In case some of you haven't noticed OLO publishes across the board. I received a number of articles about the Durban conference and some of them, including this one, but also Christopher Monckton's, were worth publishing.

Instead of complaining, why not find some articles from a different perspective.

In my career of managing media I generally found that complaints about bias were actually admissions of inability to run a proper media strategy and frustration that your opponent didn't suffer from the same inability.

Graham,

The issue is the quality of the articles you publish, not media strategy.

Hell, who'd use OLO as part of a media strategy, apart from the likes of the Youth Climate Coalition?

And because they do, and are uncritically boosted, it diminishes the credibility of OLO. It's looking more and more like a school magazine, where everybody gets a run because, regardless of quality, their feelings might be hurt if they were not published. Prizes for all.

The articles you have been publishing from from those spending other people's money to junket in Durban are manifestly just juvenilia.

You speak of your experience in media management, yet there is no sign whatsoever that any editorial judgment has been exercised in putting this pap on the site.

These articles have no intrinsic value whatsoever.

Yet you have published FIVE of them in the past week or so, three on Friday, so from an editorial point of view, there's not only the question of quality, but also the question of balance and editorial judgement.

Talk about useful idiots.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't - who would want to be an editor?

Your hypocricy (like your copy-n-paste efforts) is palpable, KenH.

KenH has made a valid point: the standards you apply to articles supporting AGW claims are much, much lower than the standards you apply to those rebutting them. The latter need proofs, documentation and clear, intelligent writing: the former are usually slabs of cut-and-paste from unreliable sources linked with high, desperate whining for more funds. As with your editorial cartoon and your coverage of religious issues, your double standards reveal your bias.

I do not understand the criticism of the editorial policy of this forum.

It presents both sides of the debate in any matter which arises, and in global warming I find it reassuring that the pro AGW articles show the death throes of the flawed and dishonest position of the alarmists.

It has to be played out, and this forum is ideal, in that it is tolerant of all aspects. I have only ever seen a contributor deleted for abuse, not for the views expressed, however ridiculous they might be.

I am grateful for the format and the editorial policy. If I want freedom to express myself, then it is appropriate to approve of freedom for others to express themselves, however inept or dishonest they may be.

If any of you know of a better forum than OLO, I would appreciate you letting me know.

I have looked elsewhere and found available alternatives to be cumbersome and restrictive.

Leo,

Other things being equal, it's a good thing that everybody has a chance to express an opinion.

But not all opinions are equal. Those based entirely on ideology, cant and sentiment are pretty much worthless. It follows that an editor should favour contributions which are based on validated facts, evidence and logic.

In this case, Graham is not fair dinkum when he suggests that publishing one article by Monckton balances publishing three articles on one day (and at least five in about a week) from "students" pushing their ideological interests.

So, apart from being on the roster to write articles for OLO, what have these freeloaders contributed, exactly, to the proceedings in Durban? Would they be there at all if the Gillard government had not reintroduced compulsory student union fees, doled out, as of old, to the usual left wing suspects?

For Graham to suggest, as he has done, that complaints are made only because some people can't prosecute a "media strategy" is disingenuous. Getting a run on OLO does not amount to a "media strategy". No, OLO is targetted because it is a soft touch and does not apply the editorial standards contributors would face in most other places - standards of evidence, logic and written expression.