I'm certainly not in the climate change denial camp, but I've seen enough by way of pretty harsh commentary to know that the OLO editors rarely censor, Fractelle.

I sincerely doubt they would remove this thread just because it criticises OLO, and I don't think that comment is particularly fair on them, when they do exercise a light touch, and this probably means they're going out on a limb at times.

As for the preponderance of climate change denial articles, I can see some reasoning there, even though I don't see many credible ones - if there is an established orthodoxy, then it's important that there are plenty of articles that challenge that orthodoxy.
As for the articles, it may depend on availability. Yes, there's a lot of them, but provided they're reasonably written, I don't see why they should be censored either.

Global warming is of course, a global issue, and if there are those that dissent, it's important they're heard.

Yes, there may be a glut of them. But that will happen from time to time and this bizarre run of global warming/porn is evil articles will pass, and next it may be the evils of obesity or overpopulation. Who knows?

Sorry to have to tell you TRTL,

My morning's comment was deleted, censored and I was threatened by suspension.

Oh O & A - give them a break!
The more that Jennifer Marohasy, Bob Carter, Max Rheese publish their global warming denials, posing as independent thinkers - but sticking to the IPA line - the more they reveal themselves and the “Australian Environment Foundation” for what they are.

So - people wake up to the truly anti-environmental nature of their "spin". It is indeed repetitive. It looks pretty ridiculous along with graphs showing the correlation of carbon in the atmosphere and average global temperatures , - as well as film of glaciers melting.

Let them publish away - let readers wake up to anti-environment "fronts" and "think tanks" like the Institute of Public Affairs and the “Australian Environment Foundation”
Christina Macpherson www.antinuclear.net

Get used to what you incorrectly call 'denial'. We are not all sheep who want to cosy up to the majority. What is silly is that the easily led, easily frightened, majority who believe the doomsdayers are so upset by the minority having the 'cheek' to post their opinions.

Climate change is real. The childish belief that we can do anything about it is unreal. The climate will change again - when the forces of nature are ready.

I thought I would step into this discussion to bring you some facts about exactly what OLO has published in the last four weeks (back to and including March 7). Bearing in mind that the only developments lately on this topic in the news have been discussing the question of “consensus”: I will leave you to make up your own minds about the bias or otherwise of OLO’s coverage of the complex topic of climate change.

Global warming articles:
Letter to Kevin Rudd: stop coal plants now (April 3)
The challenge of the 21st century: setting the real bottom line - part 2 (April 1)
The challenge of the 21st century: setting the real bottom line - part 1 (March 31)
A food conversation (March 25)
Kyoto, Australia and honesty (March 17)
Putting policy into practice - reducing government emissions (March 17)

Articles discussing emissions trading schemes, advertising “green” products etc, so in effect recognising climate change i.e. pro climate change:
Cut tax, carbon to green economy (April 1)
Come clean on sustainability (April 1)
Negotiating the future (March 28)

Articles querying the causes of global warming and/or the science used by the IPCC (note not necessarily denying that climate change is happening but suggesting the jury is still out on how it is caused):
Are environmentalists on the road to Damascus? (April 2)
The IPCC: on the run at last (March 31)
Paddling upstream on a hope and a prayer (March 27)
The Green religion (March 26)
Carbon rationing or freedom (March 14)

And Fractelle, there is only myself working on the articles for On Line Opinion. Graham Young does many, many other things, including looking after the Forum.
Susan Prior - editor

SusanP

4 weeks does not constitute as sufficient time period, to indicate ANY bias in either direction.

Is this not an opinion page? Well consider that I beg to differ.

TRTL

I can set up a temporary email address (my privacy is of utmost importance) if you would like to see a copy of Graham's email to me, then you can make an informed decision as to whether his deletion of my comments was warranted.