Accuracy, balance and rigor on talk-back radio…in the week after hell freezes over?

3 thoughts on “Accuracy, balance and rigor on talk-back radio…in the week after hell freezes over?”

  1. I had a problem with a blogger last year who had a very similar disclaimer – happy to repost the guff, but left it up to the reader to work out if it was correct or not.

    You’d hope we were so used to all this that the audience would stop taking them seriously… apparently not.


  2. There is a sense of panic in the way the radical response to the science is playing out through the shock jocks.

    I tend to agree with Tim that we should focus away from the deniers and more on the path we need to take. People out in the real world realy do support strong action. They generally know there is a problem and want leaders to fix it up even if they don’t understand the full scope of the issue.

    Focussing on the solutions and ways of changing our behaviour is the most constructive approach we can take. Thats why I support the Beyond Zero project. They are trying to show how we can make a difference. Plans for replacing our fossil fuels should be our first priority.


  3. “Not one orthodox climate scientist – not one – has been interviewed by any of the climate sceptics on Fairfax stations.”

    There’s no point interviewing “orthodox climate scientists” because you all sing from the same songbook and already get extensive media attention. Just like you Ove – you’ve been crying the end to the GBR for many years now. So Alan Jones interviewed another marine scientist, Dr Peter Ridd, who totally contradicted everything you have been saying. The MSM haven’t interviewed Dr Ridd have they? – they fall into line and interview you and get your exaggerations.

    [audio src="" /]

    Tim Flannery was a recent guest on MTR radio in Melbourne and he’s an orthodox climate scientist, well so he says – he’s actually into mammals.

    Ian Plimer and Bob Carter have been regular guests on 2GB as has Dr Christy from UAH and Prof Linzden from MIT. These are the reputable scientists that disagree with you and your AGW fantasies and in a world with cooling oceans, not hot spot, and stable temperatures your ideas and projections appear to be just that – fantasy.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s