The story was picked up and repeated in a number of different journals around the region.

But this week the CSIRO suggested the exact opposite. "The new study suggests that Southern Ocean currents, and therefore the Southern Ocean's ability to soak up carbon dioxide, have not changed in recent decades," it said. This time the story got no coverage in the SMH, and was run on the ABC's website as evidence the Southern Ocean was adapting to climate change.

CSIRO oceanographer Stuart Rintoul, a co-author of the study, said it did not disprove global warming and he did not believe its lack of an alarmist tone was responsible for the poor coverage.

But the story is being pointed out as an example of media bias on global warming. Critics argue that the ABC and the Fairfax media are the worst offenders.

ABC board member Keith Windschuttle said yesterday the national broadcaster was in breach of its charter to provide a diversity of views. "The ABC and the Fairfax press rarely provide an opportunity for global warming sceptics to put their view," Mr Windschuttle said. "The science is not settled.

"We are seeing an increasing number of people with impeccable scientific backgrounds questioning part or whole of the story. I don't believe the ABC has been reflecting the genuine diversity of the debate. Under its own act, the ABC is required to produce a diversity of views."

Bob Carter of James Cook University, one of the world's best-known climate change sceptics, said there was no doubt Windschuttle was correct.

"With very few exceptions, press reporters commenting on global warming are either ignorant of the science matters involved, or wilfully determined to propagate warming hysteria because that fits their personal world view, or are under editorial direction to focus the story around the alarmist headline grab -- and often all three," Professor Carter said.

National Climate Centre former head William Kininmonth said coverage of global warming had been hysterical and was getting worse, with a large public relations effort inundating the media with information from the alarmist side.

If Global warming is a scam (which it is) it's a *bleep* good one, and you can see why they would do it

And looked at that site, bmah, and most of those things are defiently not the things i've said against global warming
1. Well, if the earth warmed up normally, no it wouldn't have any major concequences, of cource if the earth warmed up by 10 degrees it would have serious concequences, but there is no proof that this is going to happen, so this is just really a trick question
2.Apparently, the reasearch and petition by the oism is a fake, but the graphs and documents on the site is right, so even if the signiatures are real or not, it makes up a much more convincing argument than any of the IPCC's documents.
3. The "hockey stick" graph there has since been proven wrong and there has been 5 seperate occasions in the last 3000 years where it has been warmer than before. Also notice that the grey areas and some of the blue areas have not been taken into account.
4. it wont be caused by humans anyway, so there's nothing we can do
5. Eh, i never said that the planet being warmer would be "nice" anyway
6. I never said this either, just that some of the graphs are wrong
7. It is not, and C)2 has been proven to come AFTER Temperature not before or "causing" temperature
8. I never said this, i do believe the earth is warming up, just that it's not caused by humans
9. Some evidence says solar, some not. But there are more things that cause temperature difference than the sun
10. This might be true, but yes, people ARE making money off this, not to mention exadurating it will get people more scared and will hence support it more.

Sustainable development is an ongoing thing, and it's supposed to help change our attitudes about the environment. I don't know to what extent the damage we've done to the environment can be reversed, so don't expect a definite way to "solve" the problem. Just having the future generations be more responsible is the best way to be prepared. Care to provide any other ideas?

You can't make everyone change their attitude right away, so the government would have to incorporate some environmental tactics in their policies. For example, if the government decided to raise the price of fruits by taxing imports, you'd have to pay more, but the government can compromise this by reducing your income taxes. In other words, you don't theoretically gain or lose money, but the usage of tax money is "shifted" towards a more environmentally-friendly way. In this case, you're fully accounting for the cost of the fruits you buy (e.g. harvesting fruit, using gas for transportation of fruit to the markets, etc.). This is just one example of the many ways the government can try to change attitudes. There's a lot of psychology studies into making the right government policies. The change is slow, but possible.

...and the recent opening of the northwest passage, in the Arctic ocean just north of Canada (link and link).

I agree, better safe than sorry, like what you and Phoenix_Flyer said. And even if it turns out humans aren’t causing the climate to change or warm up, there are other benefits to be reaped from trying to reduce our emissions/pollution levels and having a more environmentally-friendly lifestyle... like cleaner air and money savings and less pressure on natural resources and stuff.

Of course. Science can be used to justify or 'prove' anything. It is far from being a neutral field free from political or corporate influence.

if so, id take the word of a one eyed greenie over someone with an obvious bias

of course even if thats not true lets consider this

if youre in an office building and someone runs into the room screaming that the building is on fire, do you sit there and tell them that theres really no evidence for it? or do you take their word for it and get out of there?

believing in global warming and doing something about it can only yield good results, a healthier environment and stopping what is potentially a world damaging event

PS. for the record, humans are to blame for most crap that happens in the world, to say otherwise is somewhat ridiculous, it will pretty muchalways come down to hunting/deforestation/polution