The ABC's audience is so small its influence is basically redundant.

Too many global warming zealots have missed the point entirely.It is not a matter of believing or disbelieving.

It is about the right of everyone to weigh up the facts/data and form their own opinions.Graham is right,the zealots try to bully everyone into their line of thinking.

A sceptic gets labelled as a denier.The science is far from being proven and there is every reason to to sceptical.Once upon a time the general scientific opinion told us that the world had to be flat.They were wrong.Once upon a time it was thought that peptic ulsers were caused by stress.Two Aussie Doctors were ridiculed for years, suggesting that a bacteria was the problem.They were right even though the general consensus of scientific opinion was against them.

There is no logic in taking this extreme view of climate change.Firstly the science is far from being proven.Secondly if they are right,it is almost certainly too late since China and India take no heed in their present lust for industrialisation.Thirdly who will take heed of such a small nation as Aust that accounts for 1% of the world's pollution.We do not even know for sure that anthropological global is warming is happening and that CO2 is the culprit.A lot of hypothetical situations that may not even be related or be actually happening.

There is much intellectual dishonesty and bullying happening that too many are justifying for the sake of their egos,Govt funding,personal status etc.

All that we 10% of the population who are sceptics [not deniers]ask,is the right to question the science and popular opinion without be labelled ,ridiculed or bullied.Did we not call this right in the past,democracy?

Thanks again to Susan for clarifying the editorial issue, and especially to Don Aitkin for both participating and stating clearly his position with respect to Robyn Williams' handling of his 'Ockham's Razor' piece.

I'm even more convinced that Graham Young is being precious in this article, which is only confirmed by the comment from Jennifer (Marohasy):

<< 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. >>

Is that what this article is really about? The snide reference by Young early in his article to Williams' status as a 'National Treasure' is telling.

My conclusion is that this article is ultimately little more than a belated salvo in the anti-ABC culture wars. While of course he has every right to do so, I'm disappointed that Graham Young has utilised OLO so obviously to push his own political hobbyhorse.

I don't think this piece is an over-reaction. Many of the comments on this thread are examples of the bullying that I highlight. And it is quite a serious problem well beyond the bounds of OLO.

Don does not complain about Williams, but that is not really the point. As I say in the article, the point of the bullying is to intimidate others, not him specifically.

I searched the comments on Don's article. Not one of them showed up a factual error. There was one commenter who claimed it hasn't got cooler over the last 10 years, but he wasn't across the issue. If there are no obvious errors in Don's piece then there is no call for a "humourous" introduction nor a rebuttal. If Williams has treated a piece from the other direction with such "humour" point me to it.

This follows on from the ABC's treatment of The Great Global Warming Swindle, where a similarly heavy-handed treatment was used to try to discredit it. Its one serious error was failing to show that the correlation between cosmic rays and cloud formation broke down recently. Just like the correlation between CO2 and temperature has since 1998!

This site exists to challenge beliefs and explore ideas. When there is a debate to be had, both sides get a go at it in more or less equal proportions. You don't do it in proportion to belief in the community, as one of you suggested. Recently there have been some interesting challenges to the IPCC orthodoxy, so of course we've found material on them.

Am I a global warming skeptic, as has been asserted? Well, I believe CO2 emissions are making the place hotter. How hot and whether that is a problem, and if it is, how big a problem it is compared to all the others we have, are still very much open questions. If that makes me a skeptic, then so be it. I'd rather be on that side than on the side of some mythical consensus that doesn't exist, and even if it did, would prove nothing.

When Susan writes "I have no political barrow to push" she acknowledges what we all know to be a fact, this is much more a political issue than a science issue for the right. The conservative side of politics from which Graham hails certainly has the greater preponderance of climate change deniers while the greater preponderance of climate change scientists are not.

Because this is a political website and our two party systems is pretty well split down the middle it is probably okay that both sides of the debate get equal time but I'm not sure we should have to expect that from a science program.

Ultimately we should be able to ask Robyn Williams to stick more closely to the science and for Graham to stick more closely to the politics. Both seem pretty awkward outside their fields.

Arjay: "All that we 10% of the population who are sceptics [not deniers]ask,is the right to question the science and popular opinion without be labelled ,ridiculed or bullied.Did we not call this right in the past,democracy?"

If that were all you ask, that would be perfectly reasonable. But the conduct of so many self-declared sceptics frankly invites labelling and ridicule, and as for bullying, well many sceptics are not above that either. If, as so many self-declared sceptics do, you enter a debate by labelling the other side as members of a 'religion', 'zealots', 'morons', 'mad lefties' or 'sheep', if you impugn the motives and professional reputation of thousands of dedicated scientists for no better reason than you disagree with the results of their experiments, you pretty much disqualify yourself from any claim to courteous treatment.

Also, some people who want to call themselves sceptics, which I consider to be an honourable title, ought to look up the meaning of the word and consider the duty of sceptic is to produce evidence and counter-argument of at least equal or better quality to that which they wish to refute. Most fail on that score pretty grievously.

Where are their peer-reviewed papers? Where is their original research? An amateur cooking up rhetorical debating tricks or misconstruing data does not a 'sceptic' make. A good example is your invocation of "democracy". That is a rhetorical distraction. AGW is a matter of science, not democracy. The laws of physics are not determined by ballot.

Don Aitken is one of the very few people who actually has a valid claim for the respectable title of a sceptic, because his behaviour is genuinely sceptical: which is to say open-minded on the question, enquiring, able to critically examine evidence with some distance and rigour. And also able to separate good evidence and argument from bluster and rhetorical tricks. That makes him a genuine sceptic. Doesn't make him right, though.