The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Silencing dissent > Comments

Silencing dissent : Comments

By Graham Young, published 4/7/2008

Dear Clive Hamilton, 'On Line Opinion' isn't in decline or denial - we're coming into our own ...

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 18
  7. 19
  8. 20
  9. All
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.
Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 4 July 2008 8:59:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by gecko, Friday, 4 July 2008 9:02:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Tom Clark, Friday, 4 July 2008 9:04:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Bruce, Friday, 4 July 2008 9:32:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by T.Sett, Friday, 4 July 2008 9:52:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Bronwyn, Friday, 4 July 2008 10:17:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Because some people can’t ‘win’ they decide that people and editors who don’t agree with them are ‘biased’. So much for their strength of their own beliefs!

If what Clive Hamilton and his disciples claim were true, Graham Young would not have published Hamilton’s article. As it is, Graham’s fairness has allowed Hamilton to cook his own goose.
Posted by Mr. Right, Friday, 4 July 2008 10:38:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What an interesting set of comments. The key thing to me is that OLO exists as a place where all sorts of people - including curmudgeons like me - can express a view in a relatively safe environment. It's tempting to add a few words about global warming. For example, that the world isn't warming, the seas aren't rising, the ice isn't melting and the majority of relevant scientists don't support the AGW position, but that would be to label myself as a denialist. Better to note, as The Economist does this week, that the current alternative energy industry looks a lot like the early stages of the dot com boom and to hang our hats on innovation and technology rather than emission trading schemes and the like that are doomed to failure. Keep at it Graham - democracy is a good thing and sites like OLO are essential to the health of our polity.
Posted by Senior Victorian, Friday, 4 July 2008 10:42:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hamilton’s farewell piece is “replete with irony piled upon irony”, says Young. His own piece is full of ironies.

Young: “...why is Clive taking the time to write to its editors [OLO], publish an article in it at their invitation…” Well, you invited him.

Young: “…and then issue not so veiled threats to target its funding base”.
What threat? Unwarranted paranoia. Though I read that Hamilton’s mob refused to fund OLO. How dare they have other priorities for their scarce resources?

On OLO’s openness to all views:

Young: “We welcome lobbyists as well as academics, politicians, activists and citizens…we don't differentiate between them because they might have a particular point of view...”

But: “Clive asks whether I would publish ‘Larouche delusions about the Royal Family being in cahoots with global Jewry to run drugs’. I do get this sort of material sent to me by the Citizens Electoral Council, but my spam filter copes with it very well.” So where's the line?

Young: “His article is full of ad hominem diatribes.” Ye gods! Here are some Young own quotes:

“Because he deals in reputations, facts have no power over him, to change his mind or otherwise.”

“The idea that truth is relative has taken over some areas of the humanities through postmodernism, theory and forms of Marxist analysis. That's the school that Clive's argument on global warming comes from.”

Objecting here to Hamilton using the term “denialist”, a few short weeks ago, Young was throwing ad hominem abuse around like confetti:

On Robyn Williams: “His father was a public servant and Marxist who sold socialist newspapers on the street.”

On John Quiggin and Tim Lambert: “…web activists who practice brown-shirt tactics on any who question what they define as the global warming orthodoxy.”

On Al Gore: “…the greatest hysteric of them all…was a tobacco industry advocate himself”.

On ad hominem: “An ethical approach to argument avoids ad hominem attacks and concentrates on facts and arguments. It treats its opponent's arguments with respect, and doesn't misrepresent them, and it researches its own arguments thoroughly and presents them honestly.”

Irony of ironies.
Posted by Spikey, Friday, 4 July 2008 10:46:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Graham

You are a champion of free speech. The last thing we need is another ABC/SBS where political and social issues are almost always slanted one way. You more than most places present articles from different viewpoints. To be honest I don't know what your political viewpoint is. The fact that you support Henson left me wondering. Your forum has exposed one very insecure scientist who has taken his bat and gone home. It is sad but the debate will continue and change on this issue for a long time. Many scientist don't invite scrutiny (quite ironic) and become very defensive when holes are shown in their theories. Evolution is probably the greatest example of this.
Posted by runner, Friday, 4 July 2008 11:14:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm prepared to accept that Graham Young's comments are made in good faith.
I think the most interesting thing out of this exchange, however, is the manner in which Clive has been pilloried for his decision to leave. Sure, he sort of invited it to some extent, but it's still very unfortunate and does nothing to recommend OLO. Wasn't there an article by Malcolm King on ostracism the other day? Perhaps everyone should have a read of that and take a deep breath.
Graham, as moderator, I would've thought there was room for you to address this and not leave it to the likes of me to have to do so.
All the best,
Posted by Cameron R, Friday, 4 July 2008 11:17:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Graham wrote, It was to be a site which would open up a place for new voices, which would seek out people with special expertise to share their knowledge.
I thoroughly appreciate this attitude, because I didn't have the opportunity of a university education, thus my natural talents weren't stifled by degrees. That comment is meant to raise a chuckle, not have some professor take umbrage.
I appreciate that OLO accepted two articles from me in June, based on my observations not what other people have taught me.
Until I realised that OLO wasn't only for writers with letters after their names I wouldn't have had the audacity to enter into public comment on issues relating to the world food crisis.
Posted by Country girl, Friday, 4 July 2008 11:24:26 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Graham,
The issue in this case is Freedom of Speech. That is what you have been giving us and no doubt will keep on doing.
Posted by baldpaul, Friday, 4 July 2008 11:31:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bronwyn, gecko; did you actually go look at the archives to check if this claimed bias exists? I'll grant you it isn't easy. The authors try to be clever with their titles so you can't do a search on say 'climate' on article page for relevant articles. And when you do find one often the title and introductory paragraph aren't a reliable indicator to what side the article takes - you have to read the entire thing.

I did look at the archives. Actually I didn't look at them all because you can't, and I didn't put a definitive effort in - often relying my memory of what they said. But to me it seemed there are more pro AGW articles than anti - and by a reasonable margin. Clive's claim of bias is only correct if you think the proportion should reflect the prevailing consensus.

Doing that isn't journalistically sustainable. As SusanP often points out, a site that just reflects the prevailing consensus would be downright boring. You would end up seeing your own well informed opinions every day. Ick. As all regular inhabitants here know the place only really starts jumping when someone like Tankard Reist has a spray. And I suspect to be commercially viable it has to be jumping on a regular basis.

But not only is it bad journalistically, its bad socially as well. The Oaks like AGW can survive without being given more room. Its the weedy, unloved ideas the need to be a space in the sun to see if they can bloom. I see part of OLO's role is to give them that space. Clive is in effect arguing it should not, and frankly I think Clive is just downright wrong.

If you care you should be able to view the archives here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/index-articles.asp

You can't view them all right now because the OLO site has a bug. When you try to show "All Discussions" it always returns an error. Graham / David: an acknowledgement of this would be good. Otherwise I'll bug you via email.
Posted by rstuart, Friday, 4 July 2008 11:53:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Graham for this article and especially for linking to the piece you solicited from David Henderson. It remains pertinent.

I must however correct your impression that the use of PPP rather than MER-based comparisons 'has since become accepted wisdom.' MER has no support among national accounting statisticians and very little among economists, but the IPCC milieu continues to defend the discredited approach.

OLO's publication of the Henderson article was especially welcome in that I'd previously asked the Australian Greenhouse Office to provide links to our critique and the IPCC authors' responses on its website. On 22 April 2004 I received the following reply:

“Given that the Castles and Henderson articles in particular are widely publicly available and together with the SRES team's response are well known to the modelling and policy communities, I do not think it would add to the debate to post the range of articles on the AGO website. The technical issues associated with the PPP/MER debate and emissions scenarios in general are complex - they are beyond my ken - and in my view best carried forward through constructive engagement between relevant experts.”

Professor Stephen Schneider, an IPCC Coordinating Lead Author, soon provided an illuminating example. Reacting to an email to the World Bank's Chief Economist in which I'd objected to the Bank's use of MER-based comparisons , Schneider circulated my message to his own network under cover of the note: "Hi all, in case you haven't seen Castles latest ride on the PPP horse. Any reactions? …"

There was an immediate response from Professor Sir Partha Dasgupta, FBA, FRS of Cambridge University, as follows:

“Castles is, of course, quite right. Correcting for differences in the 'true' value of the dollar in terms of domestic currency and the official value of the dollar isn't mere cosmetics, it is essential if we are to give meaning to standard of living comparisons [and] international comparisons of aggregate output ...'
Posted by IanC, Friday, 4 July 2008 11:54:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cameron R, my reading of the criticism of Clive was not "has been pilloried for his decision to leave". I'd rather he stuck around both as an author and as a participant in the ensuing discussions but thats his choice.

What I've objected to is his apparent attempts to silence the voices of those who disagree with him on the issue of global warming. I'm not currently one but Clives article gives cause for me to consider how controlled the material I've based my views on has been.

I've been on the site for some years and have yet to see any indication of editorial bias in the censoring of posts. I'm not privy to what articles the editorial staff have access to for publication so have no means to tell if they rejecting quality material which does not suit their own views but I doubt it. I've seen articles from both sides of the debate on the site.

I'm not aware of any other public discussion space that allows the same openess to the variety of views on as many topics that this site allows. I may not always agree with Graham when he does involve himself in debates but I continue to hold the utmost respect for his dedication to allowing and encouraging viewpoints from across the spectrum. Don't flame, don't make threats or promote violence against others, don't spam advertise, stay somewhere close to being on topic and within the word limits and it's hard to think of examples of posts which have been deleted.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 4 July 2008 12:07:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OLO does a pretty good job of silencing dissent. Graham's belief that one has to have a thick skin and tolerate personal attacks silences those who differ from this opinion.

Some people believe (myself included) that a person with an ounce of self-respect, and those like CH wishing to preserve their academic integrity, simply will not comment or engage in a forum that often just becomes a slag fest.

If you ask for help from Graham Young to curtail the bullies he will turn on you with his nonsense about his own objectivity and your lack of a thick skin. Moreover, OLO has allowed itself to be hijacked by lobbyists whose agenda is to skew the truth (by force of numbers and popularising "dissent" and doubt?). GY's bias allows this.

Political propaganda is based on supposedly established truth and that assists a certain cause. This in itself goes against OLO's claims of dialectics leading us closer to truth. I don't see that QUT or any of these educational organisations are furthering genuine academic enquiry by supporting a forum that allows bullying and disrespectful behaviour and gives untethered voice to lobbyists whose interest is not to discover truth but to push their already established position.

I came to this forum believing the OLO hype. I see myself as an ordinary fellow whose experiences and opinion could contribute to discourse. Free speech is about knowing your humanity and integrity is respected even if your position is rejected. This is not the case with OLO forums and GY response to my concerns has been to see weakness in my call to provide a respectful forum so as not to silence the more timid and those with self respect.

I think it wrong that authors of articles are often attacked by people who hide behind nom-de-plumes. The author puts their reputation on the line and yet is confronted with slights on their integrity and person from people who are too afraid to risk theirs.

Clive Hamilton's dissent is, in part, a response to OLO's failure to provide a suitable forum for his dissent.

Ronnie_Peters
Posted by Verso, Friday, 4 July 2008 12:50:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A few points in my 350 words. T.Sett, Clive and I decided the basis of this duel before commencing it. I even gave him the choice of venues - here or the blog. But thanks for the implied compliment that my arguments are more compelling.

Spikey, I think you need to review the meaning of ad hominem. Sounds like any set of facts about someone can be ad hominem if you don't like them.

Bronwyn, this isn't a partisan issue, so how can I be showing political bias. Some of the biggest greenhouse sceptics represent the Labor Party - take Michael Costa for example.

To those of you who've offered support thanks. To those of you who see bias, just have a look at some of the other articles published to day. For example Manne of Influence. It's a well-crafted piece defending Wilfred Burchett that we rushed into print to get maximum publicity for the authors. I suspect they're all from a different political tradition to me, but their facts speak for themselves. They're all distinguished academics, and they sought us out. I'll take that as a vote of confidence.

On Greenhouse keep your eyes peeled in the next week or so for an article on ocean acidification. It could make me change my mind as to whether we need to worry about CO2 emissions or not.
Posted by GrahamY, Friday, 4 July 2008 12:52:38 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rstuart

"Bronwyn, gecko; did you actually go look at the archives to check if this claimed bias exists?"

No, but I did check the current list of articles closely and there are enough items on it for it to be considered a reasonably fair sample. Zero to four represents strong bias in my opinion. As a long term OLO reader, I certainly don't consider it to be an unrepresentative sample either.

Graham

"Bronwyn, this isn't a partisan issue, so how can I be showing political bias. Some of the biggest greenhouse sceptics represent the Labor Party - take Michael Costa for example."

Every issue is political, Graham, and this one is no exception. I said nothing about it being a partisan isssue. I wasn't talking about party politics. I've known all along you were a Liberal voter. That's entirely irrelevant to this debate.

Pleased to see the articles today on the green car and to read of the coming article on ocean acidifcation. Keep them coming. All we are asking for is balance so that we can all engage in informed debate on this vitally important issue.
Posted by Bronwyn, Friday, 4 July 2008 1:23:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bronwyn
"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."

Ah Bronwyn, there is in fact not a lot of quality scientific analysis supporting made made global climate change because 'quality; scientific analysis has to be
1) Open. Ever tried getting data out of the climate change alarmists? In direct opposition to scientific method, climate change alarmists refuse to produce their data and methods for replication.
2) Precise. Temperature data is badly corrupted, and 'corrections' by climate change alarmists
3) Predictive. Climate Change alarmists have consistently had predictions falsified, considering the current 10 year cooling trend.
4) Based on experiment. Computer models which fail to take into account the vast quantity of poorly understood non-anthropogenic causes are poor guides to causation and reality.

But sure...I'm sure we might able to find some science supporting the badly overblown threats of man caused global warming, but I doubt you could call it quality.

Oh and Bronwyn, please support your statement that catastrophic man made global warming has the support of an overwhelming majority of scientists, because all surveys of scientists opinions fail to show this.
Posted by Grey, Friday, 4 July 2008 1:29:08 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bronwyn et al,
I have noticed a couple of mentions about bias on the Henson issue (among other things) so I thought I would take a quick look just to see exactly where we stood: out of the seven articles that I could find in our archives there were three declaring that Henson's work was art, three claiming it was child abuse and one, Ross Buncle's piece could have been said to swing either way, but possibly came down in the final analysis to Henson's work being art.
That seems like a pretty even score to me.
It strikes me that because we are prepared to publish articles that are not necessarily what some people want to hear there seems to be a perception that there is a bias there. It would take me longer than I have to go over every climate change/renewable energy/environment article that we have done over the last few years to see what the score is, but as a previous commenter has stated they shouldn't be too far adrift.
I would also hazard a guess that because we are prepared to post articles from a different perspctive many of our readers have had an education about others' opinions. I know I get an education every day I turn up for work. So if OLO is broadening horizons and encouraging debate that would be a positive.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank OLO supporters on the forum and all the kind emails I get from authors (regardless of political persuasion). It makes it very worthwhile for me when I work at the end of a computer screen everyday. So thank you.
Susan P editor.
Posted by SusanP, Friday, 4 July 2008 1:45:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good on you, Graham, we need more people like you.

The thing that has always fascinated me about the Australian scene is the current tendency to disparage opponents with intellectually bankrupt perjorative comments such as "racist", "un-australian", and so on, with the object of criticising opinions without presenting any scientific evidence. Climate change is an excellent example of this.

If there is one fundamental problem I have with the whole subject, is the allegation that it is a moral issue. It is most definitely NOT a moral issue. It is a scientific issue. The fact that the standard of living in some countries is much higher than others has no bearing on whether human activity is changing the climate. Cold, hard scientific evidence is needed, and those who do not claim to understand the science should keep out of the debate. I am sure that many of the proponents of the theory are the same ones who feel guilty that we live better than many other nations. My problem is that I don't share this guilt. If others choose to destroy their country with civil war, coups, and crazy policies that drive out all the capable people, that is NOT my fault.

I feel privileged to be able to take part in a genuine impartial forum, where, unlike the Australian media, all points of view are presented and debated.
Posted by plerdsus, Friday, 4 July 2008 1:58:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Graham, Clive Hamilton's current bout of exposure plainly shows, that he urgently needs rest, recuperation, "preferably out in the sunlight which warms our world and fosters the growth of all living things".
Posted by Dallas, Friday, 4 July 2008 2:29:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GrahamY this morning: “An ethical approach to argument avoids ad hominem attacks and concentrates on facts and arguments. It treats its opponent's arguments with respect, and doesn't misrepresent them, and it researches its own arguments thoroughly and presents them honestly.”

GrahamY to Spikey this afternoon: "I think you need to review the meaning of ad hominem. Sounds like any set of facts about someone can be ad hominem if you don't like them."

I'm trying hard, Graham, to find the relevance to your argument with him that Robyn Williams' father was a public servant and Marxist who sold socialist newspapers on the street. Those might be facts, but how do they detract from or support Robyn Williams' capacity as a science journalist? What if his father had been a businessman and Salvation Army officer who sold the War Cry in pubs? Would those facts be relevant and not meant to belittle him?

On your characterisation of John Quiggin and Tim Lambert as "web activists who practice brown-shirt tactics", I'm finding it hard to see that as treating your opponents with respect? Brown-shirts? Maybe you meant to say you're only obliged to treat with respect those who agree with you?

In what way is characterising Al Gore as "the greatest hysteric of them all" concentrating on the facts and arguments of Gore's position on global warming? What psychological facts do you have for measuring Gore's hysteria?

Sounds like ad hominem is only what others do to you and your allies. After all, it was you who leveled that charge against Hamilton. Moral indignation ill-suits you.

I'll await your next tutorial in irony with eager expectation.
Posted by Spikey, Friday, 4 July 2008 2:37:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When i read Clive's article on OLO it read as some fixed-in-place personal ethical dilemma but when i read his background was as a professor of public ethics i was more than curious. How could this be? Counterintuitive or a contradiction or ironic or just plain funny peculiar?

Well anyway i was hoping that some contributers may offer their thoughts to help disinfect poor Clive because there are some unfortunates that do not play, that are maladaptive, fragile, inhibited, stressed or whatever?

For myself, play, although hard to define, is what I tend to do most and seemingly all lacking the extrinsic as well as any reduced uncertainty. There are cognitive benefits in play along with enrichments that enhance behavioral flexibility and discovery. Picasso and Mozart played all their lives. However, my suggestion is let's try to get the essential features of intrinsic motivation where first one should PLAY before the enrichment of find and ye shall seek.
Posted by Keiran, Friday, 4 July 2008 2:37:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I believe in human-induced gloabl warming. However the advocacy for it seem a lot more about agenda-specific reactions and stupid *@#$ like outlawing incandescent light globes. I mean that is obscene and it's bipartisan ironically..... I'm prepared to be a denier to stop these idiots start banning things and implementing taxes that have no effect at all except on raising more revenue for the government to be misused. However, it looks like the denialists are in a very weak position compared with the do-gooders and their idiotic policies.
Posted by Steel, Friday, 4 July 2008 3:00:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well done Graham.

Truely the strangest part of this was Clive saying that he wasn't interested in debating the ideas, but simply following people who he trusted. While trusting your friends is a good thing in the right context, when it comes to pursuing truth it isn't the best path.

We only have two options for pursuing truth -- using reason or faith.

Many "sceptics" accuse AGW of being a religion. That's undoubtably true for some, but an unfair accusation for many who are honestly scared of co2 under their bed. Strangely, Clive seems happy to admit that it is faith for him.

If a belief is faith based (instead of reason based) then rational argument become impotent. There is nothing you can say that will change the faith. That probably explains why Clive refuses to actually engage in the real debate.

And to add more irony... when it comes to economics (which Clive studied), he is an "economic denialist" with little credibility. Perhaps that's why he talks about his faith instead?
Posted by John Humphreys, Friday, 4 July 2008 3:14:29 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have written previously in support of Clive. I think denialist is a good word to describe those who deny AGW.

But I think both Graham and Clive are wrong to exclude non-climate scientists from the debate and to leave it to the "experts."

The issue is not only scientific, it is political.

The very structures of our governance include our politicians relying on expert advice from a range of agencies and outside advisers on a mutlitude of issues. I have expertise in one small area of law. Does that exclude me from having an opinion on what my elected representatives are doing in any other field? Of course not. It is the essence of democracy and citizenship to particpate in the debates in our society about the way forward.

In my view, the pro-denialist position seems to get a run on OLO disproportionate to its acceptance in the wider society. But I don't want Clive to leave the debates because of that. The alternative is to continue to argue calmly against the denialists.

I also think Graham misses Clive's point. But this is getting to be a dialogue of the deaf. It is time to move on, accept the differences and for AGW supporters to provide on-going rebuttal of the denialists. That should include Clive and further articles from him on OLO.
Posted by Passy, Friday, 4 July 2008 3:24:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I trust science a whole lot more than economics. Economists are like weathermen and about as reliable. They often do not put value on things which should have value because of their partisan beliefs allow them to pick and choose economic theories, rather than relying on scientific method. I have no respect for economists and that is exactly how much respect they deserve."
Cost of the Iraq War and Oil prices?"-Good question
"...Wha..?"-Economist
Posted by Steel, Friday, 4 July 2008 3:26:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The reason that the climate sceptics are still out there, despite the deep disapproval of Professor Hamilton and olthers, is that the IPCC forecasts have proved to be so completely useless to date. Global temperatures have been going down since the 2007 IPCC report (which forecast increasing temperatures) and are now below where they were for the 2001 report. Thanks to the el Nina climate cycle they are temporarily back to where they were in 1990. (At least on the Hadley site). There simply is no sign of warming.

Now perhaps this is due to some hiatus in the climate system - as the greenhouse warming advocates are claiming - and warming will resume some time. But to claim that the debate is sufficiently settled that all further argument is mischievous is patently absurd. Prof Hamilton says he does not know enough about the science to evaluate the arguements but he should know enough to know the difference between up and down. At the moment temperatures are gong down when the theory says they should be going up.

His decision to take his bat and ball and go home is not principled, it is childish.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Friday, 4 July 2008 3:31:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Graham,

I agree, it is a shame that Clive Hamilton
is going. He should have stayed and
continued to argue his case.
But that's his choice.
It's our loss, but also his.

Allowing his article gave
you the right of reply.

Which to many of us
on OLO was interesting to read.

Personally, one of the many things
that I like about this Forum - is the
wide diversity of opinion. Plus the fact,
that although I may not agree with some of
the views - they do make me re-evaluate my
own, and sometimes change my point of view.

A pity that Clive did not see value in that.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 4 July 2008 5:04:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you Graham for explaining the OLO philosophy and raison d'etra. I found that helpful.

I am appreciative that you continue to post my articles even though they seem to incite a fair few of your posters to intemperate comment, but I also appreciate the opportunity to discuss a topic as well.

I agree with your comments about about seeking truth where it is to be found and not falling into a postmodern relativist mess. There is objective reality and there is opinion and it helps to know the difference.
Posted by David Palmer, Friday, 4 July 2008 5:05:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Graham,

I do sincerely hope that you post some compelling AGW science.
My issue is that the anti AGW stance articles posted here regularly; pose already refuted ideas; use incorrect methodology; rehash already corrected data as a case in point; make fallacious claims (either through ommision or obfuscation).
Through doing this, you give your editorial team an appearance of bias.
Perhaps you need to get yourself a science editor? Although I'm sure they would end up having their impartiality (and therefore professionalism) attacked regardless of what they post.

There is a bucketload of interesting stuff going on in fields that relate back to climate science. For example the technology for extracting ice cores has recently improved. As always in science they pose more questions than they answer.
Posted by T.Sett, Friday, 4 July 2008 5:31:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
aAAAAH.. fresh air.. the wimps are gone :)

Nothing like a good stouche to improve ratings 0_^
Posted by Polycarp, Friday, 4 July 2008 6:35:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As someone who leans towards AGW but has difficulty deciding the extent to which humans are responsible, it is important to represent views from both camps.

Not many of us are scientists and we are left to read as much as possible and make our own judgements based on commonsense, review and reason in weighing up the arguments.

There is one truth we cannot deny and that is man has been and is capable of vast pollution, deforestation, overpopulation and over-exploitation of resources - in short excesses at the expense of the environment. No scientist now disputes the fact that the abundant use of CFCs contributed to the hole in the ozone layer.

All we are quibbling about is the extent of AGW and while we are quibbling Rome is burning. Reducing anti-environmental and polluting behaviour and activity can only be a good thing.

Back on track regarding opinions. I am a great fan of Clive Hamilton and believe he has a lot to offer. By the same token I think OLO does a reasonable job of providing a cross section of opinion on a vast number of issues even if sometimes the editorial 'underpants' is showing. There is certainly variation in the nature of opinion from participants on OLO.

It also cannot be denied that there are those that would exploit AGW for other purposes and this also needs to be kept in check. For example, the way in which an emissions trading scheme is designed, implemented and managed will play a great part and if the approach is wrong it will be either part of the solution or part of a bigger problem.

Our interests are best served by keeping debate open. While the jury is out on AGW even within the scientific community, an open mind is a good thing until the evidence becomes overwhelmingly one way or the other. The only overwhelming evidence is that GW is occuring.

There always needs to be scrutiny and balance and to use Clive's immortal words allowance for dissent.
Posted by pelican, Friday, 4 July 2008 7:07:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Graham,

Why do you bother replying at all? Let your posters reply. By getting down here you are foregoing your position and lose perspective. I'm afraid this guy has got under your skin and you retaliated. Grham nil, other guy 1.

Not good for an editor mate.

I must say though I think things have deteriorated here quite a lot. Not just recently but since you started relying on Islamic rants from Irfan for pulling us out of our lethargy.

If there's nothing interesting happening please don't invent something just to upset people.

Playing the race/religious card is despicable and a low stoop. On that basis alone I have to say OLO is nose diving.

But wait, a solution.

Re elect Howard and recuit Andrew Bolt and Piers Ackerman to write for you! Yay, the good old days.
Posted by RobbyH, Friday, 4 July 2008 7:18:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The author is claiming that OLO operates on “Journalistic balance” and thereby not silencing dissent.
I would contend that “journalistic balance" is just media spin designed to justify quantity V quality, not dissimilar to talk back radio. The more reasonable comments are swept away in an avalanche of the opinionated and least factually supportable (the lowest common denominator).
Conversations at this level devolves into two sides yelling at each other no-one learns (a waste of time).
Equal time is not balance! e.g. A shout of “fire” in a crowded theatre followed by another yelling the opposite serves only to confuse and panic.
A balanced debate is where individuals state their case with provable (hopefully) factual arguments devoid of hyperbole, rancour, and Dogma.
I have noted that some topics are plagued with an increasing number who argue that this is so and either refuse to say why or simply spout unprovable opinion and attack. A recent topic on public opinion being swayed by surveys was attacked by describing statistics as “the 20th century version of throwing monkey bones at a wall….. “. It might be the commenter’s opinion of statistic but how does it add to the discourse?
Other topics have been swamped with irrational/unprovable dogma and belittling anyone who doesn’t agree. This drags the topic away from the original intention into a “no win” religious diatribe. Religious views are fine but in their context. Neither do they have automatic superiority in a constitutional or legal sense. (Australia is a secular country and therefore its laws).
In short a balanced argument comes from WITHIN EACH contribution being base on rational analysis (preferably provable facts) where respect is given for other opinions and addressing the points raised not gamesmanship for some other agenda.
All relevant facts regarding an author of a topic should be declared so responders can make an informed decision if they wish to be involved. The argument that we are all lobbyists in comparison a paid or professional is a mischief as is the last word tactic. I READ AND CONTRIBUTE TO TOPICS TO LEARN NOT RUN AN AGENDA.
Posted by examinator, Friday, 4 July 2008 7:51:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican expressed pretty well exactly my views.

I have a lot of contact with Europe where everybody daily sees the effects of humans on the environment. The Netherlands mainly lies below sea level and generally there is little interest in 'waiting to see which scientist is right'. To err on the side of caution and do whatever is possible is seen as the pragmatic thing to do. The choice is certainly drowning or maybe not drowning, or at least maybe delaying drowning. A bit of a no-brainer.

Australia has a vested interest in denying or being sceptical of human effect on GW. Our coal industry is very important to our economy. Europe does not have a similar economic interest.

Examinator has a point, but who is going to decide whose contribution has no merit or does have merit? And in a way having everyone politely debating can make for a boring forum. A few loonies at least give something to laugh about.

I enjoy OLO very much. It is one of the very few places where it is possible to express opinions, be challenged on those and re-articulate or adjust opinions.

Anyway, I've now read Clive Hamilton's piece. It would be a real loss if he does stop posting.
Posted by yvonne, Friday, 4 July 2008 8:28:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yvonne,
Thanks for the comment.
Take a look at the topic "stirring the pot on Poligomy"this site
Read my criteria of a measured post and tell me which one is so wrong.
This poster has a habit of this sort of post.It is niether funny or clever it is simply obscene.
My self test is on what I write is: does this add to the debate?
Is it the truth, or is it unsubstaniated oppinion.(yes I do have them but I recognize them for what they are.)?
Cheers
Examinator
Posted by examinator, Friday, 4 July 2008 9:55:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Freedom of opinion and expression is an inalienable right of a free people.

Australia is committed to The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 19 of the Declaration provides:
Everyone has the right of freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

In a truly democratic society open debate, discussion, criticism and dissent are central to the process of generating informed and considered choices. These processes are crucial to the formation of values and priorities and help in assessing and finding solutions to social, economic and political problems.

A free press means a free people and the people of Australia have a right to freedom of information and access to differing views and opinions and declare that the following principles are basic to an unfettered flow of news and information both within Australia and across the nation’s borders.

I would like to think they are my words, but they are from the Australian Press Council, yet they certainly fit both OLO and this current discussion, whilst I do not agree with everything said, I certainly agree with providing this forum.
Posted by cinders, Friday, 4 July 2008 11:32:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I suppose on OLO we can talk about whatever we want, but the climate change skepticism debate seems to me an increasingly sterile online shouting-match that pleases no-one and resolves nothing.

Meanwhile, the Federal Government seems to be getting ready to announce one helluva round of policy reforms, on the same scale or possibly even greater than the GST.

Perhaps we should move the debate off the climate science, in which very few if any of OLO's contributors are expert, and instead focus on the policy reform debate, where there are numerous OLO contributors and commenters who could frame a productive discussion?

Think back to the GST debates and the big questions that were addressed as that policy was formed and implemented: eg. Food - in or out? Business impact - how to minimize it? Low income households - how best to protect them?

We need to be focusing on those type of questions in relation to emissions trading and climate change policy. But instead, OLO is rejecting the underlying premise of the policy landscape in which we find ourselves - which is today's equivalent of advocating for Pauline Hanson's 2% Flat Tax proposal in the context of the 1998 GST election
Posted by Mercurius, Saturday, 5 July 2008 1:34:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I wonder how long before some of the denialists begin to trash Garnaut?

And I wonder how long before OLO prints some half baked rebuttal of his report? (Admittedly Rudd and his merry gang of HowRuddistas might do that any way when they produce their response to his report. But that's another question.)

I am beginning to read the report. I have criticisms of it, including that I don't think an emissions trading scheme will actually address the problem in the short to medium term. Relying on the market to fix a problem flowing from the market doesn't seem sensible. Allowing polluters to pay for their pollution (and pass on the costs to consumers in sectors where demand is fairly inelastic) appears to me to be an indaequate response, as does the chimera of clean coal.

But his basic premise, that AGM exists, is something I agree with.

Clive, please give us your views on Garnaut in an article for OLO, to help those of us who read OLO for the ideas and debates, and to help further our own knowledge. Please!

Examinator makes some good points, but I think that there is a place for opinion and a little bit of light hearted hyperbole. Even the nutters are sometimes funny. And reading some posters helps me understand that they represent a section of our society, something before OLO I may have been intellectually aware of but not in a practical sense. So OLO helps me understand there are pockets of Christian fundamentalists, anti-semites, racists and AGW denialists (for example) out there. Prior to reading them on OLO I had no idea of their reality.

I think Examinator refered to Irfan as an islamic ranter or words to that effect. Actauly Irfan is quite moderate and sensible and makes a good case for the vast majority of muslims. (If it wasn't Examinator who said that, my apologies.)
Posted by Passy, Saturday, 5 July 2008 10:21:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think that perceived editorial bias at OLO is almost beside the point, as is the preponderance of 'denialist' comments dressed up as 'skepticism'. Quite some time ago, after reading the nth article from an IPA, CIS, AEF or whatever stooge, I came to the conclusion that on certain topics OLO is biased towards opinions that are generally neo-conservative and business-as-usual. Climate change is one of those topics.

However, my perception of bias doesn't stop me from reading and participating - although I don't involve myself much in the inevitable stoushes around AGW and climate change. Rather, as more reasonable correspondents like Mercurius, Passy et al suggest, there is much to be learned from exposure to the expressions of regressive ideas and opinions of those whose blindness and indifference to the dire state of the planet lead them to oppose any measures that might be suggested to mitigate the anthropogenic aspects of climate change.

It helps to know the enemy, so to speak. If I want serious discussion about climate change and other topics that arouse the ire of the neo-cons and denialists, I go to other sites where the debates tend to be less emotive and better informed. OLO provides a forum where I get to read the arguments, opinions and prejudices of people whom I usually avoid like the plague, rather than simply reinforcing my pre-existing ideas and opinions.

Having said that, I reiterate that the quality of articles seems generally to have declined over the past year or so, and this probably accounts for the concomitant increase in ignorant, hateful and asinine comments that seem to dominate certain threads. It is still useful, however, to be aware that such sentiments exist in the community - although I hope and suspect they are less predominant among the silent majority.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Saturday, 5 July 2008 11:20:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boys! Boys! Please be civilised and take your fight outside.
Posted by bennie, Saturday, 5 July 2008 12:02:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To our OLO smart-arse denialist right-wingers.

Geneva and Hague Conventions now illegally superseded by self elected Americana.
Earlier weaknesses said to have allowed little Israel to join the big powers, and now in possession of over 200 nuclear rockets ready to go.

According to top historians the case of letting Israel begin an illegal nuclear programme so close to its being allowed to return to its original homeland after over two thousand years, has virtually left academic global historians dismayed to the point it is difficult to get an audience with them.

It was Henry Kissinger who made a statement, now in US Government archives warning Richard Nixon that keeping quiet about Israel’s venture into atomic warfare, could greatly upset the future balance of power in the Middle East –

Such caused an Islamic resentment which surely helped to bring on 9/11.

Thus we now have the problem of Israel’s No 1 target, Iran, once former Persia, and now a greater nation of 70 million, in danger of an attack from tiny Israel, with the full weight of the GW Bush driven US Constitutional Prerogative behind her.

It is also well to remember that the above has not the backing of the American people, similar to the plan of putting the plentiful remnants of Saddam’s quarter million Iraqi Sunni national guard later turned insurgents against American occupation - and now on the US military payroll as the major focus of the Great Iraqi Awakening.

For more info’ try the Washington Post.
Posted by bushbred, Saturday, 5 July 2008 1:40:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(hi bushy!)

It's funny how both sides of this argument suspect each other of being part of some global conspiracy.

I think the fact that our once trusted Western governments have blatantly lied to us about so many life-and-death issues during the past decade, has made us ALL a little batty. What's left to have faith in?

- this is relevant -

We live in a midden of lies. Vested corporate interests have taken us into wars-for-profit, dictated vital government(s) policies and steadfastly avoided any self-examination, except for that which boosts their monetary profit. They have even managed to convince most of us that the present paradigm is the best and only way for humanity to exist. Such is the power of their influence.

It's hardly surprising that the same captains of industry are pre-emptively doing an end-run around the Garnaut Report.

Those who feel they are maybe doing "OK" under this system, or lack the courage to risk a better one, will cling to their temporal straws, even unto the edge of doom.

So, get your tickets for the Economic Nimby Dance which is to come. The fiddlers will fiddle their financial fiddles. The lockstep line-dancers will probably be the IPA. Neckerchiefs, check shirts, jeans and 10 gallon hats c/- AEF. Maybe we can get Mr Nelson to call a few square-dances for us -

- all join hands and do-si-do -
Posted by Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464, Saturday, 5 July 2008 1:59:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In case you missed it on comments on Clive Hamilton's article:

Thank you, rstuart, for reminding us that it's not so long ago that Graham Young was making flattering remarks about Clive Hamilton ("(I seem to be agreeing with Clive Hamilton's Australia Institute a lot at the moment" - OLO 17 October 2006.)

That confession sits uneasily with this current comment from Graham: "...his positions have a place on OLO, even though I rarely agree with them." Which is it, Graham? Agreeing a lot? Or rarely agree with him?

For the several bombastics who have accused Hamilton of trying to censor or stifle debate by withdrawing from OLO - and who can blame them when Graham headlined his diatribe against Clive provocatively, "Silencing dissent" - it's enlightening to look at a few salient facts concerning Hamilton's history of contributions to OLO.

According to data provided by OLO, Hamilton has published a grand total of 12 articles in 6 years and only once has he contributed to a discussion of an article - and that was last week.

By contrast, our worthy editor, who presumably was responsible for his own headline, has allowed OLO to publish 88 of his own articles and 376 other contributions (194 comments on articles and 182 general comments).

Remember this is the editor of OLO who said: "No contributor has special privileges on OLO. We don't do editorials, and when I contribute to debate, apart from rare appearances as forum moderator, it is on the same basis as everyone else."

The discerning OLO reader will ask whether Graham hasn't been playing games with us: "Clive and I decided the basis of this duel before commencing it. I even gave him the choice of venues - here or the blog."

He then cutely asks: "...why is Clive taking the time to write to its editors?...before declaring that Hamilton is "a man who has forfeited any right to take part in this debate".

Who's talking censorship? Who's manipulating On Line Opinion?

Let's have no more nonsense about Clive Hamilton trying to stifle debate and free speech.
Posted by Spikey, Saturday, 5 July 2008 3:00:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Graham and all,

Clive Hamilton was whining and reporting, when he should analysing and concluding.

Conceptual models, ANOVAs, Mulivariant anayles, collelation co-efficients, factor analyses, moderating variables, and on it goes... are used a foundation for many arguments in various disciplines. People with research degrees will understand the universal language of mathematics, without climatic related PhD degrees. Albeit, these folk might not know what constructs to include in the model. But, data will speak.

Clive's taking a firm position on a scientific subject, without any primary data is ludicrous. If able, Clive could have played Paul Davies or Jacob Bronowski or Carl Sagan, broken the subject down for the general reader. He did not take this course, either. Just saying something is, so; is inadequate.

Go back to his last article. Find the topic sentences. Nothing of substance.

If Clive Hamilton doesn't understand Climate Science, or, alternatively, he cannot breakdown the Climate Science, he does know, towards a general OLO audience, for heavens sake, how can he expect to published?

I have been on the editorial board of a "university press" journal distributed to fourteen countries: Were I in Graham's role, I certainly would take a tighter position on "Article" content than "General" discourse and, this exactly what Graham seems to have done. Good work, Graham.

Clive,

Give us your model and stats. Else, how on Earth or the Sun ;-), do we know the veracity of your posit?

Image, I am a Climate Change Agnostic from the planet Zot. Prove your case, scientifically. Prove my blast, wrong. Got it?
Posted by Oliver, Saturday, 5 July 2008 3:19:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
gecko,

Look at my posts on the Clive Hamilton complementary tread. I asked Clive for a model and data. The response? Nothing.

Recently, I submitted an article to The "A" journal in my discipline. All five reviewers said the same thing, "excellent idea, but come back when you have empirically tested the model and can provide results. We don't print propositions untested". Well, gecko, that is their standard. I accept that and I am not spitting the dumming. A year from now they will probablly accept my submission with the data. Then comes two years of revisions. Then it is printed.

How can Graham be picking on Clive, when Clive has noth substantive, which is supported, to say? Clive might be right, but he didn't prove it. Graham has standards to uphold.

What also was misleading and created so much attention was Clive's title alluding to OLO finishing up. That was unethical, I feel.
Posted by Oliver, Saturday, 5 July 2008 3:55:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Absolutely Passy, this forum is the only place where I get so close (and personal!)to persons who think totally differently from myself. Both posters and article contributors. Being on a blog with like-minded posters is cute, but not as intellectually stimulating.

Examinator, my modus operandi is to skim over posts that contribute nothing or little other than venting some personal spray. My take is that that could very well be seen as being for the public good. You know, rather heatedly banging on a keyboard than road raging or worse. I do have to confess though, that resisting flaming some posters can at times be such a challenge, that I've occasionally slipped up.

CJ says that the quality of contributing articles has declined somewhat over the year. It would be a shame if article contributors became reluctant because they are taking some of potential heated/obnoxious posts personally. Surely if you have an opinion about something and others see 'the gaps' in your thinking/analysis that can only be a good thing. Nothing like reflection to tighten up an argument. It surely is not about changing other people's opinions, but about presenting another way of looking or seeing things.

This forum is open to the public and not an in-house professional site. I think that is what makes it so very interesting. It is like a little window on my fellow voters.

As for bias on Graham's part. Of course he is biased. His political views are no secret, so I'm not sure if that is really relevant in determining whether OLO is a quality forum.

It's a lot better than what the newspapers dish up in this country. Some of the 'opposing opinions' can be so ridiculous that I wonder if it is not a set-up. Janet Albrechtsen comes to mind. I'm sure she's a stooge for the left. I always end up 'rooting' for the other side after reading one of her opinion pieces. How does she do that?
Posted by yvonne, Saturday, 5 July 2008 4:28:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I listened to Guano yesterday but for some reason i drifted off into a mid-day nap which is unusual. I guess i have a problem listening to this joker whose mind is as effective as a blocked drain pipe but i did hear him long enough to put in his disclaimer. i.e. He says clearly that his response is based on what the "scientists" are telling him.

Some posters here like Mercurius feel we now can move on and conveniently ignore this disclaimer that will assist to absolve Guano's pre-Copernican report when eventually it will be found as based on fraudulent claims. So now it all moves on to Rudd and his mob although it was just yesterday he said "that in this business there is one thing we cannot do and that is make it rain." So can he make climate? It is not surprising that Guano "described climate change as a diabolical problem" because it is simply a paradox in the first place. Paradoxes can only exist in people's minds and are not part of the natural world.

Before relying on any information Guano presents as an endorsement people should seek confirmation from the originating authority, the "scientists". He in fact expressly disclaims all and any liability and responsibility on this basis. If these "scientists" turn out to be wrong the consequences of anything done or omitted to be done by Guano can only be referred back to what he understood as the expert professional scientific advice.

It will be the political measures taken from Guano's diabolical that propel the people to go back and seriously examine the "science" or lack of it.
Posted by Keiran, Saturday, 5 July 2008 4:29:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For years now the global warming advocates and doomsayers have had a free run and, as far as I can see, not put forward one ounce of solid evidence that humans are to blame. Anyone questioning their theory has been derided and ridiculed.

Now a few articles are being put forward countering the theory of man made global warming, and not only on OLO, the warming advocates are crying foul and critisising the referee. Apparently there is also some evidence that it has been cooling for the last X years, dispite increased CO2.

There are many natural occurances that we have no control over. Such as earthquakes, volcanos, tsunarmies, continental drift, the shifting of the poles and changing rotational axis. These could all have an influence on a changing climate. Then there are other influences outside Earth.

Those that have blind faith that humans are causing global warming must have a very high opinion of our importance in the scheme of things. We cannot even influence the amount of rain, the temperature, wind, tides, snow or frost let alone the whole climate.

Untill concrete evidence is forthcoming showing human influence, I will stick to advocating natural occurances for changing climate.
Posted by Banjo, Saturday, 5 July 2008 4:41:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Years ago I believed in many alarms that claimed AGW as established scientific fact: cars, planes, cow farts, forests as “carbon banks”, and so on. If I had been born later, I probably would have believed in metaphorical “black balloons” squeezing themselves out of household appliances, like in more recent government advertisements pushing AGW onto their subjects. But in those earlier years (early to mid 1990s) I also believed in several assumptions supporting the “green” or “new age” faith about how technology and improved living standards threatened to kill us all.

One major assumption in my earlier faith was ideological. Energy production was, it seemed, an intrinisically greedy capitalist activity with only self-interested profit motives, oblivious to the natural environment and its inhabitants. The assumption was tantalizingly simple, and apparently proved by infamous pollution cases like the Exxon Valdez spill and Union Carbide's Bhopal atrocity. The sectoral greed seemed self-evident too, especially since state energy and other assets were flogged into private ownership, where short-term gain triumphed over concern for consumer needs and rights.

However, the big lie in that ideological assumption was clear from the now proven fallacy about purported “efficiency” in privatized energy and other infrastructure. How could investors agree to fund development of energy infrastructure when, for example, facilities degraded with age or city populations increased? Well, investors usually could not do such a thing, because such far-sighted, properly responsible action would eat away their profits – egads, they might have to work for a living! Therefore, the great privatizing fat cats simply kept raising the prices of their indispensable products. The supposed “market self-regulation” (an oxymoron) showed itself repeatedly to be a mere veil for opportunistic speculation in a casino economy – just as we can now see in a related process with oil and food speculation.

But perhaps the biggest flawed assumption in my earlier susceptibility to the AGW scare was a pseudo-scientific one spread via misleading metaphor. AGW language has a ritualistic power that compels attention by redefining reality in very alarming ways: think “black balloons”. Therefore,
carbon dioxide is
Posted by mil-observer, Saturday, 5 July 2008 5:57:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
the most prevalent “greenhouse gas”, and not a common, natural substance essential to sustaining and creating life itself. Thus another seductively simple notion: anthropogenic “Global Warming” must be happening because, well, it is like a “greenhouse” that is warmer inside that out, and it is caused by “greenhouse gases”. AGW language, if taken to its logical conclusion, would depict the entire earth shrouded in a never-ending swirl of ominous black balloons. But nearly all of those balloons would actually come from the ocean and natural vegetation!

Then there is Al Gore, hedge fund manager and inheritor of vast riches from ruthless mining and other ventures, but supposed “darling of the left”. Al never had to work for a living and, it seems, never had to study for it either. By sloppy reference to ice core samples, Al Gore's “Inconvenient Truth” bases its claim about AGW on one of the most outlandish pseudo-scientific fallacies I have seen, depicting carbon dioxide as PRECEDING global temperature rises during past millenia. In fact, the actual evidence depicts carbon dioxide increases AFTER global temperature rises, which is a concept even the lay observer grasps in the comparison with say the human body's processes in summer or during physical exercise. Al Gore's ignorance in that case is astonishing; such basic, major error would seriously discredit any undergraduate. To grasp just how silly Al Gore really is, think of the South Park episodes about “Manbearpig”. Many commoners understand the flaws of such sloppy, but very influential, AGW pseudo-science. However, his film is lauded to the skies, while he himself is continually feted by a multitide of other ambitious, rich and well-connected people.

Another aspect giving the lie to AGW is strategic. China, India, Russia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Iran, and others all offer the prospect of burgeoning economies with a brighter future for their populations; development is imperative there, and those states generally recognize their cross-sectoral responsibilities in that regard. AGW's “emissions trading” casino would help western oligarchs to speculate bigger, and manipulate popular support, thus keeping power and preventing other countries from developing.
Posted by mil-observer, Saturday, 5 July 2008 5:57:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Clive "never" is a big word. Ignore the editor if you must but stay with us please. We need everyone on board and it is because of the two extremes we find ourselves frustrated by the swings.

Your value is that you are capable of "standing-up" for what you believe regardless of who they are. We need your critical eye and we all need to stay at the table.... we have come so far, now is not the time to leave.

Graham writes a good article and like yourself he is human. He trys to cut a middle but no one can do that .... especially when the lay-facts are spun as they are.... in this society.

My own faith is with people.... and heartfelt for those who have less then us yet have much more to loose. ie: The voices of the Small Island Pacific, whose lands are disappearing faster than can be explained by rises in sea level....

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/radioeye/stories/2008/2284109.htm

We lost and dislocated entire tribes and tribes of world families through bloody wars, and now we navel graze as if we still have "the" time.

I say get it together boys, no moment is more essential than now.

http://www.miacat.com/
.
Posted by miacat, Saturday, 5 July 2008 6:16:22 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Onya Country girl. What a lovely comment. I haven’t read your articles but I’m interested (under what name are they published?). I don’t believe having letters after your name should be a prerequisite to contributing. If the substance is there, it shouldn’t matter who is saying it. Given the examples set by some here, I worry more about the standards in our academies than the alleged demise of OLO. Note that Clive, eg, doesn’t respond in any way to the actual claims made by Harris & McKean.

When it comes to predictive accuracy, according to Philip Tetlock’s longterm study on cognitive-style bias and political judgment, education, years of experience, academic vs non-academic, and access to classified material was of little significance. (Strongest correlation was slightly negative in relation to fame. i.e. more fame, less success. Paging Dr Flannery.)

Tetlock found that “experts” still generally did little better than “chimps” in predicting future outcomes (although flexible “foxes” did better than single-minded “hedgehogs”, and moderates better than extremists - most interesting was that whilst hedgehogs benefit from getting over their fixed lines of thought, open-minded foxes could actually be hindered by becoming too open-minded.) Anyway, this alone should be reason enough to continue to question the claims to certainty in climate science. Experts were good, however, at justifying after the event why they didn’t get it right. At the moment some AGWers are claiming la nina as the reason for current cooling. I would have thought something as influential as that would have already been factored into the models. Dr Pauchari even conceded there may be some unknown natural factors at work!

An excellent article in yesterday’s Fin Review by Freeman Dyson on the costs and effectiveness of differing approaches to reducing atmospheric carbon. A balanced academic review, he concludes with a reiteration of the importance of open debate, not the deaf talking to the deaf:

“Whether they turn out to be right or wrong, [sceptics’]
arguments on these issues deserve to be heard.”

Graham Young in a knock-out.

PS. rstuart, there’s nothing wrong with changing your mind.
Posted by Richard Castles, Saturday, 5 July 2008 6:51:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The point of the argument which totally escapes Clive Hamiliton and many of the AGW exponents,is not the belief in or the reality of Global Warming,but the right of ordinary folk to question the science and not be brow beaten into submission by those who think that they are the fountain of all knowledge and wisdom.

If CO2 is the culprit or is warming actually ocurring,we do not know for sure.One thing is certain,we need a measured reponse since panic,knee jerk reactions will certainly hurt us more than the major polluters like the US, China,India or Europe.The cure could well be worse than the disease.

Kevin Rudd wants to save the planet on his white steed by Australia leading the assault since he thinks we will be most affected.Well we did the same in WW1 and suffered unnecessary catasrophic deaths and casualities.Most of our small pop live by the ocean and will be no more affected than the US or parts of Africa.Another furphy.

All Kevin is looking for is a distraction from his economic woes since his incompetence is driving us into a serious recession.

Implement the Garnaut report and Labor will be gone for at least another decade.Perhaps it's time for a new party to rise from their ashes that actually represents the will of the people.
Posted by Arjay, Saturday, 5 July 2008 10:15:50 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I had the mouse button above Graham Young’s article but before I clicked I thought about what I was hoping might be addressed.

The first was Graham’s attack on Robyn Williams. Clive Hamilton cites it as the issue that prompted his opinion about Graham and OLO ultimately leading to his withdrawal as a contributor. He wrote “My suspicions that On Line Opinion had been captured were prompted in May when chief editor Graham Young published a vigorous attack on Robyn Williams for one snide remark he made about climate change "sceptic" Don Aitkin.”

Unfortunately this pivotal matter was not mentioned by Graham except very obliquely.

My second thought was a hope that the article was going to be restrained in acknowledgement that Clive was not going to be replying.

Unfortunately Graham couldn’t do it. Words like “Clive then misrepresents people”, “eschews facts”, “He trots out untruths”, “Of course, a lot of Clive's argument isn't unethical”, “forfeited any right to take part in this debate”, were a diatribe for mid-stoush rather than the last word, and even then I’m doubtful it would have been appropriate. Unfortunately the impression left is of cowardness.

Here was an opportunity for Graham to have shown 'grace' in his response (some from his side of politics can confuse this with political correctness) yet he failed.

In my response to Clive’s article I wrote about the fact that Graham had asked Clive for a final piece, “Maybe it is the idealist in me but I am going to choose to believe Graham that you did this for all the right (not Right) reasons since it was pretty obvious with the large number of vitriolic climate change sceptics among the forum members that Mr Hamilton was going to cop a pasting.”

I’m not sure I’m prepared to continue with that belief.

Pity.
Posted by csteele, Saturday, 5 July 2008 10:33:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Richard Castles: "PS. rstuart, there’s nothing wrong with changing your mind."

This made me laugh. It tickles my sense of irony. I normally a spend a lot of time trying to write thoughtful yet provoking comments. This effort is almost always a dismal failure - no one notices. And then thinking of nothing much, I write a 2 line idle observation. And it garners three references - two on a different thread(!)

For the record, what I said was:
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

I stumbled across this post from Graham, evidently made in a different era:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=154#2803

How times change. Perhaps they will change again, and Clive will see way clear to contribute again to OLO.
Posted by rstuart, Saturday, 5 July 2008 11:08:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The argument of global warming causes is lost to smug academia again in its perverse assumption that their opinion may matter. Thank God for the divorced concern of Mother-nature towards humanity, in her relentless march towards a scorching waterless barren rock, adrift in outer space, (forever devoid of academic argument).

For me, I shall continue to reside high above current sea levels, surrounded by “hill-bellies” whose opinions also count for naught. But something that I did find interesting in Clives book “ Scorcher” was his expose on Government subsidies to Alcoa and other aluminum smelters in Australia amounting to 40% of the total cost of electricity production in Australia. So, do we, as a community, continue to change light bulbs to save power?
Posted by diver dan, Saturday, 5 July 2008 11:26:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When all is said and done and AWG is either proven to be a fact or fiction the 'winning side' will know all those who have caused the chaos (Whether that be in the form of weather or economic) and be able to wite hundreds of articles 'blaming' and ridiculing them.

My only hopes are twofold, firstly: that the AGW's don't renege on their urgency and change their timeframe for expected disaster thereby ensuring they can never be wrong.

My other hope is simple: I hope the AGWers are wrong.

I'm a fence sitter I don't know if GW is manmade.

Only those who have sat on my fence will be able to dodge the brickbats.
Posted by keith, Sunday, 6 July 2008 7:53:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rstuart, I know the feeling. I apologise if I made too much of your idle comment, or read too much into it. In my defence, I was only making an idle one-liner myself. It’s true you were only offering an observation, and an interesting one in the context of Clive’s dummy-spit. My response was perhaps triggered more by Spikey picking it up and deceptively omitting Graham’s words “at the moment” to suggest some sort of inconsistency. It is, of course, perfectly reasonable to agree with someone rarely, but a lot at the moment, which says something about Spikey's grasp of logic. Or perhaps he does have a grasp which is why he had to omit the words to make it fit, making him either logically wrong or ethically wrong. Besides, it reads to me like Graham’s comment was also but a passing idle remark.
Posted by Richard Castles, Sunday, 6 July 2008 12:08:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"... truth is relative..."

Is self refuting. It is the ultimate achilles heel of relativist post modernism as the manner in which it states itself, contradicts itself.

Why? Beacuse there's nothing relative about the premise... its an ABSOLUTE. Hence self immolating. If the statement is true, then its true in all cases of, ahem, relative/variant (perception). Ergo an absolute. If its not an absolute, then the statement is relative, hence meaningless.

The self referential nature of 'truth is relative'... to the viewer who confers 'meaning' by way of filtering perception through personal narratives (delusions)... is begging the question. It uses the 'self' to prove the 'self.'

Po-mo confuses MEANING for TRUTH. Conflates the two and bastardises them in the favoured way of post-modernism... define away the contradiction with self referential (relative) contradiction.

No wounder few can agree on anyhting and no one knows whats going on. No wounder folks have a hard time communicating with and understanding each other, or saying anything meaningful. If its realitve then... its all relative.

Post-modernism is essentially an allegory for the nature of the human condition, in its present form... unthinking, un-critical, herd-like, gullible, quick to follow, anything goes and especially LAZY. Most importantly its never wrong. Therefore its all valid, in a sort of redundant way that has no utility, beyond colouring the facade well enough to make for a good nights sleep, with all those absurd condractions swilling about in thy head.

Poor reasoning and flawed logic does not a 'good' philosophy make. It makes for good bastardisation of it tho. And po-mo has succeeded stupendously in this regard. Its amusing that academics claim to be about challenging and broadening perspective at the same time destroying the very mechanism by which that process arises and upon which it is fundamentally driven, namely... logic, reason, judgment.

In fact the dummy spit re global warming speaks to just how anti-intellectual the intellectuals have become. Of course there would be no contradiction here in the relativist mind. Which is ironic b/c... an intellectual is someone who watches and critiques their own mind.
Posted by trade215, Sunday, 6 July 2008 12:51:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Richard Castles on Saturday: "... there’s nothing wrong with changing your mind". [The reference was to Graham Young's inconsistencies.]

Richard Castles on Sunday: "I apologise if I made too much of your idle comment, or read too much into it...My response was perhaps triggered more by Spikey picking it up and deceptively omitting Graham’s words 'at the moment' to suggest some sort of inconsistency."

Methinks Richard you are too eager to support Mr Young ("Graham Young in a knock-out".) I'm sure Young can defend himself anyway.

Let's stick to the facts - not personal attacks on my motivation. We all omit words when we quote a text. Perforce: we have a 350 word limit. No deception; no ethical lapse. We indicate the relevant omission with three dots.

Young's key words in this regard were: "I rarely agree with" Hamilton and " I seem to be agreeing with [him] a lot". You can qualify those words all you like - but the truth remains: Young is inconsistent. He was clearly out to skin Hamilton alive.

You seem to rely in your defence and that of your hero on the concept of idleness - in addition to (a) rstuart's "idle comment", there was your own "I was only making an idle one-liner myself" and "...Graham’s comment was also but a passing idle remark."

Idleness is a euphemism for laziness and an unwillingness to consider both sides equally on their merits. That would explain your reference to Hamilton's "dummy-spit" while totally overlooking Young's intemperate attacks on both Hamilton and Robyn Williams which started this whole lop-sided 'debate' in the first place.

Mr Castles as you said: "... there’s nothing wrong with changing your mind." If you can get past idle thinking, please critically read the actual texts of both Hamilton's and Young's articles and hopefully you'll see what some of us on OLO are concerned about.

PS To correct another of your idle assumptions: I am female.
Posted by Spikey, Sunday, 6 July 2008 1:19:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Graham,

Well put. Whether Clive's assessment of climate change is accurate or not does not give him the right to cry foul when others on an open opinion forum disagree with him.

One thing I have learnt over the last year on OLO is that most opinions are based on others' opinions and seldom on rational analysis of the facts. I was disappointed to find that Clive was one of those who merely echo the populist version.

I enjoy reading OLO not for the lunatic fringe but for the occasional nugget of cogent reasoning.

I bid a sad farewell to Clive, but would prefer that OLO remain as it is. Clive is welcome to start his own forum, but as only he and his ilk can contribute, it will be a sterile place indeed.
Posted by Democritus, Sunday, 6 July 2008 1:21:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whether current man-induced global warming is true or not, the fact remains that the earth has been going through warming and freezing cycles for millions of years.
The danger is not that present activities are adding to warming, but that the cleanliness and balance of nature, our ecology, is being destroyed.
That is a greater cause for alarm, not the regular, cyclic, unstoppable evolution of weather trends.
Posted by Ponder, Sunday, 6 July 2008 2:40:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
i was once booted off this forum for accusing another poster of being a member of one nation. perhaps i should have accused him of being a Laborite instead?
Posted by Rainier, Sunday, 6 July 2008 3:35:40 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Clive,

The social economists Frank Stillwell, Stuart Rosewarne and the Late Ted Wheelwright would have presented Graham with empirical data in your situation. Of your School of Thought you are not the equal of these follow academics. Rather, take you take flight rather than fight.

Paton, by comparison: At least he fought, before he faded-away.

On this occasion, you come across, as a politician with glass jaw, rather than a committed academic with case to put to OLO. Bad form. Put down the dummy and pick-up some journals.

All,

Looking at Clive's age, I guess he studied Economics at Sydney in the early seventies. Given his aspoused convictions, I would have thought he would have sided with the Wheelwright's faction, rather than take a straight Economics degree. I might need to corrected, here. Yet, to me, his actions under threat do not appear to match his stated convictions. In short, a politician.

Clive again,

Your only saving grace would be to present an empirical model. OLO will survive and thrive with or without you.
Posted by Oliver, Sunday, 6 July 2008 4:22:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Clive,

Sadly, you have put your pride, before honest debate. Your dispassion for science and Graham's call for empirical data is aptly addressed by Bertolt Brecht:

"The aim of science is not to open the door to infinite wisdom, but to set a limit on infinite error."

- Oliver
Posted by Oliver, Sunday, 6 July 2008 4:41:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think it is churlish of Clive Hamilton to turn away from ONO, especially when the Australia Institute openly refused to back a web site set up for truly democratic dialogue.

All the research on electronic conversations says the problem is people only talk to their own groups. ONO is just about the only interactive forum I know of that is truly non-partisan.

Yes, I know some of their articles are scornful of climate change, its scale and sources. But every major newspaper and the ABC has given Don Aitkins coverage, and at least here you can refute.

As one of the Al Gore climate change presenters, and also a regular blogger on National Forum, I feel the permission to speak is unparalleled. Just because no one pays attention to my blogs does not mean the opportunity to raise issues is inhibitied. Quite the contrary.

Graham 'gets' electronic democracy, Clive needs to contribute more, not less.
Posted by Karin G, Sunday, 6 July 2008 6:16:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Graham,

OLO has a life of its own, with or without Clive Hamilton. I think he has a valid point, but that is only my opinion.

What I do find disappointing is that you act and carry on in the very same way that you accuse your dissenters of doing ... this is typical of the duplicity shown by your camp. You play word games and semantics with the best of them and your legion of followers are proud.

I remember only too well our exchange in the IPA's Marohasy piece you link to in your above article ... you denying the existence of the 3 cells in the Walker Circulation and calling me dishonest.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7124#109767

I would have preferred to show you the link between these and Spencer's work, but your cherry-picking, hypocrisy and straw-man intransigence to the science is typical of the 'deny and delay brigade' in which you have so much following.

Indeed, your own ad-hom attacks and vitriol towards anyone who dissents with your own personal hobby-horse make it extremely difficult for people like Hamilton to contribute in any constructive and meaningful way.

The science is telling the world we have a problem, it is up to the world's governments and policy makers to decide on a course of action ... we are trying.

This is where you in your position could really contribute ... but you don't. Rather, you promote distorting, misleading and misrepresentation of the science on the grounds that there is strong disagreement in the scientific community when in fact there is not.

Despite your rhetoric Graham, in my opinion you have abrogated your responsibility as a chief editor of a media forum like OLO ... but, it is yours and you can do with it what you like.
Posted by Q&A, Sunday, 6 July 2008 6:17:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Many scientists who were once in the flock of true believers and now having doubts and becoming sceptics.
See http://canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming051607.htm

Since Q&A is such an ardent believer,could he please explain why the weather and oceans have cooled since 1998?While the Artic sea has shrunk by about 25% since 1979,why has the Antartic ice remained constant?Why also is Bob Carter wrong in his conclusions.CO2 it seems does not drive climate but rather follows temp increases by some 800 yrs.
Q&A it seems is a bit like Clive Hamilton,whereby,all truths eminating from his keyboard are self evident.
Posted by Arjay, Sunday, 6 July 2008 6:53:46 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spikey, my apologies for assuming you are male. I can only say I did assume Spikey to be a more masculine pseudonym. I mean no disrespect by this.

I hate to get stuck on trivialities, which these exchanges generally descend into, and which I think is the point rstuart was making about idle remarks, in the obvious sense of 'of no great importance', as in idle chit-chat, but I feel compelled to respond to your weak defence.

"We indicate the relevant omission with three dots."

Firstly, you didn't. Secondly, it is not OK to omit words if it changes the meaning of what was said. I believe the professor of public ethics at CAPPA would agree. Deleting "at the moment" clearly changes the meaning enough for you to allege an inconsistency which is not there, especially as the statements are two years apart.

"Perforce: we have a 350 word limit." Your post is 333 words long. The curious missing three would take it to 336.

You may accuse me of being pedantic, but I believe your false accusation warrants correction. I am not defending GY, nor is this a personal attack, but as I write this, I realise I HAVE changed my mind: such matters in ethical debate are not trivial at all.

Of further note, Spikey, is that your so "which is it, Graham?" thinking betrays your own focus on the person rather than the content, as if people have to either agree or disagree with everything another person says. It's not like that with my friends. As I see it, your alleged inconsistency inadvertently makes a case that GY attends to the content rather than the person, and not yourself. And as I now, regrettably, originally said, there’s nothing wrong with changing your mind anyway.

PPS, rstuart. My apologies if this has turned into exactly what you feared.
Posted by Richard Castles, Monday, 7 July 2008 2:03:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am not a climate change denialist. I am not silent. This anecdotal evidence from a small sample gainsays Clive Hamilton.

My (self-proclaimed)expert opinion is that three factors are involved:
- empirical evidence about the polar ice caps.
- minor random fluctuations on a geological timescale look pretty major on a human timescale
- the planetary climate is metastable.

Yes there appears to be a gradual global increase in mean temperature (and it's a worry - I don't want polar bears and penguins to go extinct). Some people say that the weather is more variable and severe than in the past. But remember Dorothea MacKellar - 'droughts and flooding rains'? She wrote that a while back.

My view is that it is impossible to tell whether the current weather patterns are a minor random fluctuation and/or symptoms of a trend to global warming. In Australia we have a variable climate over most of the country anyway. ‘Average’ rainfall in drier areas is made up of years of nothing and an occasional heavy rain season.

There is surely no controversy over the effect of increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere – the average global temperature rises - although there may be argument about how much. I hope that all you climate change denialists who have distressed Clive Hamilton are denying the timing not the chemistry.

Hence my third factor - there is a threshold at which gradually changing conditions result in a sudden (on the geological scale) switch in climate. There is no way of knowing if conditions after this point of no return would support human civilisation.

And you can’t put it back.

The case is not proven, but there is ‘reasonable doubt’ that climate change is NOT happening. After all, ‘climate denialists’ are no less likely to be wrong than ‘pro-changers’. If it is, who knows when we will get to the point of no return. Regardless of whether you think climate change is upon us now or maybe not for 10,000 years, the prudent course is surely to make changes now to safeguard against it.
Posted by Pequod, Monday, 7 July 2008 9:22:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
On line forum
Can we have a topic "POLITICS and DEMOCRACY"
http://www.globalwarminglies.com/
just type in global warming with...risk or scam or hype etc
also an ice age would be much worse
also there are plus and minus in most change
Posted by senatevote, Monday, 7 July 2008 9:29:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Richard Castles,

Thanks for your apology for assuming I am male because you assume that Spikey is “a more masculine pseudonym”. I apologise for assuming you were defending Graham Young. I assumed that’s what you meant by "Graham Young in a knock-out".

More important, I’d be happier for an apology for your misrepresenting my posts (idle reading perhaps). This is not a matter of pedantry. The issue goes to the heart of the ‘debate’ where correspondents distort others’ submissions.

I said: "We indicate the relevant omission with three dots."

You replied: “Firstly, you didn't. Secondly, it is not OK to omit words if it changes the meaning of what was said. I believe the professor of public ethics at CAPPA would agree. Deleting "at the moment" clearly changes the meaning enough for you to allege an inconsistency which is not there, especially as the statements are two years apart. “

So you accuse me of (a) not inserting three dots to indicate omission and (b) deleting “at the moment” so as to distort Youn’g message.

Are you reading a different version of OLO? Here’s what I actually wrote:

“Thank you, rstuart, for reminding us that it's not so long ago that Graham Young was making flattering remarks about Clive Hamilton ("(I seem to be agreeing with Clive Hamilton's Australia Institute a lot at the moment" - OLO 17 October 2006.)

“That confession sits uneasily with this current comment from Graham: "...his positions have a place on OLO, even though I rarely agree with them." Which is it, Graham? Agreeing a lot? Or rarely agree with him?"

The evidence is absolutely clear that you are in error: I did include the three little words you allege I omitted; and I did include the three dots for omission of other words.

As for my post being just 333 words, I’ve re-counted. It’s 348 words. So what am I to make of your mistake? Idleness again, or mischievous distortion?

As for asking Young to clarify his conflicted position on Hamilton, please explain how that is a personal attack rather than addressing the content?
Posted by Spikey, Monday, 7 July 2008 10:10:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There was a good discussion on Insiders on the weekend. This guy basically said when scientists cant predict the weather more than a few days in advance, and when the government cant accurately predict the surplus, this debate about carbon tax is fraught with danger.

Even Gerard Henderson wisely articulated something like the only thing we know about the future form the past is that people are hopeless at predicting the future:-)

That's why I think all this attempt to stigmatise climate change 'deniers' is laughable. It's the doomsdayers who should be under examination.
Posted by Usual Suspect, Monday, 7 July 2008 10:44:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To me, onlineopinion has been trying to pushing certain lines since it started.

But I wouldn't worry, especially on the climate change issue.

Almost every day that goes by sees the deniers are looking more and more brain-dead stupid, or ignorant, or both. Let them have their say as much as they want.
Posted by john kosci, Monday, 7 July 2008 1:31:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
john kosci, if the policies in response weren't so ridiculous, there wouldn't be this poltical disconnect, between the science and policy. Eg. Banning incadescent globes
Posted by Steel, Monday, 7 July 2008 2:06:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I haven’t read the 79 posts, I’d just like to comment on Clive Hamilton. I first met him in the mid-80s. At the time, CH and Peter Brain (NIESR) were spruiking strategic trade theory, the notion that (contrary to all the evidence) government intervention could create globally-competitive firms. Earlier, Paul Krugman, an eminent economist and trade theorist, had been perplexed by the persistence of interventionist views. As an exercise, he developed a seminal paper on STT. He found, to his surprise, that, theoretically, there were some situations in which STT could work. However, it was extremely unlikely that such circumstances could ever arise in practice, a point which CH and PB failed to grasp.

The only example they could point to in support was Airbus. Two problems: as of 1990, the Airbus had had $US26 billion of net subsidies, the main beneficiaries being long-distance travellers rather than the people of the subsidising countries (it’s still in strife); and the scale of operation and subsidy involved was way out of Australia’s capacity.

At the time, Hamilton was a Commonwealth PS economist who was very poorly regarded by his peers. He later teamed up with physicist Ian Lowe at the Australia Institute, a bit of a surprise to me as Lowe had publicly lambasted me on a number of occasions around 1988-91 when I had suggested that there was some benefit in bringing economics into consideration of environmental issues. This abuse extended to my proposal for a study of the potential economic impacts of accelerated global warming; Lowe later embraced the IPCC’s AGW scenarios, all of which are based on economic modelling

As for Brain, after being paid a lot of money around 1996 by Queensland’s so-called Department of State Development to advise on trading opportunities, he declared in his report that coal exports would cease by 2000 because of greenhouse concerns! We couldn’t get him to explain how this conclusion derived from his work.

So, know Hamilton by the company he keeps, and don’t be surprised, Graham, when he fails to argue through facts and analysis.
Posted by Faustino, Monday, 7 July 2008 3:40:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Faustino really typifies a certain type of posting on OLO that gives this site a poor name.

"At the time [mid-eighties], Hamilton was a Commonwealth PS economist who was very poorly regarded by his peers."

Let's unpack that cowardly allegation a bit.

1) No names, no pack-drill: just 'by his peers'. Un-named. Not quantified. No sources cited. All word-of-mouth, as reported third-hand by the anonymous Faustino.

2) 'Poorly regarded'. With no specific standard of measurement. Indeed, it could represent praise if Hamilton were getting on the wick of deeply conservative and ill-performing mandarins.

3) It relates to a period, the mid-1980s, at which remove it would be next to impossible to verify or falsify the allegation.

So, we can smile ironically when Faustino advises, Graham, that he shouldn't be surprised when Hamilton "fails to argue through facts and analysis". Oh no, we'll leave the facts and analysis to Faustino. He's so full of them - or it.

I don't know what legal redress anyone has for such a cowardly anonymous character assassination. But I sure think I should not be the only poster to tell Faustino he is way out of line.

Where's our Editor-in-chief who was bemoaning ad hominem attacks a few days go?

Finally, lest OLO become even more akin to that other coward's castle, let Faustino put his real name to his posting. Then we'll know he's not just venting his spleen without giving the other person a fair go.

Elizabeth Moore
Posted by Spikey, Monday, 7 July 2008 5:19:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Q&A

There are three principal geophysical regions "affected" by Walker Circulation. This does not mean there are three Walker Circulations. Walker circulation, single, is interacting with topography and other viables, e.g., lakes. The effects from Walker Circulation is called zonal overturning. Overturning is also influenced by orbital events. [Graham et al, Nature, 2001]. Only a coincidence :-). Swings have occurred, yes sir, about five times in the last 50,000 years:

"The most important result of our study is the identification and
dating of wet and dry events on the Altiplano (Fig. 2a) for
the past 50,000 cal. yr." [Graham et al, Nature, 2001].

Walker circulation requires a warm zone and cool zone, else how does a vortex carry the precipitation.

I read an Nature article not Wikipedia.

Happy to look at your perspective. Do have a few journal citations? Not too much, I need time to read. Thanks.
Posted by Oliver, Monday, 7 July 2008 8:51:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This was a pretty nasty piece Graham. There were so many misrepresentations of Clive's article that frankly I was quite shocked.

But before I delete my account and say goodbye forever, let me take issue with your comments on the quality of the denialist articles you publish. You say you publish an article if it's arguable. Really Graham, have a look at some of the dross that you have published on this topic. There was the accountant who drew a line from the record temperature in 1998 to 2008 and 'proved' that global warming ended ten years ago. And what about that spate of silly articles saying Y2K was a hoax and that tells us something about global warming? And those articles full of whole-hearted praise for Martin Durkin, comparing him with Einstein I think? And then when Durkin turned out to be a charlatan, the articles criticising Tony Jones for daring to ask him hard questions? Some of the material you've accepted on AGW might be arguable, but most of it's just sophistry and propaganda.

It's quite sad really. Many of the articles on OLO are excellent but when it comes to AGW you seem to have a blind spot.
Posted by Philbee, Monday, 7 July 2008 9:08:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said, Graham. I've only heard Clive Hamilton speak once - at a Communities conference in Melbourne in 2004 - and I was very disappointed at the bias and lack of political balance in his speech. If he now wants to take his bat and ball and play somewhere else, well, OLO is probably better off without him.
Posted by Bernie Masters, Monday, 7 July 2008 9:49:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oliver, read my lips … There is one Walker Circulation; there are three Walker Circulation cells.
Now … which part do you not understand?

Or are you deliberately trying to distort what I say too?

You read Nature … that’s great, I read it too.
I also extend myself to other journals (goes with the territory) but mainly I share my work with other scientists at the ‘coal face’ (pun intended).

Contrary to your snarky remark, I don’t ‘do’ wiki.

Oliver, did you actually read the paper I cited?
Your comments suggest not … maybe you didn’t 'understand' it?
Graham obviously did not want to.

Try again:

http://www.geosc.psu.edu/Courses/Geosc320/Lau.pdf

Take your time to read. I suggest you talk to Lau or Yang if you want to argue the point (my expertise lies in other areas) - besides, I went through it all with Young.
Cheers.
Posted by Q&A, Monday, 7 July 2008 9:50:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spikey (Elizabeth I see now),

your words, as cut & pasted from your post, are: “Which is it, Graham? Agreeing a lot? Or rarely agree with him?" By omitting the words “at the moment” from the original quote, you are inferring a self-contradiction or inconsistency which is not there.

In the following sequence of one hundred ‘Opinion events’, A = Agree, D = Disagree.

DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD(AAAADAADAA)DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD.

It can be reasonably said that this person rarely agrees (just 8%). But in the period which I have bracketed, which is an arbitrary temporal space set by the commentator that could be named “at the moment”, he agrees quite a lot (80%). No contradiction.

Regarding the word count, I accept your figure and acknowledge my error. Lazy? Perhaps. Mischievous distortion? Absolutely not. An indicator of the dangers of relying on computers? Apparently. I simply used the word count function on my PC and that is the figure that came back. I must have missed a line, and it’s an embarrassing mistake.

I’m guessing your ears are quite open now with this admission, so perhaps you can keep them that way a bit longer. This has no bearing on the crucial point I was trying to make, which is that you distorted someone’s words to make a false accusation. Arguing word limits is no excuse, and any good university lecturer would call you to account in an undergraduate essay. And are you now trying to suggest that you omitted these three particular words because they were the ones that would have taken you over 350?

It makes me suspect this has all served a secondary purpose, which is to divert, obfuscate and make more mess, in the hope it will hide your little fib. But it was spotted, spikey, at least by me.

I think that’s enough. I’ve argued my case. If there is anyone else on the planet following this mind-numbing exchange, they can be the jury.

PS. The only Spikes I can think of off the top of my head are Jonze, Lee, Milligan and Fonzie’s nephew from Happy Days
Posted by Richard Castles, Monday, 7 July 2008 10:32:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Richard

So pleased to see that you are making a little progress, albeit slowly. Although I’m sorry you think “that’s enough” and that you have argued your case – because you’re still repeating one last falsehood.

Thank you for agreeing that you misled us when you claimed that my post was 333 words when in fact it was 348. So that advances the human condition an infinitesimal incremental step. And everyone on OLO cheered.

But even making allowances for your computer missing lines, I am now getting totally puzzled by your repeated insistence that I omitted the three little words, “at the moment”.

I have shown you again that I did not omit those words by quoting verbatim the actual sentence I wrote – and at the risk of boring everyone else who got it ages ago – I’ll cut and paste it again:

“Thank you, rstuart, for reminding us that it's not so long ago that Graham Young was making flattering remarks about Clive Hamilton ("(I seem to be agreeing with Clive Hamilton's Australia Institute a lot at the moment" - OLO 17 October 2006.)

Now what’s the problem? How else can I say it? I did NOT omit the three words “at the moment”. They were there. And still are. Can’t you see them at the end of the quotation?

So in answer to your bizarre question: “And are you now trying to suggest that you omitted these three particular words because they were the ones that would have taken you over 350?”, my only answer must be a resounding “No, because I did NOT omit them.

Perhaps you mistook me for another man? Spike Milligan perhaps? He’d appreciate this goofy goonery.

(288 words, errors and omissions excepted)
Posted by Spikey, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 10:21:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Q&A,

Such passion. I will try to be more detatched.

[1]"Some meteorologists consider these circulations part of the family of 'Walker cells'... "cells". [Quote]

[2] Please notice the title of the article, "Walker Ciculations". [Qoute]

[3] Two circulations [plural] are mentioned "Walker" and "Hadley"

[4] Re [3] above, on another post, I mention north-south inversions vis-a-vis east-west. Moreover, wind from a convection has a cooling effect against the Sun from Earth's wobble.

[5] Please note, the authors use of a definite article, "The", in the summary:

"The Walker Circulation [~singular~] comprises east–west atmospheric
circulation cells [~plural~] along the equatorial belt. The Pacific branch [~singualar~] of the Walker Circulation [~singualar~] consists of easterly winds at the lower troposphere, westerly winds at the upper troposphere, rising motion over the western Pacific, and subsidence over the eastern
Pacific.

[6] My interpretation, you would have it illiterate interpretation, is; that there is, 'The' Walker Circulation" affecting weathers [plural]. Said weathers plural are cells within the phenomenon, or, as I in relation to my case,lakes;

"Walker Circulation and associated overturnings [I states this, look above] in the equatorial plane should refer only to the divergent component of the wind. Figure 2A shows the annual climatology (the mean state of all months) of the overturning circulations along the equatorial plane as streamlines constructed from the divergent zonal and vertical winds."

One is One. One becomes an "underlying" three, owing to mitigating variables.

[6] To be fair to you, I will re-read, including the Journal of Climate. But, I think you are calling a branch a tree?
Posted by Oliver, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 12:03:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear, oh dear spikey,

What a tangled web we weave...

I am writing again to address your latest distortion. Nowhere did I agree I had misled. I admitted I had made a mistake in haste. It was unintentional and I promptly corrected it. You could learn from this, but instead try to humiliate with some childish fantasy about "everyone" cheering and "everyone else" getting it. It might hurt if it weren't such impotent hyperbole.

Meanwhile, you continue to mislead, to wit, in the quote you claim to repeat again, the phrases to which I have drawn attention have now magically disappeared altogether! And it is only by ignoring the three words I have named that you were able to make your false accusation of contradiction, which I think I have adequately demonstrated. You seem quite unable to look at this.

The major point I am trying to make here, as it relates to the exchange between Clive and Graham, and the allegations being made, is that those who accuse others of bias, distortion and hypocrisy should be willing to hold the mirror up to themselves. One of the benefits of an online forum like OLO is that others have an opportunity to do it for them.

Confucius say, person who points finger has three pointing back at self.

I have called attention to your perhaps unintentional deception, but rather than look at it, you dig yourself in deeper with defensive evasiveness. No wonder you are puzzled. Recognizing your own distortion might help clear things up for you.

Alas, as the self-appointed guardian of editorial integrity at OLO, you have amply revealed your own standards (there are other examples I could provide), and I won't be expecting much different. So if your next accusation isn't on the stumps, it will be going through to the keeper.

That's tea.
Posted by Richard Castles, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 6:43:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Graham, I believe your portrayal of Clive Hamilton is largely a straw man. You accuse him of arguments from authority and ad hominem attacks. I do not think this is what Hamilton meant. Of course there are some people who are less honest or have less expertise than others. The people who are most likely to be trustworthy are those who have no vested interest in scientific results, who have run the gauntlet of criticism that is the peer review process, and who are experts in their field. Furthermore, after saying that he “had to decide not what to believe but whom to believe”, Hamilton went on to argue against Don Aitkin’s claims (http://onlineopinion.com.au/documents/articles/A_Cool_Look_5-4-08.pdf), not Aitkin himself. (I won’t repeat everything Hamilton says – see http://www.newmatilda.com/2008/05/19/death-rattles-climate-change-skeptics). Aitkin’s arguments have also been rebutted by Geoff Davies in two other OLO articles: A Cool Look at Professor Aitkin’s global warming skepticism (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7381) and Why Listen to Scientists? (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7418)
In a previous piece (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7373) you accused ABC’s Robyn Williams and other scientists of “bullying” Aitkin by critically examining his claims. But this is precisely how science is supposed to work! Scientific theories need to be routinely subjected to scrutiny, otherwise science can never move on. The word “bullying” was not invented to apply to intellectual argument. Imagine if Copernicus hadn’t “bullied” the geocentrics, or if Darwin hadn’t “bullied” the creationists.
The irony is that this is precisely the kind of debate that you claim to be in favour of in your response to Clive Hamilton – but apparently you only apply this principle when it is convenient for you. I’m all for scientific skepticism and debate, but I think that OLO sometimes goes further than that by publishing articles with a view of climate science that is laughable – eg. Phil Chapman’s nonsensical assertion (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7295) that 2007’s temperature trend indicates an imminent ice age (his claims are debunked by David Karoly in a subsequent OLO article, http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7320). This is something I think could be compared with the prescientific view that the Earth is flat, or paranoid delusions regarding global conspiracies.
To be continued…
Posted by science enthusiast, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 6:46:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Another recent piece of OLO climate nonsense is the claim that global average temperature has not risen since 1998 (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7355), a common denialist argument. The truth: 1998 was a particularly hot year due to a strong El Nino – a short-term fluctuation that disguises the longer-term trend of increasing temperatures. (Global warming denialists often overlook other factors than carbon dioxide levels.) The fact that the highest point in the temperature record has not yet been exceeded (though it has been equaled twice, in 2005 and 2007) does not mean that the overall trend is no longer upward. We need to be careful to focus on the long-term trend and not allow ourselves be distracted by short-term fluctuations.
Of course, OLO has also published a number of good articles on climate change -- recent examples include “Clock running out on irreversible climate change” Part I (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7270) and Part II (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7278) and “Make a stand for good science” (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7335), as well as rebuttals to some of the nonsense that appears on this site -- but I think there is indeed an editorial bias. I think your (presumably well-intentioned) attempt to create journalistic balance is misguided. Those who believe the Earth is flat should not get equal time as those who believe it is round; in this case a 50-50 balance would be insanely out of proportion (perhaps it should be more like 99-1 in favour of the spherical Earth viewpoint). I am aware that this is an extreme example, and I am not arguing that skepticism of global warming is as unscientific as skepticism of the Earth’s sphericity (or at least not some of the more mainstream skeptical arguments). There is still legitimate debate going on within the scientific community (not so much over the reality of global warming and the responsibility of human activity, but more about the potential impacts, what we should do about it, etc), and the skeptics may still deserve a place at the table, but not 50% of the places. Maybe the ratio should be something like 95-5, but not 50-50.
To be continued tomorrow…
Posted by science enthusiast, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 6:47:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
global warming debate
Carbon trading will double power costs ...and make some traders richer
And feed the media bull dust
Time to get real with the science surrounding CO2 effects
Just do some searches using SCAM or HYPE or SWINDLE or LIES with CO2 or GLOBAL WARMING then spend the rest of your life reading it or listen
and or watching it on Utube etc.
This is not a matter of Democracy but of Science
History proves majority views are not science
Posted by senatevote, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 7:09:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://www.globalwarminglies.com/
This site suitable for dial up
Icons for
...Plants love co2
...Graphs showing temp history
...Cold change being worse
...Mankind to control climate outcomes Why not in the debate ...Man could do much other then co2...
...Much science to be done in key areas of bioligy, chemistry, phisics,
Under sea investigating, history of the planet on and on
SO CHECK OUT THIS SITE AND ITS AND OTHER LINKS SEE above blog
Posted by senatevote, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 7:55:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
John Quiggin has got it right:

"Graham Young continues to trash the credibility of Online Opinion which once promised to become a serious alternative to the mainstream media. Clive Hamilton bids OLO farewell after its publication of a delusionist piece written by Canadian energy industry PR man Tom Harris."

http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2008/07/03/radical-scepticism/
Posted by Philbee, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 9:18:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In my opinion John Quiggin is only saying that because I outed him for his dishonest campaign against Fred Singer. When asked for evidence he suggested that I do a Google search!

This blog entry is yet more brown shirt tactics. You should go and read the piece I wrote on Robyn Williams where I've detailed some of Quiggin's campaign. Extraordinary that a Federation Fellow should prosecute the campaign that he has, including altering Singer's Wikipedia entry. You would think that he had better things to do with his time.
Posted by GrahamY, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 9:26:11 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Instant fail, Graham: Godwin's law. Brownshirts?! It's a single sentence on his own blog. You do think a lot of yourself.
Posted by Chade, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 10:31:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear, oh dear Richard,

When in trouble dissimulate and render meanings obscure. You concede you made a mistake but you don't concede you misled? Is there something I'm missing? If a mistake is unintentional it's not misleading? So if I mistakingly say that the road is clear and you get hit by a bus, I haven't misled you?

Here are the repeated false allegations you make against me:
"Spikey...deceptively omitting Graham’s words 'at the moment' to suggest some sort of inconsistency." Sunday, 6 July 2008 12:08:31 PM

"Deleting 'at the moment' clearly changes the meaning enough for you to allege an inconsistency which is not there, especially as the statements are two years apart. Monday, 7 July 2008 2:03:53 AM

"And it is only by ignoring the three words I have named that you were able to make your false accusation of contradiction, which I think I have adequately demonstrated." Tuesday, 8 July 2008 6:43:26 PM

However, the problem is that, every time I look at what I wrote, the three words "at the moment" are included. You made a mistake in claiming I omitted them. Now you cannot bear to concede that you were wrong. So you keep repeating your mistake presumably in the hope that if you keep repeating yourself, your untruth will turn into truth. It doesn't work like that, old chap.

You say: "Confucius say, person who points finger has three pointing back at self...Recognizing your own distortion might help clear things up for you." Now on that we are in furious agreement Richard!

Enjoy your cuppa! You need it.
Posted by Spikey, Wednesday, 9 July 2008 12:04:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Elizabeth,

I can sense you are furious and wishing that I was hit by a bus.

I shall try one last tack. If, as you say, your problem is that everytime you look, you do see these words (that is, your perception is: “Which is it, Graham? Agreeing a lot [AT THE MOMENT]? Or rarely agree with him?", then you should be able to see that there is no contradiction in them. I think I have adequately illustrated this.

Allow me to remind you of one of your own perceived flaws in OLO from

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7580#117508

"5. More than enough OLO respondents are inarticulate ranters unable to follow an argument or have any appreciation of the fact that opinions are better if they are logically presented and supported with some relevant evidence."

In another post, you call Graham Young on his "ample silence", while others criticise him for commenting at all. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, it seems.

I'll be sure to look both ways crossing the street today.
Posted by Richard Castles, Wednesday, 9 July 2008 10:55:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Q&A,

Correction: [2] Please notice the title of the article, "Walker Ciculations". [Quote] Should read "Walker Circulation." Posting policy did not allow me to collect.

The is only one "Walker Circulation". There are three cells caused by geophyscial phenomenon, other than Walker circulation.

One might driving a Holden into a brick Holden circulation. I would not call such an event a Holden cell or a Brick cell. Say the dependent variable is speed given accelerator pedal pressure [I.V.].

The interference [lakes, mountains, topography generally] with Walker circulation are mitigating variables, if temperature(s) is/are the dependent variable(s). These "obstacles" are not part of the "Walker" phenonmena, rather separate variables acting on Walker circulation, from outside it. Else put, not variations within a Walker system, but three cases where, there are agents creating an abrogation of the THE Walker system. Calling the cells, "Walker" cells disguises this matter.

Without the mitigating variables, perhaps (?), Walker circulation is a linear system. External interfering variables surely create a clear non-linear system.

The lake example, I provided, before, had to do the exchange of CO2. This lake case is a separate phenomenon, an acting separate agent. Similarly, say, deforestation caused a change of a weather pattern, the case is x + y creating z, not x becoming x1. The separate cell is non-linear, not a variation of linear x.

Forget the nomenclenture, draw it.

Yours in my ignorance,

O.
Posted by Oliver, Wednesday, 9 July 2008 11:14:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Richard,

I have no wish for you to be hit by a bus. Being hit by some logic would be much healthier. Although a very gentle nudge by a bus might shake your ocular senses a little.

I, like you, (observe the commas) shall try one last tack.

Today, you write: "If, as you say, your problem is that everytime you look, you do see these words (that is, your perception is: “Which is it, Graham? Agreeing a lot [AT THE MOMENT]? Or rarely agree with him?", then you should be able to see that there is no contradiction in them. I think I have adequately illustrated this."

On Saturday, 5 July 2008 at 3:00:48 PM, (it's easily checked) I wrote: "Thank you, rstuart, for reminding us that it's not so long ago that Graham Young was making flattering remarks about Clive Hamilton ("(I seem to be agreeing with Clive Hamilton's Australia Institute a lot at the moment" - OLO 17 October 2006.)

"That confession sits uneasily with this current comment from Graham: "...his positions have a place on OLO, even though I rarely agree with them." Which is it, Graham? Agreeing a lot? Or rarely agree with him?"

Ah so that's it? Having quoted the offending words "at the moment" in my very first paragraph, I had the temerity to think that I need not repeat the quotation in full in my second paragraph? So you quote my second, but not my first paragraph to accuse me of selective quoting?

And on that flimsy basis you find me 'deceptively omitting Graham’s words “at the moment” to suggest some sort of inconsistency'? And that I'm 'either logically wrong or ethically wrong'?

Well! Well! Pardon me for thinking OLO readers can hold an idea from one short paragraph to the next.

Thank you for doing me the honour of quoting from one of my earlier posts on logic and evidence. Perhaps had you read that a little sooner, we'd both have saved a lot of time.
Posted by Spikey, Wednesday, 9 July 2008 11:51:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Graham, you declare that “No contributor has special privileges on OLO… it is not our place to tell others what to think. Consenting adults can come to this site and see opposing arguments laid out before them and make-up their own minds. Clive is under-estimating the ability of our average reader.” This is difficult to reconcile with your later statement that you would not publish "Larouche delusions about the Royal Family being in cahoots with global Jewry to run drugs", because you “do have an editorial stance on what is publishable, and the test is that it must be arguable, not that it must necessarily be true”. Just how wacky does an idea have to be for you to publish it? I invite readers to read Chapman’s “ice age cometh” article (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7295), and find out just how good OLO’s quality control is.

Having said all of this, I would like to clarify that I do think OLO is a worthwhile enterprise, and I appreciate that it provides a forum for members of the general public such as myself to express their opinions. I just think it could do with some improvement in some areas such as this one.

To be continued…
Posted by science enthusiast, Wednesday, 9 July 2008 10:01:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perhaps the strangest aspect of your response to Hamilton is your accusation that he’s arguing from the position that “truth is relative”, in contrast to OLO’s position “that there is such a thing as the truth, and that it is out there, even if none of us will ever perceive it more than dimly… that while there is such a thing as the truth it demands constant mining and refining for it to be discerned”. While I am a staunch proponent of the scientific method and wholeheartedly agree with your statements about truth and objective reality, I see no reason to believe that Clive Hamilton does not agree with these principles also, let alone that he comes from the school of “postmodernism, theory and forms of Marxist analysis”. (Indeed, your own site quotes him (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5680) as saying the “error of post-modernism” is that it has no foundation for ethics, because “any moral stance must be relative and therefore… lacking in conviction”.) You seem to have just plucked your accusation out of thin air to create, as I said above, a straw man – so much for “An ethical approach to argument avoids ad hominem attacks and concentrates on facts and arguments.”

You claim that “I'm an empiricist. Looking at the facts and theories, and seeing how predictive or not they were, has led me to hold the political beliefs that I hold. When the facts show me to be wrong, I change my mind.” The facts have long since shown that global warming is a fact. So why do you provide a forum for those who still deny the science of global warming? Certainly, let’s allow people to have a forum for their opinions, but also make sure the facts in their articles are true.
Posted by science enthusiast, Wednesday, 9 July 2008 10:04:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A lot of words and still avoiding the point, spikey. Your agility in evasion is impressive, or perhaps as I originally suspected, the logic bus missed your stop.
Posted by Richard Castles, Wednesday, 9 July 2008 10:27:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lets not forget how many articles may be censored here. Do not make the mistake of assuming Graham or whoever does the reviewing does not censor articles or would do so.
Posted by Steel, Wednesday, 9 July 2008 11:37:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Richard Castles

You say: "A lot of words and still avoiding the point, spikey. Your agility in evasion is impressive, or perhaps as I originally suspected, the logic bus missed your stop."

Um...can your remind me...what was the point?

And whose point was it?
Posted by Spikey, Thursday, 10 July 2008 9:39:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Graham

Your attack on John Quiggin was unworthy of an editor.
Posted by Passy, Thursday, 10 July 2008 9:23:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Passy I disagree. Graham, along with the rest of us, should have an inalienable right to express his views.
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 10 July 2008 9:31:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Australia's latest climate change report reads like a disaster novel

Despite the above most of our OLO contributors are either CC Denialists or lack courage to back CC.

The CC inbetweeners are also mostly those who wish for the CC worries to go away - those still happy with life the way it is, especially in sport or business.

Quarry economics plus pitstock politics now Australia's lot for Big Biz. No worries about climate change.

Have Fun - BB, WA
Posted by bushbred, Saturday, 12 July 2008 1:54:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Australia's latest climate change report reads like a disaster novel'

Like every other bit of drama written by the alarmist for at least 50 years. The problem is the story continues to change. No doubt the next report will be worse than the previous one.
Posted by runner, Saturday, 12 July 2008 2:19:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dream on, G.Young, OLO has blown its credibility and lost its pretence of objectivity, I was only drawn back here by mention elsewhere of Clive Hamiltons principled stand. You've run too many articles that cunningly misrepresent other peoples data, with too little accountability from the professional liars at the IPA and its front groups, a buyout by News Corp is the next logical synergy.
Posted by Liam, Saturday, 12 July 2008 4:49:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm really rather torn.

Balance is a notoriously difficult concept - your basic journalistic concepts of 'he said, she said' don't always work, nor do the efforts to seek out both sides of the debate and present them. It looks nice and neat on paper, in practice it means that nutjobs and yahoos, (or to resurrect a memorable OLO quote: 'armchair nazis') are given equal time and space to those who are well researched and well informed.

Sooner or later, when the conspiracy theorists and crazies are knocking on your door on a frequent basis, you've got to draw a line - regrettably, they never do it themselves as none of them are aware of their foibles.

The problem is that in recent years, this all-encompassing journalistic approach as resulted in soapboxes being granted to all and sundry.

I really don't know the alternative. I'm certainly not advocating censoring anyone, even the nutty professors out there. I guess the only alternative is to place a much stronger emphasis on highlighting the author's credentials. Fact of the matter is, on the climate change debate, the vast majority of the scientific community are indeed in agreement on the basics, if not the minutiae. Their voice needs to be heard far more, because the reality is we can't be giving every skeptic equal airplay to those who have spent years studying the science.

There aren't enough experts to rebut every crackpot, so we need to actively present the best material from both sides. I'm confident if that was properly done, there would be a vast array of well researched pieces on one side, pitted against a few rare quality pieces on the other, the rest being pieces by crackpots and lobbyists.

I'm torn, because Hamilton's clearly giving up, and his dummy spit isn't enlightening nor encouraging and is certainly giving up too easily. We need more, not less, and people with stronger tickers to take this cause forward.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Sunday, 13 July 2008 1:38:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TurnRightThenLeft,

You're spot on when you say that balance is not about equal numbers on 'both sides' especially when you take into account the variable quality of the competing contributions.

OLO should not be publishing stuff just to make the numbers look right. It should, as you say, publish the best it can find on all sides. I think that has been a significant problem for Graham Young. He has published some very poor stuff - and no appeal to so-called 'balance' will restore the reputation of this forum.

Your despair that Hamilton is 'giving up', 'spitting the dummy' is misplaced. It's not a matter of 'ticker'. My view is that he was wasting his time on this forum. He's better off contributing to better quality publications and writing to an audience that is at least open-minded and capable of following a decent argument.
Posted by Spikey, Sunday, 13 July 2008 2:03:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Get out of your burrow, Runner, like the escapist you are.

We are talking as old cockies with experience of droughts.

In dry WA, reckon we could stand one bad year out of three. Now it's been only one good year out of four, now this one bringing up the fifth bad year.

Keep on having fun in your escape hutch, little Runner.
Posted by bushbred, Sunday, 13 July 2008 10:53:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When I read Clive's article my first thought was, why did he write it? What outcome was he hoping for? I couldn't see how any outcome Clive might desire could arise from it.

There are three main players here: Clive, Graham and OLO. Looking at Clive vs OLO, its obvious OLO doesn't need Clive as he has never been a frequent contributor. If anything, a public spat like this will spur the growth OLO's readership, not reduce it. Its like Big Brother in print. On the other hand Clive has decided to burn his bridges with a new, popular and growing outlet for his views.

When it comes to Clive vs Graham, this exchange didn't reflect well on either of them. Exchanges like this one that consist of vindictive and pointed attacks are fired at personalities do nothing to illuminate the issues. Having heard from both before this is nothing new for Graham, but it was a surprise to see it coming from Clive. Up to now I have only seen far more measured and frankly better thought out responses form him, so this is a disappointment.

And finally we have Graham and OLO. He possibly does take the opportunity on occasion to use it as a personal pulpit, but its done in fairly transparent way and is nowhere as heavy handed as the mainstream media, such as say Murdock's newspapers. In any case Graham's main job at the site seems to be moderator of the comments. He does so with a very light hand, and is obviously an ardent believer in free speech. If anything publishing Clive's article and this response just enhances that reputation.

Others here have characterised Graham's offer of the choice venues to Clive as a spider offering the fly a choice of webs for a lunch meeting. But Clive is an self appointed member of the intellectual elite, whose mission seems to be to shape public opinion through informed discussion. He didn't have to accept the spiders offer, and given the predictable outcome his acceptance doesn't reflect well on him.
Posted by rstuart, Sunday, 13 July 2008 12:11:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Certainly it is unhealthy to discourage dissent, but do believe, like in politic science schools, some subjects are so critically important that some sort of adjudication is needed.
Posted by bushbred, Monday, 14 July 2008 1:44:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 18
  7. 19
  8. 20
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy