Very good Graham.

“We're not in demise or denial. We're just starting to come into our own.”

I believe you are right.

Clive Hamilton’s article was certainly a surprise. It was very different from his usual level-headed and very sensible style of expression. I think it has worked significantly against him.

But it certainly served a good purpose: to spur a very interesting and prolific set of responses and an excellent article from yourself, which really does beautifully clarify what OLO is all about.

I enjoy intellectual debate. Dialectic opposites are necessary for the advance of a healthy democracy, so we should not deplore the current spat between climate change advocates and sceptics.

However, we all have our freedom to declare our positions as we see fit. Clive Hamilton has declared his. There is no point advancing a cause in a venue which is stacked.

Having read Hamilton's article, coupled with the pile of negative responses, then Graeme Young's.... I too have decided that OLO has declared its editorial bias.

So, as of today I too am deleting OLO from my computer, there is not enough intellectual quality in the climate debate in this form, just masculine head butting.

Good bye and good luck.

Graham, I am all for rolling back ad hominem commentary, and I wish more right-of-centre commentators took your position. Comrade Hamilton has made the wrong call in this case.

But that little spray about "postmodernism, theory and forms of Marxist analysis" in the final paragraph was a bit bizarre, too. What is that, if not your own theory?

The main reason why postmodernism and Marxist analaysis have worked so well in "some areas of the humanities" is that they make strong philosophy. You don't have to like them -- or even agree with them -- to see that.

On ya Graham! A good time and place to spruik the OLO philosophy and raison d'etra.

Your comment in the final paragraph about relativism of truth in a time of philosophical modernism is not only applicable to the area of humanities but also spills over into the hard sciences when the funding of research is overseen by the folks in sympathy with Clive's view of the world.

Graham,

Now I understand why you requested Clive write his piece. You wanted to attack him and have the last word.
How much credibility did you gain OLO doing that?
It certainly couldn't do much worse than publishing Harris and McLeans blatantly fallacious piece.

Graham

I totally agree with Gecko. You've clearly shown your political bias in this article, but unlike him I'll be sticking around more determined than ever to do my little bit in injecting some balance into this site. I would sincerely urge him to do the same.

"Clive then misrepresents people who are sceptical of aspects of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), likening them to people who say the earth is flat, or who deny a link between AIDS and HIV, or who see a world Jewish conspiracy, which is patently absurd."

We know without a shadow of doubt now Graham that you stubbornly refuse to accept the growing body of evidence that global warming is indeed a consequence of human activity. Not that we really needed this latest article as proof; we've long seen for ourselves your deliberate publication of every remotely plausible argument that will help sow another seed of doubt.

There are three or four articles on the current list which attempt to deny or ridicule some aspect of the climate change debate. There is not one that clearly advances the position that climate change is urgent and that human activity is the cause, despite the fact that there are any number of such articles around.

You've presented an eloquent case for free speech, Graham, but your editorial selectiveness on climate change demonstrates your hypocrisy. Granted, in lots of other areas you do represent a wide range of viewpoints, but not on this issue. Please start presenting quality scientific analysis on the correlation between climate change and human activity. There is a prolific quantity of it around and, unlike most of the stuff you've been dishing up on the topic so far, it has the support of the overwhelming majority of the world's leading scientists.