Clive Hamilton. Please don't quit now particularly since this forum has a surplus of authors denying anthropogenic climate change and it appears that some will stoop to anything to dupe a gullible public:

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/now/

It is with some concern that skeptics refuse to debate the state of our seriously desecrated eco-systems in Australia. Several major rivers and lakes are now on life support. Parts of Australia are now officially listed as one of the planet's worst environmental hotspots. Of course, mitigating man-made carbon-based pollution, would also mitigate the profits in the “free” market. However, do these people truly believe the status quo guarantees human survival?

I too have had an article rejected by Graham. “It's rubbish,” he said when I queried his decision.

Many of us do not regard electromagnetic radiation as “rubbish” and after reading scientist, Rosalie Bertell’s “Planet Earth,” and her theories on EMR, I became interested in NASA’s HAARP project and the atmospheric and ionospheric modification experiments.

Normally electromagnetic energy comes to Earth daily from the sun. Humans however, have reversed this process and deliberately used electromagnetic waves to probe the upper atmosphere and the inner structure of the Earth. That man is purposely heating the ionosphere is surely worthy of debate?

http://www.eastlundscience.com/PATENTS.html

U. S. Patent No. 4,686,605, 1987. "Method and Apparatus for Altering a Region in the Earth's Magnetosphere"

U. S. Patent No. 4,712,155, 1988. "Method and Apparatus for Creating an Artificial Electron Cyclotron Heating Region of Plasma"

It appears this article has enticed several newcomers to OLO. Welcome. A cursory glance tells me that no fewer than 10 new members have seen fit to engage in their first debate here, bouyed by the prospect of putting the boots into Clive Hamilton. Do we put this down to coincidence or do we have a few stooges in our midst? Nevertheless, very interesting – yes indeed!

Walking the streets of any city in Australia and you will find most people accepting the overwhelming scientific evidence of anthropogenic climate change.

Read through OLO posts and you will find the majority of postings (witness the responses to Clive's article) hedge towards climate scepticism.

Like a small residual bacterial colony, the site seems to have become a safe refuge for declining numbers of sceptics, so they can reinforce each other's beliefs. This bacterial enclave may be accidental perhaps, or OLO may have invited it through incipient bias, it doesn't really matter which is the case.

I do go to this site to see how the 'other 1 percent' thinks, but for good solid climate science (for and against) there are many better offerings elsewhere.

Clive Hamilton, as a busy analyst, could do much better with his valuable time than to feed information into this venue.

In defence of OLO it may have a right leaning bias, but on most other issues it does offer a much more balanced attitude.

To associate the skeptics of climate change with the repudiators of the link between AIDS and the HIV virus and the conspiracy theories of 9/11 and the “Larouche delusions” shows clearly that Clive Hamilton rests his case on an intellectually very weak reed. Further, to presume, as he does, that all skeptics are deliberate “denialists” lacking scientific arguments and considering them to be “irreverent” to the scientific evidence presented by the supporters of climate change, like him, is to put the hood of the Inquisitor on his head. The Spanish Inquisition is alive and well in the censorious strictures of Clive Hamilton.
http://avant-gardestrategies.typepad.com

POSIT: I don't agree with the arguments and bias being perpetrated so I will decline to engage in the debate.

This seems to be a defeatist, they'll never learn, intellectual elitist position.

I would have expected better from Clive, just like I expected better from Robyn Williams.

If there is bias, then keep pointing it out so dummies like me can investigate further and make a well founded opinion - albeit incorrect - anyway I'm off to check out 'the rubbish' about NASA’s HAARP project ... woohoo!

Wow talk about the vitriol towards this man.

Regardless of your position on his arguments in this article, the name-calling and insults from the so-called AGW-denialists (i.e. science rationalists) towards the so-called emotional and irrational AGW -supporters is palpable.

I thought the AGW-denialists were supposed to be the un-emotional folk, guess we were wrong on that account. Looks like emotion and quasi-religious haranguing works both ways.

PS were there any other articles on OLO today?