Loxton I think you will find OLO is pretty even-handed. Well, actually I'm going to have to revise that first sentence. I'd never think of posting here without researching, or at least thinking quite hard about, what I was going to say. So I did a Google search on On Line Opinion using the words "climate change". Guess what? On the first page 8 out of the 10 entries are unquestioning that climate change is man made and a serious threat. Not sure that this is "even-handed". We may have a problem, but not of the kind you assert.

I like this article because one thing that it proves is that skepticism is not confined to one side of the political divide, as many want to assert. Malcolm King is associated with the left. As are many who are skeptical in Australia and overseas. All polling shows that while right of centre voters tend to be more skeptical, there are certainly lots of left of centre voters who are too.

Polling also shows that there has been a move away from belief in the IPCC scenarios, which may explain why our comments threads appear to be more skeptical these days. I chose the phrasing of the last sentence carefully not to use "skeptical" in the first proposition. I think the whole skepticism/believer dichotomy is a political argument rather than good analysis. Anyone who seriously studies this area has to be a skeptic.

I get labelled a "skeptic" but in fact I believe that man is changing the climate by emitting carbon dioxide, so I'm not skeptical of global warming at all. I just have a different view as to how much of the change is manmade, what the consequences are likely to be, and what you should do about it, to the IPCC. But when you burrow into the views of the people who make up the IPCC authors you'll find they all differ from the final conclusions in some way or another. If we are any good at the science or the policy, then we are all skeptics.

Graham
I, for one, am not questioning the even-handedness of OLO- that is, your endeavours to present a wide variety of essays from a wide variety of perspectives. If that weren't the case, then I would depart.

However, there do seem to be a preponderance of bloggers, as distinct from essayists, who are anti-AGW views. This, in itself, is not my concern. What concerns me is the style and tone of many of these bloggers, which can be described by the definition in my earlier blog as cynical, not skeptical. I consider myself a skeptic in all things- I want to see the facts before I will accept a line of action as viable- I do not "believe" in anything.

Unfortunately the words "climate skeptic" have grown to mean what I define as a "climate cynic", ie:

1. A person who believes that all people are motivated by selfishness.
2. A person whose outlook is scornfully negative.

Witness the responses to my attempts to clarify ideas and seek information- derision, scorn, abuse and vitriol- not very enlightening stuff.

Many blogsites have a button labelled "report abuse"- it would be well used on OLO.

With regards to polls, Graham- polls of whom?- the general public who rely on the general media for their information. The media that have been unrelenting in their anti-AGW bias in the past several years.

Of course, our poll-driven politicians will respond to public perceptions.

To paraphrase Richard Feynman: Nature isn't fooled by public relations- or cynics.

Ummmm, there is a report abuse button on OLO. It's the red cross to your left.

I wasn't using polling as proof for or against global warming, merely suggesting that if it is accurate then you will find there are more skeptics around. And if there are more skeptics around then you will find more skeptics on open forums like this. Maybe I didn't express myself clearly.

I'd never rely on polling to test the truth of a non-public opinion hypothesis. Which is why I've resented attempts to corral people on the basis of a "consensus". Looks like you've got over that argument too.

Climategate's done a lot of good things. Many won't admit it, but seeing the level of malfeasance that went on at East Anglia has really shocked a lot of people about how the whole thing had gotten out of hand. It has opened the debate up, even though the establishment is trying to whitewash the whole thing.

Graham
It's not about "recommending comments for deletion"- it's about lifting the standards.

I don't mind what opinions people have- what I mind is abusive language. I can't see any place for it- I think that it demeans the authors who have invariably made great efforts to write something cogent.

Some of these abusive people seem to think that their language is part of the rough and tumble of public discourse. I disagree. As I said earlier- I grew up in shearing sheds and near front bars. A most unedifying experience. Verbal abuse flows seamlessly into other areas and other kinds of abuse. To me, it is a repugnant and dead-end kind of behaviour.

There is plenty of scope for robust, energetic, witty and skeptical discourse and discussion- searching for a synthesis- which is different from a consensus. But if people are cynical (qv) then they are not open to change. Cynics are just looking for someone to abuse.

Jedimaster: I’ve just this evening happened across this discussion and have to say that your ability to remain dignified, courteous, and coherent under attack from a platoon of snipers who, for the most part, display none of those characteristics is inspirational.

JM, a button which allows you to draw the attention of a moderator to a comment is indeed a "report abuse button". The mouseover says "Recommend this comment for deletion" but plenty of your fellow commenters have used it to notify me of a range of things to do with posts, and abuse is certainly one of them.

I suggest that if you want to raise the tone of debate you use it. You'll be aware that I edit comments from time to time, but most generally delete the whole comment with a note as to why it was deleted.

If a post is abusive in any part I generally delete the whole of it. It's part of the penalty for using abusive language that the whole of your post goes, not just the abusive part.