The whole subject has become incurably political. Science is not decided by counting heads.We need to be very sure about what we are doing before we start wrecking the economy.

I have been a regular, even avid, reader of OLO, and think it serves an important purpose. Of course, it must be read from a perspective of ‘buyer beware’, and it would be impossible for the editors to check the veracity of entries.
Graham Young and team deserve to be congratulated for the initiative. While on the face of it he and the editorial team clearly have a lean to the right, this is not necessarily cause to think that a selective bias is at work.
Like Clive, I was surprised and disappointed at Graham Young’s attack on Robin Williams, as it was so disproportionate (and in places illogical) that I wondered what the real agenda was. Perhaps Clive is right.
OLO’s guidelines to authors refer to it as having an iconoclastic role, which is fair enough, but it also says that ‘we are continually seeking out contributors to put the other side’.
I look forward to seeing more evidence in support of the climate change position in future OLO posts.

Well I'm a non-climate scientist who generally accepts the premise that global climate is warming, and further that it is probably caused or exacerbated by human activites. I also agree that OLO is apparently biased editorially towards the sceptic/denialist camp.

However, I think that Clive Hamilton's spray is unhelpful. As pelican and Bronwyn suggest, what is needed is more articles being submitted that more honestly present the evidence about climate change and AGW than are presently being published at OLO, not less.

Hamilton's 'I'll take my bat and ball and go home' article invites derision from those who are either informed sceptics or ignorant denialists, as is evident in most of the comments above.

Col -

Since you asked, I am very concerned about global warming. Too many scientists have been talking for too long and too seriously. Comparing global warming with the Y2K bug or the hole in the ozone layer or the threat of a mini ice age is inappropriate. None of those were considered nearly as seriously. I certainly have doubts about the models used, but not enough doubts to throw the whole idea away. CO2 was 290ppm now its 390ppm and we are not slowing down for a second.

The silliest idea is that the scientists are in it for the money, but the trillion dollar coal, oil and natural gas industries are just guys out there doing a job, with no political thoughts in their heads.

As to Clive no longer contributing, I am saddened and I hope he reconsiders. I think he makes some very good points in this article as he so often does and we will all be the poorer for not getting his contributions.

I think it is a tough ask for OLO to count each article and decide if they have been balanced enough. I do think it would be appropriate that lobbyists are identified as such when their articles appear, but maybe Graham Young didn't know. That is the beauty of the forum where those issues can be identified.

Question: Has Graham Young come out and said he is or isn't a global warming denialist as charged?

I think his argument boils down to "I do not like what you're saying, so I want you to stop saying it".

His use of the word "denalists" demonstrates that his mind is closed to rational argument.

But the saddest thing is that, although he has read the articles, he obviously has not digested them. For someone who is an academic, this is inexcusable. What he is really saying is that "because you don't agree with IPCC you must be wrong" and therefore I will not take any notice of your arguments. If the world was governed by this rule, we would still be throwing rocks at each other. It blocks of all possibility of progress. Progress always starts with a few people doing -- or saying -- something different. I would guess that in almost every case, the pioneers were in the minority. I am sure that, long ago, there were objections to the newfangled idea of chipping stones to make knives and spears.

If he thought about it, he would realise that you do not have to be an expert in climate science to see the flaws in the argument. All you have to understand is that computer programs that are not an accurate model of the climate and are provided with an accurate data, cannot be relied on to predict the future.

When he attacks Harris and Maclean, all he was doing his demonstrating that, because he cannot answer their arguments, he It is prepared to resort to personal attacks. This is disgraceful. It should be drawn to the attention of his university.

If he cannot explain why the world is cooled since 1998 while carbon dioxide levels have risen, he should be listening carefully to the sceptics and studying what they say. If he can explain it, he should let us all know. Especially if he can find a theory that is consistent with "carbon dioxide causes warming" and the predictions of the climate models.

I know very little about climate change but i do remembering studying at school and if memory serves me correctly the climate changes regularly.
I'm sure i learnt about ice ages etc whilst young.Is it really anything new or just an ongoing cyclical thing.Does anyone know the answer to that?