Ok, Graham - this is your site and if you don't want to search or publish material that goes against your leaning, so be it.

Of course, the inference then becomes if one really wants to see or read alternative views (to that of Don Aitkin, for example) - don't come here (because you won't find it unless it turns up) - go to the ABC or Fairfax instead.

That type of polarising attitude is not very constructive, in my humble cretin opinion - but there you go.

Not mentioning any names of course. BUT, I just loouve it when people cut & paste slabs from some left leaning website as *their contribution* to a thread.

And I love it even more when --as is often the case -- you ask such persons a simple question; a question that you would think any AGW true believer should know the answer to, like the one bracketed below:

<<Loudmouth: "So you're prepared to agree that temperatures have risen barely an inch in a century..."
[unnamed poster]: "You know next to nothing about this complex subject..."

[SPQR]Just answer the question, [unnamed poster].
Surely it's either yes of no!
YES or NO?>>

And when confronted with such, they dodge and fudge then run for cover.It makes you wonder about their real motivations,ay?

SPQR,

You forgot - he then referred to unnamed poster as "sweetie"(as is his wont - and which he reserves for women around here)

Simplistic questions from Loudy don't address "climate science".

Neither do your answers, sweetie :)

Joe

I think it is good to get all sides of debates and opinions.

On global warming and link to human activity, I think it is fair to say that most sane govts recognise the above, albeit they struggle for answers in a world dominated by growth, growth, growth.

‘morning Poirot,

You cite that you refer to Mann and Don refers to Curry and then ask what you are doing wrong?

My point is that the overall tactics being adopted by both sides of the contest are stunting debate, as evidenced by the shrinking number of responses. Of about 130 articles listed, only 15 have made it beyond 30 posts and about 87 never made it past 20.

Whilst I have not done any analysis of topic content, it does seem to cover the same broad spectrum. So is this because we no longer have opinions on these topics? Is it because we no longer wish to debate them? Are we seeing a stronger polarization of ideological perspectives or are the principles of debate being compromised to the extent that posting is truncated?

This is On Line Opinion, as such, opinions should be formed and expressed and substantiated with whatever evidentiary material is relevant.

Too often we see links being posted as substitutes for considered opinion. In the case of this article, like so many others, Don has written three articles based upon three other researchers. He has formed his opinion and provided the background to his pieces.

Many responses simply provide a “link” to make their case. This tactic is lazy and does not represent a considered or valid opinion. This is just the reincarnation of medieval jousting fought by designated “champions”, this is what is meant by “link wars”.

Other growing tendencies include;

Motive Questioning- When sound evidence against the proposal is presented, the motivation of the presenter is questioned, shooting or denigrating the messenger.

Adopting "loaded" language - characterized by "thought-terminating clichés". Words are the tools we use to think with. These "special" words constrict rather than expand understanding. They function to reduce complexities of experience into trite, platitudinous "buzz words". (Sometimes described as “The Rhetoric Engine”)

Elitism, claiming a special, exalted status, a special mission to save humanity like saving the Planet. Implying that the supposedly exalted ends justify means.

A polarized us-versus-them mentality, which causes conflict on OLO and with wider society.

Cont’d