Thats alright Bronwyn.

Youre just one of the many who dont want to think about personal sin and a Judgment for it.

Have you seen Mary K. Baxters revelation of hell?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6477673356766932160

It sure changed many hearts towards The Lord over several decades.

Gibo,

Are you one of these types that like to look up all the rude things in dictonaries? Expecting to find that in a dictonary aimed at Children? I suppose being a colour dictonary it has illustrations. Were you expecting to see pictures of this?

Ah haa hahaha. That gave me a real chuckle Bronwyn. I have this mental picture of your boot sinking into Graham’s backside with such force that it sent him flying twenty metres and ending up in a crumpled mangled heap!

Snort, grumble, grunt. Clp clup clup clup (the run-up) Booooooot eeeeeeooouuuuuuur thudflupflupflup. ( : ~ {

However I don’t have any criticism of him regarding the apparently disproportionate presentation of articles on the sceptic’s side of the climate change issue….although I’m open to it if I had a bit more information…

Do we know what the ratio of articles submitted to OLO is on each side of this debate? Do we know whether Graham has rejected any? Is there a requirement, by way of a philosophical or moral position, to present just the same number of articles on each side of the debate, or to present a majority on the pro-action side? If more articles are presented that run counter to the dominant belief paradigm, doesn’t this just give us more food for thought and comment, as opposed to articles with which the majority of respondents would just agree?

In the time I’ve been on OLO (3 years), I’ve seen many more articles that just accept continuous population and economic growth than ones that question it. As you know, I think that this acceptance and even promotion of continuous expansion is the most fundamental error in thinking amongst the many learnEd authors on this forum.

But I don’t see this presentation of articles as a bias on Graham’s part. It is just the dominant mindset.

So in just the same way, I reckon we’ve got to expect the majority of climate change articles to uphold the growthist philosophy and thus be very sceptical of climate change or anything done to address it that would threaten economic growth and human expansionism.

But yes, I do agree that Marohasy’s blog should come right at the bottom of the list.

Ludwig

"I have this mental picture of your boot sinking into Graham’s backside with such force that it sent him flying twenty metres and ending up in a crumpled mangled heap!"

Ah, Ludwig, LOL. I know I get a bit carried away at times, but I'm not too worried at the thought of Graham painfully reeling from the force of my boot! It is after all a fairly small boot and I'm sure his backside is more than tough enough to withstand the impact!

"If more articles are presented that run counter to the dominant belief paradigm, doesn’t this just give us more food for thought and comment, as opposed to articles with which the majority of respondents would just agree?"

I agree totally - on all issues, except climate change. Articles questioning the scientific consensus on climate change, in my view, only risk adding further to the complaceny and inertia already preventing the world from taking the tough action required to save the planet.

We mightn't all agree on all the data and all the reasons behind the changes we are living through, but the situation is so urgent that we owe it to future generations to adopt the precautionary principle and get on board regardless. We don't have the luxury of time to sit round and debate the finer points.

Much of the computer modelling and the time scales previously predicted are already proving to have woefully underestimated the speed at which change would occur. The artic ice melt is occurring decades in advance of earlier estimates as are many of the other indicators.

The overwhelming majority of people want tougher action. This to me is one area where we just cannot afford to give the flat-earthers a wedge to splinter community consensus and delay urgently-required action.

Anyone still persuaded by the need to give sceptics a platform on this issue should have a look at 'Climate Wars' by Gwynne Dyer, or 'Now or Never: A Sustainable Future for Australia' by Tim Flannery, or www.climatecodered.net.

Sorry Ludwig, I've got carried away again!

'The overwhelming majority of people want tougher action.'

Perhaps you move in social circles where this is the case, or believe what people say in polls is what they will do. I can guarantee you if the government crippled the energy industries in the name of AGW, or trippled the price of petrol, they would get a very swift boot up the backside next election.