Way to deliberately misrepresent the thread Col. I painstakingly and explicitly wrote that I do not have any desire to curtail debate over AGW in the negative so stop implying otherwise.

You can self-identify as whatever label you like it's irrelevant to this thread, the point is my substantive content was clearly objecting to the concentration of IPA contributors over a single week, and the failure to identify them as affiliates, and NOT anything to do with the pieces themselves having a certain position. I went to the trouble of even pointing out that the IPA affiliates don't even represent all the voices in the anti-AGW camp anyway.

Anyway, you can generalise and think whatever you like. I'm not a green voter. I'm not zealous. I don't want to censor anybody. I just think affiliates, fronts, and subsidiaries, should be noted in bio lines - and for the purposes of editorial selection, should be counted as part of the one organisation as goes to how many contributions they can get accepted in a single period. It's a reasonable point.

BBoy “I painstakingly and explicitly wrote that I do not have any desire to curtail debate over AGW in the negative so stop implying otherwise.”

I think you are being just too precious.

“the point is my substantive content was clearly objecting to the concentration of IPA contributors over a single week,”

I see no one else making particular references or declarations to their political, social or marital associations, so why get so high-and-mighty about API, unless you are frightened by them (ahhh…. The API bogey men are coming to suck the lifeblood out of the children)

“for the purposes of editorial selection, should be counted as part of the one organisation as goes to how many contributions they can get accepted in a single period. It's a reasonable point.”

I am happy to leave that with the errr…. Editorial staff.

I would suggest you maybe need to consider a longer time period of testing before claiming any particular bias.

For instance, I see a flurry of anti-porn articles recently and an absence of (say) abortion choice articles. So what! Things which get presence are invariably “topical” and that means a greater prominence to a topic which will wax and wane accompanied by the availability of suitable articles which suddenly proliferate then decline accordingly.

As I wrote before

“I think the site would be a lesser place without input from climate change zealots, however, they should grow up and realize, their view is not omnipotent and the voice of dissent to their views has an equal right to be heard “

and btw, I misrepresented nothing but you know that, you were merely trying to score a cheap point.

Col Rouge,
You hit the nail on the head. Topics come in and out of the national conversation depending on what is hot at the moment and what isn't. But as I have said before, and in danger of sounding repetitious, I always try to get some balance happening. But it doesn't always work out that we achieve one article "for" followed by one article "against" in a nice smooth flow. Apart from which many topics, including climate change, are a great deal more nuanced than that.
Regards
Susan P - editor

Susan P "I always try to get some balance happening. But it doesn't always work out that we achieve one article "for" followed by one article "against" in a nice smooth flow"

Yes Susan, I am reminded of the Abraham Lincolns Maxim

"You can please some of the people all of the time...."

You and Graham do a good job for which you receive, from the posters, too few signs of appreciation.

Posting here is my choice and reflects the high regard which I hold this site and its staff in (even if I do go over the top sometimes).

'I think you are being just too precious.'

That's just evasion. I called you on your attempt to mischaracterise this thread, and my intentions, as being against anti-AGW articles, (and I note Susan is still confused about this) and rather than fess up that you jumped to conclusions without reading what was actually said - you then come up with this lame red herring. Clearly the thread was about attribution issues, yet you didn't call it precious first, you chose to attack it without thinking as a call to censorship.

'I see no one else making particular references or declarations to their political, social or marital associations, so why get so high-and-mighty about API, unless you are frightened by them (ahhh…. The API bogey men are coming to suck the lifeblood out of the children)'
It's the IPA (not API), and the reason this thread exists is because nobody else on OLO has managed to bypass the usual cooldown periods that exist in most op-ed pages for tink-tanks/organisation in a single period, and in doing so, through the use of unidentified affiliations. Please try to keep my remarks in context. I'm not raising a storm, I'm certainly not saying IPA shouldn't contribute. I'm simply saying that if the OLO editors want to not be complicit in a diffused media strategy, that bypasses the rules that other organisations are subject to in getting their agenda's in the marketplace of ideas, then it would be a good idea to look at this for the future.

As you say, it is a matter for the editors. But they can do a good job of this, take their readers views on board, and operate their publication rules in a way which doesn't not prejudice organisations who play by the rules and do not use fronts to bypass the usual cooldown periods.

Beautifully and succinctly said, Bboy.

While there is much that is great about OLO - we do need transparency with regard to the organisations behind the publications. Otherwise Online Opinion is appearing to be Orwellian Opinion.

Just the fact that Col Rouge has heaped praise indicates a certain bias does it not?

Basically if everyone feels that OLO is biased, THEN it probably isn't. Counter intuitive, I know, but it is true.