In The Conversation Michael Ashley writes about The Australian's War on Science, with emphasis on Michael Asten's misrepresentations of the science:
When I contacted The Australian's opinion editor late last year to express dismay at their bias, I was given the example of Michael Asten, a part-time professorial fellow in the school of geosciences at Monash University, Melbourne, as someone who was well-qualified to comment. ...
So, Asten, with no expertise in the field, is using a paper published in Nature to argue the opposite of what the paper actually says.
He then spins this as "top scientists cast doubt" on the IPCC. ...
But once again, Asten misunderstands the science. The Riva et al paper wasn't an observation of the total sea-level rise at all, just an estimate of the contribution from melting ice. ...
You would think The Australian, if it had any editorial integrity, would have called a halt to Asten's ready access to the opinion pages after serious flaws were found with each of his contributions. But the lure of publishing an opinion supporting their editorial bias, from an apparently reputable source, was just too strong to resist.
You can get an idea of the extent of The Australian's campaign against climate science if you consider that even though I'm up to number 70 in this series, only one of Asten's four opinion pieces was previously covered here (as number 55).
A great article by Ashely. It deserves broad disemination. And I like this teaser at the end:
>And if you think the bias in The Australian only affects its choice of OpEd pieces, wait till you read Tim Lambertâs examination of news reporting in his article later in this series for The Conversation.
Mark Hendrickx has shown up at the conversation to continue his vapid promotion of uncertainty. He doesn't say much about The Australian's mis-representation of their non-experts' qualifications, though.
David Karoly presented analysis of Reporting from The Australian, which I heard in an audio presentation perhaps last year or earlier this year. Can anyone remember where that was?
[Karoly's talk is here](http://ams.confex.com/ams/91Annual/webprogram/Paper184755.html)
Thanks Tim, that's the one.
I think, Vince, that that is because there is considerable uncertainty on those qualifications. Could be they're experts, could be they're cranks, but with all that uncertainty there's no way of telling!
Nice one Marco.
Don't forget, The Oz has its reputation as the originator of post-modern science (it's all equally good, just opinion, choose a point of view you like) to uphold.
He's at it again:
This one's full of howlers!