To Philbee et al

If OLO has been captured by sceptics then does that mean that there are more sceptics then warmaholics and if so is it not then a logical consequence that there is now a "consensus" that global warming is not caused by human emissions of CO2?

As to graphs/spreadsheets you cannot post anything here but if you go to NASA or Hadley's website (these are the two reference institutes used by the IPCC) you will clearly see that any warming in the Northern Hemisphere did indeed stop in 1998 and little if any warming has ever occurred in the Southern Hemisphere (SH is at 0.2C and NH 0.4C)! All land and sea sea temps have been stable or falling and all ice cover measures have been increasing (in fact the SH ice has never decreased and is at its largest extent ever!).

It is twits like you (and Hamilton and Flannery etc) who understand little of the science and just swallow the "we are all going to die" stuff and then preach it to the wider community without actually checking the real data that are doing the damage!

This debate should not be about whether or not the sceptics have hijacked OLO, or whether AGW is real or not. It should be fairly and squarely about peak oil.

Peak oil, the energy crunch, ever-rising fuel prices and the huge impact that this is threatening to have on whole national economies and the coherence of societies, coupled with overall sustainability, is the critical issue!

By addressing this properly, we will be doing as much as we possibly could to address climate change, whereas the reverse is certainly not true.

I hope to goodness that the likes of Hamilton and Flannery refocus a little. They are already strong on peak oil and sustainability, but they need to be more forthright.

The current high level of concern about climate change has GOT to morph into a critical concern about the energy crunch and the sustainability of society. At the moment, the AGW debate it is more of distraction from what really matters than a useful exercise.

Jon, you've misunderstood. The graphs weren't posted as comments. THEY WERE PART OF AN ARTICLE! It wasn't in the comments - it was an article reviewed by the editors and accepted. It seems to me that the most puerile, foolish, idiotic article gets a guernsey provided it pushes the denialist line.

Now I'm sorry, but your question "If OLO has been captured by sceptics...?" makes absolutely no sense to me. However, it looks to me like the sort of thing promoted by OLO on this topic - sophistry and woolly thinking.

Frankly, I'm sick of this. I'm going to leave you guys to it. You can keep trying to persuade yourselves that nothing is happening. But I'm just not interested.

Do very much agree with CJ Morgan.

We somehow do need an OLO adjudicator.

Sorry, my keyboards gone haywire again, thanks to Microsoft and Bill Gates.

No wonder Bill's getting out.

Reckon I'll join him?

Cheerio and no regrets - BB, WA.

Of course Graham Young is a global warming skeptic. He'd have to be.

His blog is so obviously pro-multicultural immigration.
Could his blog continue advocating massive immigration if our future was threatened?

One could only support continued massive immigration if you wear rose-coloured glasses.

Facing the negative consequences of climate change would force a pro-immigrationist to question the sustainability of present immigration levels.

And face the legitimate reality of a future defensive "Fortress Australia" where we would need to make a U-turn on migration and defend our borders against the billions of climate catastrophe refugees.

Would migrant residents and citizens of Australia put *our* interests first in the event of these potential disasters, or would their hearts be with "their" people overseas?
Denying climate change enables avoidance of this dilemma altogether.

No climate change = Immigration is a great benefit!

Climate change = Immigration is a dangerous threat!

OLO is biased for quite logical, but purely ideological, reasons.

OLO *must* be biased against climate change in order to remain politically correct on immigration.

Shockadelic, OLO hasn't published much on population for a while, but if you read Ambit Gambit where I post my own opinions you'll find that I have consistently argued that population is the major issue. The last post in which I raised this was July 7 http://ambit-gambit.nationalforum.com.au/archives/003230.html. Next conspiracy theory.