Dear Graham,

I agree, it is a shame that Clive Hamilton
is going. He should have stayed and
continued to argue his case.
But that's his choice.
It's our loss, but also his.

Allowing his article gave
you the right of reply.

Which to many of us
on OLO was interesting to read.

Personally, one of the many things
that I like about this Forum - is the
wide diversity of opinion. Plus the fact,
that although I may not agree with some of
the views - they do make me re-evaluate my
own, and sometimes change my point of view.

A pity that Clive did not see value in that.

Thank you Graham for explaining the OLO philosophy and raison d'etra. I found that helpful.

I am appreciative that you continue to post my articles even though they seem to incite a fair few of your posters to intemperate comment, but I also appreciate the opportunity to discuss a topic as well.

I agree with your comments about about seeking truth where it is to be found and not falling into a postmodern relativist mess. There is objective reality and there is opinion and it helps to know the difference.

Graham,

I do sincerely hope that you post some compelling AGW science.
My issue is that the anti AGW stance articles posted here regularly; pose already refuted ideas; use incorrect methodology; rehash already corrected data as a case in point; make fallacious claims (either through ommision or obfuscation).
Through doing this, you give your editorial team an appearance of bias.
Perhaps you need to get yourself a science editor? Although I'm sure they would end up having their impartiality (and therefore professionalism) attacked regardless of what they post.

There is a bucketload of interesting stuff going on in fields that relate back to climate science. For example the technology for extracting ice cores has recently improved. As always in science they pose more questions than they answer.

aAAAAH.. fresh air.. the wimps are gone :)

Nothing like a good stouche to improve ratings 0_^

As someone who leans towards AGW but has difficulty deciding the extent to which humans are responsible, it is important to represent views from both camps.

Not many of us are scientists and we are left to read as much as possible and make our own judgements based on commonsense, review and reason in weighing up the arguments.

There is one truth we cannot deny and that is man has been and is capable of vast pollution, deforestation, overpopulation and over-exploitation of resources - in short excesses at the expense of the environment. No scientist now disputes the fact that the abundant use of CFCs contributed to the hole in the ozone layer.

All we are quibbling about is the extent of AGW and while we are quibbling Rome is burning. Reducing anti-environmental and polluting behaviour and activity can only be a good thing.

Back on track regarding opinions. I am a great fan of Clive Hamilton and believe he has a lot to offer. By the same token I think OLO does a reasonable job of providing a cross section of opinion on a vast number of issues even if sometimes the editorial 'underpants' is showing. There is certainly variation in the nature of opinion from participants on OLO.

It also cannot be denied that there are those that would exploit AGW for other purposes and this also needs to be kept in check. For example, the way in which an emissions trading scheme is designed, implemented and managed will play a great part and if the approach is wrong it will be either part of the solution or part of a bigger problem.

Our interests are best served by keeping debate open. While the jury is out on AGW even within the scientific community, an open mind is a good thing until the evidence becomes overwhelmingly one way or the other. The only overwhelming evidence is that GW is occuring.

There always needs to be scrutiny and balance and to use Clive's immortal words allowance for dissent.

Graham,

Why do you bother replying at all? Let your posters reply. By getting down here you are foregoing your position and lose perspective. I'm afraid this guy has got under your skin and you retaliated. Grham nil, other guy 1.

Not good for an editor mate.

I must say though I think things have deteriorated here quite a lot. Not just recently but since you started relying on Islamic rants from Irfan for pulling us out of our lethargy.

If there's nothing interesting happening please don't invent something just to upset people.

Playing the race/religious card is despicable and a low stoop. On that basis alone I have to say OLO is nose diving.

But wait, a solution.

Re elect Howard and recuit Andrew Bolt and Piers Ackerman to write for you! Yay, the good old days.