When i read Clive's article on OLO it read as some fixed-in-place personal ethical dilemma but when i read his background was as a professor of public ethics i was more than curious. How could this be? Counterintuitive or a contradiction or ironic or just plain funny peculiar?

Well anyway i was hoping that some contributers may offer their thoughts to help disinfect poor Clive because there are some unfortunates that do not play, that are maladaptive, fragile, inhibited, stressed or whatever?

For myself, play, although hard to define, is what I tend to do most and seemingly all lacking the extrinsic as well as any reduced uncertainty. There are cognitive benefits in play along with enrichments that enhance behavioral flexibility and discovery. Picasso and Mozart played all their lives. However, my suggestion is let's try to get the essential features of intrinsic motivation where first one should PLAY before the enrichment of find and ye shall seek.

I believe in human-induced gloabl warming. However the advocacy for it seem a lot more about agenda-specific reactions and stupid *@#$ like outlawing incandescent light globes. I mean that is obscene and it's bipartisan ironically..... I'm prepared to be a denier to stop these idiots start banning things and implementing taxes that have no effect at all except on raising more revenue for the government to be misused. However, it looks like the denialists are in a very weak position compared with the do-gooders and their idiotic policies.

Well done Graham.

Truely the strangest part of this was Clive saying that he wasn't interested in debating the ideas, but simply following people who he trusted. While trusting your friends is a good thing in the right context, when it comes to pursuing truth it isn't the best path.

We only have two options for pursuing truth -- using reason or faith.

Many "sceptics" accuse AGW of being a religion. That's undoubtably true for some, but an unfair accusation for many who are honestly scared of co2 under their bed. Strangely, Clive seems happy to admit that it is faith for him.

If a belief is faith based (instead of reason based) then rational argument become impotent. There is nothing you can say that will change the faith. That probably explains why Clive refuses to actually engage in the real debate.

And to add more irony... when it comes to economics (which Clive studied), he is an "economic denialist" with little credibility. Perhaps that's why he talks about his faith instead?

I have written previously in support of Clive. I think denialist is a good word to describe those who deny AGW.

But I think both Graham and Clive are wrong to exclude non-climate scientists from the debate and to leave it to the "experts."

The issue is not only scientific, it is political.

The very structures of our governance include our politicians relying on expert advice from a range of agencies and outside advisers on a mutlitude of issues. I have expertise in one small area of law. Does that exclude me from having an opinion on what my elected representatives are doing in any other field? Of course not. It is the essence of democracy and citizenship to particpate in the debates in our society about the way forward.

In my view, the pro-denialist position seems to get a run on OLO disproportionate to its acceptance in the wider society. But I don't want Clive to leave the debates because of that. The alternative is to continue to argue calmly against the denialists.

I also think Graham misses Clive's point. But this is getting to be a dialogue of the deaf. It is time to move on, accept the differences and for AGW supporters to provide on-going rebuttal of the denialists. That should include Clive and further articles from him on OLO.

I trust science a whole lot more than economics. Economists are like weathermen and about as reliable. They often do not put value on things which should have value because of their partisan beliefs allow them to pick and choose economic theories, rather than relying on scientific method. I have no respect for economists and that is exactly how much respect they deserve."
Cost of the Iraq War and Oil prices?"-Good question
"...Wha..?"-Economist

The reason that the climate sceptics are still out there, despite the deep disapproval of Professor Hamilton and olthers, is that the IPCC forecasts have proved to be so completely useless to date. Global temperatures have been going down since the 2007 IPCC report (which forecast increasing temperatures) and are now below where they were for the 2001 report. Thanks to the el Nina climate cycle they are temporarily back to where they were in 1990. (At least on the Hadley site). There simply is no sign of warming.

Now perhaps this is due to some hiatus in the climate system - as the greenhouse warming advocates are claiming - and warming will resume some time. But to claim that the debate is sufficiently settled that all further argument is mischievous is patently absurd. Prof Hamilton says he does not know enough about the science to evaluate the arguements but he should know enough to know the difference between up and down. At the moment temperatures are gong down when the theory says they should be going up.

His decision to take his bat and ball and go home is not principled, it is childish.