual about China as are his statements about Climate
McCRANN: MEDIA HAS BURNED ITS CREDIBILITY
Terry McCrann: "The media’s ‘Your Right to Know’ campaign... rests on trust; that the media can be trusted to report fairly and fully... Over the last two weeks, we have seen little else than dishonesty, distortion and, above all, hysteria... in relation to the bushfires... It’s been wall-to-wall unqualified ‘climate change caused the bushfires’."
- This mind-boggling promotion by Andrew Bolt comes after he directed us to an IPA film on the Great Barrier Reef quoting the research work of a Scientist who denies the IPA's misinformation of her work and the promotion of that bullshit by Andrew Bolt. Andrew Bolt makes a habit of telling us what Scientists didn't say rather than reporting what they did. (ODT)
NOW THE LEFT JOINS IN DEFENDING PELL
The mood has sure shifted when even the far-Left Saturday Paper now publishes a criticism of the judges who turned down Cardinal Pell's appeal: "[They] effectively allowed no possible defence for Pell... because the judges appeared to argue it was enough to simply believe the complainant on the basis of his performance under cross-examination."
No comments:
Post a Comment