Graham,
The issue in this case is Freedom of Speech. That is what you have been giving us and no doubt will keep on doing.

Bronwyn, gecko; did you actually go look at the archives to check if this claimed bias exists? I'll grant you it isn't easy. The authors try to be clever with their titles so you can't do a search on say 'climate' on article page for relevant articles. And when you do find one often the title and introductory paragraph aren't a reliable indicator to what side the article takes - you have to read the entire thing.

I did look at the archives. Actually I didn't look at them all because you can't, and I didn't put a definitive effort in - often relying my memory of what they said. But to me it seemed there are more pro AGW articles than anti - and by a reasonable margin. Clive's claim of bias is only correct if you think the proportion should reflect the prevailing consensus.

Doing that isn't journalistically sustainable. As SusanP often points out, a site that just reflects the prevailing consensus would be downright boring. You would end up seeing your own well informed opinions every day. Ick. As all regular inhabitants here know the place only really starts jumping when someone like Tankard Reist has a spray. And I suspect to be commercially viable it has to be jumping on a regular basis.

But not only is it bad journalistically, its bad socially as well. The Oaks like AGW can survive without being given more room. Its the weedy, unloved ideas the need to be a space in the sun to see if they can bloom. I see part of OLO's role is to give them that space. Clive is in effect arguing it should not, and frankly I think Clive is just downright wrong.

If you care you should be able to view the archives here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/index-articles.asp

You can't view them all right now because the OLO site has a bug. When you try to show "All Discussions" it always returns an error. Graham / David: an acknowledgement of this would be good. Otherwise I'll bug you via email.

Thanks Graham for this article and especially for linking to the piece you solicited from David Henderson. It remains pertinent.

I must however correct your impression that the use of PPP rather than MER-based comparisons 'has since become accepted wisdom.' MER has no support among national accounting statisticians and very little among economists, but the IPCC milieu continues to defend the discredited approach.

OLO's publication of the Henderson article was especially welcome in that I'd previously asked the Australian Greenhouse Office to provide links to our critique and the IPCC authors' responses on its website. On 22 April 2004 I received the following reply:

“Given that the Castles and Henderson articles in particular are widely publicly available and together with the SRES team's response are well known to the modelling and policy communities, I do not think it would add to the debate to post the range of articles on the AGO website. The technical issues associated with the PPP/MER debate and emissions scenarios in general are complex - they are beyond my ken - and in my view best carried forward through constructive engagement between relevant experts.”

Professor Stephen Schneider, an IPCC Coordinating Lead Author, soon provided an illuminating example. Reacting to an email to the World Bank's Chief Economist in which I'd objected to the Bank's use of MER-based comparisons , Schneider circulated my message to his own network under cover of the note: "Hi all, in case you haven't seen Castles latest ride on the PPP horse. Any reactions? …"

There was an immediate response from Professor Sir Partha Dasgupta, FBA, FRS of Cambridge University, as follows:

“Castles is, of course, quite right. Correcting for differences in the 'true' value of the dollar in terms of domestic currency and the official value of the dollar isn't mere cosmetics, it is essential if we are to give meaning to standard of living comparisons [and] international comparisons of aggregate output ...'

Cameron R, my reading of the criticism of Clive was not "has been pilloried for his decision to leave". I'd rather he stuck around both as an author and as a participant in the ensuing discussions but thats his choice.

What I've objected to is his apparent attempts to silence the voices of those who disagree with him on the issue of global warming. I'm not currently one but Clives article gives cause for me to consider how controlled the material I've based my views on has been.

I've been on the site for some years and have yet to see any indication of editorial bias in the censoring of posts. I'm not privy to what articles the editorial staff have access to for publication so have no means to tell if they rejecting quality material which does not suit their own views but I doubt it. I've seen articles from both sides of the debate on the site.

I'm not aware of any other public discussion space that allows the same openess to the variety of views on as many topics that this site allows. I may not always agree with Graham when he does involve himself in debates but I continue to hold the utmost respect for his dedication to allowing and encouraging viewpoints from across the spectrum. Don't flame, don't make threats or promote violence against others, don't spam advertise, stay somewhere close to being on topic and within the word limits and it's hard to think of examples of posts which have been deleted.

R0bert

OLO does a pretty good job of silencing dissent. Graham's belief that one has to have a thick skin and tolerate personal attacks silences those who differ from this opinion.

Some people believe (myself included) that a person with an ounce of self-respect, and those like CH wishing to preserve their academic integrity, simply will not comment or engage in a forum that often just becomes a slag fest.

If you ask for help from Graham Young to curtail the bullies he will turn on you with his nonsense about his own objectivity and your lack of a thick skin. Moreover, OLO has allowed itself to be hijacked by lobbyists whose agenda is to skew the truth (by force of numbers and popularising "dissent" and doubt?). GY's bias allows this.

Political propaganda is based on supposedly established truth and that assists a certain cause. This in itself goes against OLO's claims of dialectics leading us closer to truth. I don't see that QUT or any of these educational organisations are furthering genuine academic enquiry by supporting a forum that allows bullying and disrespectful behaviour and gives untethered voice to lobbyists whose interest is not to discover truth but to push their already established position.

I came to this forum believing the OLO hype. I see myself as an ordinary fellow whose experiences and opinion could contribute to discourse. Free speech is about knowing your humanity and integrity is respected even if your position is rejected. This is not the case with OLO forums and GY response to my concerns has been to see weakness in my call to provide a respectful forum so as not to silence the more timid and those with self respect.

I think it wrong that authors of articles are often attacked by people who hide behind nom-de-plumes. The author puts their reputation on the line and yet is confronted with slights on their integrity and person from people who are too afraid to risk theirs.

Clive Hamilton's dissent is, in part, a response to OLO's failure to provide a suitable forum for his dissent.

Ronnie_Peters

A few points in my 350 words. T.Sett, Clive and I decided the basis of this duel before commencing it. I even gave him the choice of venues - here or the blog. But thanks for the implied compliment that my arguments are more compelling.

Spikey, I think you need to review the meaning of ad hominem. Sounds like any set of facts about someone can be ad hominem if you don't like them.

Bronwyn, this isn't a partisan issue, so how can I be showing political bias. Some of the biggest greenhouse sceptics represent the Labor Party - take Michael Costa for example.

To those of you who've offered support thanks. To those of you who see bias, just have a look at some of the other articles published to day. For example Manne of Influence. It's a well-crafted piece defending Wilfred Burchett that we rushed into print to get maximum publicity for the authors. I suspect they're all from a different political tradition to me, but their facts speak for themselves. They're all distinguished academics, and they sought us out. I'll take that as a vote of confidence.

On Greenhouse keep your eyes peeled in the next week or so for an article on ocean acidification. It could make me change my mind as to whether we need to worry about CO2 emissions or not.