'Billie' suggests that OLO readers think that if they voted Liberal water would become plentiful and petrol cheap. I challenge the readership to quote to me any OLO comment ever that has shown such a combination of stupidity and arrogance.

Let's face it, OLO standards are getting poorer by the day.

Evidence? Look at the hysterical bully-pack that came out of the trees today when Hamilton dared to criticise OLO and signalled his intention to not offer any more articles. Only a handful supported his personal right to withdraw and publish elsewhere.

Some even accused him of using his dissent as a form of censorship while shouting their own dissent.

Let's be truthful: there are serious problems with OLO.

1. It's articles are only occasionally brilliant, most are mediocre, some are downright atrocious. There seems to be no clear editorial standard for selection of what gets a run.

2. On too many occasions the authors' relevant credentials are not clearly stated and a high proportion of authors are proselytisers using OLO as a free forum for their ideological claptrap without signalling their affiliations.

3. A few favoured authors turn up with predictable regularity although they have nothing new or important to say.

4. Many of the OLO respondents are crude and vitriolic and bully those with a different view, and there seems no editorial control or protection for those who are vilified and abused.

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.

Like Hamilton, I am bemused that the commercial sponsors of OLO are so patient.

I expect to be abused for having my say today. Sadly, that's the nature of OLO.

I feel that the attitude displayed by Clive Hamilton towards opinions contrary to his own is a further illustration of the decline in the quality of intellectual thought in some Australian universities.

I really don't know why Spikey and others who hate free speech don't go and find a forum that confirms all their prejudices

"Denialists have conspicuously failed to generate contrary evidence that can be published in refereed journals".

No, they come here instead. The topic of AGW has an immense capacity for obfuscation and don't the punters love it!

Hellooow Perseus

Finally peeped out from under your rock eh, after a three month hibernation from OLO. It is the middle of winter. Go back to sleep for another three months.

But first, how about giving us an example or two or Clive Hamilton’s ”incoherent drivel”.