Okay, this is starting to get ridiculous. I am more than happy for OLO to publish any kind of article it deems fit, no matter how much I might disagree; however, most publications, for very good reason, don't use that presumptive freedom from their readership as a license to publish endless iterations of the same voices, who utilise the same talking points, even where editors may be sympathetic.

So, with that in mind, I feel I must take issue with the barrage of articles OLO has published in the genre of triumphalist climate change denial, by IPA contributors under the guise of being independent voices. First, Jennifer Marohasy, whose association with IPA was at least disclosed in her bio line, but then we had Bob Carter as a plain scientist, and finally Max Rheese as part of the IPA front the “Australian Environment Foundation”, in as many days.

This is not what I call a plurality of voices – not in terms of the whole debate, nor even from within climate denial circles. This is effectively one group of pro-industry people; the same stakeholders, who OLO has uncritically published over a week as if they were disparate and independent of each other. Surely this amounts to a lapse in editorial judgement and is a gross disservice to the readership here and the OLO brand which I'm sure would be concerned with striving for a robust rebate and plurality

Yeah, I'm feeling a bit bruised and battered of late. Can't wait for Andrew Bolt and Ray Evan's to 'check in'.

Wouldn't mind so much except for the ad-homs - talk about shrill.

Conventional wisdom once told us that the world was flat,now conventional wisdom tells us that CO2 is the prime driver of climate change with no conclusive scientific evidnence to back it up.

Apparently it is so because they tell us to accept that a minor global warming gas is the murderer based on association/heresay and not on hard scientific evidence.Where is the hard scientific evidence to link co2 with Global Warming?

I agree. There certainly seems to be a preponderance of IPA and other anti-environmental content lately - which always draws the same salivating wingnut comments.

For those of us who are interested in these issues but not necessarily obsessed by them, it's become very difficult to participate in OLO discussions concerning climate change, resource depletion, overpopulation etc, largely because they have already descended into a feeding frenzy before you've had a chance to read the article and think about it a bit.

I'm almost expecting an article from Tim Blair about global 'warmening'.

Arjay "Where is the hard scientific evidence to link co2 with Global Warming?"

I Agree Arjay.

Soft, inadequately tested theories based on models which use insufficient and untested (to significance) data, incapable of passing the basic test of scientific "Truth".

The easiest way of resolving these things, I always say, just follow the money.

From your and my pocket into nice shiny reseach centres and government troughs for fat-cats and prestigious titles for the ambitious.

Bboy

I am in complete agreement with you.

When I had the temerity to suggest that there is a clear bias towards the 'business as usual crowd' AKA climate change dismissers; I was advised by one of the editors, SusanP, that they would be publishing a David Suzuki article, of course this gem in the dung-heap has been completely offset by the plethora of articles as listed by Bboy.

I am amazed, Bboy that you were even given the authorisation for this discussion thread, did you know that GrahamY can delete your comments even if they are not inflammatory and are on topic, simply because he deems them as "unnecessary"?

Must copy and paste this post before it too meets the OLO censor.

;-)