Dear 2GB, Here are a few ''facts'' you might like to check

Here are a few ''facts'' you might like to check. For starters.

In his introductions and comments during many interviews, Mr Jones asserts that organisations including the CSIRO, the ABC and the Bureau of Meteorology present research and broadcast stories accepting of the science of anthropogenic global warming only because they would otherwise lose government funding.

On June 3 in an interview with UK columnist Christopher Booker he said: ''I suppose if the government tips money into outfits like the CSIRO...or the ABC they will keep articulating what government wants to hear, won't they.''

In another recent interview with David Archibald of the Institute of World Politics Mr Jones quoted approvingly Mr Archibald's "sadness as a scientist ... that our scientific institutions", including the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology and many universities, "have failed in their duty to serve and protect the Australian people" by claiming that global warming is real only because "they want the money, they keep being funded by the government and they tell the government what they want to hear".

''They (scientists) are going where the money is, he who pays the piper calls the tune,'' he said again in July.

Does Mr Jones have any evidence for these 'cash for comment' and 'cash for science' allegations?

Mr Jones also repeatedly asserts in his editorials and during his introductions to interviews that there is ''not one chapter, one paragraph of evidence connecting carbon dioxide emissions with global warming''. He says global warming is based not on science but on a ''hoax'' and on ''witchcraft'' and on ''claims dreamt up by environmental activists''.

Given the large body of scientific work making exactly that link, how does he justify that claim?

Mr Jones also makes assertions about politicians you might like to check.

In his discussion with Mr Booker about how politicians around the world had been duped by the ''hoax'' of global warming, Mr Jones said of Coalition leader Mr Abbott that he was ''the hope of the side, the hope of the side...he said it was crap.''

Is he disputing Mr Abbott's own statements that he accepts the science of global warming, which is why the Coalition is proposing an alternative $10 billion policy to address it?

And on June 21 he asserted that Climate Change Minister Greg Combet ''must be on drugs''. Did he mean that literally?