Shadow Minister and ConservativeHippie,
"I also wonder why the left whingers on this site think that freedom of speech should extend to promoters of ISIS, but not to climate sceptics?"

There's a very simple answer to that:
THEY DON'T!

CH,
Where has any of those mentioned by you ever said people should be silenced for holding a different opinion/view than they do? The only ones in the business of wanting to silence those that do not agree with them, is the Abbott Government and its supporters.

The Abbott govt; will one day have to be accountable for it’s secrecy regarding the asylum seekers. The boats have stopped as we are told, but we are never sure. So if the boats have stopped why are the refugee camps still occupied. Six refugees sent to Cambodia at a cost of 40 million $.

It will take a judicial inquiry to find out why they still exist, and if they are still taking in refugees, we need to know the legals: involved in better handling the refugees so these camps can be closed down. It must be running into billions of $ but we are not allowed to know.

How can such expenditure be justified for a handful of refugees.
We are experiencing “ how not to run a govt; “ Abbott’s attack on the ABC, Secret dealings that we are not to know about, Unprecedented lies being told, Submarine deals made before an election taking place to secure a free trade deal with Japan, A coal mine in prime ag land, no doubt an Abbott deal to do with China free trade.
South Korea still waiting for their promised deal to come to fruition.

Paul1405, what am I supposed to think when I read a quote like the one below from Poirot in answer to my question?

"Let me put it to you this way... have you ever seen a documentary on the ABC, or even an interview with a scientist that presents the argument against manmade climate change?..." - CH

"There we have it....Syd the plumber, Burt the junk-science purveyor or Lord Monckton, the fella with the degree in Classical Architecture ought to be able to ply their climate ignorance on the ABC.

There is "no" debate on this subject - the science is never settled - but giving air time to people who are pushing the fossil fuel line for ideological reasons is the type of garbage that abounds in the Murdoch stable."

So Poirot is saying there is not one credible scientist with an alternative perspective on the reasons for climate change, that isn't in the hip pocket of the fossil fuel industry... they are all junk scientists that have no place on the ABC.

If that isn't trying to close down an open unbiased discussion then I cannot provide a better example. Its exactly people like her that some of think are running the ABC, and that's why we object.

The tone of Poirot's holier-than-thou tirade is not uncommon when she's faced with a sensible question... just shoot the messenger and hope the question goes away. Well, at least that's the way I feel reading her comments, especially when she gets worked up.

CH,

"So Poirot is saying there is not one credible scientist with an alternative perspective on the reasons for climate change, that isn't in the hip pocket of the fossil fuel industry... they are all junk scientists that have no place on the ABC."

Like this guy?

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-change-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry

Here was a "credible" scientist, employed as researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, who until recently was regularly wheeled out as a "skeptic" who deserved some respect.

But...um...

"A prominent academic and climate change denier’s work was funded almost entirely by the energy industry, receiving more than $1.2m from companies, lobby groups and oil billionaires over more than a decade, newly released documents show.

Over the last 14 years Willie Soon, a researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, received a total of $1.25m from Exxon Mobil, Southern Company, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and a foundation run by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers, the documents obtained by Greenpeace through freedom of information filings show.

According to the documents, the biggest single funder was Southern Company, one of the country’s biggest electricity providers that relies heavily on coal."

Now don't come back at me and say "I stipulated a "skeptic" scientist who "wasn't" funded by big oil"

Because until recently, Soon wasn't known to be funded by big oil.

How are we to know who among the "skeptic scientists" is or isn't funded by big oil?

The problem is, ConservativeHippie, that the handful of "skeptic" scientists who have any climate nous are thin on the ground - their arguments are usually speedily and comprehensively debunked by the majority of scientists.

Which may give you some clue as to why "reputable" networks and news organisations give them a wide berth - preferring people with some credibility.

"The tone of Poirot's holier-than-thou tirade is not uncommon when she's faced with a sensible question..."

Sensible question?

More like a little loaded something to goad with.

That's what it was...

And I'm not "worked up"....responding to some of the inane banter around here is all in a days work...nothing out of the ordinary at all.

Dear ConservativeHippie,

You wrote;

“Steele - don't buy your story. It would be inappropriate to attend a funeral and then get into a political discussion with quite a number of the attendees. And conveniently they all share your opinion. Give us a break.”

Whether you 'buy' my story or not doesn't concern to me in the slightest but it is an interesting phenomena you have pointed to. I have had the occasion to attend a couple of funerals/wakes recently (sadly I lost an uncle this weekend as well) and have been reflecting on why so little of the conversation was centred around the deceased.

It might have been that neither event was held within a mainstream church where the rules of grieving are perhaps more established. We must also acknowledged that funerals are occasions where (even in this social media age) many of those attending use the opportunity to catch up with people they may not have been in contact with for years, even decades.

But I think there is something else at play. Even among siblings when the conversation was steered toward the deceased it seemed to quickly move on. Perhaps it there is a sense of wanting to keep the grieving private, of not wanting to dwell on things that are painful in front of others. Or perhaps for my generation and younger brushes with mortality are disconcerting.

So yes to someone like yourself the airing of politics or other issues may be disrespectful at a funeral but that is how both of these went down.

Cont..