williams isn't bullying, he's ridiculing. and rather than ridiculing aitkin, he's ridiculing the notion that aitkin has any special claim beyond Joe Blow's to be given a special platform to critique science. i think williams' stunt was tacky, but he has a definite point.

and northwestshelf has it exactly right: whatever the source there is a pronounced bias on olo against agw. the percentage of skeptic articles is out of all proportion, and tone, with the level of skepticism in the scientific community.

and, whilst the majority of the articles on olo arguing for agw are from climate scientists, a large proportion ( it feels like a substantial majority) of skeptic articles are from non-scientists, often with only the most superficial attempt to argue any science. and often with a pronounced and unsubstantiated contempt for the practice and the institutions of science.

yes, such amateur-scientist skeptics have a right to their opinion. and yes, if they are given a platform then they can say what they damn well please. the question is, why should i care what they say?

the more important question is, why does olo choose to give so many such amateur critics a platform? like northwestshelf, i has assumed it was young's silly hobby horse. but if it's susanb's silly hobby horse, so be it. her horse is still a horse, of course, of course.

For the record, Robyn Williams invited me to give a talk after the original paper's summary in the Australian. When he read the full paper he asked me to do two. I have no complaint at all, since I recognise that that my paper does not support the orthodoxy. I also had no complaint about the introduction, other than it did not make clear that in my professional life I have had a great deal to do with the funding of scientists and science policy. Robyn made that clear in his introduction to the second talk. Just as Robyn exerted no influence over me with respect to the content of my talks, since that is my business, I believe that he is entitled to introduce speakers as he likes: that is his business. Both of us carry the can for our own decisions.

On the more general issue, many of those who have commented on what I say or what they think I have said, appear not to have read the paper on which it is based. I urge them to do so. It is available through The Australian's website and that of the Australian Planning Institute, or even from me, at donaitkin@grapevine.com.au.

Even if Graham is embarking on a campaign using similar tactics that he’s accusing Robyn Williams of, so what … it’s like playing the man and not the ball. As alluded to above, this is certainly not the point.

Read Don Aitken’s piece, listen to Stephen Schneider (hope SusanP can get an article from him) then comeback.

Don

I couldn't find your article on the Australian website, so expect an email from me.

Also, thank you for posting your side of the Ockham's Razor introduction. I think that all posters and readers of OLO are appreciative.

For myself, your courtesy and straight forward style is needed in this vexatious issue of climate change. I believe that there is some anthropogenic input effecting air, rivers and oceans, whether that is impacting on our climate and whether any changes we make can also impact on the complexities of climate, I do not know.

However, I do know that we cannot continue to pollute and use all our resources in pursuit of consumerism irrespective of environment. The world cannot support such a wasteful species. I hear very little from the climate change sceptics on this issue. Why?

I believe the continual argument against AGW is nothing more than a cover, a furphy, to avoid discussing real ways we can become more self-sustaining and more responsible in our maintenance of our environment.

A competent economist can make a very good contribution to discussions of global warming, as he will have been trained in statistics, which is absolutely essential to understanding the subject.

I think Graham Young completely overreacted.

What I heard in Robyn's Intro was an (admittedly oblique) acknowledgement that Don was about to make a controversial comment not in his formal specialty. I heard no put-down. I think Don's comment here is consistent with that.