What Bolt wrote: "Gore claims that a survey of 928 scientific articles on global warming showed not one disputed that man's gasses were mostly to blame for rising global temperatures. ... Peiser checked again and found just 13 of those 928 papers explicitly endorsed man-made global warming, and 34 rejected or doubted it."

What I wrote: "This one is wrong. Even Peiser has admitted his analysis was full of errors."

Young claims I am "deeply dishonest" for writing this statement, despite Media Watch contacting Peiser and finding: "And when we pressed him to provide the names of the articles, he eventually conceded - there was only one."

And you don't even have to take Media Watch's word for this -- you can go to Peiser's site and see that he has revised his criticism and no longer claims that 34 of the articles reject or doubt the consensus.

So what does Graham Young do now? He baldly misrepresents what I wrote, claiming that I said that Peiser admitted that Oreskes was right. In fact, I said that Peiser admitted that his analysis was full of errors. That's 100% correct -- he revised his number down from 34 to 1.

And I didn't say that it was improper for you to comment. I was suggesting that one reason why so few supporters of mainstream science write here might be your campaign of abuse and misrepresentation against me and others.

Mercurius,according to you,the only qualified sceptics are those who have a climate science degree.Mercurius said,"AGW is a matter of science,not democracy.The laws os physics are not determined by ballot."We cannot accurately predict the local weather.Throw into the mix,chemistry,physics and the biology of the whole planet and this makes for an extremely complex system that is probably beyond the realm of all scientific minds on our planet.Scientists do not have the monopoly on wisdom.Very often their field of vision is too narrow.

What they are doing is studying data and looking for relationships to support their own pet theories.There is a lot of motivation in the scientific world to support doom and gloom scenarios.They get more Govt funding.Human nature is swayed by money,no matter what your religion or how nobel your scientific intentions.

Most people agree that CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas.It makes up 0.04% of our atmosphere.Most people agree that some warming has taken place,but it is a matter of degree.The present climate science tells us the both the oceans and the atmosphere have decreased in temps even though we have had expodential increases in CO2 due to the development of China and India.In the face of this contradicting evidence,Graham Young believes that some warming is happening,but raises the point of possible bias,and the true believers scream bloody murder.The religious fever which many try to brow beat us into submission is totally illogical and unethical.

arjay, you are right, that scientists do not have a monopoly on wisdom. in particular, when discussing policy implications of science, scientists have no monopoly. but mercurius is also right: scientists do have a monopoly on the science of AGW.

i'm sorry if that seems unfair, but it just is. if you think the the currently accepted science of AGW is wrong, then your only hope is that other active scientists can argue for a change in the "orthodoxy". you can sit and cheer, you can boo the umpire, you may even be allowed on at half-time for a game of kick-to-kick. but you are just part of the cheering (or booing) crowd.

of course you are entitled to your opinion, and entitled to share your opinion. you may even convince graham young to give you a platform to voice your opinion. but unless you are a practising scientist, the airing of your opinion will not make a speck of difference to the science of AGW.

and, unless you are damn close to a practising scientist, i see no reason why i should be interested in your opinion. and not just your opinion of course. the same goes for almost all of the contributors and responders here, pro and anti. and vice versa: my opinion on AGW is as worthless as theirs.

I have read the transcript, then listened to the actual broadcast just to make sure I wasn't missing something. Robyn Williams has no case to answer.

So why has Graham Young gone on a Howard era type of attack on Mr Williams?

In his Ambit Gambit blog which appears to be the embryo for this piece Graham claims that Williams "has in the past, and perhaps to the present, been a supporter of communist politics."
http://ambit-gambit.nationalforum.com.au/archives/002974.html

In a soft self correction 3 days later he states "I've checked into the communist part of the above list. It appears that his father and mother were Marxists, and while he has not been a communist, he has been active in radical causes." http://www.abc.net.au/talkingheads/txt/s1505785.htm "As you can see from this, he's a man on a campaign."

When you read the interview there is a different picture painted. Robyn Williams relates how he was glad when his father was dying because it meant freedom from his dad's overbearing communist beliefs.

When the interviewer Peter Thompson asks him "Why didn't you get more touched by radical politics? Or did you?" Robyn replies "We were reasonably radical but because we talked about politics so much, I think we were actually sensible as well. We weren't - no, no, really. There's a bomb-throwing element in some radical politics. But if you've got this lovely connection between the grown-ups and my own experience of the bloody coms, who were, were just so overbearing, then you're forced, really, to be rational and see what is possible. The art of the possible, the real nature of politics."

So where does that leave Mr Young? I think that “As you can see from this, he's a man on a campaign.". The question needs to be asked, how much of this campaign is because of Mr Young’s perceptions of Mr Williams’ politics.

Mr Williams has nothing to fear from Mr Young's rolling ball, although in another era this might not have been the case.

My quick fisk of the article reveals Graham Young's claims of bullying is an example of what psychologists call 'projection'. You are projecting, Graham; You are the bully and your modus operandi is to project this onto others to obscure and distract.
http://globalwarmingwatch.blogspot.com/2008/05/graham-young-vs-robyn-williams-and.html

Dear Graham Young,

Despite obvious lack of consensus re global warming, I hope that there is a consensus that we cannot continue as usual with:
1. Polluting (not only CO2).
2. Deforestation.
3. Land degradation.
4. Energy waste.
5. Fresh water waste.
6. Food waste.
7. All other resources waste.
Growing population will increase pressures to the breaking point and our civilisation must change to avoid a collapse. Global warming is just one piece of the global puzzle. Even if global warming does not occur, the above wastes will backfire. Even if the global warming is a myth (which it is not), it would be irresponsible to advocate business as usual.
Carbon dioxide is good, but not too much of it. This cannot be said, however, for many other pollutants. Sustainable forestry is also good, but we have seen too much of unsustainable deforestation.
I can elaborate on this further, but the point is clear.

This debate is much wider in its implications. Think carefully, very carefully about what are you implicitly supporting.

Liberal party might not be happy with outcomes.

Sincerely,
Damir Ibrisimovic