Manipulating the facts

By David Hughes

First published in the MRC’s Watercooler newsletter. Sign up to our mailing list to receive Watercooler directly in your inbox.

Shortly before he became Australia’s Climate Change Minister, Chris Bowen wrote a book titled ‘On Charlatans’. It’s still available for purchase via Amazon despite being ranked 350,710 in their bestseller list. In Bowen’s own words, the book is based on this premise: “For charlatans, the road to political success is paved with dishonesty, disunity, fake news and empty promises.”

Bowen writes about the dishonest manipulation of facts and arguments to support partisan objectives. It’s unfortunate Bowen has now unashamedly embraced the tactics he studied in his 2021 book. The recent dishonesty exhibited by Bowen is not simply a great personal failing on his part. As a Minister and leading public figure, his manipulation of facts is holding our nation back. 

To cite one recent example, data shows emissions have actually increased under his watch. The latest data from the official National Greenhouse Gas Inventory shows that since Labor was elected, CO2 emissions have increased by 6.6% based on our analysis. Under the former Coalition Government, CO2 emissions actually fell by 19.8% based on the same official dataset. 

These facts don’t align with the narrative pushed by Bowen and Labor as they seek to justify their record investments in renewable energy. As a result, we have seen attempts by Bowen to manipulate the facts and present his own alternative version of the data. This has led to two media releases this year from Bowen titled: ‘Australia’s emissions are down thanks to increase in renewables’ and ‘Reliable renewables boom continues to drive down Australia's emissions’. Unsurprisingly, Bowen neglected to put out a media release last week when he signed off on new powers for states to mandate the extension of coal and gas fired power plants needed to keep our energy system running.

For centuries, objectivity in the pursuit of truth has helped strengthen western institutions. Over the last decade these fundamental principles have been pushed aside by many political leaders, universities and even independent government agencies. Take the debate around nuclear energy as an example. The majority of the Australian public are neither staunchly anti nor pro nuclear. Most simply want to develop a greater understanding of the issue. Many of our leaders and indeed agencies such as the CSIRO don’t share this objective approach. Arguments and even facts are dismissed if they get in the way of a partisan or ideological goal.

The energy debate is crucial to Australia’s future economic prosperity, and it should be guided solely by facts. However, CSIRO’s recent Gencost report appears aimed at undermining the Coalition’s nuclear policy, while neglecting to provide a comprehensive comparison with the costs of Labor’s renewables-only strategy.

The CSIRO report was of course immediately accepted as gospel by those ideologically opposed to nuclear energy. Even disregarding political and ideological motivations, we need to accept the fact that sometimes our ‘experts’ miss the mark. In 2008, the CSIRO captured national headlines and put fear in the hearts of everyday Australians with their prediction that petrol 'could cost $8 a litre by 2018'.  The clean energy lobby jumped on this report, stating: “We need to urgently get the Government to help manufacturers re-tool, for building cleaner cars here in Australia.” There was little scrutiny at the time of what we now see as an outlandish prediction.

Across the Western world, key institutions in science, academia, and government are sacrificing their integrity, eroding the very foundations of our success as a liberal society. Respect for diverse viewpoints and the open exchange of ideas has been central to advancing knowledge and progress. Yet, when institutions discard the concept of objective truth in favour of subjective “personal truths,” they set themselves—and society—on a path to inevitable decline.

This decline may begin gradually, propped up by the remnants of past standards and customs, but it accelerates as adherence to those principles wanes. When everything becomes relative and leaders reject the possibility of absolute benchmarks for assessing competing narratives, the free exchange of ideas collapses. Concepts like “intellectual inquiry” and “evidence-based policy” lose their meaning, leaving a void where reason and progress once flourished.