I basically agree with the first response to Hamilton's pathetic piece.

One should have faith in liberal democracy and people to separate truth from fiction.

While I share Hamilton's concern about the environment, every person has a right to offer an opinion to help prompt debate.

Remember, One Nation captured much more support that those denying climate change, yet debate saw that party's relatively quick demise.

Clive, put away the hanky and get on with arguing your case.

Pathetic. I'm concerned about the sad demise of climate science due to the politicised UN IPCC, which is using unfounded computer modelled climate alarmism to further its wealth redistribution agenda, by exerting influence over the economies and energy policies of developed countries.

True science is about testing the results and hypotheses of other sceintists to destruction - it's about being sceptical - not about protecting a potentially flawed hypothesis from a thorough examination by ending debate and name calling.

BTW - Clive who?

Clive,

My posit is that you did not use your final article present a case pertaining to climate, rather to critique OLO and Graham.

Many of the acadmic readers will have research degrees and could understand quantative data, if you presented said data, here; but, I see none of this in your article.

I see a conclusion: But no model.

Personally, I feel with climate change and other matters, one needs to adopt a dual heuristic and, neither side should sit on their laurels. Both parties need to develop a null hypothesis.

I have seen no problems with "balance", regarding debate, in the theatres of my interest, here, at OLO.

Regards,

O

Crikey! What a whinger.

I have some training in climatology and peripherally work in the field yet I remain a sceptic about "global warming". Climate change, yes, that is self-evident, but whether any changes are anthropogenic is debatable. The Earth hasn't warmed since 1998 yet CO2 levels continue to rise.

While I agree that OLO essay posters should show their corporate affiliations, that also goes for "climate alarmists" pushing their barrows.

Mr Hamilton, a climate sceptic is entitled to freedom of speech. Do you deny freedom of speech?

Clive,

I just re-read your post and link. Honestly, friend, you should put your argument in terms of Type I and Type II error. Deal with the content, not the politics.

Present a supported posit.

Cheers,

O.