Actually Raycom, the ABC has had many 'notable' sceptics appear - Bob Carter, David Evans, Ian Plimer, Christopher Monckton readily come to mind, there are others.

Commercial media shock-jocks only spruik the denialist meme because it raises controversy, ratings and advertising dollars. This is bad in itself but also says a lot about their listeners.

Alan Jones et al wouldn't have a clue about the science - they have an ideological agenda and push their audience to frenzied response, as we have just witnessed in Canberra. Just brilliant.

For a more mature response:

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/clearing-the-air-20110323-1c6nq.html

Note the comments by John Gummer.

Bonmot -
Actually those skeptics you mention all appeared on the ABC program Counterpoint, which was started in reaction to complaints that the ABC was a bunch of lefties. I also appeared (spoke) on the program, and the presenters commented to me at the time that it was a skeptical "island".

Sorry but there is very little question that a straight count of media items for and against would greatly favour the global warming side, but it goes deeper than that as that article you cite shows.

For that article speaks approvingly of Chinese efforts. Howevever, although the Chinese have set up heaps of wind turbines very few are actually connected to the grid. The generators are legally obliged to build them but the networks are not legally obliged to connect them so they don't - even Garnaut recently acknowledged there were problems in this regard.

I very strongly suspect that the reduction in emission intensity referred to by the article is calculated by installed capacity and ignores the reality of unconnected wind farms. In any case, they are just Chinese Government figures. Yet the article writer simply repeats this stuff, without any qualification.. should be at least an acknowledgement of problems.

Perhaps those in favour of a carbon dioxide tax could explain why we need to reduce CO2 levels in atmosphere. Is there any evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing adverse climate changes? How do we know that those adverse climate changes are not due to other local and regional factors such as deforestation, urban development, desertification processes and the like?

It seems to me that Dr Roger Pielke Sr has it about right. He acknowledges that anthropogenic CO2 emissions could be a factor, but that observed local and regional climate changes are much more likely to result from land-use factors, and/or poorly understood natural factors.

The whole climate system is incredibly complex and there is much we don't know about it.

Given the above, I find it hard to understand why we would impose a "Carbon Tax" that is certain to increase the cost of living, damage whole industries, cause the loss of jobs. All for what?

The grossly bias ABC would not even need to interview those with enough brains to see fraud working out before their own eyes. All they would have to do is to be honest enough to interview Tim Flannery, Al Gore and others who have shown to be totally fraudulent and false prophets. Oh that's right there is a thousand and one reasons why they have got so many predictions wrong when it comes to snow, rain, drought etc. The pathetic national broadcasters will only pick up on the one out of ten predictions that these clowns make that somehow they guess right. The ABC/SBS are far more bias and fraudulent than all the shock jocks put together. Only the leftist academic elite disagree despite facts staring them in the face.

Graeme Kraehe's speech to the National Press Club, and as reported in the OZ should be read by everyone and most importantly the decision makers in the idiot run Labour Party.

Not only did they get in with a fraud against the people of Australia they have the temerity/ignorance to compound it

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/industry-sectors/bluescope-steel-chairman-graham-kraehe-steps-up-attack-on-carbon-tax/story-e6frg98x-1226026126777

There you go Curmudgeon, you’re doing it again – distorting and misrepresenting the truth. Intentionally?

>> Actually those skeptics you mention all appeared on the ABC program Counterpoint, which was started in reaction to complaints that the ABC was a bunch of lefties. I also appeared (spoke) on the program, and the presenters commented to me at the time that it was a skeptical "island". <<

I note you’re not averse to blowing your own trumpet either – Is that some kind of appeal to “authority”?

You conveniently ‘forget Lateline, The Drum, Unleashed, Lateline Business, Radio National Breakfast, Robyn Williams Science Show (yes raycom, its true) etc. You can do some very simple fact checking yourself Curmudgeon - Google, you may have heard of it.

>> there is very little question that a straight count of media items for and against would greatly favour the global warming side <<

Well duh … perhaps that’s because the weight of evidence and the vast majority of climate scientists, national academies and scientific organisations far outweigh the contrarians.

Oh wait, I get it - you want to make out that the science is 50/50 undecided.

>> For that article speaks approvingly of Chinese efforts. Howevever, although the Chinese blah blah blah <<

Dumb it down, ignore and spin it all you like, curmudgeon. The fact is that the Chinese are doing far more than you are prepared to admit. Ok, I know you only like focussing on wind (as you do) but guess what – the Chinese are into other stuff too.

Hey, tell you what – since you are a (self)acclaimed science writer and ‘journalist extraordinaire’ with (un)qualifications, do some real investigative reporting and get back to us, rather than just bang-on about your “very strongly suspected” assertions.

Be warned, there are some very well-credentialed persons (Aussies included) who have a more professional understanding of “Chinese Government figures” than you would ever have. In a word, stop blowing smoke-screens.