Spikey, my apologies for assuming you are male. I can only say I did assume Spikey to be a more masculine pseudonym. I mean no disrespect by this.

I hate to get stuck on trivialities, which these exchanges generally descend into, and which I think is the point rstuart was making about idle remarks, in the obvious sense of 'of no great importance', as in idle chit-chat, but I feel compelled to respond to your weak defence.

"We indicate the relevant omission with three dots."

Firstly, you didn't. Secondly, it is not OK to omit words if it changes the meaning of what was said. I believe the professor of public ethics at CAPPA would agree. Deleting "at the moment" clearly changes the meaning enough for you to allege an inconsistency which is not there, especially as the statements are two years apart.

"Perforce: we have a 350 word limit." Your post is 333 words long. The curious missing three would take it to 336.

You may accuse me of being pedantic, but I believe your false accusation warrants correction. I am not defending GY, nor is this a personal attack, but as I write this, I realise I HAVE changed my mind: such matters in ethical debate are not trivial at all.

Of further note, Spikey, is that your so "which is it, Graham?" thinking betrays your own focus on the person rather than the content, as if people have to either agree or disagree with everything another person says. It's not like that with my friends. As I see it, your alleged inconsistency inadvertently makes a case that GY attends to the content rather than the person, and not yourself. And as I now, regrettably, originally said, there’s nothing wrong with changing your mind anyway.

PPS, rstuart. My apologies if this has turned into exactly what you feared.

I am not a climate change denialist. I am not silent. This anecdotal evidence from a small sample gainsays Clive Hamilton.

My (self-proclaimed)expert opinion is that three factors are involved:
- empirical evidence about the polar ice caps.
- minor random fluctuations on a geological timescale look pretty major on a human timescale
- the planetary climate is metastable.

Yes there appears to be a gradual global increase in mean temperature (and it's a worry - I don't want polar bears and penguins to go extinct). Some people say that the weather is more variable and severe than in the past. But remember Dorothea MacKellar - 'droughts and flooding rains'? She wrote that a while back.

My view is that it is impossible to tell whether the current weather patterns are a minor random fluctuation and/or symptoms of a trend to global warming. In Australia we have a variable climate over most of the country anyway. ‘Average’ rainfall in drier areas is made up of years of nothing and an occasional heavy rain season.

There is surely no controversy over the effect of increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere – the average global temperature rises - although there may be argument about how much. I hope that all you climate change denialists who have distressed Clive Hamilton are denying the timing not the chemistry.

Hence my third factor - there is a threshold at which gradually changing conditions result in a sudden (on the geological scale) switch in climate. There is no way of knowing if conditions after this point of no return would support human civilisation.

And you can’t put it back.

The case is not proven, but there is ‘reasonable doubt’ that climate change is NOT happening. After all, ‘climate denialists’ are no less likely to be wrong than ‘pro-changers’. If it is, who knows when we will get to the point of no return. Regardless of whether you think climate change is upon us now or maybe not for 10,000 years, the prudent course is surely to make changes now to safeguard against it.

On line forum
Can we have a topic "POLITICS and DEMOCRACY"
http://www.globalwarminglies.com/
just type in global warming with...risk or scam or hype etc
also an ice age would be much worse
also there are plus and minus in most change

Richard Castles,

Thanks for your apology for assuming I am male because you assume that Spikey is “a more masculine pseudonym”. I apologise for assuming you were defending Graham Young. I assumed that’s what you meant by "Graham Young in a knock-out".

More important, I’d be happier for an apology for your misrepresenting my posts (idle reading perhaps). This is not a matter of pedantry. The issue goes to the heart of the ‘debate’ where correspondents distort others’ submissions.

I said: "We indicate the relevant omission with three dots."

You replied: “Firstly, you didn't. Secondly, it is not OK to omit words if it changes the meaning of what was said. I believe the professor of public ethics at CAPPA would agree. Deleting "at the moment" clearly changes the meaning enough for you to allege an inconsistency which is not there, especially as the statements are two years apart. “

So you accuse me of (a) not inserting three dots to indicate omission and (b) deleting “at the moment” so as to distort Youn’g message.

Are you reading a different version of OLO? Here’s what I actually wrote:

“Thank you, rstuart, for reminding us that it's not so long ago that Graham Young was making flattering remarks about Clive Hamilton ("(I seem to be agreeing with Clive Hamilton's Australia Institute a lot at the moment" - OLO 17 October 2006.)

“That confession sits uneasily with this current comment from Graham: "...his positions have a place on OLO, even though I rarely agree with them." Which is it, Graham? Agreeing a lot? Or rarely agree with him?"

The evidence is absolutely clear that you are in error: I did include the three little words you allege I omitted; and I did include the three dots for omission of other words.

As for my post being just 333 words, I’ve re-counted. It’s 348 words. So what am I to make of your mistake? Idleness again, or mischievous distortion?

As for asking Young to clarify his conflicted position on Hamilton, please explain how that is a personal attack rather than addressing the content?

There was a good discussion on Insiders on the weekend. This guy basically said when scientists cant predict the weather more than a few days in advance, and when the government cant accurately predict the surplus, this debate about carbon tax is fraught with danger.

Even Gerard Henderson wisely articulated something like the only thing we know about the future form the past is that people are hopeless at predicting the future:-)

That's why I think all this attempt to stigmatise climate change 'deniers' is laughable. It's the doomsdayers who should be under examination.

To me, onlineopinion has been trying to pushing certain lines since it started.

But I wouldn't worry, especially on the climate change issue.

Almost every day that goes by sees the deniers are looking more and more brain-dead stupid, or ignorant, or both. Let them have their say as much as they want.