i was once booted off this forum for accusing another poster of being a member of one nation. perhaps i should have accused him of being a Laborite instead?

Clive,

The social economists Frank Stillwell, Stuart Rosewarne and the Late Ted Wheelwright would have presented Graham with empirical data in your situation. Of your School of Thought you are not the equal of these follow academics. Rather, take you take flight rather than fight.

Paton, by comparison: At least he fought, before he faded-away.

On this occasion, you come across, as a politician with glass jaw, rather than a committed academic with case to put to OLO. Bad form. Put down the dummy and pick-up some journals.

All,

Looking at Clive's age, I guess he studied Economics at Sydney in the early seventies. Given his aspoused convictions, I would have thought he would have sided with the Wheelwright's faction, rather than take a straight Economics degree. I might need to corrected, here. Yet, to me, his actions under threat do not appear to match his stated convictions. In short, a politician.

Clive again,

Your only saving grace would be to present an empirical model. OLO will survive and thrive with or without you.

Clive,

Sadly, you have put your pride, before honest debate. Your dispassion for science and Graham's call for empirical data is aptly addressed by Bertolt Brecht:

"The aim of science is not to open the door to infinite wisdom, but to set a limit on infinite error."

- Oliver

I think it is churlish of Clive Hamilton to turn away from ONO, especially when the Australia Institute openly refused to back a web site set up for truly democratic dialogue.

All the research on electronic conversations says the problem is people only talk to their own groups. ONO is just about the only interactive forum I know of that is truly non-partisan.

Yes, I know some of their articles are scornful of climate change, its scale and sources. But every major newspaper and the ABC has given Don Aitkins coverage, and at least here you can refute.

As one of the Al Gore climate change presenters, and also a regular blogger on National Forum, I feel the permission to speak is unparalleled. Just because no one pays attention to my blogs does not mean the opportunity to raise issues is inhibitied. Quite the contrary.

Graham 'gets' electronic democracy, Clive needs to contribute more, not less.

Graham,

OLO has a life of its own, with or without Clive Hamilton. I think he has a valid point, but that is only my opinion.

What I do find disappointing is that you act and carry on in the very same way that you accuse your dissenters of doing ... this is typical of the duplicity shown by your camp. You play word games and semantics with the best of them and your legion of followers are proud.

I remember only too well our exchange in the IPA's Marohasy piece you link to in your above article ... you denying the existence of the 3 cells in the Walker Circulation and calling me dishonest.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7124#109767

I would have preferred to show you the link between these and Spencer's work, but your cherry-picking, hypocrisy and straw-man intransigence to the science is typical of the 'deny and delay brigade' in which you have so much following.

Indeed, your own ad-hom attacks and vitriol towards anyone who dissents with your own personal hobby-horse make it extremely difficult for people like Hamilton to contribute in any constructive and meaningful way.

The science is telling the world we have a problem, it is up to the world's governments and policy makers to decide on a course of action ... we are trying.

This is where you in your position could really contribute ... but you don't. Rather, you promote distorting, misleading and misrepresentation of the science on the grounds that there is strong disagreement in the scientific community when in fact there is not.

Despite your rhetoric Graham, in my opinion you have abrogated your responsibility as a chief editor of a media forum like OLO ... but, it is yours and you can do with it what you like.

Many scientists who were once in the flock of true believers and now having doubts and becoming sceptics.
See http://canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming051607.htm

Since Q&A is such an ardent believer,could he please explain why the weather and oceans have cooled since 1998?While the Artic sea has shrunk by about 25% since 1979,why has the Antartic ice remained constant?Why also is Bob Carter wrong in his conclusions.CO2 it seems does not drive climate but rather follows temp increases by some 800 yrs.
Q&A it seems is a bit like Clive Hamilton,whereby,all truths eminating from his keyboard are self evident.