I thought you said you were leaving Clive... or have you realised from the comments above that the journal adheres 'to the objectives it was set up to pursue'.

weell when our politicians of all types and activists are going to outlaw of incandescent light bulbs (rather than let the lights sell themselves on their own merits and giving consumers a choice) i'm beginning to think climate change denial is a good thing, when i've firmly believed it's true. Ironic eh?

hey guys...take a moment to see the bigger picture...'climate change' aka 'global warming' is twin sided sword...one is current full throttle energy use is big money business with all its products and services and provides us the 'luxurious' life compared to our brethren even a hundred years ago...

other side is its destructiveness on mother earth...its becoming irreversible and harder to maintain our current ecosystems...read that most life around us may die out and with it us humans...for its not just the climate that changes...its effects are far and wide reaching...severe weather affects vegetation which animals need-both we need(with our fishes)-and with earth population currently 6 billion if we dont do something a critical mass reached...then...(and anyone dont suggest growing asparagus on mars...try that in 180km/hr dust storms...)

so yes big money can buy some 'favours'...and lets say graham of olo has succumbed a little too much to 'hypnotic-money-dangling effect' and happily publishing grossly manipulative and deceitful articles whose sole aim is to debunk any valid evidence that we are harming mother earth(not that we need it as its got to the stage we can see for ourselves)...and want the energy accelerator now pushed through the floor boards...I think we have eyes/ears/and a brain in-between thats not too psychologically manipulated as kids not to see through all this to the facts...

and I agree that the issue of possible olo bias has been raised by clive...after all its an important issue and seems that clive has noted enough to make that statement...we can make up our own minds from his article and by seeing how it goes...right...guys?

though clive soon there is will be no place to hide from the reality...so if I may suggest that 'feeling' to events affecting us is human and using it to forward what matters to us is an art in itself...and by not writing on olo may not help you feel better or help you achieve what you must...and this is what bring about balance in all things...opposing sides pushing and pulling so keeping the 'acts' in the balanced middle...hope that makes sense...

Sam

This Clive Hamilton at OLO says he is professor of public ethics at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics but the only reference there is to a Clive Hamilton for Wednesday 28th of May at 4pm: Dr Clive Hamilton (Visiting Fellow, Regulatory Institutions Network, ANU). He certainly isn't listed as part of the academic staff nor as an adjunct appointment at CAPPE. Does he then have an ethical dilemma? lol

However for the real funny stuff just read his article here. He shows clearly that he has the AGW mind virus where most of these infected and poisoned unfortunates become so well immunized in the process that they just do not or cannot play outside their playpen. From the misperceived security of their playpen they have been repeatedly warned, come well armed with entrenched avoidance behaviours like pulling down the shutters, disconnecting and walking away from highly plausible arguments. This kind of belief doesn't require evidence because it is issued as pure rote "learning" and boyo does it have all bases covered. e.g. This is the great disconnect where belief in something without evidence is elevated as a particular virtue because there is this notion that any fool can believe something based on evidence. BUT, belief without any evidence takes "real character". lol

The only self-evident fact of nature here is that this whole AGW milieu is a contrived and twisted unreason coupled with very powerful inducements on captive and vulnerable minds. Probably harder to understand for these infected types like Clive is that this delusional attachment that supposedly takes "real character" is one of the major causes of crime in every shape and form.

Clive Hamilton, you have to learn something about these online journals. Their worth isn't in the articles. Its in the comments that follow. And if ever there was an illustration of that, it was Graham's article on Robyn Williams.

I don't think I have ever seen an article so publicly torn to threads. The forum's distaste for it was almost palatable. Even Don Aitkin, the person who was supposedly maltreated by Robyn, posted a comment saying he was happy with Robyn's introduction. Eventually I think the onslaught of criticism was too much for Graham to endure as it appears one of his most vocal few supporters in that thread was a sock puppet - which was outed. You are right in saying that article wasn't one of Graham's high points. In hindsight I think he might even agree.

It was, however, one of OLO's high points. If ever you wanted evidence that OLO is a bastion of free speech - that was it. Graham could of removed or altered any of those comments. Some with good reason - they bordered on personal abuse. Yet, as far as I can tell, he let every one stand.

This is in contrast newspapers and other traditional news outlets that have a tradition of controlling what they publish, and they continue to do so in their online forums. Often you will see them delete comments that are perfectly legal and on topic, their only crime being they disagree with the viewpoint the outlet is trying to push. Not only is this poor form, it this isn't terribly popular with those writing the comments.

Because of this, whether you decide to write again or not, Clive, I suspect OLO will be here for a long while to come. In the short history of online forums, un-moderated forums have always outperformed moderated ones. They attract more readers and more posters. Thus not interfering with the comments is not only principled - its profitable.

Well said rstuart

^^^^

Clive Hamilton may well be right about the number of climate-sceptic articles and the overall bias of OLO. But is there a widely read newspaper, journal, online forum, or other major debating/information medium that isn’t biased?

Some sort of bias is inevitable in a forum like this that deals with such a wide range of material.

Is the presence of articles that run counter to majority opinion actually a bias anyway? Such articles spur lots of comments and debate, whereas articles that most of us can agree with often hardly get a response.

OK, so his expression of concern about the presence of bias on OLO is useful in helping to keep the management team honest and constantly striving to uphold the sacred balance. I guess his threat to quit contributing to the forum is also useful in this way.

But Australia needs him to stay with OLO.

I’ve been a great supporter of Clive for years, in regards to population and sustainability issues in particular. He is one of the country’s most eminent environmental commentators. OLO needs him. And the future of Australia needs his articles to be regularly presented on this widely read forum.