No. This article lacks the depth to be classified as a "special report" and balance to be included as news, as revealed by the use of terms such as "climate alarmists" and "enviro-skeptics" (which the other side calls "climate change deniers." Such labeling shows the same kind of s bias as the use of "pro-choice" and "pro-life" do for the debate about abortion. I'd submit, that despite Walter's opinion and the appearance of debate in this article, I'm not sure of whether the science is truly that up in the air. And this piece doesn't further my knowledge of the same. This piece is an uncritical rundown of a speech by Ian Plimer, an associate of The Institute of Public Affairs, which The Autralian described in "Dispute ... More »

The title as originally submitted "The Scientific Case for Global Warming Skepticism" clearly suggests that a case for skepticism about global warming will be made in the print below. Apparently SMH decided to change the title during the day as the title is now "Beware the church of climate alarm" perhaps realizing the article made no scientific case for skepticism on the topic at hand. The story provides opinions with sketchy (at best) references toward graphs, experts and a growing public skepticism (although it is unclear if that skepticism is fueled by "facts" or a fear that our world's financial crisis poses a more immediate, and tangible, threat and therefore climate change in the minds of skeptics must be moved to the ... More »

This article exposes the weak connection between actual scientific evidence and the prevailing dogma that human activity is responsible for global warming . Alternate hypotheses are clearly presented , and the reader is left with a healthy desire to explore Professor Ian Pilmer's views in more detail. With the current global financial crisis in full swing, this topic becomes increasingly relevant, since enormous taxes related to global warming hysteria are likely to affect economic activity in negative ways.

Total BS, standing reason on its head with discredited claims. It repeats the strange tactic of demonizing science as a religion, as though any differing from the author's delusions is a matter of false faith. This is disgraceful pandering to ignorance and fear.