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.