I would think science reporting in online sites is adequate.

Here are a few Australian science online sites, and they covver a variety of topics and areas of science.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science

http://www.sciencealert.com.au/

http://theconversation.edu.au/pages/technology

When reading the articles from these sites, the issue becomes “how to separate the wheat from the chaff”, and what should be given a priority.

EG

“Keeping endangered species SAFE” or “Dinosaurs tormented by lice”

There is also a long road to travel from discovering something, to making it legislation, with so many politicians taking little interest or having little knowledge of science.

There is also the problem of the education system, and attempts to eliminate science and maths out of education (too male).

There also is a problem with data from so-called Australian universities, that is becoming less reliable in time.

So I don’t think science reporting is the main problem, but other issues.

bonmot - the reason there is a lot about Plimer's book is because scientists can apparently pick problems with it.. I didn't get Plimer's publicity (with my book as Mark Lawson) because activists (who include some scientists) couldn't think of any easy way to attack it. So they ignored it.

If you're interested in the skeptical literature, there is now a host of it on Amazon. Another local science author who was paid the complement of being ignored by activists is Garth W. Paltridge, an atmospheric physicist and former director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, among other posts. He wrote The Climate Caper (Connor Court, 2009). On the policy side, and cataloguing some bizarre behaviour on the part of environmental scientists is a professor and head of the school of government at the University of Tasmania, Aynsley Kellow. He wrote Science and Public Policy: The Virtuous Corruption of Virtual Environmental Science (Edward Elgar, 2007). Edward Elgar is an english publisher.

Again you won't have heard much about the book because our many concerned scientists couldn't think of any handy way to counter it. This sort of science is about politics after all, and you can't be seen to be acknowledging any truth in the opposition's statements.

The problem with the reporting of climate change is the idiotic notion that the scientist really know what is going on. I watched Ms Gillards Climate change panel last night and realised that a two year old could see through the spin and deceit. They tried to speak with such authority but with only alarmist spin behind them came across atrociously. The panel was an embarassment to true science as found by the contempt shown to scientist asking sensible questions and making intelligent comments. The cost of these professional salesman must be ernormous. Its a pity the money was not going to clean up the environment.

Yeah, I'm sure that's it Mark.

It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that Plimer has a media profile and postgraduate scientific qualifications at all.

Curmudgeon (Mark Lawson)

I tried to find a serious review (not a promo) of your book – I couldn’t find any. Ok, you want to blow your own trumpet on OLO tantamount to Kath & Kim’s “look at me, look at me” – go right ahead, you do have a chorus of OLO followers to impress.

No Mark, the reason there’s a lot about “Heaven & Earth - Global Warming, the Missing Science” is because Plimer (being a highly credentialed and profiled real scientist) claimed his book to be a ‘scientific work’ whilst so many of his scientific colleagues panned it. Sorry mate - Bugsy’s spot on, you don’t rate.

It would have been different if Plimer had corrected all the significant errors and deliberate distortions after they were pointed out to him (by experts in respective fields that he so alienated) prior to subsequent print runs. He deliberately chose not to.

Why? Because his so called ‘scientific work’ was being thumped as a ‘bible’ by his acolytes in the church of denial. Sheesh, he even embarked on a travelling road-show with the great ‘lord’ himself, Christopher Monckton – preaching, selling and signing ‘the bible’ from the boot of his car like any true bible-belt evangelist. Yep, his looming retirement being funded by the tithing of the throngs - a nest egg any author would pray for.

Don’t get me wrong Mark, I am interested in sceptical science – all scientists are. But sceptical literature, as in a book like Plimer’s? Nope, I’ve read it – it deserves to be catalogued as ‘how to preach to the scientific illiterate’. It seems Connor Court is on a winner though; publish all politico/sceptico books for the maddening crowd. I recommend you don’t give up your day job at the AFR, although your ‘science writing’ there seems to be very very thin.

bonmot
You appear to be under the false impression that your name-calling is relevant to the question whether we face catastrophic man-made global warming that policy can improve.

It isn't. Logical fallacies are not much of an advertisement of your scientific credentials, is it?

1. Perhaps you can explain how science supplies the value judgments for AGW policy.
2. Also, could you explain how you know that diverting production to less productive uses on a global scale, while the world has food shortages, will not result in killing people?
3. If it did, how would you know about it? How have you taken it into account? Show your workings.
4. Got that real-world evidence of catastrohpic man-made global warming yet? Still waiting - no, not wodges of statistics (history) and computer models (guesses); not appeal to an empire of government funded vested interests, not ASSUMING it. Just show us the proof or stop your snivelling.