Clive,
I don’t think I have seen an OLO article that has attracted so many responses in its first 24 hrs, well done!

In that 24hrs, the majority of opinions exemplify you were right in your assessment. I have no doubt Graham Young’s response will be just as perverse.

You know real leaders the world over are addressing the issues of global warming. Your pearls have been cast to them and to the next generation of decision makers … this is important.

Do not concern yourself with OLO or its chief editorial predisposition.

I have been following the global warming/climate change debate seriously for almost 2 years. It did not take long to see that the theory of AGW had issues. Trying to raise these issues to AGW supporters in order to understand their thinking, though, resulted only in rebuke and disdain. No wonder AGW skeptics have little respect for their counterparts.

After the Hockey Stick was proven invalid, AGW supporters stood steadfast. After the Vostock ice core showed that CO2 levels lagged temperature rise by 800 years (on the average), they refused to be shaken. As climate modelers have redefined their craft from climate prediction, to projection, to mere scenario, their faith has not waned. Even in the face of the latest cooling period, AGW supporters confidently say, "Just wait 'til next decade."

For the most part, I have given up trying to speak to AGW supporters because they refuse to open their minds to imperical data that supports alternate theories of how the biosphere works. Almost daily, scientific progress is being made about how the biosphere actually works. Unfortunately, because of their simple view of a complex system, AGW supporters are contributing little to it.

Clive, I'm a little surprised you would cease to contribute to a forum you believed was biased against you. What better avenue to get your thoughts across to those who need to change their stance(in your view). I find preaching to the converted a bit of a waste.
The validity of AGW arguments should be so convincing that people should have no doubts. What does the number of "denialists" say about those arguments?

regards, dedicated fence-sitter.

Like Pauline Hanson the cult of global warming has had its finest hour as people's pockets are now being hit with the implications of swallowing half truths. No substance to the doctrines of the cult has been found (great post septshadow). The politics will continue for a while but hopefully feeding the poor, defending the unborn and other debates of substance will take its rightful place. Most people are sick of pathetic prophecies. They would of been stoned long ago if they were prophets in Israel.

On the one hand I too am bothered by Graham Young’s contradictory role as publisher of this site, and widely articulated commentator on many of the issues published here. I’m also a little disturbed that he occupies the role of comments-gatekeeper, though I’ve seen little evidence that this power is misused.

On the other hand I note that after Susan Prior stated http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7373#113662 that the editorial decisions are made by her, not by Graham, she also confirmed that there is a bias towards the sceptics in climate change articles published on OLO http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7373#113671

With about 2700 authors, and 6700 registered users, OLO has already been a significant contributor to public discourse in this country. Whether or not the owners of OLO choose it, with this level of importance comes a responsibility to be fair and even-handed in the opinions they present. By their own admission, on the issue of climate change this has not been the case.

There’s room for them to lift their game, but let’s not forget that this is a lively and important discussion space, in the evolving world of web publishing.

Clive's article is interesting for many reasons. My first post in this thread attempted to raise the point that for Clive it was an ethical issue to not now continue to contribute to OLO. i.e. His indignation resulting from some contradictory conclusions becomes his perceived ethical dilemma. He attempts to explain these but his only recourse to reconcile the situation is to preemptively attack the situation then pull down the shutters.

His ethical dilemma may not be a paradox in the strict sense but his "exclusively proven" belief in belief alarmist AGW certainly is a true blue paradox. Because AGW presents humanity/life as its core alarmist concern it then denies itself with a war on carbon dioxide defining it as a dangerous pollutant. The contradiction here is apparent to all reasonable people but it seems if you have been unfortunately infected with the AGW mind virus your insistence will be that culture exists in a realm that is separate from our biology.

i.e. This then becomes an all consuming transcendental world which is exceptionalism at its best for in relationship to the planet, this mindset simply sees humanity more like a parasite living on a host, rather than an organism in a symbiotic, and thus mutually beneficial, relationship with an infinite environment.

I would ask Clive if he has the capacity to seek to resolve his obvious ethical dilemma. It stands to reason that when you see a glaring paradox you should know you have the incorrect initial assumptions most likely skewed with a contradictory cognitive bias. Perhaps some contributers here may offer their thoughts to help disinfect poor Clive.