It's obvious that the author of this article
feels very strongly that the standard of
'On Line Opinion,' has dropped - regarding
topics like climate change. He feels that there
is a bias with which he doesn't agree.

Fair enough. That's his right.

He can pull out from contributing,
if he so chooses.

However, he can't complain about not being
fairly treated by Graham Young. After all the author
has been given the opportunity to vent his spleen
in this article. Which Graham did not have to grant
him.

It's a pity that someone, who's obviously intelligent,
like Mr Hamilton, can't see the importance of continuing
to present his arguments on an open Forum such as this.
Reading all sides on any topic has value. Why pull out -
simply because there are conflicting views with which you
don't agree? Argue your case instead.

It is a sad demise for 'On Line Opinion,' when people
who have something to say, turn and leave, because of
differing points of view. People who have the arrogance to
think that theirs is the one without flaws.

Sad indeed.

Clive

Reading nonsense from the denialists is a pain. But it hones our ability to argue against them.

Hunt up the articles in favour of man made climate change. Refer them to OLO. Contribute our own articles and views.

The debate is political as well as scientific, and will become more political as the cost of climate change under capitalism increases.

OLO may well be captured by denialists. That is not a reason to leave these pages solely to them.

It took some time for the link between smoking and cancer to become accepted in the mind of the populace. Steady argument and debate convinced the public of the truth of the link. That is what is needed in the GW discussion, Clive.

Because this debate is still in its early stages for the general public, it is imperative to allow the denialists the opportunity to expose their fake science and propaganda to the blow torch of analysis, including from you, Clive.

Once the general public accepts that the denialists are the modern day flat earthers then there will be little demand for their articles and they will wither on the vine. But the general public will only recognise the truth of man made global warming if you stay in the debate in places like OLO, Clive.

As the usual reactionary posters on this site show, we are still some distance from winning the debate that there is global warming and it is man made.

We must allow the denialists their ability to post rubbish and nonsense so we and others can rebut them and convince the general public.

Interstingly a study released today suggests Australia's targets for reducing green house gas emmissions may in fact be too low.

Clive, we need people of vision like you to make the argument that the costs of addressing global warming will be nothing compared to the costs of the possible destruction of our environement. We need your leadership. Rudd may fail the test. It is up to us. It is to people like you to show leadership, Clive. Don't desert us!

& this bloke is an ethics professor.

There is nothing like hate to cloud someone's judgement.

Obviously Clive Hamilton is very full of just that emotion.

So what, Clive, if the energy industry is spending money in its perceived own interests. How much, mainly public money, has been spent in support of the AGW cause? I think $54 billion, was the latest figure I have seen. And what about the millions Al Gore has made from carbon trading in addition to that from making science fiction movies? And the $250,000 award given by Gore to AGW instigator and alarmist James Hansen? And how many of the IPCC's so-called scientific reviewers were truly independant? Including those various co-authors of Mann who peer-reviewed his paper on the infamous hockey-stick graph, now accepted to be at best meaningless and possibly even fraudulent. There are a lot of skeletons in the IPCC cupboard.

Oh dear, Clive Hamilton.
You will be sadly missed.
I fiound your books "Scorcher" and "Silencing Dissent" (not sure that is the exact title) - but anyway, I found both books to be a wonderful resource - for understanding what went on during the Howard years.

I don't agree that OnLine opinion is biased.
The bias is not in the forum itself, in my opinion, nor in the editing - it is just in the kind of people who choose to publish their articles there.

So - I hope that you reconsider your decision, Mr Hamilton. We need you!

(Meanwhile, I will also admit to being personally disappointed, because OnLine opinion knocked back one of MY articles. Still, the knockback was on editorial, literary sort of grounds, not political.
They wanted something a bit more about current affairs, with some substantiation in facts and figures - not a wandering off into history waffle.
Anyway - this stimulated me to publish it myself - and start a page that doesn't need such a high standard of writing. on http://antinuclearinfo.wordpress.com/ )

So - come back to OnLine opinion, Clive Hamilton. You've got a good standard of writing!
Christina Macpherson www.antinuclear.net

clive hamilton is absolutely correct. i'd just say that OLO has not been captured by climate change denialists: it's managed by a climate change denialist. Graham Young's promotion of this pseudo-scientific twaddle has been transparent, relentless and reprehensible. it has also been cartoonish. The best he can come up with to "balance" the solid science is a stream of amateurs and hacks.

the real question is, can one just ignore young's climate fetishism, and deal with the rest of the articles? obviously, my decision doesn't matter a scrap. but clive hamilton's does. and i applaud him for his decision. i applaud him for objecting to OLO's legitimising this nonsense, and for refusing to lend his good name to young's increasingly silly site.