Clive Hamilton, Professor of public ethics at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, is leading an attack by left-leaning Australian academics on Graham Young and his e-journal On Line Opinion because it publishes article by so-called ‘climate change denialists’ including Tom Harris and John McLean.
Now is your opportunity to support Graham Young and On Line Opinion by making a donation here: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/membership/
You can read Prof Hamilton here: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7580
And then perhaps leave a comment here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7580
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
If he would only take his vacuous drivel back to his cave he would be doing us all a favour.
But really, how original, a mediocrity stoops to censoring ideas that he lacks the intellectual traction to defeat in a fair exchange.
Ian, Clive isn’t censoring anybody, except perhaps himself. He is choosing not to contribute to OLO. That is all.
But I can understand you getting that wrong impression since Jennifer’s post insinuates that there is some kind of movement or conspiracy spearheaded by Clive to bring OLO down.
Apparently, choosing not to contribute is best described as “…leading an attack by left-leaning Australian academics”.
I wonder if Clives’ funding source, the ACF, would let me publish a piece in their newsletter explaining how the real environment movement, us native forest regenerators etc, has been taken over by landless, treeless, urban dropkicks who wouldn’t recognise a sustainable forest if it was dry humping their leg?
So Clive won’t be contributing where according to him it would be most needed. Sort of cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face :- or so to speak.
The sheer arrogance of this man would be worthy of ridicule were it not for his influential public position. Even a cursory examination of the AGW debate would reveal a wide range of opinions from a wealth of eminent scientists.
Most importantly there is an increasing body of research pointing to a lack of positive feedback from water vapour in the C02 “greenhouse” equation – without positive feedback the warming effect of CO2 is hardly even noticeable.
Mr Hamilton has perhaps chosen bluster as his way of withdrawing from a debate he now suspects is increasingly favoured by conclusions at odds with his own.
This is happening a bit in the left wing of the Blogsphere, for some reason which escapes me.
Oh yeah just remembered, people are being debated about their beliefs using logic data and measurables.
There shouldn’t be losers, there just should be a refinement or an improvement to knowledge.
Personally I think letting him have his explanation/spray as he left was most gracious by Graham.
Clive who? I was going to complain about the ‘out there’ OLO article by James Hansen.
“Personally I think letting him have his explanation/spray as he left was most gracious by Graham.”
Agreed. Though from Clive’s article it sounded more like Graham requested it rather than allowed it.
Lets also be clear: Clive is not withdrawing from any debate, and if you think he is you are a muppet.
Rather, he is withdrawing his association with OLO for what he perceives as its bias – that is, he doesn’t think OLO is a worthy forum for any debate.
He also admits that he isn’t a scientist, so i’m not sure he was involved in the scientific debate in the first place.
He argues the politics not the science, and has had to choose which science authority to subscribe to just like the rest of us.
Anyone who is sanguine about Hamilton needs to read this;
http://www.cis.org.au/Policy/spr03/polspr03-7.htm
Hamilton comes with form as it were; and his form is archetypal paternalism with a strong streak of calvinism and ascetism, all wrapped up in a pro-nature, agragrian fantasy.
More generally Hamilton personifies the intolerance and oppressive approach of the warmists to this ‘debate’; from Hansen’s shrill attempts to eradicate opposition, to the manifest bias of a strangely leftist media (strange because Murdoch seems to have fallen down a hole; but I suppose he may have a carbon-trading scheme in the wings), there has been attempt after attempt to truncate apostasy; Oreskes was the start, Wiki has made some funny entries according to Lawrence Soloman, the BBC has been in thrall to green propoganda, and ‘our’ ABC has “PlanetSlayer” as a motif and emblem of its even-handed approach; Fairfax, of course, promotes Earth Day, while its CEO takes out page adds disparaging wind-power.
Given all this one can only say that Hamilton’s actions fulfill the inherent nature of the AGW supporters to censor, exclude and oppress, even if it means doing it to yourself.
Eeeek ! Maybe Hamilton has succeeded – all links to OLO are dead as at 6pm July 03, 2008.
Seriously.
I never regarded OLO as a sceptical site – and I don’t any of the climate sceptic web sites link to either – and I do hope his opinion that only climate sceptics hide behind pseudonyms is for OLO only and not a generalisation which, in that case, makes his statement wrong.
Ianl – links are ok to me here in Halls Creek 1650 hrs WST.
A professor of public ethics? What an absurd idea. He is a professor in a field that has a non-existent basis. Public ethics is whatever the public decides, and it is never the same from time to time or from place to place. This man spent his life trying to nail down the non-existent with puerile arguments that amounted to no more than his opinion. He should be ashmed to take money for such a profession. And if you look at his article it quickly becomes apparent that it is simply one unsupportable opinion followed by another. There isn’t a single thing in it where you could say, let’s check the facts behind this, with the possible exception of Harris being a paid lobbyist. But frankly, I don’t care if Harris is paid by the devil. What Harris has to say about climate is either true or not. And that is what I care about.
What Hamilton does demonstrate very clearly, however, is that the left cannot tolerate free speech. Their idea of free speech is that people must be allowed to say whatever they want, as long as they want what the leftists want. For Hamilton public ethics end where they disagree with his own objectives. The danger of our time is not climate, but rather left wing fascism. The rant that Hamilton exposed us to clearly makes you wonder what he would do if he actually had the power to shut down free speech. I suspect that we would be seeing one way tickets to the gulag for all AGW skeptics.
“What Hamilton does demonstrate very clearly, however, is that the left cannot tolerate free speech. …. I suspect that we would be seeing one way tickets to the gulag for all AGW skeptics. ”
Does the notion of free speech also include the freedom to choose not to talk or to choose in which forum you will talk?
How does Clive deciding not to contribute to OLO constitute an attack on free speech?
Hamilton doesn’t have issue with the IPCC data here, at least on the content of his post to OLO. He is objecting to its’ publication to a wider audience.
The amusing part is that in his impenetrably conceited moral vanity, he believes he’ll be missed.
“The amusing part is that in his impenetrably conceited moral vanity, he believes he’ll be missed.”
Miss who? 😉
Ianl: “The amusing part is that in his impenetrably conceited moral vanity, he believes he’ll be missed”
Perhaps he should put his hand in a bucket of water and see what sort of impression he has left when he removes it.
“He is objecting to its’ publication to a wider audience. ”
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.
Steve
“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.
Cohenite,
Thanks for pointing out the review by Andrew Norton of Clive Hamilton’s ‘Growth Fetish’. It was longish, but I read it, and found it good. As you put it, the gentleman has form. Although I dabble in philosophy a bit, I am very sceptical about anyone who calls themselves an ‘ethicist’. The moral high ground always has a strange smell about it.
I’ll bet the people of Zimbabwe wouldn’t mind a dose of growth fetish, as distinct from Chairman Robert’s Marxist ideas, both political and economic. I’ll bet Robert is hot on ethics.
No Ianl, he really isn’t.
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.
Online Opinion is nothing more than a place for pseudo intellects to pretend they’re not flaming each other while they fling insults.
Clive is right to spend his time on more important things.
I was aware that Clive Hamilton had retired as a director of the Australia Instiute in November last year. According to the TAI media release he was to devote himself to writing.
so I was surprised he is now identified at OLO as a Professor at CAPPE.
A check on their web page at the ANU shows that he is not on staff as a Professor or lecturer, but a check of past events identifies him as Dr Clive Hamilton (Visiting Fellow, Regulatory Institutions Network, ANU)
Perhaps the first thing we need to do is ensure we identify his position.
So he fudges his resume as well? That figures.
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?