This article is not really about the ABC and science, it is yet another article attempting to support those in climate denial.

As a science journalist, Robyn Williams would be highly conscious of the fact that climate sceptics get more than their fair share of airplay. Yet he gives them generous space, and, yes of course, also allows counter-arguments.

OLO is perhaps a slightly alternative media format, but its editors also give at least 50 percent of exposure to the minority view on climate change - i.e. the sceptics' viewpoint.

I am trying to work out if OLO editors have a pre-disposition to the sceptics' standpoint themselves or if the articles they receive are simply representative of the respective zeal of the two camps.

If there is bias in media reporting of science, that bias weighs heavily in favour of the sceptics lobby, tiny as they are in numbers. (That bias may be as a result of religioisity on the part of the sceptics, or it may be deliberate on the part of media. I expect a bit of both.)

This does not mean the sceptics don't have a democratic right to speak out and be heard, but please don't try to put the boot on the other foot

Note that Williams admits that 9 out of 10 Australians are only “said to be” alarmed by climate change. And there is only data “suggesting” that temperatures are increasing.

Graham knocks Williams’ claim the head, but Williams is apparently unaware of the variables in polling; he may as well use the old cover-up, ‘they say’.

“Seems his (Williams’) quality control only works in one direction, and if your one of teacher's pets you'll get a pat on the head.”

This is standard procedure for the ABC, in all areas.

I no longer bother with the ABC, and gave Robyn Williams away long ago. But it’s handy to know that Williams and his left wing organisation are still up to their old tricks, spreading lies and panic.

Thanks Graham.

Gecko,

For someone who loves to criticise other posters and tell them that they are wrong – just because you think so – you look pretty silly claiming that “… climate sceptics get more than their fair share of airplay.”

What absolute nonsense - as silly as your suggestions of bias from OLO editors.

Gecko

It's pretty clear that Graham Young is a supporter of the AGW skeptic/denial position. After reading Tim Dunleavy's article yesterday, I had a look at the older OLO articles on AGW. There is a lengthy comments thread on one article penned by Tim Lambert, in which Graham makes his own view pretty clear.

As Graham is the publisher and chief editor of OLO, I think you can take it that the site as a whole is supportive of the skeptic view. This is also borne out by the relative numbers of articles - I had been under the impression that OLO was fairly even handed, but the archived articles are very heavily skewed in favour of the skeptic/denial position.

The quality of the articles is also generally very low, in that they tend to be fact-free polemics attacking the motives or integrity of AGW advocates, rather than dealing with the facts or the science (this article is typical in that respect). Even where the articles are written by scientists with knowledge in the field (such as Bob Carter)they tend to rely on emotional and political arguments rather than scientific ones.

The skeptic/denialist commenters seem to mirror this approach in a cruder and less articulate way, by resorting to name calling and ad hominem attacks, rather than using facts and logic. Mr Right's comment above is representative of this.

I suppose their reliance on that approach reflects the relative lack of factual and scientific support for the skeptic position at this point in time. It also suggests that their motives are largely ideological, rather than being based on any genuine skepticism.

I am not sure how many times I have to repeat this. Graham Young is the chief editor of OLO. However, I am the editor and each day I make the decisions about what goes into the journal. I try to achieve a balance but it is dependent on what I get sent to me or can procure myself. I have no political barrow to push, am happy to publish well reasoned/well written articles from all parties and strive to provide material that will get readers thinking and considering other points of view. If I published articles and opinions from one viewpoint you (and I) would soon get pretty bored. OLO is about opinions, debate and ideas. It is about expanding horizons and thinking. It is not about reading what you necessarily want to hear.
And no doubt you will be pleased to learn that tomorrow there will be another take on Professor Don Aitkin's climate change stance. Regards Susan Prior - ed

"I’ll be writing to the ABC. Time to get this ball rolling."

For some reason, I'm reminded of windmills.

If Don Aitken wants celebrity in his dotage for holding such scientifically silly points of view he should expect to get mauled by serious science journalists on Australia's premier radio science show. He wouldn't get a guernsey on Catalyst or Landline. Why doesn't Don Aitken look out of his office window or look at the CSIRO rainfall chart series for Australia from 1880 to the present.

He got a lot more polite reception than Eva Cox would get at any Sydney Catholic, Anglican or happy-clappy congregation.

Dear Graham Young,
I would suggest checking the science first: http://www.realclimate.org/
Ignorance is not an excuse and academic titles are not a guarantee.
We are all entitled on our opinions, but calling them science needs some scrutiny. And in this Don Aitkin fails miserably.
Editors or broadcasters need to tighten their rules and check the science behind what they are publishing or broadcasting; even if their sponsors would not like it. What is sold as “science” is far too often plain gibberish. And grilling Don Aitkin on the basis of science can hardly be called bullying.
Sincerely,
Damir Ibrisimovic

SusanP: << I am not sure how many times I have to repeat this. >>

Thanks Susan, but clearly there is a perception held by more than a few readers that there is a generally pro-'skeptic' bias at OLO with respect to articles about climate change, particularly those concerning AGW.

In this case, I think Graham Young is being a bit precious on Don Aitkin's behalf. As a distinguished academic non-scientist, Prof Aitkin must have been aware that a corollary to his access to the national broadcaster to present his opinion - on a controversial topic outside his area of expertise - would likely draw strong responses from those with more scientific knowledge.

While Aitkin is entitled to be deliberately controversial, I think it's a bit rich to attack Robyn Williams and the ABC so strongly for what was clearly meant to be a slightly humorous introduction to Aitkin's tendentious piece.

CJ Morgan
I was responding to NorthWestShelf's comment "As Graham is the publisher and chief editor of OLO, I think you can take it that the site as a whole is supportive of the skeptic view. This is also borne out by the relative numbers of articles - I had been under the impression that OLO was fairly even handed, but the archived articles are very heavily skewed in favour of the skeptic/denial position." Not to Graham's article.
I should have made it clearer.
Susan P - ed

Thanks Graham, I've had my best laugh for a long time. The ABC impartial? I can't stop rolling on the ground. They are just another media organisation that is dedicated to pushing their own barrow like all the others. I think it is a fair comment that, because we humans respond the right way, bad news is the only news as far as the media is concerned, regular forecasts of disaster are considered necessary if they are to prosper, and most media people are at least soft left in outlook. The commercial media is no better, except that they have a different barrow to push, namely ever-increasing consumption. I remember with great affection in the early nineties (during the recession we had to have) when John Laws asked listeners to ring in with suggestions on which items we should cut back on. When a listener suggested that we should start with the items advertised on the radio, he did not stay online for long. All talkback media (ABC included) requires the right procedure if you are to go to air. For example, if the ABC invites listeners to respond to suggestions that the Queen should not appear on the $5 note, as this is outdated and old-fashioned, you ring in and agree with them (for at least 7 seconds so you go to air), and then suggest that the forward looking approach would be for Prince William to appear on the note.

Every media in the world is biassed, but there biasses are different. I still have to find one that considers that interest rates should be increased.

Thank heavens for the internet, where we can receive information outside the control of the local media editors.

NorthWestShelf,

"The skeptic/denialist commenters seem to mirror this approach in a cruder and less articulate way, by resorting to name calling and ad hominem attacks, rather than using facts and logic. Mr Right's comment above is representative of this."

You are trying to use the same tactics Graham Young rightly attributed to Robyn Williams: attempting to put down people you imperiously decide are not up to your standards in anything.

As for "ad hominem attacks", you apparently were not around when gecko addressed me as "Mr. RightWing" and subjectively advised me that I was wrong in what I said on another subject.

You also need to cast your eye back over your post of the 14th May, where your complained to Graham Young about giving space to "disingeuous liars" before you sound off on what other people think and say. Rather cheeky for a newcomer!

If you think that "legitimate opion" comes only from you and your cronies (as you indicated in the post of the 14th July), prepare yourself for a big shock, sonny.

And, if you don't like the OLO rules, start your own site or blog.

As far as I'm concerned and, I believe, sensible posters of all opinion are concerned, anyone who goes to the trouble of setting up a site like this and is prepared to put up with some of the crap certain people toss at them, has the right to publish whatever they wish without reference to posters.

The 'impartial' national broadcasters have so brainwashed people over the decades that some even believe that they are the only ones able to provide an accurate weather forecast. I know some elderly who call the ABC weather the real weather forecast. One only has to look at the continual spillage from these broadcasters into the ALP to see how politically balanced they are. Why should it be different with so called science. The GW scaremongers are looking more stupid everyday and are now more intent on deriding their opponents rather than coming up with any real facts. Talk about a waste of tax payers money.

I think Graham Young may be being overly sensitive. RW's introduction may be seen as either dismissive based on his own opinion or those of a majority; a 'put down' of a respected academic or merely an attempt to write an attention getting introduction as controversial or unwise as that may have been. As part of the 32% who is 'very concerned' I found Professor Aitken's talk interesting, balanced and his conclusion refreshing.

I listen regularly to Ockham's Razor, and had listened to Don Aitken, I don't recall R.W.s introduction specifically, just that Don Aitken was to present an alternative POV to AGW.

Like Thylacine, I found his talk very interesting. What was refreshing was the lack of emotive terms that are often used by the climate change sceptic. I was particularly impressed by Don's summary where he emphasised his support for sustainable and low pollution technologies. Also I note his responses on his article published here on OLO were equally balanced and considerate.

While Don is a AGW sceptic he is unusual in that he does support a shift towards sustainability.

I agree that Graham Young is overreacting to Robyn Williams, and that his OLO Forum is biased towards the religious/conservative. In spite of anything that SusanP claims, I do know that when the occasion suits, Graham is actively involved in selection of topics, deletions of posts and we have all read his warnings to posters from time to time.

Graham's ideological thumbprint is as evident on OLO as Murdoch's is on his media empire.

In conclusion, all I can say is "Pot meet Kettle".

Hi Susan P

Thanks for your clarification as to editorial responsibility and your personal approach to this issue. In light of your clarification, I withdraw my statement that OLO is, as a whole, supportive of the AGW skeptic position. Graham Y has stated his own views, as I noted before.

I'm glad you try to achieve balance. However, as CJ Morgan has pointed out, there is a strong perception of a lack of balance on this particular issue. But that is neither here nor there, really.

I have no objection to a divergence of opinion on this or any other issue, and of course I agree that a wide range of contrary opinions is desirable. But as I said before, in my opinion many of the OLO articles published on this topic are not 'well reasoned', but rely on emotive and political arguments and are sometimes deceptive.

I appreciate that many controversial issues discussed on OLO have emotive and political elements, but the AGW debate is supposed to be a scientific one. And, in my view, deception has no place in genuine debates.

I don't expect you to stop publishing AGW skeptic articles or contrary views on any other issue. I'm simply expressing my view that the quality of many, if not most, of the AGW articles is low. Others are free to disagree with me, of course, and many do.

And Mr Right, what can I say? You prove my point once again. LOL.

Path to hell is paved by good wishes, or wishful thinking. This is at core of denial and we tend to jump at conclusions far too often.
Climatology works on mountains of data and numerous theories. And our amateurish picking data out of context (as it suits us) is wishful thinking. Even worse, our judgements are often entrenched along ideological divides.
One of the reasons liberals were voted out of office was global warming denial. Recent back flips are still far from a comprehensive policy and even further from liberal grass-root digesting a bitter medicine. Liberals need to understand what many other Australians (including some liberals) already intuit or know. This should be made clear, especially here. There is no room for politics in the science.
Nothing is certain, but death and taxes. Both can only be increased by global warming. Is sticking our heads in sands really an option?

Our national broadcaster the ABC is not well served by the likes of Robyn Williams. On the "hot" topic of climate, here he is again arrogantly promoting influence and misinformation. For all the years he has been in the media interviewing scientists he still hasn't progressed beyond reducing science to a theology where he certainly has a talent for the fictional. I suggest he would be very successful writing science fiction and Harry Potter type stories.
e.g.
When "fairy dust" Williams proudly promotes that but "10% of Australians, according to the Climate Institute, say they are not alarmed at the prospect of climate change", it also assumes with anthropogenic grandeur that the debate in Australia is over without acknowledging that the case for AGW has been fully created from careless/very selective data acquisition and dodgy data processing, and with the media priest class in your pocket, who needs integrity? As this shonky process gains momentum, science faces a diminishing role in public policy.

Williams has no integrity as a science reporter because he presents as a propagandist and should be put out to pasture. Else are we to assume now that our own national broadcaster, the ABC, has no standards of balanced coverage when it comes matters of science? i.e. Are all ABC science documentaries to be now considered propaganda?

Our national broadcaster the ABC is where we should see and reward those rare journalists, if you can find them, who see through the spin doctoring by daring to identify and report these crucial issues, by developing the need to debate through balanced coverage. We will never have politicians or scientists of substance, integrity and intellect unless the public have the same.

Graham also correctly makes the point that Robyn Williams has a monopoly on science journalism at the ABC, and has been in that powerful position for far too long.

williams isn't bullying, he's ridiculing. and rather than ridiculing aitkin, he's ridiculing the notion that aitkin has any special claim beyond Joe Blow's to be given a special platform to critique science. i think williams' stunt was tacky, but he has a definite point.

and northwestshelf has it exactly right: whatever the source there is a pronounced bias on olo against agw. the percentage of skeptic articles is out of all proportion, and tone, with the level of skepticism in the scientific community.

and, whilst the majority of the articles on olo arguing for agw are from climate scientists, a large proportion ( it feels like a substantial majority) of skeptic articles are from non-scientists, often with only the most superficial attempt to argue any science. and often with a pronounced and unsubstantiated contempt for the practice and the institutions of science.

yes, such amateur-scientist skeptics have a right to their opinion. and yes, if they are given a platform then they can say what they damn well please. the question is, why should i care what they say?

the more important question is, why does olo choose to give so many such amateur critics a platform? like northwestshelf, i has assumed it was young's silly hobby horse. but if it's susanb's silly hobby horse, so be it. her horse is still a horse, of course, of course.

For the record, Robyn Williams invited me to give a talk after the original paper's summary in the Australian. When he read the full paper he asked me to do two. I have no complaint at all, since I recognise that that my paper does not support the orthodoxy. I also had no complaint about the introduction, other than it did not make clear that in my professional life I have had a great deal to do with the funding of scientists and science policy. Robyn made that clear in his introduction to the second talk. Just as Robyn exerted no influence over me with respect to the content of my talks, since that is my business, I believe that he is entitled to introduce speakers as he likes: that is his business. Both of us carry the can for our own decisions.

On the more general issue, many of those who have commented on what I say or what they think I have said, appear not to have read the paper on which it is based. I urge them to do so. It is available through The Australian's website and that of the Australian Planning Institute, or even from me, at donaitkin@grapevine.com.au.

Even if Graham is embarking on a campaign using similar tactics that he’s accusing Robyn Williams of, so what … it’s like playing the man and not the ball. As alluded to above, this is certainly not the point.

Read Don Aitken’s piece, listen to Stephen Schneider (hope SusanP can get an article from him) then comeback.

Don

I couldn't find your article on the Australian website, so expect an email from me.

Also, thank you for posting your side of the Ockham's Razor introduction. I think that all posters and readers of OLO are appreciative.

For myself, your courtesy and straight forward style is needed in this vexatious issue of climate change. I believe that there is some anthropogenic input effecting air, rivers and oceans, whether that is impacting on our climate and whether any changes we make can also impact on the complexities of climate, I do not know.

However, I do know that we cannot continue to pollute and use all our resources in pursuit of consumerism irrespective of environment. The world cannot support such a wasteful species. I hear very little from the climate change sceptics on this issue. Why?

I believe the continual argument against AGW is nothing more than a cover, a furphy, to avoid discussing real ways we can become more self-sustaining and more responsible in our maintenance of our environment.

A competent economist can make a very good contribution to discussions of global warming, as he will have been trained in statistics, which is absolutely essential to understanding the subject.

I think Graham Young completely overreacted.

What I heard in Robyn's Intro was an (admittedly oblique) acknowledgement that Don was about to make a controversial comment not in his formal specialty. I heard no put-down. I think Don's comment here is consistent with that.

The ABC's audience is so small its influence is basically redundant.

Too many global warming zealots have missed the point entirely.It is not a matter of believing or disbelieving.

It is about the right of everyone to weigh up the facts/data and form their own opinions.Graham is right,the zealots try to bully everyone into their line of thinking.

A sceptic gets labelled as a denier.The science is far from being proven and there is every reason to to sceptical.Once upon a time the general scientific opinion told us that the world had to be flat.They were wrong.Once upon a time it was thought that peptic ulsers were caused by stress.Two Aussie Doctors were ridiculed for years, suggesting that a bacteria was the problem.They were right even though the general consensus of scientific opinion was against them.

There is no logic in taking this extreme view of climate change.Firstly the science is far from being proven.Secondly if they are right,it is almost certainly too late since China and India take no heed in their present lust for industrialisation.Thirdly who will take heed of such a small nation as Aust that accounts for 1% of the world's pollution.We do not even know for sure that anthropological global is warming is happening and that CO2 is the culprit.A lot of hypothetical situations that may not even be related or be actually happening.

There is much intellectual dishonesty and bullying happening that too many are justifying for the sake of their egos,Govt funding,personal status etc.

All that we 10% of the population who are sceptics [not deniers]ask,is the right to question the science and popular opinion without be labelled ,ridiculed or bullied.Did we not call this right in the past,democracy?

Thanks again to Susan for clarifying the editorial issue, and especially to Don Aitkin for both participating and stating clearly his position with respect to Robyn Williams' handling of his 'Ockham's Razor' piece.

I'm even more convinced that Graham Young is being precious in this article, which is only confirmed by the comment from Jennifer (Marohasy):

<< Graham also correctly makes the point that Robyn Williams has a monopoly on science journalism at the ABC, and has been in that powerful position for far too long. >>

Is that what this article is really about? The snide reference by Young early in his article to Williams' status as a 'National Treasure' is telling.

My conclusion is that this article is ultimately little more than a belated salvo in the anti-ABC culture wars. While of course he has every right to do so, I'm disappointed that Graham Young has utilised OLO so obviously to push his own political hobbyhorse.

I don't think this piece is an over-reaction. Many of the comments on this thread are examples of the bullying that I highlight. And it is quite a serious problem well beyond the bounds of OLO.

Don does not complain about Williams, but that is not really the point. As I say in the article, the point of the bullying is to intimidate others, not him specifically.

I searched the comments on Don's article. Not one of them showed up a factual error. There was one commenter who claimed it hasn't got cooler over the last 10 years, but he wasn't across the issue. If there are no obvious errors in Don's piece then there is no call for a "humourous" introduction nor a rebuttal. If Williams has treated a piece from the other direction with such "humour" point me to it.

This follows on from the ABC's treatment of The Great Global Warming Swindle, where a similarly heavy-handed treatment was used to try to discredit it. Its one serious error was failing to show that the correlation between cosmic rays and cloud formation broke down recently. Just like the correlation between CO2 and temperature has since 1998!

This site exists to challenge beliefs and explore ideas. When there is a debate to be had, both sides get a go at it in more or less equal proportions. You don't do it in proportion to belief in the community, as one of you suggested. Recently there have been some interesting challenges to the IPCC orthodoxy, so of course we've found material on them.

Am I a global warming skeptic, as has been asserted? Well, I believe CO2 emissions are making the place hotter. How hot and whether that is a problem, and if it is, how big a problem it is compared to all the others we have, are still very much open questions. If that makes me a skeptic, then so be it. I'd rather be on that side than on the side of some mythical consensus that doesn't exist, and even if it did, would prove nothing.

When Susan writes "I have no political barrow to push" she acknowledges what we all know to be a fact, this is much more a political issue than a science issue for the right. The conservative side of politics from which Graham hails certainly has the greater preponderance of climate change deniers while the greater preponderance of climate change scientists are not.

Because this is a political website and our two party systems is pretty well split down the middle it is probably okay that both sides of the debate get equal time but I'm not sure we should have to expect that from a science program.

Ultimately we should be able to ask Robyn Williams to stick more closely to the science and for Graham to stick more closely to the politics. Both seem pretty awkward outside their fields.

Arjay: "All that we 10% of the population who are sceptics [not deniers]ask,is the right to question the science and popular opinion without be labelled ,ridiculed or bullied.Did we not call this right in the past,democracy?"

If that were all you ask, that would be perfectly reasonable. But the conduct of so many self-declared sceptics frankly invites labelling and ridicule, and as for bullying, well many sceptics are not above that either. If, as so many self-declared sceptics do, you enter a debate by labelling the other side as members of a 'religion', 'zealots', 'morons', 'mad lefties' or 'sheep', if you impugn the motives and professional reputation of thousands of dedicated scientists for no better reason than you disagree with the results of their experiments, you pretty much disqualify yourself from any claim to courteous treatment.

Also, some people who want to call themselves sceptics, which I consider to be an honourable title, ought to look up the meaning of the word and consider the duty of sceptic is to produce evidence and counter-argument of at least equal or better quality to that which they wish to refute. Most fail on that score pretty grievously.

Where are their peer-reviewed papers? Where is their original research? An amateur cooking up rhetorical debating tricks or misconstruing data does not a 'sceptic' make. A good example is your invocation of "democracy". That is a rhetorical distraction. AGW is a matter of science, not democracy. The laws of physics are not determined by ballot.

Don Aitken is one of the very few people who actually has a valid claim for the respectable title of a sceptic, because his behaviour is genuinely sceptical: which is to say open-minded on the question, enquiring, able to critically examine evidence with some distance and rigour. And also able to separate good evidence and argument from bluster and rhetorical tricks. That makes him a genuine sceptic. Doesn't make him right, though.

"This site exists to challenge beliefs and explore ideas. When there is a debate to be had, both sides get a go at it in more or less equal proportions. You don't do it in proportion to belief in the community, as one of you suggested. "

if this is in response to my post, all i can reply is: graham, keep digging.

what i suggested was that if collectively articles on a technical scientific issue are not reflective of the nature of the debate amongst the professional practitioners, those with the clearest understanding of the issues, then it needs explanation.

but in fact, the explanation re AGW on OLO is clear, and getting clearer with every post.

and ignoring the question-begging nonsense of "both sides get a go", your skeptical articles are not challenging anyone. they are by and large too uninformed and often too snide.

if you want to challenge people's stance on AGW then publish informed and informing pieces from active climate scientists. you'll probably still misrepresent the nature and the level of the scientific debate, but at least your silly campaign won't be so transparent and so ludicrous.

All this holier than thou about the sanctity of peer review and the integrity of the scientists themselves just makes me want to puke. Just answer a few questions:

1. Despite the major advances that have been made by science, can it always be said that the word of a scientist is beyond reproach at all times'? Of course not.

2.Can one tell reasonably well in advance which ones are shonky and/or incompetent? Of course not.

3.Is science funding distributed in an equitable and fair mannner so that both sides of a debate gets a fair go?.Of course not.

4. Does peer review operate as open and efficient mechanism for balanced exposure of what is being produced, and market forces, ie sales, has no part in the publishers decisions? Of course not.

5. Do scientists squirm, lie and cheat to get to their desired end state just like everyone else. Of course they do.

Fill in your examples of 1-5 above. There is no shortage, and AGW is replete with them.

All that Graham was doing was trying to redress the balance in one particular circumstance.

Graham:
"There was one commenter who claimed it hasn't got cooler over the last 10 years, but he wasn't across the issue."
"Claimed"?

Graham:

It doesn't seem that Tim Lambert hasn't published in his own field for over a decade. Yet he's a science expert running a "science" blog. Check out his UNSW website: the cupboard is bear of all essentials in that department.

You only have to look through the archives of OLO to see the heavy bias against mainstream science on global warming.

I had one article published here that fact checked an Andrew Bolt column on global warming; it bypassed the normal editorial selection process because it was part of the Best Blog Posts 2006 series. Graham Young, OLO chief editor, showed up in the discussion to abuse me and declare that OLO should not have published it because he disputed one of the points I made. I suspect that this has something to do with OLO's bias on climate science.

He continues in this vein in the current article, calling me a "bully" and a "tick" because I dare to express opinions he disagrees with.

If you want to see the sort of thing that Young objects to, see my post on Aitkin's Ockham's razor piece:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/04/et_tu_ockhams_razor.php

Don Aitkin presents as a reasonable man, his paper “A Cool Look at Global Warming”, which Don has kindly sent to me is one of the most reasonable arguments against the impact of anthropogenic influence on climate. I recommend that everyone take the time to read his paper. That doesn’t mean he is correct, but he is a breath of fresh air compared to the likes of Jennifer Marohasy et al, who fail to consider ALL data and resort to bullying terms such as ‘climate alarmists’.

Given Don’s reasonable approach to the topic of AGW, I am sure this is why he was invited onto Ockham’s Razor twice to present his analysis.

Could Graham Young’s diatribe simply be a case of sour grapes? Don Aitkin himself has said that he has not had any problem with the manner in which he was introduced by Robyn Williams. Thanks Graham, nothing like knowing exactly where you stand – far to the right.

BTW

For those interested in such matters:

“Birds and bees act up with climate change
Thursday, 15 May 2008 Deborah Zabarenko
AFP/Reuters

Climate change is turning some polar bears into cannibals as access to their natural food sources is compromised, according to scientists who have analysed 30,000 sets of data about biological and physical changes around the world.

Human-generated climate change made flowers bloom sooner and autumn leaves fall later, turned some polar bears into cannibals and some birds into early breeders, a vast global study reports.

In Australia for instance, migratory birds including flycatchers and fantails are arriving early and water levels in Western Victoria have declined…...”

Read on at: http://littlurl.com/dy8t6

Whether you believe climate change is anthropogenic or not, doing nothing is dumb and relying on market forces even dumber – we need sustainability not consumerism.

Two things here to keep in mind.

1 How does Tim know what is and isn’t mainstream science, if
2 he himself is not a scientist and teaches computer graphics and hasn’t published in his own field for around a decade.

If Tim has published in his own field during that time we would appreciate the links and other citations.

And has it escaped Tim the only reason it may have been published WAS because it was a competition entry and the piece may not have cut the editorial mustard otherwise. This exhibits narcissism in the most objectionable level.

<i>Graham Young, OLO chief editor, showed up in the discussion to abuse me and declare that OLO should not have published it because he disputed one of the points I made. I suspect that this has something to do with OLO's bias on climate science.</i>

No Tim, it has probably a lot to do with the fact that Young may have found your piece to be dissembling and possibly doesn’t like your bullying tactics at other sites (as well as your own). This after all isn’t the first time you have been accused. In fact people have created a word after your name- to lambert-, which is supposed mean to dissemble, dishonestly present a position and to bully.

<i>He continues in this vein in the current article, calling me a "bully" and a "tick" because I dare to express opinions he disagrees with.</i>

No, Tim, he describes you that way because you are.

<i>If you want to see the sort of thing that Young objects to, see my post on Aitkin's Ockham's razor piece:</i>

You should also point to post or a comment where you said that if one tosses a coin a 1,000 the likelihood is that close to 50% would be heads. You have a degree in mathematics. This is probability at it most basic.

And please stop referring to your blog as a science blog as that is completely dishonest. You are not a scientist and have no credentials in science. If you do, please present them.

So jc2 is another one that 'attacks the man and doesn't play ball' - typical.

Thanks for also helping to prove my point Tim. Your piece to which you refer was a defence of An Inconvenient Truth and a swipe at Andrew Bolt. If you had gotten your facts straight it wouldn't have been too bad, although we generally like to see the article being criticised on the site _before_ the criticism.

But you didn't get your facts straight. I picked on a particular one because it was amenable to a a yes/no answer that couldn't be denied. You said Benny Peiser admitted that Oreskes was right, and I had an email from Peiser saying he didn't. That's an open and shut case. Talking about cases, a number of your other points in that piece were tried in the UK High Court, and the judge agreed with Bolt, on the basis of what the IPCC says.

I did call you a bully, because you are. And that can be demonstrated. It is not an ad hominem attack. I also did not call you a "tick". What you are referring to is a simile, and it indicates that you have some characteristics in common with one.

One behaviour that I would characterise as bullying is the suggestion that it is somehow improper for me to comment on articles. Apparently I'm supposed to go to all the trouble to run this site, but I can't ever participate in it. That's an argument designed to take a critic out because you don't want to answer the criticism, and is a form of bullying.

I've also had a response from John Quiggin which I will deal with in due course.

Computer science is still science... despite assumptions that only studying ants qualifies.

And considering a lot of the examination of the climate data relies on knowledge and understanding of statistics, I'd say pretty well qualified, too - especially having done a lot of the same stuff myself...

Another behaviour that I would characterise as bullying is being threatened with OLO suspension in an email for being ‘provocative’ for Pete’s sake.

Don’t get me wrong, Graham can twist his rules on his site all he likes, but it does seem a bit hypocritical.

Computer studies are an amalgam of software engineering, business and maths. Some people rabbit on about engineering principles, many computer systems are automated accounting and book keeping systems. The science part is the maths component which is boolean algebra. Computer science is a tool used by climate science, climatologists use computer programs to model climate change.

Not all computer scientists use science to write their computer programs.

What Bolt wrote: "Gore claims that a survey of 928 scientific articles on global warming showed not one disputed that man's gasses were mostly to blame for rising global temperatures. ... Peiser checked again and found just 13 of those 928 papers explicitly endorsed man-made global warming, and 34 rejected or doubted it."

What I wrote: "This one is wrong. Even Peiser has admitted his analysis was full of errors."

Young claims I am "deeply dishonest" for writing this statement, despite Media Watch contacting Peiser and finding: "And when we pressed him to provide the names of the articles, he eventually conceded - there was only one."

And you don't even have to take Media Watch's word for this -- you can go to Peiser's site and see that he has revised his criticism and no longer claims that 34 of the articles reject or doubt the consensus.

So what does Graham Young do now? He baldly misrepresents what I wrote, claiming that I said that Peiser admitted that Oreskes was right. In fact, I said that Peiser admitted that his analysis was full of errors. That's 100% correct -- he revised his number down from 34 to 1.

And I didn't say that it was improper for you to comment. I was suggesting that one reason why so few supporters of mainstream science write here might be your campaign of abuse and misrepresentation against me and others.

Mercurius,according to you,the only qualified sceptics are those who have a climate science degree.Mercurius said,"AGW is a matter of science,not democracy.The laws os physics are not determined by ballot."We cannot accurately predict the local weather.Throw into the mix,chemistry,physics and the biology of the whole planet and this makes for an extremely complex system that is probably beyond the realm of all scientific minds on our planet.Scientists do not have the monopoly on wisdom.Very often their field of vision is too narrow.

What they are doing is studying data and looking for relationships to support their own pet theories.There is a lot of motivation in the scientific world to support doom and gloom scenarios.They get more Govt funding.Human nature is swayed by money,no matter what your religion or how nobel your scientific intentions.

Most people agree that CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas.It makes up 0.04% of our atmosphere.Most people agree that some warming has taken place,but it is a matter of degree.The present climate science tells us the both the oceans and the atmosphere have decreased in temps even though we have had expodential increases in CO2 due to the development of China and India.In the face of this contradicting evidence,Graham Young believes that some warming is happening,but raises the point of possible bias,and the true believers scream bloody murder.The religious fever which many try to brow beat us into submission is totally illogical and unethical.

arjay, you are right, that scientists do not have a monopoly on wisdom. in particular, when discussing policy implications of science, scientists have no monopoly. but mercurius is also right: scientists do have a monopoly on the science of AGW.

i'm sorry if that seems unfair, but it just is. if you think the the currently accepted science of AGW is wrong, then your only hope is that other active scientists can argue for a change in the "orthodoxy". you can sit and cheer, you can boo the umpire, you may even be allowed on at half-time for a game of kick-to-kick. but you are just part of the cheering (or booing) crowd.

of course you are entitled to your opinion, and entitled to share your opinion. you may even convince graham young to give you a platform to voice your opinion. but unless you are a practising scientist, the airing of your opinion will not make a speck of difference to the science of AGW.

and, unless you are damn close to a practising scientist, i see no reason why i should be interested in your opinion. and not just your opinion of course. the same goes for almost all of the contributors and responders here, pro and anti. and vice versa: my opinion on AGW is as worthless as theirs.

I have read the transcript, then listened to the actual broadcast just to make sure I wasn't missing something. Robyn Williams has no case to answer.

So why has Graham Young gone on a Howard era type of attack on Mr Williams?

In his Ambit Gambit blog which appears to be the embryo for this piece Graham claims that Williams "has in the past, and perhaps to the present, been a supporter of communist politics."
http://ambit-gambit.nationalforum.com.au/archives/002974.html

In a soft self correction 3 days later he states "I've checked into the communist part of the above list. It appears that his father and mother were Marxists, and while he has not been a communist, he has been active in radical causes." http://www.abc.net.au/talkingheads/txt/s1505785.htm "As you can see from this, he's a man on a campaign."

When you read the interview there is a different picture painted. Robyn Williams relates how he was glad when his father was dying because it meant freedom from his dad's overbearing communist beliefs.

When the interviewer Peter Thompson asks him "Why didn't you get more touched by radical politics? Or did you?" Robyn replies "We were reasonably radical but because we talked about politics so much, I think we were actually sensible as well. We weren't - no, no, really. There's a bomb-throwing element in some radical politics. But if you've got this lovely connection between the grown-ups and my own experience of the bloody coms, who were, were just so overbearing, then you're forced, really, to be rational and see what is possible. The art of the possible, the real nature of politics."

So where does that leave Mr Young? I think that “As you can see from this, he's a man on a campaign.". The question needs to be asked, how much of this campaign is because of Mr Young’s perceptions of Mr Williams’ politics.

Mr Williams has nothing to fear from Mr Young's rolling ball, although in another era this might not have been the case.

My quick fisk of the article reveals Graham Young's claims of bullying is an example of what psychologists call 'projection'. You are projecting, Graham; You are the bully and your modus operandi is to project this onto others to obscure and distract.
http://globalwarmingwatch.blogspot.com/2008/05/graham-young-vs-robyn-williams-and.html

Dear Graham Young,

Despite obvious lack of consensus re global warming, I hope that there is a consensus that we cannot continue as usual with:
1. Polluting (not only CO2).
2. Deforestation.
3. Land degradation.
4. Energy waste.
5. Fresh water waste.
6. Food waste.
7. All other resources waste.
Growing population will increase pressures to the breaking point and our civilisation must change to avoid a collapse. Global warming is just one piece of the global puzzle. Even if global warming does not occur, the above wastes will backfire. Even if the global warming is a myth (which it is not), it would be irresponsible to advocate business as usual.
Carbon dioxide is good, but not too much of it. This cannot be said, however, for many other pollutants. Sustainable forestry is also good, but we have seen too much of unsustainable deforestation.
I can elaborate on this further, but the point is clear.

This debate is much wider in its implications. Think carefully, very carefully about what are you implicitly supporting.

Liberal party might not be happy with outcomes.

Sincerely,
Damir Ibrisimovic

Accolades to csteele, Damir and Wadard.

Graham Young in his quest to derail balanced discussion regarding world environment and climate change has been revealed for what he truly is - a big L Liberal, who refuses to admit that the time has arrived to adjust the way we use our resources and create an economy based on reality rather than unlimited consumerism.

AGW or GW is entirely moot. We require sustainability and this means a shift from monopolies to flexible, adaptable business practice.

Graham is tilting at windmills. Don Aitkin himself has declared that he has no issue with Robyn Williams. And Robyn is to be congratulated for presenting such a rational dissenting view from Mr Aitkins, not just on one occasion, but twice. Hardly bullying and certainly not hooliganism on the part of the ABC.

Wadard is indeed correct in his analysis of projection, the only bully is Graham Young himself.

Tim Lambert UNSW
Nice try at lamberting Tim, with that incoherent gibberish in reply to Graham Young's comment.

Here... is Graham's specific accusation which you did not address and in fact avoided with your usual attempt at lamberting (to dissemble).

Garaham says
<i>But you didn't get your facts straight. I picked on a particular one because it was amenable to a a yes/no answer that couldn't be denied. You said Benny Peiser admitted that Oreskes was right, and I had an email from Peiser saying he didn't. That's an open and shut case</i>

You have made accusations of academic misconduct before against people like Sinclair Davidson that were untrue. Do you have a specific answer to the accusation Young has made about your dishonesty?

An apology could also suffice.

Garaham says
But you didn't get your facts straight. I picked on a particular one because it was amenable to a a yes/no answer that couldn't be denied. You said Benny Peiser admitted that Oreskes was right, and I had an email from Peiser saying he didn't. That's an open and shut case</i>

You have made accusations of academic misconduct before against people like Sinclair Davidson that were untrue. Do you have a specific answer to the accusation Young has made about your dishonesty?

An apology could also suffice.
Posted by jc2, Saturday, 17 May 2008 2:01:08 PM

--

Why should anyone but you have to apologise for your inability to comprehend, jc2, or for dishonesty? What Lambert really said is that Peiser retracted to Media Watch, and he has published his retraction on his site. Did you miss that? If Young has that email from Peiser, he should publish it. It's no good just saying he is in possession of secret information from Peiser that contradicts his most recent public stances, and then using this 'gotcha' to slur Lambert.

Publish that email, Graham, or be condemned of cowardly behaviour — the trademark of the bully

W, you dope. Lambert is not directly referring to G Young's comment and is skirting that part. Lambert should apologise for his dishonesty. In fact there are a number of people he needs to apologise for smearing them. But he's too much of a hatefilled little coward to do that.

It's similar to the time he once said that 58 cm is "similar' to 89 cm.

This "academic" has a high math degree. Lord help us.

Some of you guys just crack me up. Wadard, if you had bothered to do your research you would have found that Benny Peiser's email to me was put up in the thread, but that made no difference to Lambert. My first comment on Lambert's diatribe was here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5382#67808 where I dealt with the first 4 errors he had made in criticising Bolt, and I also found Bolt made one error. You can see Benny Peiser's email at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5382#68155.

Lambert's style is to make assertions, frequently taking comments out of context, and then move on to the next target. So far in this thread he's done just that and managed to distract attention from the fact that he was wrong (and therefore Gore was wrong) on so many points, and that some of this has even been verified in the courts.

He appears to not be interested in the truth, but only in trying to impose his version on others. Can anyone think of a better word to describe this behaviour than bullying?

Hmmm … how about robust debate?

Corollary: Young’s style is to make assertions (the article/topic about Robyn Williams and the ABC btw), takes it out of context (for the record) and then moves on to the next target (Tim Lambert).

Yeah, one could say Graham is equally trying to impose his version of the Williams/Aitken episode on OLO readers. Is this bullying?

By GY’s interpretation – yes.

I do agree with Graham Young about one thing - the question as to whether Peiser had admitted to making errors is amenable to a yes/no answer that could not be denied. Here's what Peiser said in the email that Young posted and presumably read:

"Yes, I have indeed retracted part of my criticism of the Oreskes study. I made a methodological mistake in my initial analysis of her abstracts and have conceded that much."

Compare with my article:

[quoting Bolt] "Gore claims that a survey of 928 scientific articles on global warming showed not one disputed that man's gasses were mostly to blame for rising global temperatures ...

"Peiser checked again and found just 13 of those 928 papers explicitly endorsed man-made global warming, and 34 rejected or doubted it."

I wrote: "This one is wrong. Even Peiser has admitted his analysis was full of errors."

Even though Peiser confirmed this in his email, Young still maintains that my article is "deeply dishonest".

Tim Lambert is a political hack whose main aim is scoring political points. He's the only blogger i know of who actually brags about excluding troublesome commenters who are inevitably smeared as trolls, or as sock-puppeteers for daring to post using an assumed name. He is a lower order thug who revels in his bullying and manipulation.

His Best Bog Posts of 2006 entry (on Andrew Bolt) is utter rubbish containing far more errors than the Bolt post he takes to task. His DDT posts are invariably rubbish filled with misrepresentations and outright lies. His joint effort with John Quiggin (on DDT and Rachel Carson) in Prospect is, as are all of his DDT posts, trash.

Lambert is most accurate when dealing with number based matters (Lancet Iraq, for example) but is unable to properly interpret the nuance of language based subjects (is this a product of ignorance or malice?). It's almost as if he has some mental disorder. Further, he refuses to acknowledge his manifold errors and is known to post corrections that later disappear.

Nothing Lambert writes should be accepted as accurate under any circumstances, ever.

ONE.

..................."For the record, Robyn Williams invited me to give a talk after the original paper's summary in the Australian. When he read the full paper he asked me to do two. I have no complaint at all, since I recognize that that my paper does not support the orthodoxy. I also had no complaint about the introduction, other than it did not make clear that in my professional life I have had a great deal to do with the funding of scientists and science policy. Robyn made that clear in his introduction to the second talk. Just as Robyn exerted no influence over me with respect to the content of my talks, since that is my business, I believe that he is entitled to introduce speakers as he likes: that is his business. Both of us carry the can for our own decisions.

On the more general issue, many of those who have commented on what I say or what they think I have said, appear not to have read the paper on which it is based. I urge them to do so. It is available through The Australian's website and that of the Australian Planning Institute, or even from me, at donaitkin@grapevine.com.au."
Posted by Don Aitkin, Thursday, 15 May 2008 2:10:41 PM
________________________

Thank-you Mr Aitkin. Nicely put.

But alas this topic has little to do with you, which is why the thread did not cease with your post!

It has EVERYTHING to do with an opportunity for the Conservatives to take a swipe at those who are,or who are perceived to be on the Left.

Yes GY; you have got overly uppity about this. You have!

I hope we all take an interest in OLO as a whole...;-I DID see your article on naughty Robbie in Ambit Gambit, (hasn't he gone to pieces since he left that boy-band!!), but you had to make sure your angst over this got a good airing didn't you?
____________

Cont'd..

TWO.

"All online surveying carries a bias towards the “left” of politics,...." (Quote: Graham Young).

Really? How do you know this?

God!..aren't we ALL guilty making statements of opinion and not fact. Aren't we ALL making statements that irk those who have other views?
______________

There seems to be a general demarcation between the global warming deny-er Right, and the global warming believer Left. In general.

Well only time will tell won't it? What we say, or how we feel will change nothing. What we do might,....maybe.
_________________________

I would have have been content to just observe this online little fisty-cuffs, but when I trawl through each page having checked the posts of all new members first up as I always do, it was interesting to see a brand spanking new name join during my trawling,-and post here...er,...poste haste;-as many newbies have.
Not a problem of course, but it did wonders for my....incentivation

Graham Young

One minor correction. The "notorious" cyber "bully" is William Connolley (not Connelly). Yes, he is notorious, but I think "bully" is too harsh. A bully uses his power unjustifiably and for purely malicious ends. OTOH Connolley is often a godsend. His merciless attack on the nutjob Islamists trying to pimp "Islamic Science" is most welcome.

We need a local Connolley to do a similar job on the Islamists polluting our universities at the moment, some of whom also pimp "Islamic Science" nonsense.

Perhaps we could recruit John Quiggin?

http://culturewarriorwatch.blogspot.com/2008/04/griffith-unis-professor-of-unity-needs.html#links

Interesting to note that Graham Young has given up on defending his claim that Robyn Williams is a bully since Don Aitkin posted his opinion to the contrary.

Instead he now focuses on Tim Lambert, where he apparently feels he can score a point or two. Pathetic.

None of this egocentric game is serving the issue of environmental sustainability, none of this will solve the technological challenges we face.

The only positive I can see in this is that the CEO of Online Opinion has 'outed' himself as seriously biased, which undermines the intent and objective of a forum such as this.

For those of us who like to look at issues from all sides, we will take even greater scrutiny on future opinion pieces in future.

Fractelle, I haven't retracted my claims against Williams. The article stands. Lambert is in the article as well, and he has been arguing with me on the thread. In fact, he's just come in a few comments before this and misrepresented what is in Peiser's letter. Like you, I only get two posts a day, so I'm going to use them economically.

Williams isn't the only bully, there's a number, and I highlighted 4. Happy to discuss any of them. And I'm at a loss to see how making a statement backed up by argument is bias just because you disagree with me!

Ginx, I know about the bias in online surveys because I conduct more online surveys on politics than anyone else in the country. Opinion polling is part of what I do for a living.

You also seem to be making a mistake in suggesting that the AGW issue is one of politics. I know a number of the prominent skeptics, and they're not traditional Liberal voters and may even be traditional Labor voters. I'll chance my arm here and suggest that Don Aitkin is probably not a traditional Liberal voter either. Margaret Thatcher was the first major politician to run on this issue. Arnie Schwarzenneger is another proponent, as is John McCain. On the other side you'll find that Michael Costa and Gary Gray are skeptical.

It's also not a rebuttal that Don disagrees with me. The behaviour is behaviour that affects more than him, and we all have a right to make our own judgement of it. As I said in the article, rather than being aimed at dissuading him, it is aimed at dissuading others.

<i>Can anyone think of a better word to describe this behaviour than bullying?</i>

Yea. It’s called lamberting. John Humphreys originally coined the phrase and it’s become part of web’s lexicon.

Wadard and others

Does Lambert (UNSW) run a hate site? Judging by some of his supporters he sure does. This is one of his admirers at Catallaxy defending Lambert’s DDT position over the issue of DDT/ Carson.

“Mr.Hanky “ commenting in support of Lambert’s position loses the argument and breaks into the worst anti-Semitic diatribe i've ever seen. In fact it is worthy or any anti-Jewish sites on the web.

Catallaxy has libertarian instincts when it comes to comments policy. The site is a libertarian that believes people will be judged on their own comments and what they say. In other words bad ideas and/or bad comments will be killed by the light of day.

Here’s what one of Lambert’s defenders “ Mr Hanky” said to Prof. Sinclair Davidson when Sinclair linked and posted a Guardian article asserting that DDT had been banned.

“Mr.Hanky”<i>And of course Lambert is correct.</i>

“Mr.Hanky “<i>Put up or piss off, gas chamber boy.</i>

“Mr.Hanky”<i>Hey Gas Chamber Boy,</i>

“Mr Hanky”<i>Nope, I’m just anti-filth like you Davidson. I hope you’re wearing your Star of David badge, you creep</i>
http://catallaxyfiles.com/?p=3575#comment-95918

About as charming as Lambert, hey?

Lambert (UNSW) has accused the professor of academic misconduct, which Lambert later denied when challenged. Lambert to uses a dog whistle when attracting his followers and prize catches like this one.

So Graham’s right about bullies. Nice defenders Lambert has. If you’re a bully those are exactly the sorts of “people” you end up attracting.

This Mr. Hanky posts over Lambert’s site by the way. He goes by the name of Munn as he admitted who he finally who he was (he’s has had several name / moniker changes) This is “Mr. Hanky”/Munn over at Lambert’s site agreeing with Lambert.
http://timlambert.org/2005/11/ddt-spencer/

Nice company he keeps? So if you want to continue giving Lambert the benefit of any doubt, go right ahead but hold your nose and bring a bucket.

I can't help but notice that it is Graham Young who does the things that he falsely accuses me of doing.

I caught him misrepresenting Peiser's email, pretending that Peiser denied making errors, when in fact Peiser wrote:

"Yes, I have indeed retracted part of my criticism of the Oreskes study. I made a methodological mistake in my initial analysis of her abstracts and have conceded that much."

So what does Young do? He responds by asserting (without offering any arguments or evidence) that I misrepresented the email.

More incoherent Lamberting gibberish from this "ridiculous clown".

What was that about the " tick" simile again lol.

SusanP

To present a balance, is there any chance of procuring Professor Stephen Schneider's response to Professor Don Aitken's appearance on Ockham's Razor and running it as a separate article?

This article seems to have disintegrated into 'he said, he said' with ad hominems flying in both directions.

The link to the Schneider's comments can be found here:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2008/2245568.htm

but I feel will be lost in any further discussion on this thread.
Thanks.

I find the climate change debate infuriating because both sides refuse to accept the uncertainty of their positions. So here is my two pennyworth:

I studied climatology and geomorphology at Oxford in the 1970’s, but didn’t pursue an academic career, which makes me on of these much-reviled amateurs. Geomorphology tends to look at a shorter timescales than geology but still references millions of years. What is obvious is that climate change is neither greater or faster now than at many, times in the past, including in the period of human record keeping.

Waste of natural resources is stupid and short-sighted. Pollution is equally so, as we can’t evaluate its consequences. Any course of action that reduces these two problems is a good thing. I reserve my venom for heavy metals and long chain polycarbonates rather than carbon dioxide, but that’s a personal preference.

Climate modelling started in the 1970’s with the sudden availability of computing power. Initially most of them were aimed at using atmospheric CO2 and SO2 levels to predict the next ice age. All the models suffer from a serious lack of reliable, consistent long-term data, as well as an inadequate understanding of complex atmospheric processes. Some models are better than others. Some short-term models are getting quite good. Quoting forecasts without qualification discredits the debate.

AGW cannot explain the huge variations in past climate before man was industrially active. The only explanations for those are volcanism, solar activity, orbital variation, comets and meteors, and resonant/harmonic variations within the atmospheric system itself. And lets not forget fluctuations in the Earth’s magnetic field (or the reverse in its polarity which could happen any day soon). Those factors remain, so lets have some context.

So that’s what I want: context. Rising CO2 levels may be a bad thing just because it correlates the amount of PCB’s and cadmium being tipped into the oceans, but lets not forget that Yellowstone might blow next week and CO2 levels might be our saviour.

Graham,

Why is this article in the "Environment" section?

Clearly it's political with a religious zealot slant.

"Ginx, I know about the bias in online surveys because I conduct more online surveys on politics than anyone else in the country. Opinion polling is part of what I do for a living." (GY)

Your original comment in itself shows bias. Something I feel that cannot be avoided, because no matter who we represent;-what we are required to do;-we are individuals, with individual thought processes. Williams is no different. You allege bias on his part. Your reference to his father's activities were a clear indication of YOUR bias against Williams.

It's easily done isn't it? Because it is part of the human condition.

( And quite frankly Graham, if you are conducting more online political surveys than anyone else in the country...; I'm astonished at your assertion that most of them are Left biased!! Eh?)

"You also seem to be making a mistake in suggesting that the AGW issue is one of politics." (GY)

PLEASE. Credit me with a modicum of intelligence! :-

"There seems to be a general demarcation between the global warming deny-er Right, and the global warming believer Left. In general." (Moi)

In GENERAL.

And for the record, I was not referring to politics-I have left that to you-I was referring to philosophy. Truly.
_________________________

jc2;-nice to see you on the site, you have come in very handy on this thread.....

OMG Robyn Williams had friends who recieved calls from Bertrand Russell, and has been involved with radical causes! And he works for the ABC! He's probably even a godless atheist scientist! The commies - the commies are everywhere!!

Reading this thread, I'm reminded of the old advice about never arguing with a fool.

From what I've read so far, fools can also be highly-educated. Nevertheless, they're still fools.

Just a comment on the state of public opinion on climate change.

The 2004 Australian Election Study, conducted by the Research School of Social Sciences at the Australian National University, asked interviewees to respond to the question:

"E.5. In your opinion, how urgent are each of the following environmental concerns in this country?... The greenhouse effect"

on a scale of 1 to 5, on which 1 represented "Not Urgent", 3 represented "Fairly Urgent", 4 represented "Urgent" and 5 represented "Very Urgent".

23.6% of respondents rated the issue "Fairly Urgent", 24.0% rated it "Urgent" and 41.5% rated it "Very Urgent". Only 3.5% rated it "Not Urgent". This was in a study which found that a majority of respondents held views which could fairly be characterised as right of centre on a range of political and social issues, and were generally supportive of the then Howard government.

Given the progress of the climate change debate since 2004 and the shift in general public sentiment represented by the 2007 Federal election result, it is probable that public opinion on climate change would, if anything, have shifted further towards the "Very Urgent" end of the spectrum utilised by the 2004 AES researchers.

In short, Robyn Williams does have some basis in reputable empirical political science for invoking the "90 per cent" figure.

I hope you're kidding about the options Dr Paul. If you've got them right they don't rate a pass because the centre point is biased towards one side of the argument. And anyway, Williams was referring to a specific Climate Institute survey, although it was no better constructed than you say the one you cite was.

Two things Doc.

A recent survey shows that people may be concerned with AGW, but when asked personally to contribute and pay for it the majority don't want to spend more than a few dollars a week.

No one is going to try and buck that trend without public opinion on side. If this is what people think despite a huge campaign by the warmers, the only way you can effect change is to rig elections Mugabe style or try to change opinion by lying and bullying like Lambert who seems to have a lot of time on his hands seeing he doesn't publish in his area of teaching.

Dear Graham Young,

I’m tired. You did not even try to answer to my “seven sins” claim and this debate has degenerated into a gossip column.

The more you refuse to engage in a positive discussion, the more damage to Online Opinion and liberals in general.

I’m opting out as many others did and will; for sanity sake.

Sincerely,
Damir Ibrisimovic

Graham,

I have just caught up with this.

Your comments on Robin Williams appear to be more hyperbole and hysteria than serious criticism.
There are serious problems out there in the world. Why not tackle them?

Tim Lambert over at Troppo, bawling like a big baby.

<i>According to Graham Young, by posting this comment I am acting like a member of a Nazi paramilitary.</i>

Of course Graham's kidding as they had height restrictions in the paramilitary.

What exactly are you trying to say, jc2? Do you really think that random abuse is in any way helping the "cause"...? :|

Agreed Chade.

jc2; posters certainly present differing views, and many will agree with others, but you strike me as somewhat different.

Graham Young does not need a minder; he can demonstrably look after himself.

Don't get so worked up;.....and don't be so obvious...

Ditto.

Talk about bullying LOL

Seems ok with the author tho'.

Maybe he's Tim Lambert's sock-puppet ;-O

Personally, I was more interested in what Don Aitken had to say in Ockham's Razor and what Stephen Schneider had to say in response!

GrahamY: You seem comfortable throwing around the word 'bullying' hoping something will stick. It seems anyone who doesn't share your worldview of the UN IPCC is defined as a 'bully', so is free to be attacked by you. You picking up what I'm dropping?

You have chosen a broad demographic there. You got a lot of windmills to tilt at, and newer, greener ones every day.

Tim Lambert explains the retraction he got from Peiser:

"Yes, I have indeed retracted part of my criticism of the Oreskes study. I made a methodological mistake in my initial analysis of her abstracts and have conceded that much."

And I read the rest of it in the email. Short Benny: I retract my findings due to flawed methodology, but...

Graham, the way the scientific method works is: When your methodology is wrong, you have no hypothesis to validate, just a cause to push. You have no leg to stand on maintaining Lambert is "deeply dishonest", and you are avoiding his call on you by simply repeating your earlier, and now patently unfounded, assertions. That's not fair.

As for your dismissal of Aitkin's claim he had no problem with the tone of Williams introductions: "It's also not a rebuttal that Don disagrees with me. The behaviour is behaviour that affects more than him, and we all have a right to make our own judgement of it. As I said in the article, rather than being aimed at dissuading him, it is aimed at dissuading others."

That's ridiculous. It would never dissuade anyone who has a real peer-reviewed study to talk about.

My judgement is that it is in the public interest to expose the ridiculousness of the denialists position, and Williams did that while still giving Aitkin's deference, as Aitkin's himself claims he recieved.

So, I got my full 4c worth from the ABC that day.

Getting back to the point of the article - bullying

For years Quiggin and Lambert have been peddling the line that Roger Bate has been a tobacco lobbyist and a shill for the tobacco industry. In fact I (and hazard to guess that many others) would never heard of Roger Bate if it wasn’t for Lambert and Quiggin’s websites.
Both of them from what I recall have been accusing Bate of the most nefarious misdeeds.

I read Bate’s article in Prospect replying to these two and find their version doesn’t exactly square with Bates.

Let’s be clear. Quiggin and Lambert have from what I recall frequently accused bates of being a tobacco industry shill.

Here’s what Bates has to say about this. If Bates is being honest, Lambert and Quiggin owe this guy a serious apology for maligning him over the years.

Bates:
“..I was never a tobacco lobbyist. After I wrote two articles on tobacco-related topics in 1996 and 1997, I consulted for Philip Morris, at their request, on international health for a total of about a month in 1998. I never lobbied for the company or promoted cigarettes in any way. I subsequently wrote to Philip Morris asking them to provide funding for a campaign to rehabilitate the use of DDT. This letter, which is now on the web, is the source of nearly all Quiggin and Lambert’s suppositions. Yet I never even had the courtesy of a reply. Philip Morris never funded the campaign, and I haven’t spoken with the company in at least seven years.”
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=10176

Has Bates been receiving support from the tobacco industry or its elements over the years? Not according to bates he hasn’t.

Quiggin and Lambert are always eager to invoke the Godwin rule in debating. One person has now suggested we invoke the Rothmans rule whenever these two suggest a connection with tobacco and nefarious deeds.
Most of what Bates says can be checked and if what he says is true, these two owe this guy one huge apology.

I look forward to your opinions on other matters jacey;-do you have any?

"I look forward to your opinions on other matters jacey;-do you have any?"

You mean I shouldn't be commenting on the topic of the post?

I MEAN:-spread your intellect around so that other threads can benefit.....

But that is not what you are here for is it?