I think that perceived editorial bias at OLO is almost beside the point, as is the preponderance of 'denialist' comments dressed up as 'skepticism'. Quite some time ago, after reading the nth article from an IPA, CIS, AEF or whatever stooge, I came to the conclusion that on certain topics OLO is biased towards opinions that are generally neo-conservative and business-as-usual. Climate change is one of those topics.

However, my perception of bias doesn't stop me from reading and participating - although I don't involve myself much in the inevitable stoushes around AGW and climate change. Rather, as more reasonable correspondents like Mercurius, Passy et al suggest, there is much to be learned from exposure to the expressions of regressive ideas and opinions of those whose blindness and indifference to the dire state of the planet lead them to oppose any measures that might be suggested to mitigate the anthropogenic aspects of climate change.

It helps to know the enemy, so to speak. If I want serious discussion about climate change and other topics that arouse the ire of the neo-cons and denialists, I go to other sites where the debates tend to be less emotive and better informed. OLO provides a forum where I get to read the arguments, opinions and prejudices of people whom I usually avoid like the plague, rather than simply reinforcing my pre-existing ideas and opinions.

Having said that, I reiterate that the quality of articles seems generally to have declined over the past year or so, and this probably accounts for the concomitant increase in ignorant, hateful and asinine comments that seem to dominate certain threads. It is still useful, however, to be aware that such sentiments exist in the community - although I hope and suspect they are less predominant among the silent majority.

Boys! Boys! Please be civilised and take your fight outside.

To our OLO smart-arse denialist right-wingers.

Geneva and Hague Conventions now illegally superseded by self elected Americana.
Earlier weaknesses said to have allowed little Israel to join the big powers, and now in possession of over 200 nuclear rockets ready to go.

According to top historians the case of letting Israel begin an illegal nuclear programme so close to its being allowed to return to its original homeland after over two thousand years, has virtually left academic global historians dismayed to the point it is difficult to get an audience with them.

It was Henry Kissinger who made a statement, now in US Government archives warning Richard Nixon that keeping quiet about Israel’s venture into atomic warfare, could greatly upset the future balance of power in the Middle East –

Such caused an Islamic resentment which surely helped to bring on 9/11.

Thus we now have the problem of Israel’s No 1 target, Iran, once former Persia, and now a greater nation of 70 million, in danger of an attack from tiny Israel, with the full weight of the GW Bush driven US Constitutional Prerogative behind her.

It is also well to remember that the above has not the backing of the American people, similar to the plan of putting the plentiful remnants of Saddam’s quarter million Iraqi Sunni national guard later turned insurgents against American occupation - and now on the US military payroll as the major focus of the Great Iraqi Awakening.

For more info’ try the Washington Post.

(hi bushy!)

It's funny how both sides of this argument suspect each other of being part of some global conspiracy.

I think the fact that our once trusted Western governments have blatantly lied to us about so many life-and-death issues during the past decade, has made us ALL a little batty. What's left to have faith in?

- this is relevant -

We live in a midden of lies. Vested corporate interests have taken us into wars-for-profit, dictated vital government(s) policies and steadfastly avoided any self-examination, except for that which boosts their monetary profit. They have even managed to convince most of us that the present paradigm is the best and only way for humanity to exist. Such is the power of their influence.

It's hardly surprising that the same captains of industry are pre-emptively doing an end-run around the Garnaut Report.

Those who feel they are maybe doing "OK" under this system, or lack the courage to risk a better one, will cling to their temporal straws, even unto the edge of doom.

So, get your tickets for the Economic Nimby Dance which is to come. The fiddlers will fiddle their financial fiddles. The lockstep line-dancers will probably be the IPA. Neckerchiefs, check shirts, jeans and 10 gallon hats c/- AEF. Maybe we can get Mr Nelson to call a few square-dances for us -

- all join hands and do-si-do -

In case you missed it on comments on Clive Hamilton's article:

Thank you, rstuart, for reminding us that it's not so long ago that Graham Young was making flattering remarks about Clive Hamilton ("(I seem to be agreeing with Clive Hamilton's Australia Institute a lot at the moment" - OLO 17 October 2006.)

That confession sits uneasily with this current comment from Graham: "...his positions have a place on OLO, even though I rarely agree with them." Which is it, Graham? Agreeing a lot? Or rarely agree with him?

For the several bombastics who have accused Hamilton of trying to censor or stifle debate by withdrawing from OLO - and who can blame them when Graham headlined his diatribe against Clive provocatively, "Silencing dissent" - it's enlightening to look at a few salient facts concerning Hamilton's history of contributions to OLO.

According to data provided by OLO, Hamilton has published a grand total of 12 articles in 6 years and only once has he contributed to a discussion of an article - and that was last week.

By contrast, our worthy editor, who presumably was responsible for his own headline, has allowed OLO to publish 88 of his own articles and 376 other contributions (194 comments on articles and 182 general comments).

Remember this is the editor of OLO who said: "No contributor has special privileges on OLO. We don't do editorials, and when I contribute to debate, apart from rare appearances as forum moderator, it is on the same basis as everyone else."

The discerning OLO reader will ask whether Graham hasn't been playing games with us: "Clive and I decided the basis of this duel before commencing it. I even gave him the choice of venues - here or the blog."

He then cutely asks: "...why is Clive taking the time to write to its editors?...before declaring that Hamilton is "a man who has forfeited any right to take part in this debate".

Who's talking censorship? Who's manipulating On Line Opinion?

Let's have no more nonsense about Clive Hamilton trying to stifle debate and free speech.

Graham and all,

Clive Hamilton was whining and reporting, when he should analysing and concluding.

Conceptual models, ANOVAs, Mulivariant anayles, collelation co-efficients, factor analyses, moderating variables, and on it goes... are used a foundation for many arguments in various disciplines. People with research degrees will understand the universal language of mathematics, without climatic related PhD degrees. Albeit, these folk might not know what constructs to include in the model. But, data will speak.

Clive's taking a firm position on a scientific subject, without any primary data is ludicrous. If able, Clive could have played Paul Davies or Jacob Bronowski or Carl Sagan, broken the subject down for the general reader. He did not take this course, either. Just saying something is, so; is inadequate.

Go back to his last article. Find the topic sentences. Nothing of substance.

If Clive Hamilton doesn't understand Climate Science, or, alternatively, he cannot breakdown the Climate Science, he does know, towards a general OLO audience, for heavens sake, how can he expect to published?

I have been on the editorial board of a "university press" journal distributed to fourteen countries: Were I in Graham's role, I certainly would take a tighter position on "Article" content than "General" discourse and, this exactly what Graham seems to have done. Good work, Graham.

Clive,

Give us your model and stats. Else, how on Earth or the Sun ;-), do we know the veracity of your posit?

Image, I am a Climate Change Agnostic from the planet Zot. Prove your case, scientifically. Prove my blast, wrong. Got it?