Ditto.

Talk about bullying LOL

Seems ok with the author tho'.

Maybe he's Tim Lambert's sock-puppet ;-O

Personally, I was more interested in what Don Aitken had to say in Ockham's Razor and what Stephen Schneider had to say in response!

GrahamY: You seem comfortable throwing around the word 'bullying' hoping something will stick. It seems anyone who doesn't share your worldview of the UN IPCC is defined as a 'bully', so is free to be attacked by you. You picking up what I'm dropping?

You have chosen a broad demographic there. You got a lot of windmills to tilt at, and newer, greener ones every day.

Tim Lambert explains the retraction he got from Peiser:

"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."

And I read the rest of it in the email. Short Benny: I retract my findings due to flawed methodology, but...

Graham, the way the scientific method works is: When your methodology is wrong, you have no hypothesis to validate, just a cause to push. You have no leg to stand on maintaining Lambert is "deeply dishonest", and you are avoiding his call on you by simply repeating your earlier, and now patently unfounded, assertions. That's not fair.

As for your dismissal of Aitkin's claim he had no problem with the tone of Williams introductions: "It's also not a rebuttal that Don disagrees with me. The behaviour is behaviour that affects more than him, and we all have a right to make our own judgement of it. As I said in the article, rather than being aimed at dissuading him, it is aimed at dissuading others."

That's ridiculous. It would never dissuade anyone who has a real peer-reviewed study to talk about.

My judgement is that it is in the public interest to expose the ridiculousness of the denialists position, and Williams did that while still giving Aitkin's deference, as Aitkin's himself claims he recieved.

So, I got my full 4c worth from the ABC that day.

Getting back to the point of the article - bullying

For years Quiggin and Lambert have been peddling the line that Roger Bate has been a tobacco lobbyist and a shill for the tobacco industry. In fact I (and hazard to guess that many others) would never heard of Roger Bate if it wasn’t for Lambert and Quiggin’s websites.
Both of them from what I recall have been accusing Bate of the most nefarious misdeeds.

I read Bate’s article in Prospect replying to these two and find their version doesn’t exactly square with Bates.

Let’s be clear. Quiggin and Lambert have from what I recall frequently accused bates of being a tobacco industry shill.

Here’s what Bates has to say about this. If Bates is being honest, Lambert and Quiggin owe this guy a serious apology for maligning him over the years.

Bates:
“..I was never a tobacco lobbyist. After I wrote two articles on tobacco-related topics in 1996 and 1997, I consulted for Philip Morris, at their request, on international health for a total of about a month in 1998. I never lobbied for the company or promoted cigarettes in any way. I subsequently wrote to Philip Morris asking them to provide funding for a campaign to rehabilitate the use of DDT. This letter, which is now on the web, is the source of nearly all Quiggin and Lambert’s suppositions. Yet I never even had the courtesy of a reply. Philip Morris never funded the campaign, and I haven’t spoken with the company in at least seven years.”
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=10176

Has Bates been receiving support from the tobacco industry or its elements over the years? Not according to bates he hasn’t.

Quiggin and Lambert are always eager to invoke the Godwin rule in debating. One person has now suggested we invoke the Rothmans rule whenever these two suggest a connection with tobacco and nefarious deeds.
Most of what Bates says can be checked and if what he says is true, these two owe this guy one huge apology.

I look forward to your opinions on other matters jacey;-do you have any?

"I look forward to your opinions on other matters jacey;-do you have any?"

You mean I shouldn't be commenting on the topic of the post?

I MEAN:-spread your intellect around so that other threads can benefit.....

But that is not what you are here for is it?