**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.
環境部 huán jìng bù 確實 què shí 在 zài 2014 2014 年 nián 中期 zhōng qī 大幅 dà fú 修改 xiū gǎi 了 le 其網 qí wǎng 站上 zhàn shàng 關於極端 guān yú jí duān 天氣 tiān qì 與 yǔ 氣候 qì hòu 變遷 biàn qiān 的 de 內容 nèi róng , , 但 dàn 並未 bìng wèi 「 「 移除 yí chú 所有 suǒ yǒu 提及 tí jí 」 」 [ [ 1 1 ] ] 。 。
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].
**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].
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].
**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.
**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.
**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.
環境部 huán jìng bù 確實 què shí 修改 xiū gǎi 了 le 其 qí 極端 jí duān 天氣 tiān qì 網頁 wǎng yè , , 刪 shān 除了 chú le 關於氣候 guān yú qì hòu 變遷 biàn qiān 與 yǔ 極端 jí duān 天氣 tiān qì 事件 shì jiàn 之間 zhī jiān 關聯 guān lián 的 de 明 míng 確陳述 què chén shù 。 。
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.
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).
區分 qū fēn 此 cǐ 案例 àn lì 的 de 是 shì : :
The Coalition weakened climate communication rhetoric while implementing their "Direct Action" policy (though the claim being analyzed predates significant Direct Action implementation).
聯盟 lián méng 黨 dǎng 「 「 從 cóng 其 qí 極端 jí duān 天氣 tiān qì 網站 wǎng zhàn 移除 yí chú 所有 suǒ yǒu 關於氣候 guān yú qì hòu 變遷 biàn qiān 的 de 提及 tí jí 」 」 的 de 說 shuō 法 fǎ 是 shì 誇大其詞 kuā dà qí cí 。 。
The claim that the Coalition "removed all mentions of climate change from their extreme weather website" is an exaggeration.
他們 tā men 確實 què shí 大幅 dà fú 削弱 xuē ruò 了 le 語言 yǔ yán , , 刪 shān 除了 chú le 關於氣候 guān yú qì hòu 變遷 biàn qiān 與 yǔ 極端 jí duān 天氣 tiān qì 之間 zhī jiān 關聯 guān lián 的 de 明 míng 確陳述 què chén shù , , 並以 bìng yǐ 更 gèng 有 yǒu 保留 bǎo liú 、 、 更謹慎 gèng jǐn shèn 的 de 語言 yǔ yán 取代 qǔ dài 。 。
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.
The Guardian source provides factual reporting with official responses [1].
最終分數
6.0
/ 10
部分真實
聯盟 lián méng 黨 dǎng 「 「 從 cóng 其 qí 極端 jí duān 天氣 tiān qì 網站 wǎng zhàn 移除 yí chú 所有 suǒ yǒu 關於氣候 guān yú qì hòu 變遷 biàn qiān 的 de 提及 tí jí 」 」 的 de 說 shuō 法 fǎ 是 shì 誇大其詞 kuā dà qí cí 。 。
The claim that the Coalition "removed all mentions of climate change from their extreme weather website" is an exaggeration.
他們 tā men 確實 què shí 大幅 dà fú 削弱 xuē ruò 了 le 語言 yǔ yán , , 刪 shān 除了 chú le 關於氣候 guān yú qì hòu 變遷 biàn qiān 與 yǔ 極端 jí duān 天氣 tiān qì 之間 zhī jiān 關聯 guān lián 的 de 明 míng 確陳述 què chén shù , , 並以 bìng yǐ 更 gèng 有 yǒu 保留 bǎo liú 、 、 更謹慎 gèng jǐn shèn 的 de 語言 yǔ yán 取代 qǔ dài 。 。
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.