I do agree with Graham Young about one thing - the question as to whether Peiser had admitted to making errors is amenable to a yes/no answer that could not be denied. Here's what Peiser said in the email that Young posted and presumably read:

"Yes, I have indeed retracted part of my criticism of the Oreskes study. I made a methodological mistake in my initial analysis of her abstracts and have conceded that much."

Compare with my article:

[quoting Bolt] "Gore claims that a survey of 928 scientific articles on global warming showed not one disputed that man's gasses were mostly to blame for rising global temperatures ...

"Peiser checked again and found just 13 of those 928 papers explicitly endorsed man-made global warming, and 34 rejected or doubted it."

I wrote: "This one is wrong. Even Peiser has admitted his analysis was full of errors."

Even though Peiser confirmed this in his email, Young still maintains that my article is "deeply dishonest".

Tim Lambert is a political hack whose main aim is scoring political points. He's the only blogger i know of who actually brags about excluding troublesome commenters who are inevitably smeared as trolls, or as sock-puppeteers for daring to post using an assumed name. He is a lower order thug who revels in his bullying and manipulation.

His Best Bog Posts of 2006 entry (on Andrew Bolt) is utter rubbish containing far more errors than the Bolt post he takes to task. His DDT posts are invariably rubbish filled with misrepresentations and outright lies. His joint effort with John Quiggin (on DDT and Rachel Carson) in Prospect is, as are all of his DDT posts, trash.

Lambert is most accurate when dealing with number based matters (Lancet Iraq, for example) but is unable to properly interpret the nuance of language based subjects (is this a product of ignorance or malice?). It's almost as if he has some mental disorder. Further, he refuses to acknowledge his manifold errors and is known to post corrections that later disappear.

Nothing Lambert writes should be accepted as accurate under any circumstances, ever.

ONE.

..................."For the record, Robyn Williams invited me to give a talk after the original paper's summary in the Australian. When he read the full paper he asked me to do two. I have no complaint at all, since I recognize that that my paper does not support the orthodoxy. I also had no complaint about the introduction, other than it did not make clear that in my professional life I have had a great deal to do with the funding of scientists and science policy. Robyn made that clear in his introduction to the second talk. Just as Robyn exerted no influence over me with respect to the content of my talks, since that is my business, I believe that he is entitled to introduce speakers as he likes: that is his business. Both of us carry the can for our own decisions.

On the more general issue, many of those who have commented on what I say or what they think I have said, appear not to have read the paper on which it is based. I urge them to do so. It is available through The Australian's website and that of the Australian Planning Institute, or even from me, at donaitkin@grapevine.com.au."
Posted by Don Aitkin, Thursday, 15 May 2008 2:10:41 PM
________________________

Thank-you Mr Aitkin. Nicely put.

But alas this topic has little to do with you, which is why the thread did not cease with your post!

It has EVERYTHING to do with an opportunity for the Conservatives to take a swipe at those who are,or who are perceived to be on the Left.

Yes GY; you have got overly uppity about this. You have!

I hope we all take an interest in OLO as a whole...;-I DID see your article on naughty Robbie in Ambit Gambit, (hasn't he gone to pieces since he left that boy-band!!), but you had to make sure your angst over this got a good airing didn't you?
____________

Cont'd..

TWO.

"All online surveying carries a bias towards the “left” of politics,...." (Quote: Graham Young).

Really? How do you know this?

God!..aren't we ALL guilty making statements of opinion and not fact. Aren't we ALL making statements that irk those who have other views?
______________

There seems to be a general demarcation between the global warming deny-er Right, and the global warming believer Left. In general.

Well only time will tell won't it? What we say, or how we feel will change nothing. What we do might,....maybe.
_________________________

I would have have been content to just observe this online little fisty-cuffs, but when I trawl through each page having checked the posts of all new members first up as I always do, it was interesting to see a brand spanking new name join during my trawling,-and post here...er,...poste haste;-as many newbies have.
Not a problem of course, but it did wonders for my....incentivation

Graham Young

One minor correction. The "notorious" cyber "bully" is William Connolley (not Connelly). Yes, he is notorious, but I think "bully" is too harsh. A bully uses his power unjustifiably and for purely malicious ends. OTOH Connolley is often a godsend. His merciless attack on the nutjob Islamists trying to pimp "Islamic Science" is most welcome.

We need a local Connolley to do a similar job on the Islamists polluting our universities at the moment, some of whom also pimp "Islamic Science" nonsense.

Perhaps we could recruit John Quiggin?

http://culturewarriorwatch.blogspot.com/2008/04/griffith-unis-professor-of-unity-needs.html#links

Interesting to note that Graham Young has given up on defending his claim that Robyn Williams is a bully since Don Aitkin posted his opinion to the contrary.

Instead he now focuses on Tim Lambert, where he apparently feels he can score a point or two. Pathetic.

None of this egocentric game is serving the issue of environmental sustainability, none of this will solve the technological challenges we face.

The only positive I can see in this is that the CEO of Online Opinion has 'outed' himself as seriously biased, which undermines the intent and objective of a forum such as this.

For those of us who like to look at issues from all sides, we will take even greater scrutiny on future opinion pieces in future.