Big dummy-spit. Some people don’t agree with Clive, so he’s off.

If Graham Young’s disagreement with Robyn Williams was “disproportionate” with Williams’ criticism of Aitkin, what can be said of Hamilton’s huff?

If this is his last contribution, hooray!

OLO is about giving people who would otherwise be voiceless a chance to air their opinions. There is a diversity of opinion, and people who don’t like being disagreed with do not have to take part.

There has been a spate of climate change denialist articles on OLO. But differently to Clive I would think this should stir the fires of debate. If such a bias is evident there is an urgent need for balanced 'air-time' and we need people like Clive Hamilton to offer the opposing view. Do we just give up and submit to the energy and mining interests at the big end of town?

I am not sure I would place the CC/GW or AGW denialists in the same category as 9-11 CIA conspiracies or AIDS denialists but would agree that denialists should be transparent regarding their credentials and corporate affiliations. The failure to add 'energy industry lobbyist' to the Tom Harris's bio is remiss.

"What readers were not told is that Harris is a paid lobbyist for energy companies.."

What else aren't we being told, Graham?

I totally agree with Clive and have long wondered at all the space given to climate change sceptics on OLO.

A quick scroll through the current list of articles reveals there are three written from a sceptical viewpoint - "The UN climate change numbers hoax", "Is climate 'the' issue, or is it just one of many?" and "Cows and Coal". There are one or two articles on related topics loosely based on the premise that climate change is indeed real and absolutely no articles at all clearly arguing the climate change position. A very telling little tally, and quite disturbing when you consider that we discuss practically everything there is to be discussed on OLO and yet we're avoiding the most urgent issue facing humanity.

Clive, I do urge you to seriously reconsider your decision though, if only to address the imbalance you have so correctly pointed out and which is so clearly evident just in the responses here.

On the Henson issue, for example, your views there would have given the debate some much-needed balance. Henson supporters on OLO, of which Graham is one, had their views reflected in quite a few articles. The critics were given one good philosophical article, but apart from that it was left to the narrow viewpoint of Hetty Johnston to represent the opposing side of the issue. There was very little broadening out of the debate at all.

OLO needs you, Clive.

Shadow Minister “Everyone is being mean to me, so I won't play any more.

Grow up.”

I was going to say “unless you let me bowl first I am going to pick up my bat and ball and go home”

- but Aspley got there first.

The AGW affirmatives are beginning to pout.

From the range of posted opinions,
I see an absolute absence of any support for Clive’s view.

Have all the other ‘affirmatives’ likewise taken up their beds and walked?

Could it be, that people are now getting past the 'hype' and 'doomsayers' and actually questioning some of the unsubstantiated propaganda that is being foisted on them ad nauseam by politicians and some media outlets.
Bazil.

Yep... even the title shows the lame propaganda of the alarmists. No one denies there is climate change. Precious few deny there is global warming. Many, many scientists deny that we know the global warming we experienced from the late 1970s to 1998 was caused mostly by CO2 concentrations.

Such a nuanced difference seems to be beyond Clive Hamilton, who would rather dummy spit that people disagree with him, and that more and more people (and real scientists) disagree with him.

Notice that Clive doesn't address the accuracy of any of the realists articles, but merely spits his dummy and tries to poison the well. Such an argument from a philosophy professor is sad and pathetic. Clive you should be ashamed.

Debate the topic on it's merits Clive. Don't run home to mommy every time you find resistance.