That’s the summary of another hopelessly biased piece on ABC’s The Drum (i.e. beating the drum for the Left), writing about balance in the media with respect to climate change. Jonathan Holmes is the oh-so-witty presenter of Media Watch and a confirmed climate alarmist. So we know which side of the fence this will be on. A few choice quotes:
What makes the issue more complicated than most is that the degree of scepticism in the community at large bears little relation to the degree of doubt that exists in the scientific community. Those who know the most are the least dubious that anthropogenic climate change is happening, and perhaps faster than they forecast just a few years ago.
In other words, if you don’t believe it, you’re just A STUPID BOGAN, got it? Then we have the inevitable cheap comparison between creationism and climate scepticism, starting off by claiming that the ABC doesn’t have to “balance” Richard Dawkins’ views on evolution:
Why not? Because creationism is espoused by rather few Australians, and therefore the ABC expects little demand for ‘balance’ on the topic? Or because the overwhelming scientific evidence does indeed support the ‘theory’ of evolution, as against intelligent design? Probably the former reason is far more important than the latter.
In other words, climate sceptics are really in the same camp as creationists, but because there are more of them in Australia than creationists, we at the ABC have to pander to their stupidity by giving a fake impression of “balance.” And he concludes:
But if I were running a science show on the ABC, I might well feel that what should guide me is the science, not shifts in popular opinion. And so far, for all the sound and fury, the vast majority of climate scientists remain convinced that the evidence for anthropogenic warming is getting stronger, not weaker, every year.
Hmm. I wonder what planet Holmes has been on for the last three months? Oh, I know. Planet ABC – a left-wing elitist vacuum, isolated from reality.
Another great article from Your Their ABC.
Read it here.
Australian Climate Madness 
I have alot of respect for Jonathan Holmes, his AGW bias non-withstanding.
I recall watching an episode of Media Watch where issue touched on AGW, and inspite of his clear bias he made considerable effort operate strictly within the mandate of the MW program : to critique and hold the journalism itself under scrutiny.
But methinks he has waded into deep water with this article and he makes a large number of mistakes. Firstly he labours over the false equivalence with the 150 year old dispute/controversy over the theory of evolution as though it is somehow applicable and relevant to the AGW debate. Then he seems to assume that ‘concensus’ i.e. a popularity contest, actually has its place in the scientific method. Finally there is his generally unflappable opinion that the scientific community (and the personalities therein) are the inerrant primary source of accurate and complete wisdom on this issue. As opposed to the actual veracity and quantity of science itself : no matter whom provides it , be it sourced from in the climate tribe or outside it.
As for the core issue of the article bias. I can sympathise with the journalists dilemma here. You reach for trusted experts and most of them say that it all settled and robust and that anyone that says otherwise is a fool and unworthy of your time and attention. But Holmes would of fully redeemed himself in my mind if he also admitted that there is always the risk that you could be just passing on second hand accounts about how wonderful the emperors new clothes are.
Who’s in denial here?
“the vast majority of climate scientists remain convinced that the evidence for anthropogenic warming is getting stronger, not weaker, every year”
This just a couple of weeks after Jones admits to the BBC that there has been no significant warm since………..I give up!
A puff piece on lack of balance, without any balance. Oh, how twee.
Pot. Kettle. Black.