Did he retire or did the ACF funding at Australia Institute run out?

I think he would make a competent bus driver but lacks the nous and work ethic to make it in a Taxi. So is he withdrawing from OLO due to his work commitments at Urban Transit?

I’m sure Clive agrees that climate skeptics can publish their opinions, even if he finds them loathsome. He is not trying to silence anyone or withhold data from anyone.

What Clive is doing is discussing the quality of ONE particular forum to which he contributes time and talent.

Broadly speaking, he is suggesting that he no longer regards OLO as a forum of quality discussion, he is suggesting that it has been compromised, and he no longer wishes to be associated with it.

IF you regards OLO as quality, you are more than welcome to read it, and if the editors feel that Clive is wrong, they can continue with their current approach to climate articles. They just have to do it without Clive’s participation.

That’s fair enough surely?

The straw man here – the one that I am trying to point out – is the attempt to characterise Clive’s decision as something sinister, or against free speech or whatever.

We all agree that editors need to pick and choose what to publish in order to ensure a quality publication. IF done appropriately, nobody sensible would regard this as censorship, its just quality control, though this is not always clear to every reader, and there will inevitably be disagreements.

And If you disagree with the editorial approach, you go and read/write something else, and the publication loses a subscriber/contributor.

“No he is not, you are just making stuff up now”

Yes he is, and no I’m not. You need to read his actual post … more carefully.

Whether he stays or goes is utterly irrelevant but he is of the opinion that “denialist” information is to be denied (lovely play on words) to a wider audience than those he regards as trogdolytes.

Note I have already agreed that his post does not take issue with the IPCC data, only its’ publication. Perhaps you might actually address this rather than straw-manning. Then again, perhaps not.

No he is not, you are just making stuff up now. Clive feels (whether you agree or not) that OLO has an inappropriate bias in favour of skeptic articles. He doesn’t want to be associated with that and isn’t contributing to OLO anymore. They requested he do one last post to explain himself, which he did.

I know Jennifer has given everyone a gentle, expertly weighted push into viewing this as Clive somehow conspiring to shut down free speech and send you all to the gulag etc etc etc, but please – demonstrate that you can think for yourself and avoid succumbing to such gentle passive persuasion, even if you want it to be true.

“The amusing part is that in his impenetrably conceited moral vanity, he believes he’ll be missed.”

I won’t argue that Clive isn’t conceited – anyone that opinionated would have to be a bit – but there are plenty of people in his OLO post’s comments thread indicating that they will in fact miss him, and are arguing that he should stay.

Perhaps he should put his hand in a bucket of water and see what sort of impression he has left when he removes it.

Miss who? ;-)

The amusing part is that in his impenetrably conceited moral vanity, he believes he’ll be missed.