'Australia's latest climate change report reads like a disaster novel'

Like every other bit of drama written by the alarmist for at least 50 years. The problem is the story continues to change. No doubt the next report will be worse than the previous one.

Dream on, G.Young, OLO has blown its credibility and lost its pretence of objectivity, I was only drawn back here by mention elsewhere of Clive Hamiltons principled stand. You've run too many articles that cunningly misrepresent other peoples data, with too little accountability from the professional liars at the IPA and its front groups, a buyout by News Corp is the next logical synergy.

I'm really rather torn.

Balance is a notoriously difficult concept - your basic journalistic concepts of 'he said, she said' don't always work, nor do the efforts to seek out both sides of the debate and present them. It looks nice and neat on paper, in practice it means that nutjobs and yahoos, (or to resurrect a memorable OLO quote: 'armchair nazis') are given equal time and space to those who are well researched and well informed.

Sooner or later, when the conspiracy theorists and crazies are knocking on your door on a frequent basis, you've got to draw a line - regrettably, they never do it themselves as none of them are aware of their foibles.

The problem is that in recent years, this all-encompassing journalistic approach as resulted in soapboxes being granted to all and sundry.

I really don't know the alternative. I'm certainly not advocating censoring anyone, even the nutty professors out there. I guess the only alternative is to place a much stronger emphasis on highlighting the author's credentials. Fact of the matter is, on the climate change debate, the vast majority of the scientific community are indeed in agreement on the basics, if not the minutiae. Their voice needs to be heard far more, because the reality is we can't be giving every skeptic equal airplay to those who have spent years studying the science.

There aren't enough experts to rebut every crackpot, so we need to actively present the best material from both sides. I'm confident if that was properly done, there would be a vast array of well researched pieces on one side, pitted against a few rare quality pieces on the other, the rest being pieces by crackpots and lobbyists.

I'm torn, because Hamilton's clearly giving up, and his dummy spit isn't enlightening nor encouraging and is certainly giving up too easily. We need more, not less, and people with stronger tickers to take this cause forward.

TurnRightThenLeft,

You're spot on when you say that balance is not about equal numbers on 'both sides' especially when you take into account the variable quality of the competing contributions.

OLO should not be publishing stuff just to make the numbers look right. It should, as you say, publish the best it can find on all sides. I think that has been a significant problem for Graham Young. He has published some very poor stuff - and no appeal to so-called 'balance' will restore the reputation of this forum.

Your despair that Hamilton is 'giving up', 'spitting the dummy' is misplaced. It's not a matter of 'ticker'. My view is that he was wasting his time on this forum. He's better off contributing to better quality publications and writing to an audience that is at least open-minded and capable of following a decent argument.

Get out of your burrow, Runner, like the escapist you are.

We are talking as old cockies with experience of droughts.

In dry WA, reckon we could stand one bad year out of three. Now it's been only one good year out of four, now this one bringing up the fifth bad year.

Keep on having fun in your escape hutch, little Runner.

When I read Clive's article my first thought was, why did he write it? What outcome was he hoping for? I couldn't see how any outcome Clive might desire could arise from it.

There are three main players here: Clive, Graham and OLO. Looking at Clive vs OLO, its obvious OLO doesn't need Clive as he has never been a frequent contributor. If anything, a public spat like this will spur the growth OLO's readership, not reduce it. Its like Big Brother in print. On the other hand Clive has decided to burn his bridges with a new, popular and growing outlet for his views.

When it comes to Clive vs Graham, this exchange didn't reflect well on either of them. Exchanges like this one that consist of vindictive and pointed attacks are fired at personalities do nothing to illuminate the issues. Having heard from both before this is nothing new for Graham, but it was a surprise to see it coming from Clive. Up to now I have only seen far more measured and frankly better thought out responses form him, so this is a disappointment.

And finally we have Graham and OLO. He possibly does take the opportunity on occasion to use it as a personal pulpit, but its done in fairly transparent way and is nowhere as heavy handed as the mainstream media, such as say Murdock's newspapers. In any case Graham's main job at the site seems to be moderator of the comments. He does so with a very light hand, and is obviously an ardent believer in free speech. If anything publishing Clive's article and this response just enhances that reputation.

Others here have characterised Graham's offer of the choice venues to Clive as a spider offering the fly a choice of webs for a lunch meeting. But Clive is an self appointed member of the intellectual elite, whose mission seems to be to shape public opinion through informed discussion. He didn't have to accept the spiders offer, and given the predictable outcome his acceptance doesn't reflect well on him.