Accolades to csteele, Damir and Wadard.

Graham Young in his quest to derail balanced discussion regarding world environment and climate change has been revealed for what he truly is - a big L Liberal, who refuses to admit that the time has arrived to adjust the way we use our resources and create an economy based on reality rather than unlimited consumerism.

AGW or GW is entirely moot. We require sustainability and this means a shift from monopolies to flexible, adaptable business practice.

Graham is tilting at windmills. Don Aitkin himself has declared that he has no issue with Robyn Williams. And Robyn is to be congratulated for presenting such a rational dissenting view from Mr Aitkins, not just on one occasion, but twice. Hardly bullying and certainly not hooliganism on the part of the ABC.

Wadard is indeed correct in his analysis of projection, the only bully is Graham Young himself.

Tim Lambert UNSW
Nice try at lamberting Tim, with that incoherent gibberish in reply to Graham Young's comment.

Here... is Graham's specific accusation which you did not address and in fact avoided with your usual attempt at lamberting (to dissemble).

Garaham says
<i>But you didn't get your facts straight. I picked on a particular one because it was amenable to a a yes/no answer that couldn't be denied. You said Benny Peiser admitted that Oreskes was right, and I had an email from Peiser saying he didn't. That's an open and shut case</i>

You have made accusations of academic misconduct before against people like Sinclair Davidson that were untrue. Do you have a specific answer to the accusation Young has made about your dishonesty?

An apology could also suffice.

Garaham says
But you didn't get your facts straight. I picked on a particular one because it was amenable to a a yes/no answer that couldn't be denied. You said Benny Peiser admitted that Oreskes was right, and I had an email from Peiser saying he didn't. That's an open and shut case</i>

You have made accusations of academic misconduct before against people like Sinclair Davidson that were untrue. Do you have a specific answer to the accusation Young has made about your dishonesty?

An apology could also suffice.
Posted by jc2, Saturday, 17 May 2008 2:01:08 PM

--

Why should anyone but you have to apologise for your inability to comprehend, jc2, or for dishonesty? What Lambert really said is that Peiser retracted to Media Watch, and he has published his retraction on his site. Did you miss that? If Young has that email from Peiser, he should publish it. It's no good just saying he is in possession of secret information from Peiser that contradicts his most recent public stances, and then using this 'gotcha' to slur Lambert.

Publish that email, Graham, or be condemned of cowardly behaviour — the trademark of the bully

W, you dope. Lambert is not directly referring to G Young's comment and is skirting that part. Lambert should apologise for his dishonesty. In fact there are a number of people he needs to apologise for smearing them. But he's too much of a hatefilled little coward to do that.

It's similar to the time he once said that 58 cm is "similar' to 89 cm.

This "academic" has a high math degree. Lord help us.

Some of you guys just crack me up. Wadard, if you had bothered to do your research you would have found that Benny Peiser's email to me was put up in the thread, but that made no difference to Lambert. My first comment on Lambert's diatribe was here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5382#67808 where I dealt with the first 4 errors he had made in criticising Bolt, and I also found Bolt made one error. You can see Benny Peiser's email at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5382#68155.

Lambert's style is to make assertions, frequently taking comments out of context, and then move on to the next target. So far in this thread he's done just that and managed to distract attention from the fact that he was wrong (and therefore Gore was wrong) on so many points, and that some of this has even been verified in the courts.

He appears to not be interested in the truth, but only in trying to impose his version on others. Can anyone think of a better word to describe this behaviour than bullying?

Hmmm … how about robust debate?

Corollary: Young’s style is to make assertions (the article/topic about Robyn Williams and the ABC btw), takes it out of context (for the record) and then moves on to the next target (Tim Lambert).

Yeah, one could say Graham is equally trying to impose his version of the Williams/Aitken episode on OLO readers. Is this bullying?

By GY’s interpretation – yes.