Williams' UNscientific Bile rises up again

A scientific hypothesis is the initial building block in the scientific method. Many describe it as an “educated guess,” based on prior knowledge and observation, as to the cause of a particular phenomenon. It is a suggested solution for an unexplained occurrence that does not fit into current accepted scientific theory. A hypothesis is the inkling of an idea that can become a theory, which is the next step in the scientific method.

The basic idea of a hypothesis is that there is no pre-determined outcome. For a hypothesis to be termed a scientific hypothesis, it has to be something that can be supported or refuted through carefully crafted experimentation or observation. (Link - Live science)
Here is an interesting experiment that you can duplicate at home.  Put "Hatred of Science" in your google search box. You get about 33,100,000 results. And who comes up as the 2nd out of 33m?

Robyn Williams! in an item from VEXNews.  From that page:
The matter-of-fact tone is deliberate and sadly typical of the ABC’s snide condensation. Williams is an expert at it, knowing that most of his audience shares his worldview.

The sweeping generalisations about anti-sciencism, the nods about superior secularist minds over religious ones and the winks acknowledging one’s sounder psychological wellbeing over your enemy: it’s breathtakingly smug.

Perhaps he’s been doing it so long that there’s no longer any sense of danger about this.

The public is owed an apology by Williams. It is not science journalism to present deception political opinion as if it were scientific objectivity. Williams was providing political opinion, reviewing a political book by a polemicist, not a scientist.

That broadcast was intellectually fraudulent.
Robyn Williams is a pusher of the falsified AGW hypothesis (put falsified AGW hypothesis into your google....) and as the alarmist side crumbles, pushers like Robyn Williams become more shrill.

Robyn Williams latest buttburst was published by this blog under the heading:

Let's rid the airwaves of this bile. 

This morning on the “science” show Robyn Williams equates skeptics to pedophiles, people pushing asbestos, and drug pushers. Williams starts the show by framing republicans (and skeptics) as liars: “New Scientist complained about the “gross distortions” and “barefaced lying” politicians come out  with…” He’s goes on to make the most blatant, baseless, and outrageous insults by equating skeptics to people who promote pedophilia, asbestos and drugs  (link - Jo Nova)

The pages have written before of the Green Gillard Government's actions to gag opposing opinion to their socialist policy and actions, eg:

So Has Robyn Williams been let off the hook for his last Bileburst?  YEP!

The Australian's   Nick Leys writes: 

On Tuesday, The Australian reported that the ABC had dismissed a complaint by its former chairman, Maurice Newman, against science broadcaster Robyn Williams, who made a comparison between climate change deniers and pedophiles last month. An ABC spokeswoman said the complaint was dismissed because the editorial context of the segment was reasonable, meaning "harm and offence" was justified. 

Harm and offence justified? 

  1. 7.1  Content that is likely to cause harm or offence must be justified by the editorial context.
  2. 7.2  Where content is likely to cause harm or offence, having regard to the context, make reasonable efforts to provide information about the nature of the content through the use of classification labels or other warnings or advice.


The Australian's Editorial:

The ABC lets itself off the hook

ANYBODY who takes the Finkelstein report at face value would be bemused to learn that it is absolutely fine for the ABC's science presenter to compare climate change sceptics to pedophiles. 

Former Federal Court judge Ray Finkelstein's report into media regulation found that the ABC was the "most trusted" media organisation in the country and that its "editorial quality assurance projects" and complaints-handling processes were first class. Yet the ABC's Audience and Consumer Affairs section says Robyn Williams has no case to answer over his questionable comparison between sceptics, child abusers and drug pushers on Radio National last month. The complainant was none other than former ABC chairman Maurice Newman, who was personally attacked by Williams in the same on-air conversation. Williams described an opinion article Mr Newman wrote for this newspaper as "drivel".

By coincidence, the Australian Press Council has also been adjudicating on an allegedly offensive use of the word pedophile, this time in an opinion article in The Australian by James Delingpole. Mr Delingpole quoted an anonymous NSW sheep farmer who said: "The wind-farm business is bloody well near a pedophile ring. They're f . . king our families and knowingly doing so." In the council's view, the comparisons with a serious and odious crime "were highly offensive".
The Editorial goes on to point out that "Williams's comments were hardly accurate or impartial, as ABC policy requires."

If the ABC doesn't have to follow it's own "Editorial Policies ( pdf link)" why have them in the first place?

These include:
  •  Ensure that editorial decisions are not improperly influenced by political, sectional, commercial or personal interests. 
  • Gather and present news and information with due impartiality.  
  • Present a diversity of perspectives so that, over time, no significant strand of thought or belief within the community is knowingly excluded or disproportionately represented.  

  1. 1.1  Maintain the independence and integrity of the ABC.
  2. 1.2  Exercise ABC editorial control over the content the ABC broadcasts or publishes.
  3. 1.3  Ensure that editorial decisions are not improperly influenced by political, sectional,
    commercial or personal interests.
  4. 1.4  External activities of individuals undertaking work for the ABC must not undermine the independence and integrity of the ABC’s editorial content.
  5. 1.5  Exercise editorial independence as authorised and accept responsibility for it. When in doubt about an editorial matter, refer it up to the next most senior person for advice or decision.
  6. 1.6  When any editorial matter, including an editorial matter not being referred up for advice or decision, is likely to cause controversy or have an extraordinary impact, give proper notice of it to the most appropriate senior manager. 

    1. 2.1  Make reasonable efforts to ensure that material facts are accurate and presented
      in context.
    2. 2.2  Do not present factual content in a way that will materially mislead the audience. In some cases, this may require appropriate labels or other explanatory information.
    1. 4.1  Gather and present news and information with due impartiality.
    2. 4.2  Present a diversity of perspectives so that, over time, no significant strand of thought or belief within the community is knowingly excluded or disproportionately represented.
    3. 4.3  Do not state or imply that any perspective is the editorial opinion of the ABC. The ABC takes no editorial stance other than its commitment to fundamental democratic principles including the rule of law, freedom of speech and religion, parliamentary democracy and equality of opportunity.
    4. 4.4  Do not misrepresent any perspective.
    5. 4.5  Do not unduly favour one perspective over another.