On defending disagreement

Roger Clifton writes: Re. “In defence of disagreement: how outrage bait is undermining public discourse” (Monday)

It may be that it is editorial policy that insists on misreading the message.

On Lateline (2015/11/30) Professor David Karoly was seen to promise that any reduction in the rate of emissions would result in a proportionate reduction in global average temperature. What he certainly meant was that a hypothetical (and unachievable) reduction in greenhouse concentrations would theoretically result in a reduction in temperature. A contrivance of interviewing and editing, this message is a direct contradiction of what the gentle professor teaches. Only a net-zero emission rate can stabilise the worsening average temperature, and nothing humans can do can reduce it.

On Michael McCormack

Christopher Hector writes: Re. “A quick primer on Michael McCormack, the man you’ve never heard of who just became Deputy PM” (Monday)

Why in all this has no-one mentioned Bridget McKenzie’s stellar performance in her interview with Fran Kelly on Insiders? Lucid, warm, articulate, all the things her male colleagues are not. And why not have a leader in the Senate? Right now that’s where the action is, and a good chance for her to up the profile.