Because some people can’t ‘win’ they decide that people and editors who don’t agree with them are ‘biased’. So much for their strength of their own beliefs!

If what Clive Hamilton and his disciples claim were true, Graham Young would not have published Hamilton’s article. As it is, Graham’s fairness has allowed Hamilton to cook his own goose.

What an interesting set of comments. The key thing to me is that OLO exists as a place where all sorts of people - including curmudgeons like me - can express a view in a relatively safe environment. It's tempting to add a few words about global warming. For example, that the world isn't warming, the seas aren't rising, the ice isn't melting and the majority of relevant scientists don't support the AGW position, but that would be to label myself as a denialist. Better to note, as The Economist does this week, that the current alternative energy industry looks a lot like the early stages of the dot com boom and to hang our hats on innovation and technology rather than emission trading schemes and the like that are doomed to failure. Keep at it Graham - democracy is a good thing and sites like OLO are essential to the health of our polity.

Hamilton’s farewell piece is “replete with irony piled upon irony”, says Young. His own piece is full of ironies.

Young: “...why is Clive taking the time to write to its editors [OLO], publish an article in it at their invitation…” Well, you invited him.

Young: “…and then issue not so veiled threats to target its funding base”.
What threat? Unwarranted paranoia. Though I read that Hamilton’s mob refused to fund OLO. How dare they have other priorities for their scarce resources?

On OLO’s openness to all views:

Young: “We welcome lobbyists as well as academics, politicians, activists and citizens…we don't differentiate between them because they might have a particular point of view...”

But: “Clive asks whether I would publish ‘Larouche delusions about the Royal Family being in cahoots with global Jewry to run drugs’. I do get this sort of material sent to me by the Citizens Electoral Council, but my spam filter copes with it very well.” So where's the line?

Young: “His article is full of ad hominem diatribes.” Ye gods! Here are some Young own quotes:

“Because he deals in reputations, facts have no power over him, to change his mind or otherwise.”

“The idea that truth is relative has taken over some areas of the humanities through postmodernism, theory and forms of Marxist analysis. That's the school that Clive's argument on global warming comes from.”

Objecting here to Hamilton using the term “denialist”, a few short weeks ago, Young was throwing ad hominem abuse around like confetti:

On Robyn Williams: “His father was a public servant and Marxist who sold socialist newspapers on the street.”

On John Quiggin and Tim Lambert: “…web activists who practice brown-shirt tactics on any who question what they define as the global warming orthodoxy.”

On Al Gore: “…the greatest hysteric of them all…was a tobacco industry advocate himself”.

On ad hominem: “An ethical approach to argument avoids ad hominem attacks and concentrates on facts and arguments. It treats its opponent's arguments with respect, and doesn't misrepresent them, and it researches its own arguments thoroughly and presents them honestly.”

Irony of ironies.

Graham

You are a champion of free speech. The last thing we need is another ABC/SBS where political and social issues are almost always slanted one way. You more than most places present articles from different viewpoints. To be honest I don't know what your political viewpoint is. The fact that you support Henson left me wondering. Your forum has exposed one very insecure scientist who has taken his bat and gone home. It is sad but the debate will continue and change on this issue for a long time. Many scientist don't invite scrutiny (quite ironic) and become very defensive when holes are shown in their theories. Evolution is probably the greatest example of this.

I'm prepared to accept that Graham Young's comments are made in good faith.
I think the most interesting thing out of this exchange, however, is the manner in which Clive has been pilloried for his decision to leave. Sure, he sort of invited it to some extent, but it's still very unfortunate and does nothing to recommend OLO. Wasn't there an article by Malcolm King on ostracism the other day? Perhaps everyone should have a read of that and take a deep breath.
Graham, as moderator, I would've thought there was room for you to address this and not leave it to the likes of me to have to do so.
All the best,

Graham wrote, It was to be a site which would open up a place for new voices, which would seek out people with special expertise to share their knowledge.
I thoroughly appreciate this attitude, because I didn't have the opportunity of a university education, thus my natural talents weren't stifled by degrees. That comment is meant to raise a chuckle, not have some professor take umbrage.
I appreciate that OLO accepted two articles from me in June, based on my observations not what other people have taught me.
Until I realised that OLO wasn't only for writers with letters after their names I wouldn't have had the audacity to enter into public comment on issues relating to the world food crisis.