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.