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.