"This site exists to challenge beliefs and explore ideas. When there is a debate to be had, both sides get a go at it in more or less equal proportions. You don't do it in proportion to belief in the community, as one of you suggested. "

if this is in response to my post, all i can reply is: graham, keep digging.

what i suggested was that if collectively articles on a technical scientific issue are not reflective of the nature of the debate amongst the professional practitioners, those with the clearest understanding of the issues, then it needs explanation.

but in fact, the explanation re AGW on OLO is clear, and getting clearer with every post.

and ignoring the question-begging nonsense of "both sides get a go", your skeptical articles are not challenging anyone. they are by and large too uninformed and often too snide.

if you want to challenge people's stance on AGW then publish informed and informing pieces from active climate scientists. you'll probably still misrepresent the nature and the level of the scientific debate, but at least your silly campaign won't be so transparent and so ludicrous.

All this holier than thou about the sanctity of peer review and the integrity of the scientists themselves just makes me want to puke. Just answer a few questions:

1. Despite the major advances that have been made by science, can it always be said that the word of a scientist is beyond reproach at all times'? Of course not.

2.Can one tell reasonably well in advance which ones are shonky and/or incompetent? Of course not.

3.Is science funding distributed in an equitable and fair mannner so that both sides of a debate gets a fair go?.Of course not.

4. Does peer review operate as open and efficient mechanism for balanced exposure of what is being produced, and market forces, ie sales, has no part in the publishers decisions? Of course not.

5. Do scientists squirm, lie and cheat to get to their desired end state just like everyone else. Of course they do.

Fill in your examples of 1-5 above. There is no shortage, and AGW is replete with them.

All that Graham was doing was trying to redress the balance in one particular circumstance.

Graham:
"There was one commenter who claimed it hasn't got cooler over the last 10 years, but he wasn't across the issue."
"Claimed"?

Graham:

It doesn't seem that Tim Lambert hasn't published in his own field for over a decade. Yet he's a science expert running a "science" blog. Check out his UNSW website: the cupboard is bear of all essentials in that department.

You only have to look through the archives of OLO to see the heavy bias against mainstream science on global warming.

I had one article published here that fact checked an Andrew Bolt column on global warming; it bypassed the normal editorial selection process because it was part of the Best Blog Posts 2006 series. Graham Young, OLO chief editor, showed up in the discussion to abuse me and declare that OLO should not have published it because he disputed one of the points I made. I suspect that this has something to do with OLO's bias on climate science.

He continues in this vein in the current article, calling me a "bully" and a "tick" because I dare to express opinions he disagrees with.

If you want to see the sort of thing that Young objects to, see my post on Aitkin's Ockham's razor piece:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/04/et_tu_ockhams_razor.php

Don Aitkin presents as a reasonable man, his paper “A Cool Look at Global Warming”, which Don has kindly sent to me is one of the most reasonable arguments against the impact of anthropogenic influence on climate. I recommend that everyone take the time to read his paper. That doesn’t mean he is correct, but he is a breath of fresh air compared to the likes of Jennifer Marohasy et al, who fail to consider ALL data and resort to bullying terms such as ‘climate alarmists’.

Given Don’s reasonable approach to the topic of AGW, I am sure this is why he was invited onto Ockham’s Razor twice to present his analysis.

Could Graham Young’s diatribe simply be a case of sour grapes? Don Aitkin himself has said that he has not had any problem with the manner in which he was introduced by Robyn Williams. Thanks Graham, nothing like knowing exactly where you stand – far to the right.

BTW

For those interested in such matters:

“Birds and bees act up with climate change
Thursday, 15 May 2008 Deborah Zabarenko
AFP/Reuters

Climate change is turning some polar bears into cannibals as access to their natural food sources is compromised, according to scientists who have analysed 30,000 sets of data about biological and physical changes around the world.

Human-generated climate change made flowers bloom sooner and autumn leaves fall later, turned some polar bears into cannibals and some birds into early breeders, a vast global study reports.

In Australia for instance, migratory birds including flycatchers and fantails are arriving early and water levels in Western Victoria have declined…...”

Read on at: http://littlurl.com/dy8t6

Whether you believe climate change is anthropogenic or not, doing nothing is dumb and relying on market forces even dumber – we need sustainability not consumerism.