The Claim
“Removed all mentions of climate change from their extreme weather website.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The claim is PARTIALLY TRUE but exaggerated.
The Department of Environment did significantly alter content on its website regarding extreme weather and climate change in mid-2014, but did not "remove all mentions" [1].
What actually occurred:
The original Department of Environment document opened with explicit statements: "There is a growing and robust body of evidence that climate change will increase the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events" and "Australia has experienced an increasing number and intensity of heatwaves, bushfires, flooding and droughts in recent decades" [1].
The amended version removed these opening statements and replaced them with a general explanation of what extreme weather is. The revised page acknowledged that extreme weather frequency and intensity was "changing" and that "some studies" show a link to climate change, but emphasized that it was "difficult to isolate the role of climate change in any given event" [1].
An Environment Department spokeswoman stated the change was made "to ensure the website information remained consistent with the approach taken by the IPCC in its fifth assessment report" [1]. The IPCC fifth assessment report stated there was "medium to high confidence" that extreme weather events are "projected to increase in many locations" in Australia [1].
Missing Context
The timing and political context are significant:
The website change occurred approximately eight months after Prime Minister Tony Abbott had called any link between bushfires and climate change "complete hogwash" during the 2013 New South Wales bushfires [1]. Abbott also said UN climate chief Christiana Figueres was "talking out of her hat" for linking rising temperatures to increased bushfires [1].
The previous version of the departmental advice had contradicted Abbott's public position, leading to questions about whether political pressure influenced the change [1].
The change was during a website consolidation:
The Department stated the change occurred during "the transition of content from the former climate change website to environment.gov.au" which had been ongoing for "the past few months" [1]. This suggests the change was part of a broader restructuring rather than an isolated edit.
Source Credibility Assessment
The Guardian (Source 1):
- Mainstream reputable news organization with international standing
- Article is factual reporting with direct quotes from officials and scientific sources
- Published in 2014, contemporaneous with events
- Author Oliver Milman was Guardian Australia's environment reporter
- Credibility: High - factual reporting with official responses included
SBS News (Source 2):
- Headlined as "Comment" indicating opinion piece
- Written by Labor Senator Lisa Singh (Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Water)
- Explicitly partisan perspective with language like "Abbott regime" and "Orwellian government"
- Contains rhetorical framing designed to criticize the government
- Credibility: Low for facts, High for Labor's political position - this is political commentary, not journalism
The SBS piece attempts to frame the website change as part of a broader "suppression" campaign, citing CSIRO job losses and funding changes to Environmental Defender's Offices. These are separate policy decisions conflated in the opinion piece.
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar?
The Rudd and Gillard Labor governments (2007-2013) actually took the opposite approach on climate communication, positioning themselves as the "party of climate reform" [3]. The Labor government established the Department of Climate Change and maintained stronger climate messaging on government websites.
However, Labor's climate policy was characterized by significant failures and reversals:
- Kevin Rudd's 2007 election promise to make climate change a priority was undermined by the failure of the Copenhagen summit and deferral of the CPRS (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme) [3]
- The "first Rudd government was tainted by its public failings on climate policy" despite raising "expectations to unprecedented heights" [3]
Comparison: While Labor maintained stronger climate messaging on government websites during their tenure, their actual policy delivery on climate change was marked by abandonment of the emissions trading scheme and political maneuvering. The Coalition's website change was a communication shift; Labor's was policy delivery failure.
Is this normal across governments?
Government websites typically reflect the policy priorities and language preferences of the incumbent administration. New governments routinely revise departmental websites to align with their policy positions. What made this case notable was:
- The specific removal of scientific consensus language
- The contradiction with the Prime Minister's previous public statements
- The timing following Abbott's "complete hogwash" comments
Balanced Perspective
The full story:
The Department of Environment did alter its extreme weather webpage to remove explicit statements about the link between climate change and extreme weather events. However, the page did not remove all mentions of climate change - it replaced strong statements with more qualified language acknowledging that "some studies" show a link while emphasizing uncertainty [1].
The Department's stated rationale was alignment with IPCC fifth assessment report language, which does use probabilistic language like "medium to high confidence" rather than definitive statements [1]. This is a defensible position from a scientific communication perspective, though critics argue the changes went beyond IPCC language to downplay established science.
The political context matters: Abbott had previously called climate-bushfire links "complete hogwash" [1], creating appearance of political interference in scientific communication. However, no direct evidence of political direction has been documented - the Department attributed the change to technical staff.
Is this unique to the Coalition?
No - governments routinely adjust public communications to match policy priorities. What distinguishes this case is:
- The specific subject matter (climate change during a period of intense political polarization)
- The contrast with established scientific consensus
- The Prime Minister's previous statements creating appearance of political interference
When compared to Labor's record: Labor maintained stronger climate rhetoric but failed to deliver on major climate policy (CPRS abandonment). The Coalition weakened climate communication rhetoric while implementing their "Direct Action" policy (though the claim being analyzed predates significant Direct Action implementation).
PARTIALLY TRUE
6.0
out of 10
The claim that the Coalition "removed all mentions of climate change from their extreme weather website" is an exaggeration. They did significantly water down the language, removing explicit statements about the link between climate change and extreme weather and replacing them with more qualified, cautious language. However, mentions of climate change were not entirely removed - the revised page still acknowledged "some studies" show a link [1].
The change occurred during a website consolidation and the Department claimed it was to align with IPCC language [1]. Critics argued it represented suppression of climate science, particularly given Abbott's previous statements denying climate-bushfire links [1][2].
The SBS source is a partisan opinion piece from a Labor Senator and should be treated as political commentary rather than factual reporting [2]. The Guardian source provides factual reporting with official responses [1].
Final Score
6.0
OUT OF 10
PARTIALLY TRUE
The claim that the Coalition "removed all mentions of climate change from their extreme weather website" is an exaggeration. They did significantly water down the language, removing explicit statements about the link between climate change and extreme weather and replacing them with more qualified, cautious language. However, mentions of climate change were not entirely removed - the revised page still acknowledged "some studies" show a link [1].
The change occurred during a website consolidation and the Department claimed it was to align with IPCC language [1]. Critics argued it represented suppression of climate science, particularly given Abbott's previous statements denying climate-bushfire links [1][2].
The SBS source is a partisan opinion piece from a Labor Senator and should be treated as political commentary rather than factual reporting [2]. The Guardian source provides factual reporting with official responses [1].
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (5)
-
1
theguardian.com
Australian government accused of significantly watering down information document on Department of Environment website
the Guardian -
2
sbs.com.au
Under an Abbott government, freedom of expression is a relative thing if it doesn't align with party policy. Earlier in the week Federal Liberal MP Andrew Nikolic, frustrated by his inability to win any political points in his campaigns against environmental community groups,called for them to be…
SBS News -
3
press-files.anu.edu.au
***description of this page***
2010 -
4
aph.gov.au
Introduction In 2016, the Parliamentary Library published the Australian climate change policy to 2015: a chronology, covering the years 1972 to 2015.[1] This publication provides an update to the chronology and expands it to include 2016 to 2021.[2] The world’s climate is
Aph Gov -
5
smh.com.au
Environment Minister Greg Hunt was given a thorough briefing about the effects of climate change on Australia's weather patterns three weeks before he told a BBC radio interview he had sourced information on bushfires and global warming from Wikipedia.
The Sydney Morning Herald
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.