Another recent piece of OLO climate nonsense is the claim that global average temperature has not risen since 1998 (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7355), a common denialist argument. The truth: 1998 was a particularly hot year due to a strong El Nino – a short-term fluctuation that disguises the longer-term trend of increasing temperatures. (Global warming denialists often overlook other factors than carbon dioxide levels.) The fact that the highest point in the temperature record has not yet been exceeded (though it has been equaled twice, in 2005 and 2007) does not mean that the overall trend is no longer upward. We need to be careful to focus on the long-term trend and not allow ourselves be distracted by short-term fluctuations.
Of course, OLO has also published a number of good articles on climate change -- recent examples include “Clock running out on irreversible climate change” Part I (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7270) and Part II (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7278) and “Make a stand for good science” (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7335), as well as rebuttals to some of the nonsense that appears on this site -- but I think there is indeed an editorial bias. I think your (presumably well-intentioned) attempt to create journalistic balance is misguided. Those who believe the Earth is flat should not get equal time as those who believe it is round; in this case a 50-50 balance would be insanely out of proportion (perhaps it should be more like 99-1 in favour of the spherical Earth viewpoint). I am aware that this is an extreme example, and I am not arguing that skepticism of global warming is as unscientific as skepticism of the Earth’s sphericity (or at least not some of the more mainstream skeptical arguments). There is still legitimate debate going on within the scientific community (not so much over the reality of global warming and the responsibility of human activity, but more about the potential impacts, what we should do about it, etc), and the skeptics may still deserve a place at the table, but not 50% of the places. Maybe the ratio should be something like 95-5, but not 50-50.
To be continued tomorrow…

global warming debate
Carbon trading will double power costs ...and make some traders richer
And feed the media bull dust
Time to get real with the science surrounding CO2 effects
Just do some searches using SCAM or HYPE or SWINDLE or LIES with CO2 or GLOBAL WARMING then spend the rest of your life reading it or listen
and or watching it on Utube etc.
This is not a matter of Democracy but of Science
History proves majority views are not science

http://www.globalwarminglies.com/
This site suitable for dial up
Icons for
...Plants love co2
...Graphs showing temp history
...Cold change being worse
...Mankind to control climate outcomes Why not in the debate ...Man could do much other then co2...
...Much science to be done in key areas of bioligy, chemistry, phisics,
Under sea investigating, history of the planet on and on
SO CHECK OUT THIS SITE AND ITS AND OTHER LINKS SEE above blog

John Quiggin has got it right:

"Graham Young continues to trash the credibility of Online Opinion which once promised to become a serious alternative to the mainstream media. Clive Hamilton bids OLO farewell after its publication of a delusionist piece written by Canadian energy industry PR man Tom Harris."

http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2008/07/03/radical-scepticism/

In my opinion John Quiggin is only saying that because I outed him for his dishonest campaign against Fred Singer. When asked for evidence he suggested that I do a Google search!

This blog entry is yet more brown shirt tactics. You should go and read the piece I wrote on Robyn Williams where I've detailed some of Quiggin's campaign. Extraordinary that a Federation Fellow should prosecute the campaign that he has, including altering Singer's Wikipedia entry. You would think that he had better things to do with his time.

Instant fail, Graham: Godwin's law. Brownshirts?! It's a single sentence on his own blog. You do think a lot of yourself.