passy made the comment "But it hones our ability to argue against them." - spot on.

Clive you might also like to consider that the denialist arguments will be around regardless of OLO's editorial stance.

What is different here to most places is that the editorial position allows people to debate the issue with minimal editorial inteferance.

This is not a talkback radio show where dissenting views are cut off quickly or taken out of context then cut off. Some of the denialists will disregard whatever evidence is before them, we do see to have an over representation of them but there are also those who who may have doubts and who are far better served having the arguments for and against put to them in the one place.

I don't know Graham's intent or beliefs regarding climate change but I do know from some years of experience on OLO that the editorial approach to differing views is about as good as I've ever seen.

OLO even allows a certain amount of criticism of it's own policies and behaviours to be published on it's site.

Rather than withdrawing, involve yourself in the debates which follow publication of denialist articles. Use your expertise to rebut the points made in favor of denial. You now have an account, use it.

R0bert

Here are additional summaries and the references. Subsequent posts will provide more.

Bronnimann et al:
Our analysis of the relation between solar irradiance variability and zonal mean geopotential height at midlatitudes during the past 82 years reveals an 11 year signal (increasing geopotential height with increasing solar variability) that is consistent with previous studies based on much shorter periods.

Scafetta and West:
Using the complexity-matching effect with a non-equilibrium thermodynamic model to represent the Sun-climate relationship shows that the Sun accounts for 69 per cent of the increase in the Earth’s average temperature since 1900.

REFERENCES:
Bronnimann, S., Ewen, T., Griesser, T. and Jenne, R., 2007. Multidecadal signal of solar variability in the upper troposphere during the 20th Century. A chapter in Calisesi, Y., Bonnet, R. M., Gray, L., Langen, J., Lockwood, M., 2007. Solar variability and Planetary Climates. Space Science Series of the International Space Science Institute Volume 23 Springer; pps 305-317.
Camp, C. D., and Tung, Ka Kit, 2006. The Influence of the Solar Cycle and QBO on the Late Winter Stratospheric Polar Vortex. Journal of Atmospheric Sciences in press.
Camp, C. D., and Tung, Ka Kit, 2007a. “Surface warming by the solar cycle as revealed by the composite mean difference projection” Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 34, L14703, doi:10.1029/2007GL030207. It was published online on Wednesday, July 18 2007.
Camp, C. D., and Tung, Ka Kit, 2007b. "Solar Cycle Warming at the Earth's Surface and an Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity"
submitted to the Journal of Geophysical Research, and published by the University of Washington on Ka Kit Tung’s departmental website, http://www.amath.washington.edu/research/articles/Tung/journals/solar-jgr.pdf
Feynman, J., 2007. Has solar variability caused climate change that affected human culture? Advances in Space Research doi:10.1016/j.asr.2007.01.077.
Labitzke, K., 2007. Effects of the solar cycle on the Earth’s atmosphere. Chapter 18 in Kamide, Y. and Chian, A. (Eds.) 2007. Handbook of the Solar Terrestrial Environment. Springer; pps445-466.

Clive, you said "The reactions to my piece confirm that On-Line Opinion has become a magnet for climate sceptics." Do you actually read the comments here, or simply assume what people’s opinions are from your own prejudices? Most of the comments from people who are not AGW sceptics – and there are many – disapprove of your decision to withdraw from these forums.

Christina Mac reminds us that Clive co-authored a book called “Silencing Dissent.” What a pity it turns out that that’s exactly what he wants to do

OLO is obviously getting some traction, otherwise the mediocrats wouldn't be trying to take it down. But in terms of the incoherent drivel that has come from poor old Clive's mouth over the past decade, his decision to crawl back under his rock would have to be one of the most sensible things he has ever said.

Just stop drinking your bong water, Clive, things will make a bit more sense if you do.

Journalists and/or those who write for online opinion may not be qualified climatologists or qualified anything else, but what we do do - and should do more of - is spot vested interest groups bearing dodgy forecasts. Guess what, one has been spotted. We are also quite use to assessing arguments - being they political, economic or scientific in part by getting around and asking people, and in part by using good old fashioned common sense.

The problem with the hypothesis that ongoing climate change has been affected by industrial gases, is that temperatures have not increased for a decade and more and are now going down. The tragedy of some - but by no means all - climate scientists is that they refuse to acknowledge this basic point.

And that basic point should make Clive Hamilton more careful about making ideological stands. There are very good reasons why the scepticism continues, and it is by no means limited to online opinion. To object because this site is one of many that continues to question environmental dogma, is ridiculous.

I have just joined the forum for the express purpose of responding to Dr. Hamilton's article entitled "The Sad Demise of 'On Line Opinion' but in the process of writing a response that addresses his many points I find that I have greatly exceeded the 350 word limit -- a limit I was not aware of until after I finished my note.

Dr. Hamilton, in the interest of intellectual honesty I hope you will drop me a line with an email address that I can forward this detailed note to you (and anyone else who may be interested). I promise that you will not be disappointed and I think you may change your opinion after reading some of the references.

You have raised many issues but I believe that they are all demonstrably false and I have spent some significant effort in trying to address them for your benefit as well as anyone else with an interest in the topic.

My background is as a research physicist for 30 years, involved in remote sensing of the atmosphere, but I have tried to address your issues with references that are understandable by someone without significant training in the science of climatology.

I hope you will drop me a note at my email address so that I can forward my response to your article directly to you (and anyone else who may be interested).

My address is j.w.brosnahan (at) gmail.com where the (at) is replaced with the @ symbol of course. (Does this really confuse the little spam robots who search for addresses?)

With All Due Respect -- John Brosnahan USA