May 012009
 

Being an avid Radio National listener, I’m always pleased when both sides of any given issue are aired out of fairness to all parties concerned.


Last Friday, Radio National Breakfast ran a brief but angsty panel promoting the book “Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science” by Ian Plimer. The following Monday, equal time was given on the same programme to a scientist who rates numerous mentions in said book, and doesn’t like being linked to what appears to be spurious claims.
I’m sitting here now, listening to the replay of Monday’s Counterpoint, another Radio National programme which proudly promotes itself as the token right-wing presentation on a principally left-wing broadcaster. I listen because it’s on and I like listening to the radio during the working day. I can’t stand silence. I listen to Counterpoint because occasionally, Comrie-Thomson and Duffy will have something or someone on worthy paying some heed. What I’m listening to at the moment is so clearly one-sided, I’m prompted to leave a message on the Counterpoint website urging the same sense of balance shown by the Breakfast programme. Right-wing token in a so-called left-wing world, be buggered. On issues as divisive as Climate Change (which IS the issue, not ‘Global Warming’) deserve balanced presentation so that divisiveness is minimised. Shame on you Aunty, for allowing such behaviour.

  2 Responses to “Bulldust on Heaven and Earth”

  1. Plimer is surely only playing Devil’s Advocate, not because he believes what he is claiming for the RWDBs but because the consensus, like all such mutual masturbation, must be suspect.
    I’ve never found that a group of ‘experts’ on ANY subject were holy writ simply because, by dint of their being, & when they became, experts leaves them open to the Bertrand Russell riposte, “when new facts emerge I may change my mind, what do you do?”.

  2. Plimer is surely only playing Devil’s Advocate, not because he believes what he is claiming for the RWDBs but because the consensus, like all such mutual masturbation, must be suspect.
    I’ve never found that a group of ‘experts’ on ANY subject were holy writ simply because, by dint of their being, & when they became, experts leaves them open to the Bertrand Russell riposte, “when new facts emerge I may change my mind, what do you do?”.