Wow. I don't think I've seen so many comments generated by an article in such a short time since I've been reading OLO articles.

We should be grateful to Clive Hamilton for explaining to us why he's "picked a fight" with On Line Opinion. I'm sure I'm not alone in noticing that the overall quality of OLO articles has declined lately, indeed it's a topic that is increasingly mentioned in forum discussions across a wide range of topics.

Having said that, I think that Graham and his team do something quite unique here. While I've inadvertently fallen foul of Graham's interpretation of "flaming" more than once, overall I'm happy to take it on the chin and continue to interact on this site with people whose worldviews are always interesting, if occasionally a bit scary :)

More importantly, Hamilton does point to a potentially serious shortcoming of OLO's increasingly banal and pedestrian provenance. If respected and authoritative thinkers like Hamilton withdraw their honorary support of OLO in protest at its editorial bent, who's going to read and participate in it other than tendentious nutters and wingnuts?

Pollution stinks. Debate over.

"This genocidal carbon policy must be stopped—even at this late stage—if not, look forward to a grim future."

Touche Goat. The genocidal carbon policy has rampaged on for thousands of years commencing with farming and it drastically accelerated with the Industrial Revolution and the burning of fossil fuels. Pollutant carbon emitting industries are now completely out of control.

And why is this so? Elementary my dear goat. The entire West has hypocritically legislated for Acts to protect the environment and every nation - every government has violated those Acts. The big end of town - the eco-vandals pump it out by the truck-loads whilst you threaten citizens with the prospect of increased living costs to prop these vandals up.

The "Polluter Pays" principle and the "Precautionary Principle" are included in those Acts. The objectives are "to protect the environment by preventing, controlling and abating pollution."

These conditions have been totally ignored - a complete joke while the big end of town and aligned governments continue to trash our fragile environment and place this country at increased risk.

Dr Arthur Robinson who instigated the petition you provided Goat,is head of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) which describes itself as “a small research institute” that studies “biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging.” Huh?

He is regarded as an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research.

The OISM would have remained very obscure, except for the role it played in 1998 in circulating a deceptive “scientists’ petition” on global warming in collaboration with Frederick Seitz, a retired former president of the National Academy of Sciences” and now they're at it again. So what took them so long this time Goat?

Unfortunately there are a myriad of current signatories which have no post nominal titles? Are they incapable of following simple instructions or simply bereft of the necessary qualifications?

Ahem! Time will surely tell.

http://www.desmogblog.com/national-post-ducks-correction-repeats-slander

"At the request of Graham Young I am putting my arguments into this last piece for On Line Opinion."

Maybe it is the idealist in me but I am going to choose to believe Graham that you did this for all the right (not Right) reasons since it was pretty obvious with the large number of vitriolic climate change sceptics among the forum members that Mr Hamilton was going to cop a pasting.

I also choose to believe that you regret the withdrawal of Mr Hamilton as a contributor.

Normally these things would have gone without saying but your Robyn Williams episode was not your finest moment, the repercussions of which are obviously still manifesting themselves.

Please tread a little more carefully because the demise of 'On Line Opinion' would be sad indeed.

Don't worry Clive. Lucky for us no one takes "Climate Change Sceptics" seriously anyway.

Don Aitkens piece was seen for what it was. A laymans uneducated perspective.
Graham Youngs emotional piece about Robin Williams presenting style provided an insight into the mind of the owner of this webpage.

For anyone in the field of climate science the argument was over a long time ago. Now it's all about "what next".
The public too has been convinced. It is a waste of breath to stand toe to toe arguing whether AGW is happening or not. Time to look at those with the capacity to make change and those elected on a platform of change and make sure they do it.

So, Viking 13, the public is too dumb to understand climate change. And the climate scientists have got it all wrong. That leaves yourself as the virtual font of wisdom.

With respect, maybe you could change your pen name to 'God'.

Hamilton has exerted his own right to free speech. These columns should perhaps be preserved as a cosy meeting place for climate sceptics to exchange their views - and there is nothing wrong with that - so long as the site transparently advertises itself as just that rather than purporting to be a broad debating medium.

Just as some pubs identify themselves as a special niche where a local interest group can congregate (football club, gays, artists) OLO can serve that purpose for climate denialists, and that's fine too.

Out of curiosity, others can look in, like looking into a fishbowl, to observe the internal culture. But it's not all that sensible to go in and pick a serious fight with the devotees, just let them enjoy their own democratic space.