ABC “Forced” into balance

THE ABC board has been accused of pressuring the national broadcaster to show a controversial British documentary questioning the science behind climate change. Whats wrong with the ABC showing both sides of an arguement?
The ABC announced this week that it would screen in July The Great Global Warming Swindle, which argues the main cause of warming is not human activity but changes in radiation from the sun.
So bring it on. I have yet to see conclusive proof that we humans are totally responsible for weather change and look forward to some balance in the arguement.
ABC science journalist and broadcaster Robyn Williams, who advised the TV division not to buy the program, yesterday accused the broadcaster of “verging on the irresponsible” over its decision to air something that was “demonstrably wrong”.
Robyn Williams has obviously made up his mind after studying points for and against so is it OK if we plebs get the chance to see both sides of the arguement as well as we look to make up our mind. What is Robyn afraid of? If the show is “demonstrably wrong” then the vewers will see it and he will be proven right.


  • I’ve seen the program Kev – it’s OK

    There is criticism that some of the data is a bit old and has been extrapolated to suit the cause.

    I see that as being consistent with the ‘science’ of the other side, so I don’t think it is a valid argument to raise on one side and not the other. A bit like calling the kettle black.

    Remember this argument is all about what MAY happen.

    Everyone rushed to see Al Gore’s movie so it will be interesting to see if those same people are interested in the science of an opposing view.

  • It’s not science. It’s religion, and the ABC is the Temple of Doom.
    Earth Mother Gaia will wreak her revenge on puny humans.
    Williams is the high priest of the GW cult who claimed on his program that the oceans will rise ONE HUNDRED metres in 50 years.

    I don’t see the real estate market being inundated (;-)) with beachfront homes for sale.

  • Over the past couple of years Robyn has had some scientifically dubious guests, especially on Ockams Razor. I have written to the ABC about them putting on guests who push a political viewpoint under the guise of science, they usually reply that they thought the program was balanced and fair etc etc.
    Robym is happy to state utterly ludicrous things, such as the sea may rise 100 metres etc, but is distraught over a well put case disputing his theories.

    Most Unscientific.

  • I have yet to see conclusive proof that we humans are totally responsible for weather change and look forward to some balance in the argument.

    I smell a strawman burning, Kevin. I seriously do not recall anyone of consequence in the debate making the claim that humanity is totally to blame for climate change.

    Totally infers no other probable causal impact, while climate is distinctly different from weather. Me thinks your strawman lacks substance.