I don't want a forum where those arguing that the earth is flat get equal space with those arguing that it is round. Equally I don't want a forum where articles disagreeing with views of the editor, or Clive Hamilton, or me, are censored.

What is needed is some basic quality control. Where an article argues that the earth is flat (especially if it written by a non-scientist, such as Don Aitkin, or a scientist in an irrelevant area, such as myself, or the mechanical engineer writing about climate change), the author should be required to have some awareness of the relevant science. Preferably citations should be included in the article.

And if the author's views have been seriously rebutted by the scientific consensus then he/she should be aware of it, and understand what the scientific consensus says (while being free to argue, on scientific grounds, the contrary)

Obviously this means some discernment on the part of the editor.

On the question of climate change - where is the serious science that supports the denialists point of view?

As for the recent comment
"Many, many scientists deny that we know the global warming we experienced from the late 1970s to 1998 was caused mostly by CO2 concentrations."
For instance? (and I don't mean I want their names, I want to see the scientific articles they've written)

Sooner or later the mainstream media and at least some of our politicians will be prepared to accept the weakness of the scientific case put by the AGW alarmists. In the meantime OLO is to be congratulated on its action in publishing views supported by an increasing number of scientists, whether climate specialists or not. And to mac, and other readers who may be having difficulty in finding those scientific opinions try, www.climatescience.org.nz or www.icecap.us for a start. And to the editor of OLO - don't be bullied by the likes of Clive Hamilton.

There will probably be more 'denialists' when the slavish trendies find out what the ridiculous notion of made-made climate change is going to cost them.

As a recent leader in the Australian suggested, the true believers will start to squeal when they find out that governments intend to relieve them of much more money than it takes to change a few light bulbs (now found to be toxic on disposal) or throw carbon-free rock concerts.

Mr Right you are assuming that most climate change believers, or even those who lean on the side that man may be contributing to GW to some degree, advocate for the carbon tax.

Many environmentalists I know do not for very good reasons.

A carbon emissions taxe does not necessarily stop or reduce the polluting activity and the cost will only be passed on to the consumer and those who can least afford to pay. A carbon tax does not offer anything for a major shift in focus to renewables or other less polluting activities. While we are still continuing to overpopulate a carbon emissions tax is a bandaid on a much bigger problem.

The reactions to my piece confirm that On-Line Opinion has become a magnet for climate sceptics. Perhaps that is what the Board of the journal wants. It would explain why it decided to appoint Ray Evans to its advisory board. As those who have read my book "Scorcher" will know, Evans has been the foremost climate sceptic activist in Australia for years. For example, he established the Lavoisier Group which has close ties with far-right think tanks in the US, some funded by Exxon.

If On-Line Opinion wants to go down that path, then that's fine. But it has consequences. I wonder whether the esteemed institutions affiliated with On-Line Opinion want to be associated with climate rat-baggery.

Anyone who has been involved in the climate change debate for the last decade or more knows that I have been at the forefront of taking the argument up to the fossil fuel lobby, the sceptics at The Australian and the Howard Government. I have frequently put myself in the firing line and been targeted by powerful forces on many occasions.

So it's a bit rich for sceptics who have never done anything other than post blogs under the cover of anonymity to accuse me of running from a fight. After all, I have just picked a fight with On-Line Opinion.

I can understand Clive's frustration. The specious arguments for journalistic "balance" often distort reporting of science. Nonsense like "intelligent design", for example, has been given way too much weight as a direct result of this journalistic ethic. While the notion of balance is theoretically laudable, in reality it simply creates misinformation. A better way to deal with the complexities of reporting science is for media people to understand science better and therefore exercise more judgement and nuance in dealing with it. The woeful misreporting of the climate change issue is just confusing people. Globally, we have a very serious problem to face but we are still having to deal with static from the denialists. It is delaying decisive action.