rstuart

"Bronwyn, gecko; did you actually go look at the archives to check if this claimed bias exists?"

No, but I did check the current list of articles closely and there are enough items on it for it to be considered a reasonably fair sample. Zero to four represents strong bias in my opinion. As a long term OLO reader, I certainly don't consider it to be an unrepresentative sample either.

Graham

"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."

Every issue is political, Graham, and this one is no exception. I said nothing about it being a partisan isssue. I wasn't talking about party politics. I've known all along you were a Liberal voter. That's entirely irrelevant to this debate.

Pleased to see the articles today on the green car and to read of the coming article on ocean acidifcation. Keep them coming. All we are asking for is balance so that we can all engage in informed debate on this vitally important issue.

Bronwyn
"Please start presenting quality scientific analysis on the correlation between climate change and human activity. There is a prolific quantity of it around and, unlike most of the stuff you've been dishing up on the topic so far, it has the support of the overwhelming majority of the world's leading scientists."

Ah Bronwyn, there is in fact not a lot of quality scientific analysis supporting made made global climate change because 'quality; scientific analysis has to be
1) Open. Ever tried getting data out of the climate change alarmists? In direct opposition to scientific method, climate change alarmists refuse to produce their data and methods for replication.
2) Precise. Temperature data is badly corrupted, and 'corrections' by climate change alarmists
3) Predictive. Climate Change alarmists have consistently had predictions falsified, considering the current 10 year cooling trend.
4) Based on experiment. Computer models which fail to take into account the vast quantity of poorly understood non-anthropogenic causes are poor guides to causation and reality.

But sure...I'm sure we might able to find some science supporting the badly overblown threats of man caused global warming, but I doubt you could call it quality.

Oh and Bronwyn, please support your statement that catastrophic man made global warming has the support of an overwhelming majority of scientists, because all surveys of scientists opinions fail to show this.

Bronwyn et al,
I have noticed a couple of mentions about bias on the Henson issue (among other things) so I thought I would take a quick look just to see exactly where we stood: out of the seven articles that I could find in our archives there were three declaring that Henson's work was art, three claiming it was child abuse and one, Ross Buncle's piece could have been said to swing either way, but possibly came down in the final analysis to Henson's work being art.
That seems like a pretty even score to me.
It strikes me that because we are prepared to publish articles that are not necessarily what some people want to hear there seems to be a perception that there is a bias there. It would take me longer than I have to go over every climate change/renewable energy/environment article that we have done over the last few years to see what the score is, but as a previous commenter has stated they shouldn't be too far adrift.
I would also hazard a guess that because we are prepared to post articles from a different perspctive many of our readers have had an education about others' opinions. I know I get an education every day I turn up for work. So if OLO is broadening horizons and encouraging debate that would be a positive.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank OLO supporters on the forum and all the kind emails I get from authors (regardless of political persuasion). It makes it very worthwhile for me when I work at the end of a computer screen everyday. So thank you.
Susan P editor.

Good on you, Graham, we need more people like you.

The thing that has always fascinated me about the Australian scene is the current tendency to disparage opponents with intellectually bankrupt perjorative comments such as "racist", "un-australian", and so on, with the object of criticising opinions without presenting any scientific evidence. Climate change is an excellent example of this.

If there is one fundamental problem I have with the whole subject, is the allegation that it is a moral issue. It is most definitely NOT a moral issue. It is a scientific issue. The fact that the standard of living in some countries is much higher than others has no bearing on whether human activity is changing the climate. Cold, hard scientific evidence is needed, and those who do not claim to understand the science should keep out of the debate. I am sure that many of the proponents of the theory are the same ones who feel guilty that we live better than many other nations. My problem is that I don't share this guilt. If others choose to destroy their country with civil war, coups, and crazy policies that drive out all the capable people, that is NOT my fault.

I feel privileged to be able to take part in a genuine impartial forum, where, unlike the Australian media, all points of view are presented and debated.

Dear Graham, Clive Hamilton's current bout of exposure plainly shows, that he urgently needs rest, recuperation, "preferably out in the sunlight which warms our world and fosters the growth of all living things".

GrahamY this morning: “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.”

GrahamY to Spikey this afternoon: "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."

I'm trying hard, Graham, to find the relevance to your argument with him that Robyn Williams' father was a public servant and Marxist who sold socialist newspapers on the street. Those might be facts, but how do they detract from or support Robyn Williams' capacity as a science journalist? What if his father had been a businessman and Salvation Army officer who sold the War Cry in pubs? Would those facts be relevant and not meant to belittle him?

On your characterisation of John Quiggin and Tim Lambert as "web activists who practice brown-shirt tactics", I'm finding it hard to see that as treating your opponents with respect? Brown-shirts? Maybe you meant to say you're only obliged to treat with respect those who agree with you?

In what way is characterising Al Gore as "the greatest hysteric of them all" concentrating on the facts and arguments of Gore's position on global warming? What psychological facts do you have for measuring Gore's hysteria?

Sounds like ad hominem is only what others do to you and your allies. After all, it was you who leveled that charge against Hamilton. Moral indignation ill-suits you.

I'll await your next tutorial in irony with eager expectation.