Has The Age ever seen a sceptic it hasn't misreported? Age environment report Tom Arup makes stuff up: In their more reflective moments, mainstream climate scientists will tell you they wish they were wrong and that the Andrew Bolts of the world were right. That global warming was not occurring. That it was not that dangerous. That it was all due to natural variation. That it was one big global conspiracy. I have never said global warming was "all due to natural variation" and "was one big global conspiracy." I have instead questioned warmist hyperbole and inaccuracies of the kind Arup has yet again demonstrated. What makes The Age so incapable of reporting sceptical arguments correctly?