A very sensible well written piece.

Graham,

I know little about the culture wars, however, there is one point on which I will comment,

The publication involved in the Sokal hoax is "Social Text' a "postmodernist cultural studies journal" which indicates that it could not be described as a "peer reviewed science journal", far from it. It's more like breaking in to a cereal box. Sokal's intention was to ridicule non-scientists' use of inappropriate and misunderstood scientific terms in the humanities. I agree that any comparisons with Sokal's hoax are invalid(but for different reasons).

In fact, Windschuttle responding by denying that he had been hoaxed and defending the accuracy of the article (saying that it was only 10-15% false).

You argue that it was different from the Sokal hoax because "Social Text" was a peer-reviewed science journal, but Social Text was neither. It was a non-refereed journal of political opinion and analysis. And while it was published by Duke University Press, University Presses have very limited resources.

The last part of your argument is a straw man. Nobody has argued that particular individuals have a monopoly on the truth. And even if they did, it would not follow that there is nothing more to learn.

Katherine Wilson seems to be challenging Windshuttle to be vigilant in checking factual accuracy in great detail, yet has written two reviews about rerror-ridden books on biotechnology by a Jeffrey Smith, the latest called Genetic Roulette, where she is far less scientifically vigilant than she expects Windshuttle to be. Genetic Roulette is replete with factual errors, misrepresentations of evidence, and inventions of the author. A true scientific fraud. Wison's review, available though google, shows no awareness of the scope of Smith's scientic incompetance and mirepresentation.

Jeffrey Smith peddles nonsense and she laps it up because it fits her convictions. The affair is not even doubly ironic, it's multi-faceted irony as Graeme realises.

So it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

"It self-consciously compares itself to the Sokal hoax, but in that case the hoaxer got obvious gobbledygook into a peer-reviewed science journal."

That's not right, Graham - Social Text is a cultural studies journal, and it wasn't peer reviewed at the time when Sokal's piece was accepted - their policy was to eschew peer review to let more controversial articles appear!

One question.

When I make a reference in an assignment at university, I trust the editor/publisher of the information to be reliable and accurate. Does this mean I would be irresponsible to reference any work from Quadrant??

I think Mr. Windschuttle has handled this whole thing rather carelessly. It was 'the silly season' .. what a perfect excuse!!

Yep, I got the details of the Sokal hoax wrong, and you'll find a correction in the text now. Mark Bahnisch pointed it out to me first, so I've linked to his comment. I should have been more careful.

Graham, a little typo; read this again: "I should have been more careful, this the detail is incorrect".

On the whole this thing is a bit of a storm in a teacup. I don't much care the for Windschuttle world view, but a hoax of this style seems to me silly and a waste of effort all round. Save it for 1 April.

Mally_p asks "When I make a reference in an assignment at university, I trust the editor/publisher of the information to be reliable and accurate. Does this mean I would be irresponsible to reference any work from Quadrant?"

You shouldn't ever be so trusting. You should check for follow-up work to make sure the previous result wasn't overturned, and check through the details most critical to supporting your work. Despite the diligence of peer review and academic editors, mistakes slip through, or results get superseded by improved technique. That's why I find it sad that commercial pressures are increasingly forcing science to be done in secret. That's also why people with a narrow agenda can use science to push their case: choose the published result that supports you, and ignore the follow-up that pointed out the error.

Peer reviewed Science journals very occassionally also let fraudulent articles through due to the complexity of the experiments and particularly if one of the authors has been knowingly misrepresenting or indeed manipulated the primary data.

There is a heavy responsibility on the senior author to check and double check the work performed by graduate student/co-author.

And it falls upon him/her and the other authors to defend that most valuable commodity in all scientific endeavours, integrity and reputation.

If part of an article or the whole article is found to be based on falsified data usually the whole article is retracted and removed from the scienctific litterature. This is typically done in an retraction staqement published in the same journal.

To me this seems to be the only way to avoid erroneous research findings to be published. That is also why I as a scientist usually approach any article found on the internet or in any non=peer review journal with a healthy deal of skepticism. Because its in the public domain ( news papers, opinion pieces, etc) doesn't mean it is true.

The problem I have with activist journalists is that they inherently have an agenda and a bias in their reporting which colour their selection of sources. Katherine Wilson is an activist journalist with a bias against GM technologies. For her to masquerade as a Dr in Biotech and to misrepresent real scientists to score a point in the culture wars is the real issue in this sorry saga.

You are right to distinguish between the obligations of an author and of an editor.

An editor obviously cannot guarantee the bona fides of an author, or that all factual claims are true. Otherwise no letters page and few opinion pages in our newspapers would survive.

An author who is a historian has an obligation to be diligent in reporting sources; that is elementary.

Keith Windschuttle was always justified in revealing egregious breaches of this obligation. In fact he had a duty to society so to do. He has performed nothing less than a public service in doing this.

Keith Windschuttle’s obligations as an editor are of course entirely different.

His responsibility there is in selection of material appropriate to the journal.

He is entitled to assume that contributors are as they reasonably seem and indeed hold out, and they do not to make representations which they know to be blatant lies.

The editor is like an auditor – he will make certain checks but in such a magazine can never check everything.

To criticise Keith Windschuttle for this fraud is like criticising a law abiding citizen for opening their door to an assumed charity collector who turns out to be a violent criminal.

This was not a hoax; it was a calculated fraud obviously perpetrated to punish Keith Windschuttle as an author, a quid pro quo for showing up the serious deficiencies of established historians who had misled the public.


If Margaret Simons were aware of the fraud prior to publication, the minimum she should have done was to decline to be involved.

This was not the ethical protection of a confidential source, a whistleblower, it was the protection of a publishing fraud about to be achieved.

It would be like a neighbour hiding the fact that that charity collector knocking on your door is in fact a violent criminal.

To have kept this secret and then to have benefited by revealing it protecting the perpetrator’s original anonymity makes her, and anyone else involved , an accessory to a contrived and eventually pointless publishing fraud.

The point of the hoax was the glass house that Windschuttle constructed around himself with his fetish over footnotes and "sources". These were/are his weapons of choice in the culture wars.
As with all arch hypocrites he is guilty of expecting everyone else to do as he says not as he does.

I'm not all that interested in beat-ups by David Maher and the fan club who think it important to find petty material on those who disagree with their liberalism.

Childish tit for tats say to me that those engaged in petty points scoring have taken their minds off of more substantial issues that affect the community.

I'm not at all surprised in the direction Windschuttle is taking Quadrant.

Under his 'editorialship', he has given a springboard for people like David Evans and Bob Carter to publish unsubstantiated guff that would not get past the first editorial base in scientific journals, so why is this latest piece any more of a surprise?

Some authors (not to the exclusion of journalists) are not honest in their submissions but because of their standing in the public domain, they can (and do) misuse their status to distort or misrepresent the truth ... for their own agenda.

An argument could be put that the editor should have some accountability in filtering the guff out, but if they don't want to (for whatever reason) there is little the readership can do for redress, particularly if they agree with the guff that is espoused.

I have not read the Hoax. But the article raises a number of points that should be of concern to OLO.
One of the reasons that Windschuttle is held in some opprobrium by historians is that far from exposing the errors of his colleagues he has a tendency to ignore any evidence about Australia's past that throw doubt on his preferred position.
You make the point that science reporting in Australia is below par. Yet the Domain contributes to that by publishing Jennifer Marohasy on a daily basis. Like Windschuttle she too, studiously avoids any reference to evidence that may throw doubt on her preferred position. (I am sure you could get a person who supports climate change to write a daily blog that simply selectively quotes the evidence in favour of climate change; either way you would not be contributing to the standard of scientific reporting.)
I am assuming Mally-p's question was tongue in cheek. Nonetheless the very fact that it can be made highlights the awe in which most people seem to hold published views. Published views can be wrong. It is a sobering thought that Galileo probably would not have been published had he relied on peer review.
As far as OLO is concerned the pieces that are presented under the banner of OLO are written by people who presumably have done some thinking about a topic and are willing to open that thinking to public scrutiny. the same goes for the Forum. I assume that readers understand those rules and abide by them.
The Domain is another matter. If those pieces are written by sponsors of the journal then fair enough but put a disclaimer in to that effect.
Otherwise I doubt the wisdom of giving a daily forum to particular individuals whose views are of as much merit as any other contributor to OLO - lets not put some people on a pedestal. John Töns

John, I think you're making a mistake about the nature of The Domain. It is a blog aggregator. The blogs that are there are part of a network that we have put together and includes a number of blogs with quite different, and often opposed, points of view. It's as comprehensive as we can make it, but given the number of blogs out there with quality it is not possible to be completely comprehensive.

I don't think Marohasy is always right, but I don't think she is always wrong, and I think she is more right than wrong. She has some significant coups to her name. If a quality blog came along from the other direction and fitted our demographic we'd be happy to negotiate with them.

I'd be interested in your examples of Windschuttle deliberately ignoring evidence that doesn't suit his case. Hard to have an argument about this in the abstract.

I avoided saying that Windschuttle deliberately ignored counter evidence - I used the term "studiously" But even that may be misleading. I suspect that what is going on is that we often cannot see what we assume will not be there. For a particular example: The fabrication of Aboriginal History is a good starting point.
As for an alternative blog to Marohasy - Monbiot is a good counterpoint.
My objection to Jennifer's work is that it is unscientific. The best argument against her posts was posted by David Young with regard to his discussion of Chaos Theory. In essence it accounted for the conflicting data sets that we get with respect to climate change.
Perhaps you could consider reviewing the domain's contributors perhaps along the line of how "signandsight.com" <newsletter@signandsight.com>
manages its selection. A review of International Ezines could be an improvement.

Graham, I like your insight on blogging as tribal behaviour, and there is obviously a lot of tribalism in the case of this Windschuttle hoax. What I think you overlook is the (stylistic) way that Windschuttle has made so many of his arguments in the history wars -- and more generally in the culture wars, if you follow his prolific written output.

Windschuttle often argues the ad hominem denunciation line. His method is typically to begin with disputes about small and/or incidental details -- especially the footnotes -- and use those to bring the work and its author into question overall. It is a casuist approach to the truth: pedantic (which has its place) and ungenerous (which is always a failing).

This hoax has resonance because its line of attack is those small and incidental details, the footnotes, with which Windschuttle has sought to recast so much excellent and important historical work as trash. It set him up to fail his own well-established test of unimagination. I hope he learns from it.

Q&A, you are being unfair to Windschuttle. While he has published unsubstantiated guff by Bob Carter, he hasn't published anything by David Evans. It's OLO that publishes the unsubstantiated guff by David Evans.

Tim Lambert

My bad, I get confused when trying to differentiate between the guff ... Ray Evans (Lavoisier Group) and David Evans (the computer guy).

Baygon, you misrepresent me - perhaps because you care more about politics than evidence.

Graham, nice piece.

Some opprobrium by historians or opprobrium by some historians.?

BAYGON. "One of the reasons that Windschuttle is held in some opprobrium by historians is that far from exposing the errors of his colleagues he has a tendency to ignore any evidence about Australia's past that throw doubt on his preferred position."

Perhaps a reference or two to support this claim might lend more weight to your argument.

David

BAYGON? Is that Fred, William or Mary? If you clowns wish to make a sensible comment have the intestinal fortitude to use your own name. Keith Windschuttle is a real person; Jennifer Mahorasy is a real person. Who are you gutless wonders out there?
Blair Bartholomew

Blairbar, put your glasses on. BAYGON is John Tons. A quick search of Google shows who he is.

Likewise you can also find about 1300 references to me if you care to look.

David

"Otherwise I doubt the wisdom of giving a daily forum to particular individuals whose views are of as much merit as any other contributor to OLO - lets not put some people on a pedestal. John Töns
Posted by BAYGON, Monday, 12 January 2009 3:03:19 PM"

"BAYGON? Is that Fred, William or Mary? If you clowns wish to make a sensible comment have the intestinal fortitude to use your own name. Keith Windschuttle is a real person; Jennifer Mahorasy is a real person. Who are you gutless wonders out there?
Blair Bartholomew
Posted by blairbar, Monday, 12 January 2009 7:52:04 PM"

Who can't be bothered to read what's in front of them?

Elizabeth Moore

While it's understandable that Windschuttle's (and Quadrant's) fans would seek to minimise the effectiveness of the hoax, I think that they miss an essential point which Wilson's ruse makes. Windschuttle's ascendancy from obscurity to the editorship of Quadrant was largely a product of his elevation to hero status by the conservative establishment, who have utilised his nitpicking approach to real historians' footnotes as their major weapon in their efforts to revise Australia's appalling history of race relations.

Unlike Windschuttle, historians like Henry Reynolds and Lyndall Ryan instigated a paradigm shift in the way that educated Australians understand the process by which Australian territory was expropriated from its Indigenous owners. Their perspectives, which have been derided by conservatives as the 'black armband' view of Australian race relations, fundamentally altered the generalised perspective that a largely uninhabited Australia was settled by benign colonists who brought civilisation and progress to the handful of passive primitives who formerly browsed around the continent like animals.

Windschuttle achieved his latterly neoconservative hero status by trawling through the footnotes of his academic betters and finding some relatively minor errors, which have been taken up by those who are antagonistic to Indigenous emancipation as evidence that the entire so-called 'black armband' view of the history of Australian race relations is wrong.

That is why the hoax succeeds, although I agree it's not all that funny, except in a schadenfreude sort of way. It also succinctly demonstrates (as does Graham Young's article) that 'Quadrant' is no more authoritative a journal than e-zines like 'On Line Opinion'. One accepts uncritically claims made in articles that are published in such media at one's own intellectual peril.

CJ Morgan say "Australia's appalling history of race relations."

I guess it depends on what you compare us to.

USA's treatment on the Indians?
Spanish treatment of the South Americans?
Muslim's treatment of the Jews, kill and kicked them off their land?
Jew's current treatment of the Muslims?
Gangus Khan's treatment of the conquered?
China's treatment of Tibetians?
India Vs Pakistan?

Great read, Graham.

You say that the standard of public debate has become more toxic over the last 10 years that we have been in existence. Can you clarify what you mean by this? Quality of debate on onlineopinion, the blogosphere or public debate in general. Regardless, using labels left or right, left-wing or right-wing surely doesn't help. If we have to use labels, and I don't think we do, then why can't we just label the argument not the person? I can't recall ever needing to use these tags in any of my articles, letters to the editor or university assignments ... since 1966. Except when I've criticised the use of them.

Oh, and just wondering why you put an exclamation mark after Crikey!?
Mary Garden

MaryG - the Crikey! masthead comes with the exclamation mark.

I've been pondering the Left/Right labelling thing for a while now too and agree it's a hindrance, unless your objective is to box an individual with a set of ideas they may not hold. Or extend a pointless culture war.

The labels assume that individuals hold to party lines on a disparate range of issues, which even parties don't do any more. It's intellectually lazy, particularly for a group of people who spend most of their time nitpicking minor details.

This insistence on discarding pseudonyms strikes me as part and parcel of the left/right deal. People regularly Google one another to find which box people belong in, assuming that their arguments are fed by ideology. The underlying assumption is that individuals are incapable of independent thought, which is an assumption both sides make. Then they wonder why these spats are ignored by the wider public.

Graham

Yep, agree.

Can't see an exclamation mark on the Crikey Masthead. Maybe I'm going cross-eyed. Though the i in Crikey itself is written like an ! upside down.

chainsmoker,

I agree wholeheartedly with your comments on the inadequacies of left/right labelling. I got the impression - I could be wrong - that these crude labels have been used less frequently on OLO in recent months; though it's hard for some to break an intellectual habit that is so entrenched.

So this is what is on the minds of the big brains these days .. dissappointing to say the least.

This is Grade 1 or 2 stuff isn't it, little petty ambushes, then a round of "but he said, she said"?

Hope you all feel better now.

Spikey and Chainsmoker you must appreciate that the left is at a disadvantage when it comes to the war of words between the left and right. For the left find themselves in a position that since whatever is left is automatically right they are by definition not left but right.

“Blairbar, put your glasses on. BAYGON is John Tons. A quick search of Google shows who he is.
Likewise you can also find about 1300 references to me if you care to look”.
Well VK3AUU to find out whom a contributor is one has to do a Google Search? How convenient and fruitful is that? Wouldn’t it be easier and more respectful to identify oneself at the outset? I always thought Baygon was an insecticide and the article commencing “I avoided saying" has no reference to John Tons at all. A check on recent Baygon’s postings on “Online Opinion” shows this to be the case also. And a quick search of Google definitely does not reveal his identity.
And as for David Tanner well I didn’t find 1300 references to you at all. I managed 49 hits for VK3AUU of which a handful identified you as David Tanner.I was a bit frightened for a while as I thought it was David Banner. And I certainly wouldn’t like to make you angry. But my point stands; if you wish to criticise real people don’t hide behind a pseudonym. I now know who Spikey is too, So we have BAYGON-John Tons, VK3AUU-David Tanner and Spikey-Elizabeth Moore. Keep ‘em coming.
Blair Bartholomew

dovif2: << CJ Morgan say "Australia's appalling history of race relations."

I guess it depends on what you compare us to. >>

Yeah, we're right up there with the best of them - but some people would rather pretend that it didn't happen.

Poor Grahman Young. The “human tic” is back. It seems that it's a once a Year thing. Just after New Year, Tim Lambert shows up at ONO and has a go at ONO and Graham.

What Lambert won't tell you, Graham is that he's punked all the time.

Ian Gould, "Dr. Sharon Gould's" sibling posted a comment at Lambert's site that appears to be every bit as a hoax , Dr. Sharon Gould (aka Katherine Wilson).

<i>Lance, here’s a description of the key characteristics of the “Right Wing authoritarian” personality type. “Right Wing Authoritarian” is just a more polite term for “fascist” - and results on the RWA test correlate well with the earlier f-scale test which was based on studies of people who had in fact been in Fascist parties prior to 1945.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=right+wing+authoritarian&go=Go
“According to research by Altemeyer, right-wing authoritarians tend to exhibit cognitive errors and symptoms of faulty reasoning. Specifically, they are more likely to make incorrect inferences from evidence and to hold contradictory ideas that result from compartmentalized thinking. They are also more likely to uncritically accept insufficient evidence that supports their beliefs, and they are less likely to acknowledge their own limitations.”
More fundamentally, the underlying belief system of the RWA (and the fascist) is that they are part of a group which is both morally superior to others and unjustly oppressed by them.
When you advance your claims that AGW is a conspiracy of the liberal elite against American free market capitalism’s inevitable and glorious march to world domination you display both the characteristic logical errors of the Neo-fascist (or the Right wing Authoritarian if you prefer) and the underlying paranoid and conspiratorial mindset</i>

Now normally the tic, Tim, would dis-envowel anything that appears remotely silly (to him of course) as he has a pretty strict comments policy. Tim adopted his comments policy from Basil Faulty and recently changed his name to Tim Faulty-Lambert in deference to Basil Faulty and his people skills..

Well, the tribalism is certainly on display.
Are we all wearing our correct banners?

Who'll begin the war dance? I'm afraid I left my war-paint and totem at home, but I can remember the correct steps, I've just got to stop putting my heels in the fire.

... although this makes me feel incredibly uncomfortable, I've got to agree with Graham's article, even though this would place me in Windschuttle's (and worse still, David Flint's) 'tribe.'
There are few people with whom I disagree more strongly in both stance and delivery method.

All that being said, it really isn't acceptable to submit information you believe to be incorrect. You may believe you're just attacking that publication, but in truth many publications have difficulty in fact checking. This is indeed an attack on every editor who is stressed for time and resources, which is... well, all of them.
I get that Windschuttle was a target due to his pedantry in relation to source-checking (to such an extent that this pedantry was used as a weapon to discredit) but that's no excuse to put forward misleading articles.

In summary... I don't think it's ever valid to put forward a misleading piece. That being said however, if there was ever a valid target (but, like I said, there isn't), it's Quadrant and Windschuttle.

Not because I find their ideology noxious, but because the publication is one with a political axe to grind, which can only mean selectively choosing articles based upon pre-conceived notions rather than accepting multiple viewpoints. This can only entrench this 'tribal' attitude which is what's giving us grief.

TRTL

Bravo!

GrahamY
Meanwhile, back in the real world where some of unfortunates (mere mortals) live I as part of great unwashed vaguely remember the event. What concerns me is the intellectual arrogance that has been exposed by this issue.

Of course Windshuttle is at fault if only for setting Quadrant up as reputable source by virtue of his previous nit pickings then failing to deliver. It’s up to him to ensure the article is correct. There are only so much ‘near enough is good enough’ compromises that are tolerable in the name of expedience (profit).
Notwithstanding this, mistakes happen the difference between a good and bad editor is the correctional response. Here as I recall it (I could be wrong) he initially defended the indefensible i.e. the accuracy of the article (only 10/15% wrong). Which 10/15%?
So too is the irresponsible self serving blogger who considered childish point scoring as more important that the truth be condemned.
While both these individuals are off playing their games/agendas in some intellectual Pantheon we the poor unsophisticated blonks (me included) who’s knowledge on the subject is limited and seek to improve it are being played with. If the topics aren’t hard enough for us to come to grips with we have to cope with impenetrable language, endless research, bias and now deliberate (misinformation) shenanigans! And academics and editors want respect…what for?

Any wonder why we the great unwashed give up and remain ignorant.
If not from simplified (translated from technobabble) can we hope to become informed and make better decisions.
Then again some intellectually lazy individuals will dismiss me on the grounds that advocating anything that might help the helpless is Left wing rhetoric but is it?
There is a view that permeates thinking that goes “if I can understand it then anyone can” Bollocks! People have different skills and abilities.
Both academics and good editors have a responsibility to us lessor folk. We rely on their integrity if not them… who?

TurnRightThenLeft

I would argue that Quadrant (under former editor Paddy McGuiness) did promote greater diversity.

I refer to myself on four occasions, although I am sure he would not have publiched them if I had just produced another far left perspective. I would like to think he did so because my articles were more balanced in recognising how both Labor and Coalition parties faced tough policy choices which reflect severe policy limitations in recent decades.

blairbar,

You're a bit disingenuous in your rant about aliases. Not to mention your blatant double standards.

Your complaint - "you clowns", "you gutless wonders" - was against BAYGON who, of course, is John Tons AND who signified his real name on his post on Monday, 12 January 2009 3:03:19 PM. Note that he did this before your ungracious rant (Monday, 12 January 2009 7:52:04 PM). In other words you cocked up by failing to read his post accurately.

Far from admitting your elementary error, which I pointed out to you, you then set up a phoney high dudgeon campaign to get OLO posters to reveal their real names. You scored three - well two really since Tons had already given his.

Yet your own initial posting on this thread was simply signed: blairbar, Monday, 12 January 2009 7:43:04 PM. No real name there!

Nine minutes later you're calling other posters "clowns" and "gutless wonders" for doing what you yourself did.

How cute is that?

On the actual issue of aliases, my partner - who used a shortened but easily recognisable version of his real name - has stopped posting on OLO since he got some crank calls and one threatening one. It wasn't difficult to get our phone number from the directory. He asked Graham Young to change his OLO alias but to our astonishment, Graham told him it would create technical problems.

There are sometimes good reason to use an alias. I hope our crank phone calls don't start up again.

MaryG, you are quite right that there is no exclamation mark at the end of Crikey, but there used to be. I hadn't caught up with the fact that they had changed.

As for my perception that things are more toxic than they used to be, it is only a perception - I have no metric to prove it. However, it's fitting that Tim Lambert, who is the master of ad hom and the misleading link, turned-up on this thread. He's a good example of what I am talking about.

10 years ago he would not have existed as a person of any significance in debate because he would not have been able to get widely published. A blog changes that. Two years ago we published a piece by him attacking Andrew Bolt for being 100% wrong in a column. It was a Best Blogs selection, so I had nothing to do with selecting it. http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5382

Problem was that not only did it abuse Bolt, but made a number of mistakes itself, which I found embarrassing.

He's so notorious that there is a verb bearing his name. Being Lamberted is unpleasant, and is something which will no doubt happen to me as a result of this post.

So, there you have an editor/author who posts inaccuracies, mostly nit-picking, and uses them to criticise others, who is one of the first to put the boot into someone else for allegedly doing the same.

Why? I'll do the left/right response in another post.

Well Spikey
I have seen the old "crank calls" argument being trotted out many times to justify the use of aliases. I am waiting to see some actual evidence of the downside effects of using real names but I guess it makes you feel good if you can score a crank call.... wow were my comments that effective? But don't you find it rather odd that real persons eg Keith Windschuttle can be criticised by unreal persons such as TurnRightThenLeft who aren't prepared to reveal whom they are? As for my using blairbar instead of Blair Bartholomew you must concede it is rather closer to Blair Bartholomew than Spikey is to Elizabeth Moore.
So Spikey/Elizabeth Moore let me know if you have any abusive/ threatening phone calls. I guess your new alias could be John Howard and that way you would be safe.
Regards
Blair
PS
Send me a threatening/abusive phone call.

On Left and Right, I do a lecture every year in which I tell QUT students that it is a distinction that doesn't mean very much. I think it's a bit like race. That doesn't mean much at the DNA level, but it does tell you something useful about someone. For example, if I said that someone was in the finals of the 100 metres running at the Olympics, then you'd assume they were black. (This example from Richard Dawkins).

It's the same thing with Left and Right. They do tell you something useful about someone, but it's mostly social - who someone tends to mix with, or be comfortable mixing with. That's why I self-classify as centre-right, despite having views on things like gay marriage and bills of rights that would be identified as left. It's also why Tim Lambert, and others criticise people like Windschuttle - because they are the other group.

Windschuttle is an interesting case in point in some ways because he has moved from being identified with the left to the right in the course of his academic career.

Well blairbar or should it be Blair Bartholemew?

Still no admission from you that you goofed badly on John Tons/BAYGON? Instead we have to tolerate your attributed aliases: "clowns" and "gutless wonders".

And to further deflect attention from your blunder, you now imply that I am a liar (another form of attributed alias). You and I don't know each other - why do you assume I'm making up fibs? Is that how you conduct yourself on these sites?

It's interesting that Graham Young posted twice, once immediately after my post and then immediately after your last post, and did not comment on the matter despite the fact that I referred directly to his response when my partner told him about crank calls. I would have thought he would have commented had I concocted the episode.

But it is not my honour which is at stake her, but yours. Your remarks about crank calls are impertinent and irresponsible. Anyone who has experienced such calls can attest to how intimidating they can be. Not to be encouraged as if it's a sport.

As to your attack of those who critique Keith Windschuttle via aliases, it was Graham Young who introduced this thread and as owner and Editor-in-Chief of this site, he has actively encouraged aliases. You have one yourself. Why, if you think they are improper? And what difference that blairbar is closer to Blair Bartholomew than Spikey is to Elizabeth Moore? Blairbar could mean almost anyone (perhaps an ex-PM from Britain?) as could Spikey.

I don't think Windschuttle will lose any sleep over pseudonymous posters on OLO - unless their critiques have real point. After all, it's the substance of the debate that matters, not who writes it.

Elizabeth

What's funny about Lambert, Graham, is that he purports to be some sort of expert on matters of AGW science but he hasn't published anything in a formal journal in his area of "expertise" for over a decade which for a senior lecturer at a university is jaw dropping.

He nit picks other people for making arithmetic errors but after making some himself he just changes the body of the thread to correct the mistake without highlighting the correction.

I keep telling him that he needs to learn a little about economics if he's to get a better understanding of how to deal with AGW and he gets offended, throws a tantrum and is absolutely speechless that someone could suggest something like that him.

Recently he was was thrown off the ALS blog site and is now moderated because of a argument he got into with the site owner over ... you guessed it.. AGW.

It's as though he's almost become hysterical about his subject and seems deathly afraid that one morning he's going to wake up and find water swirling around in his bedroom.

I normally have a little fun poking at him as he's so big headed about himself that he needs to be brought down to size which in his case is around 4" 8' tops.

Blair, there are times on the site when arguments have descended into personal attacks - at times I've mentioned very minor details about my background in the context of discussion, only to have them twisted and used for personal attacks.

There are all manner of people using the internet - some have nothing to lose. Others have careers and have much more to use. If we all use our true names, it essentially will allow those with nothing to lose to wage campaigns against those who do.

The use of aliases allows people to share their true thoughts without worrying that this will be used by others. I'd not reveal my name here, because I simply wouldn't want some of the less stable, more vitriolic people knowing that. I just don't trust them and posting here wouldn't be worth the worry that some nutter could use that information.

Nor would I out anyone else's identity, regardless of how much I disagreed with them. If they choose to identify themselves, well that's their decision.

Dear TurnRightThenLeft,
"If we all use our true names, it essentially will allow those with nothing to lose to wage campaigns against those who do."
Equally if you use aliases then those with nothing to lose can also wage campaigns against those who do not use aliases. This is my point:if you are going to criticize real people use real names; if you are going to criticize people using aliases then use aliases if you wish.
Regards
Blair

Posters who are members of an organisation with a publicly-stated position on the subject in question are in a different category to those who are known to be speaking only for themselves.

On 26 July 2006 John Quiggin published on his website a critique by Dr. Roger Jones of CSIRO, an IPCC Coordinating Lead Author, of an op-ed by The Australian’s economics editor Wood. In this piece, Jones was critical of Wood and several other ‘real people’ (including me). Professor Quiggin introduced Roger Jones as ‘a climate scientist who knows what he is talking about on this issue’, and Roger very properly made the following disclaimer at the head of his critique:

‘The views expressed here represent personal opinion based on assessing a wide a range of sources, professional experience in assessing both past and future climate, and do not represent the position of any organization.’

However, on 30 July 2008, the following comment on John Quiggin’s thread ‘Back to the Future’ was made by a ‘Roger Jones’.

‘The science [of climate change] ain’t worth debating. The values at stake are. Let’s try and be honest for a change (oops, disqualifies all denialists).’

If the author of that post was Dr Roger Jones of CSIRO I believe that he acted improperly. He should either have (a) used an alias or (b) stated that the views expressed were his personal opinion and did not represent the position of any organisation. I assume that it is not the position of CSIRO that 'the science' is not worth debating, or that all 'denialists' are dishonest.

Pseudoplumes and Nom de Nims seems to be creating a few issues. Presumably in most instances it is the argument that is of interest - not who is advancing it. Emminent persons have been known to say silly things and espouse silly beliefs - conversely the village idiot has from time to time come up with a penetrating insight that is worth taking seriously.
The very fact that this discussion is raising so much interest suggests that many of us are pursuaded by who is advancing the argument rather than the argument itself.
The starting point for this thread was the so called Windschuttle hoax - the fact that Windschuttle was taken in neither enhances nor diminishes him - when you consider the various hoaxes that have been perpetrated in the past you can say that he is in some very good company.
Since all of the people can be fooled some of the time anyone who believes that they have never been fooled are either totally lacking in life experience or have been completely cut off from the human race.
The quality of the arguments is all that matters and as long as we bear in mind that the quality of our arguments does not improve by increasing the volume or by abusing those people who disagree with us we just might have a chance of learning something.

Graham's right about the Crikey banner, although it does still have that animated exclamation mark before the Crikey. Apologies MaryG.

Keith Windschuttle is a prominent public figure doing influential things in public space and public institutions. Commenters are a mixed bunch. Why should a nobody private citizen making a comment on a discussion forum be held to the same levels of accountability as an influential public figure?

A lone commenter here, pseudonymous or not, does not have anywhere near Windschuttle's capacity to influence policy and its real world consequences.

There are any number of reasons for pseudonyms - problems with employers, following an existing norm, avoiding stereotyping, sock puppetry, cowardice, snobbery. In this forum, Windschuttle could pseudonymously participate in his capacity as a private citizen, which he can't do at Quadrant. Why deny him that opportunity if he was so inclined?

Blair Bartholomew

I see you are not going to respond to my posts. Does that make you a 'clown' or a 'gutless wonder'?

Thinking more about the reasons for people adopting an alias brought some interesting names to mind:

CS Lewis, Charlotte Bronte, Jane Austen, Charles Dickens and Stephen King among other famous writers all used aliases at various times for various reasons. The jury is still out on William Shakespeare. Does it make the writing better or worse?

Bob Dylan, Elton John, Marilyn Monroe, Elvis Costello, John Wayne, Nicolas Cage, Cat Stevens, Maria Callas are pseudonyms or stage names. And you could list scores more. Would you go to a performance by any of these gutless wonders?

George V1 of England, Lenin and Stalin, Mark Twain, George Eliot, Karen Blixen, Brent of Bin Bin, blairbar are all aliases for real people. The company you keep!

Many Australians who enlisted in World War 1 used aliases. One was only outed when he won the VC. Another gutless wonder?

Elizabeth (aka Lizzie, Beth, Betty and Hey You)

Interesting that you mention Quiggin, IanC.

A participant in Weekend at Kev's 2020 spoof of the movie classic, Weekend at Bernie's just ran a thread about "scokpuppets" (which is Quiggin language means anyone who disagrees with him) implying/hoping that it could soon be made illegal.

That got me wondering... I'm wondering if that would also apply to wiki vandals like Quiggin who try too wreck Fred Singer's Wiki site.

Discussed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Singer&limit=500&action=history

While I don't use an alias in this forum, I have been persuaded in the past that there are many perfectly legitimate reasons for doing so. Mind you, I think that they are abused by a minority who hide behind them in order to publish hateful and/or defamatory comments about others.

Having said that, I'm wondering if Blair Bartholomew actually has an opinion about the Windschuttle hoax, or indeed Graham Young's article about it?

Well yes Morgan, a moniker is perhaps necessary, as I have recently found out.

Some years ago Tim Lambert (UNSW) and I got into a scrap and decided to publish what he thought was my name on his site and later published my IP address at another site in an act of absolute cancerous-like malice.

I recently found out that members of my family have been stalked; by a stalker who retrieved my details as a consequence of Lambert’s malicious and ill intended actions to hurt me. Someone on the web alerted me to the stalker posting about it at a site and thankfully the offending post was deleted but I managed to keep a copy. The stalker mentioned all sorts of things like what my home looks like and the appearance of one of my kids as he stalked one of them. Apparently he was also standing right out side our home at some stage from across the street!

I wonder if Lambert’s actions fall under the category of what the Professor thinks ought to be illegal under the sock-puppet laws he fondly discusses? Funny but the case the Professor was talking about had context to the plight under which Lambert placed my family.

It’s amazing the lows academia has reached. One seems to delight in vandalizing wiki pages totally ignoring the irony of the sock puppet thread while the other runs a propaganda sheet directed against political opponents which is little more than a hate site.

I think it is telling that Graham Young's response to my comment on his article was not to adress anything I wrote, but simply to abuse me, encouraging his supporter jc2 to do more of the same.

If anyone is interested in Young's conduct in my earlier interactions with Young, please see these posts:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/01/on_line_denial.php
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/01/pathological_denial.php
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/02/superduperpathological_denial.php

Tim, if anyone is interested in my conduct in that argument they should go to the thread itself, not rely on your second-hand beat-ups! The thread, for those who missed it above is http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5382.

While you were criticised for a number of mistakes the one that I pursued was the question as to whether Benny Peiser admitted to being wrong on the Oreskes study. Despite me corresponding with Peiser and his confirming that he did not make that admission, you continued to assert he did. I said that you were being "fundamentally dishonest" which you were, and are.

I only pursued one issue - one where I could find absolute proof - rather than the many others that were there, because I had noted that your argumentative style is to try to confuse debate by introducing new and irrelevant issues and irrelevant references and multiply the propositions to the stage where readers get confused and go away. In this case I restricted it to a question which could only have one answer and for which the proof was unequivocal.

The Oreskes issue was whether there was any peer-reviewed science that questioned that CO2 was the main driver of climate. It was a side-issue, because irrespective of Oreskes' study, there is plenty of peer-reviewed science that does just this. So your citing of Oreskes was another one of those rhetorical diversions from the main question that you revel in.

This is the sort of behaviour you expect from a lobbyist, but you hold yourself out as a scientist.

BTW, you give us an insight into how you operate when you suggest that I encouraged JC2 to "abuse" you. How exactly do you come to that conclusion? I know it's the way you operate, but not the way I do.

Tim Lambert (UNSW)

This is interesting; Lambert is now making himself appear the victim, blaming Graham for his newfound victim status. The continual linking to himself routine, as some authority is out of a Sienfeld comedy skit and the angry thug like, bad imitation of George Costanza is hilarious.

The only person who’s ever, ever encouraged me to talk about Lambert’s (UNSW) online behavior is Lambert. I don’t need encouragement from Graham or anyone else, as Lambert’s thuggery and abusive tactics are more than reasonable motivation.

I presented the case that Lambert’s actions made members of my family innocent victims of his thug like behavior.

If Lambert wants to talk about “encouraging” people to attack others I would suggest we all go over to his site and examine the countless posts and the comments sections, as it’s Ozblogdom’s prime example for that sort of activity.

Viewing the site will remind people that all Lambert does is post threads about other bloggers/ commenters . In fact that’s all his site is about: attacking other people and using the comments from like-minded sycophants to swarm the victim with verbal attacks.

Here’s another example:

Lambert’s attempt to ruin Roger Bate’s reputation was a travesty and in a fair world he ought to be hauled up for academic misconduct for those actions. Here’s Volohk Conspiracy Blogger ripping flesh off him for what he did to Bate.

http://volokh.com/posts/1212258084.shtml#379738

The comments section there is very illuminating, showing that Young was right to describe Lambert as a bully thug.

Ironically it’s the same Website Quiggin used recently to support his case in criminalizing sock puppets so I guess it must be a good reference source&#9786;

Lambert’s hypocrisy and demands for victimhood status knows no limits. The only problem is that attempts to disguise it don’t work any more.

How very odd. I thought this was a discussion about Graham Young's article about the Windschuttle hoax.

However, it seems instead to be a venue for continuing squabbles begun on other blogs - with the apparent blessing of Graham Young - and/or an opportunity for others to attempt to police the pseudonyms of some contributors, albeit with absolutely no reference at all to the subject under discussion.

Bizarre. Neither the article nor the discussion do much to enhance OLO's claim to be a "journal of record" - if indeed it has ever made one.

Morgan

Is this you back in January 30 2007, basically saying the same thing about Graham, handing out a Kleenex to Lambert to wipe away the crocodile tears of victimhood? Talk about a one trick pony.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/01/pathological_denial.php

Some dispassionate observer you are. The pied piper of hysteria and dishonesty has a lot of sycophantic voices, hasn’t he? This Knights of Malta racket Lambert has going with the fraternity and solidarity shtick is really creepy. Have you all gotten the same tattoo at the back of your left ears or something? LOL

Er, jc2 - my post at Deltoid from a couple of years back was directly on the topic of Lambert's thread, unlike any of yours with respect to the topic of this thread. Can I suggest that if you want to carry on your endless trolling of Tim Lambert and John Quiggin, that you at least do so at their respective blogs? To persist in doing so in this discussion seems inappropriate, even if Graham seems to have tacitly encouraged you.

Do you have any opinion about the Windschuttle hoax, or is it simply a vehicle for you to pursue your extraneous obsessions with Lambert and Quiggin?

Graham has yet again misrepresented what I wrote in my article and what Peiser told him. Look at what I wrote in my article in response to Bolt's claim that Peiser had shown that 34 of Oreskes' abstracts had rejected or doubted man-made global warming.

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

Young claims that this is "deeply dishonest" because Peiser did not admit to being wrong on Oreskes, but Peiser's email to Young stated
"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."

Peiser has retracted his claim that 34 of Oreskes' abstracts had rejected or doubted man-made global warming. And you don't even have to rely on his email to oung or his emails to Media Watch to know this. You just have to go to Peiser's web site and read the current version of his criticism.

Young accuses of making a "rhetorical diversion" by discussing Oreskes' study, but I was directly reponding to Bolt's claims about Oreskes. It is Young who keeps trying to divert things from what my article was about.

Young encourages jc2 to abuse me by setting a bad example, with his frequent personal attacks and name calling. jc2 has even copied part of his name-calling from Young.

Given that my piece was in part about tribalism, this thread seems to be pretty much on topic! But even if it wasn't completely on topic, it is pretty disingenuous of CJ to suggest that I somehow authorise "bless" "encourage" the opinions that are added to this thread or any other thread. That would mean I would have to approve of what he and Lambert post, which is hardly likely! But it's all part and parcel of online tribalism to try to lump your opponents together as some sort of cohesive conspiracy against you, rather than people who've independently arrived at similar conclusions.

Interesting that CJ complains about JC's "trolling" of Lambert and Quiggin. If there is any truth in what he says, then it is a case of the stalkers stalked. I have been quite appalled at the way in which Quiggin has repeatedly altered Fred Singer's Wiki entry to try to make him seem a smoking lobbyist, and if I'm not mistaken, Lambert has joined in spreading this smear around the Internet.

If anyone wants to see how Lambert misrepresented Peiser, just read the discussion thread to the original post, not his bowdlerised versions - it is all there.

Graham you wrote an article on OLO and your comments about me were purely abusive, calling me a "tick", a "bully" and saying that I was like a Nazi.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/05/online_abuse.php

This encourages members of your tribe to do the same. jc2 even copied your language, calling me a "tic" (OK, so he can't spell).

And I didn't lump you and jc2 together, you grouped yourself together. He followed your lead in calling me names, and now you have followed his lead by having a go at John Quiggin. Though it's a particularly inept attack. Do you think that everyone who edits a biography on Wikipedia is a stalker?

And I notice that once again you are trying to change the subject after I corrected your misrepresentation of Peiser's email to you. Here again, is what he wrote about his "34 reject or doubt" criticism:

"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."

Classic Lambert really. I didn't call you a Nazi, nor did I call you a tick. But in the Nazi accusation you appear to be taking your lead from John Quiggin with whom you occasionally collaborate on writing articles. What this claim demonstrates is that both you and Quiggin are pretty desperate to smear others, and either lack basic literacy skills yourself, or assume that your audience does.

For your information Tim, if I call you a "thug" I am not saying you strangle people; if I say you are "hysterical" I am not saying you have a womb; and if I say you are a vandal I am not saying you are a member of a fifth century germanic tribe, although all three can be applied to you. This is what is called "metaphor". If I say you use "brown-shirt" tactics, that also is a metaphor. Metaphor is essentially a strong form of simile.

When I say you "stick like a tick" that is simile. It doesn't mean that you are a tick, but that you exhibit some ticklike characteristics. Same principle applies with metaphor.

Metaphor and simile are higher level intellectual skills which a small group of people of which, if you honestly believe what you have written, appear to be one, never master.

In which case it is no surprise that you have been taken in by a number of Greenhouse hoaxes and propagated them around the net. Hoaxes like the hockey stick graph.

Which is why the open and free debate that OLO represents is so important. We're not a journal of record as CJ seems to suggest, but a market place where intelligent individuals can be exposed to arguments from all sides and come to their own conclusions. The Internet is chock-full of sites like yours that look respectable, but peddle half truths, sometimes using a university as a cloak of respectability. They are a blight on the Internet.

Meanwhile, back to the article on Windschuttle...

Graham Young commented: "Whatever Windschuttle’s flaws (and I think some of them are significant) at least he has done the sort of fact-checking that others should have done. He should not be vilified because he has inadvertently made an error in this instance, particularly as the motive for the vilification is not because it is such a large error, but that he has been so effective in fact-checking the claims of others."

This is putting the most charitable gloss on Windschuttle's work - both generally and in the case of the Quadrant hoax. And it gives him too much credit in the history wars considering how much he was helped by the mean-spirited environment created largely by John Howard and his entourage of black armband wearers.

The success of the Quadrant hoax was due to the fact that it exposed Windschuttle's conservative bias by demonstrating that he would publish a slipshod article and would not check its footnotes if said article met his conservative preconceptions. In other words, the hoax showed that Windschuttle does not follow his own proffered criteria for empirical scholarship.

Looking again at his book, "The Fabrication of Australian History" (2002) and the subsequent public exchanges between him and Australians historians, it's hard to disagree with Tony Taylor's summation that Windschuttle is "an inconsequential Australian polemicist who feels uncomfortable with the idea that the foundation of his modern nation was based on anything other a largely compassionate and progressive intervention by an enlightened European culture." (qu. The Age 17 January 2009)

I note that Windschuttle's long-promised second and third volumes - promised by him for 2003 and 2004 respectively are yet to appear. Perhaps Windschuttle is still checking his footnotes.

Oh Graham. What a sad little website OLO is now. I remember when OLO was compulsory reading, full of exciting and stimulating articles. Now it's predictable garbage full of vicious nonentities slagging off each other. You have done a magnificant job in trashing OLO. It's telling that the comments have turned into a bitchfest directed at Tim Lambert.

As regards the article, I was going to say something much nastier, but I'm starting to feel sorry for you. I remember Max Harris saying that the Ern Malley poetry was the best he had read and that McAuley and whatsisname were incapable of writing bad poetry. Maybe. But that's not what people remembered. People remember it as a confirmation of their suspicions that modern poetry was crap. Now, I'm not saying this hoax is in the same league as Ern Malley, but any subtle meaning, any "the joke's really on the perpetrators" is just whistling in the dark. This episode confirms to most of us our suspicions - that The Right are washed up, discredited, a joke. The Right are not being taken seriously anymore

I love history; I am passionate about historiography and the integrity and ethics of writing history that's based on available facts. When I read an historical account, I expect an historian to put down verifiable fact and offer objective interpretation or to make their biases known and explain them.

Historians can and I think should seek to describe people and their values and beliefs as they existed in their own time - they can then draw out ways in which we need to progress - to do better.

We didn't need lies perpetrated by people like Reynolds to inspire a sense of responsibility to change what was bad for Aboriginal people. Just the facts would have sufficed - like the restrictions on movement; the ways in which labour was exploited, the well meaning actions and dreadful consequences of those actions.

I am glad that Windschuttle had the courage to go through the available evidence and get the history right. He did much more than just agonize over a couple of footnotes; much as people want to diminish his efforts. I am glad because history writing isn't supposed to be a fairy tale written to bolster current politics; it's supposed to be a discipline with standards and integrity.

http://www.sydneyline.com/Manne%20reply%20Australian.htm

- and despite reading the MASSIVE corrections he has made; I am as committed to social justice for the effects of previous policy and actions as anyone can be. I think the Aboriginal people have suffered enough, then and now, without having misguided, undisciplined 'historians' manufacturing non-existent evils.

There was no reason to take the micky out of Windschuttle, if that was the purpose of the article under discussion. If it constituted some other sort of experiment, fair enough, but I wouldn't compare it to the Ern Malley hoax - which was about pricking pretentiousness and aesthetic judgement.

Pynchme,

Your claim to be a lover of history and historiography is shot to ironic pieces in the same post when you declare, "I am glad that Windschuttle had the courage to go through the available evidence and get the history right".

Of course Windschuttle claims to have 'got the history right' but the overwhelming majority of eminent historians agree that his analysis is partial in both senses of that word - and patently inadequate. He is not a scholar so much as an ideologue looking for the facts that support his presuppositions.

And leave off with the holier-than-thou "Aboriginal people have suffered enough, then and now, without having misguided, undisciplined 'historians' manufacturing non-existent evils". That's transparent hypocrisy which Indigenous Australians can well do without.

I agree with you on one thing though: it's wrong to compare the Quadrant hoax to the Ern Malley hoax which, as you say, was about pricking pretentiousness and aesthetic judgement. The Quadrant hoax was about exposing Windschuttle's pretensions to being a careful and impartial scholar of contact history.

More homework please.

Gday Spikey,

No matter what one's current politics are (including Windschuttle's or Reynold's) some of the blatant untruths Windschuttle uncovered go too far in compromising integrity and standards of history writing.

It doesn't matter what we think of him; it's the history that matters. I was already aware of and opposed to racist behaviour when I became a Reynolds student, and I believed him (and others). I was devastated to think that our ancestors had been so cruel. I didn't need those lies and having grieved over them for years, I feel duped and cranky about it. As I said, the facts alone were enough to understand that there were wrongs that needed/need to be put right.

For example:

"In discussing one of the key documents of early Tasmanian history, the final report by Lieutenant-Governor George Arthur about the infamous Black Line of 1830, Henry Reynolds wrote in his book Frontier: "he argued that such was the insecurity of the settlers that he feared 'a general decline in the prosperity' and the 'eventual extirpation of the Colony'."[4] Arthur's actual words, however, were: "a great decline in the prosperity of the colony, and the eventual extirpation of the aboriginal race itself."[5] Arthur's concerns were not about the survival of the colony but of the Aborigines."

http://www.sydneyline.com/Macintyre%20Grimshaw%20reply.htm

See, I don't understand how people can defend that.

Tim Lambert (UNSW)

Was it the poor imitation of thug a like George Costanza reference that has got you all worked up?

I don’t need to copy anyone to know that: you’re intellectually dishonest, run a hate site, tried to ruin Bate’s reputation, you play victim whenever caught out in lies and general dishonesty, write deliberately confusing threads which are meant to draw people away from your dishonesty, use your site to attack people, as well swarm them with your sycophantic followers, haven’t published in an IT journal for a decade, you aren’t a scientist , send hate mail, you had a word created after your name (lamberting) to describe unpleasant dishonesty, you’re a bully and a thug.

Normally at other sites I have referred to you, as the “poisonous cherub” and I can’t recall Graham ever accusing you of being one, has he?

Why on earth would I need Graham to figure those things out about you (the insinuation just boggles the mind)? The only thing I’ve ever used was the word “tic” to describe your operating methods, which I thought was apt in so many ways.

Graham, I suggest you get ready for a barrage of emails from Lambert, as he seems to spew out abuse when he’s feigning anger, which is the very thing he accused me of several years ago.

See here:

http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/05/08/legal-eagles-take-flight/#comments

“you sent me not one but *three* abusive emails and have been back to hounding me since. you really are a vindictive little twerp and if you continue this I may just be inclined to publish those emails and tell you boss about them, ok? get over it. I made one snark at you and you’ve been spending the last few months trying to get back at me. get some psychiatric help.”

You truly re a disgusting creature, Lambert.

Pynchme,

Stuart Mcintyre said long ago that all historians make mistakes. When Reynolds or Ryan make an error, however, Windschuttle called it deliberate falsifying of history and led the charge to their bosses demanding they be sacked. When Windschuttle himself makes a mistake, he says he’s not responsible and that you have to consider the context in which he works.

Windschuttle now says: “…there is a point beyond which such sub-editing practices cannot go, especially when dealing with an author’s discussion of the detailed content of several books and their footnotes.” Footnotes on the other foot? http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/qed/2009/01/margaret-simons-and-an-apparent-hoax-on-quadrant

Again, you are being disingenuous about your own position. “It doesn't matter what we think of him; it's the history that matters…I didn't need those lies and having grieved over them for years, I feel duped and cranky about it.” Not exactly a dispassionate response but one that says more about you than about Reynolds. By the way, Windschuttle is not saying that lots of deaths did not happen in Tasmania, but not as many as Ryan and Reynolds claim. So you don’t have to feel ‘duped’. It’s the history that matters, as you say.

The single example you give of a so-called error corrected by Winschuttle is reproduced from Windschuttle’s own website. Have you independently checked the accuracy of that example? What was that you said about objectivity?

And how many of the 857 references in Ryan’s 500 footnotes did Windschuttle find error with? Windschutle is proud to claim that 11 out of the 18 footnotes used in the hoax paper he published in Quadrant were genuine – that means about 40% (he says only were contrived and Windschuttle can’t be at all proud of his scholarship there. He clearly failed to do checks on the authenticity content or the footnotes because the article general drift was in line with his political ideology.

Yet in his own defence, he told the SMH that he was able to satisfy himself the totally phoney article was "only 10 to 15 per cent invented. When I discovered that my gloom and embarrassment changed completely." http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/quadrant-falls-victim-to-hoax/2009/01/06/1231004021054.html

He’s Lambert, today in fact, accusing non-left, black-Americans of being Uncle Toms, because they are, you know right wing and therefore don’t t support the civil rights movement.

<i>Tim Lambert said...

The Congress of Racial Equality used to be a civil rights organization, but now get their money from oil companies rather than members. I imagine the claim that the opposition to drilling next to national parks was racist would be less credible if it came directly from oil companies.</i>

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=22031270&postID=7252927641472913507

What a truly disciple creature he is. He poisons the discussions at every single site he goes

Dear Spikey
The reason for my not replying to your posts is quite simple: what more can I add? You have your view I have mine; both of these views are valid and neither of us will convince the other. I was discussing, as you are well aware, the use of aliases in contributions to Blog Posts. How that can encompass the use of stage names, authorship of novels when women authors weren't welcome is beyond me? But that doesn't matter.
As for CJ my view on the Windschuttle hoax and Graham's article should be obvious:it was a attempt to embarrass an eminent historian and it involved the use of aliases plus other subterfuges.
"Mind you, I think that they (aliases)my insertion, are abused by a minority who hide behind them in order to publish hateful and/or defamatory comments about others." CJ Morgan
There are plenty of venues for people to comment about Keith Windschuttle's scholarship. I don't see how the Quadrant article filled the bill.

Dear Spikey
Just for the record can you show me the article/study/findings to support your statement "the overwhelming majority of eminent historians agree that his analysis is partial in both senses of that word - and patently inadequate". Or is this another Spikey delusion?

Oops sorry, “He’s” should be “Here’s” and “disciple” should be “despicable”

This is a laugh, Lambert (UNSW) complains about people abusing him. That of course only applies to Lambert (the eternal victim) as he has one rule for himself and another rule for people as evidenced at his bog towards people that don’t tow the official party. Show any dissent and you’re met with abuse and rudeness from Faulty –Lambert and his cult. That’s abuse Lambert himself promotes at his blog as Faulty- Lambert only finds fault with those disagrees with.

Here’s a reasonable comment:

<i>When this blog was started I had hopes for some real discussion of the science of climate modelling, it started well with a discussion about curve fitting and the various merits and predictive capability (or lack of!). Then we got onto the "hockey stick" and opinions as to whether the two Macs, the Wedgman Report and "absence" of the Med Warming/Little Ice Age has affected its credibility ( I believe they do and others don't). But like the IPCC process which I also have issues with it may be interesting but it is not science.

But then we descended into the usual personal stuff. </i>

Take a look at some of the replies.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/the_australians_war_on_science_32.php#c1326972

So, actually Graham Young is being too kind to Lambert. He ought to moderate him like the ALS blog now does. Lambert is the most dishonest blogger in Australia.

Hi Spikey,

That wasn't the only example and surely you know that.

The reason I posted links was to provide access to a range of criticisms that pointed to far more than just a couple of guffed footnotes. Also, I haven't seen anywhere that any of them have been able to counter the criticisms.

However, a lie like the one I copied not only misleads the public, who are supposed to have confidence in historians to record historical fact faithfully, but it mischaracterizes the man - it robs him of his humanity and compassion. It's an undeserved slur.

Historians may of course take full liberty in their interpretation of facts; what they choose to emphasize and how they put the jigsaw together, but they need to be clear about what is interpretation/opinion and what is based in verifiable fact.

Anyway, Geoffrey Blainey gives his opinion:

http://www.newcriterion.com/m/articles.cfm/nativefiction-1774

I can understand people getting carried away with passion about a cause (a justifiable cause with which I align myself, as I tried to point out), but I think they would regain respect to a substantial degree if they just admitted that their passion prevailed over all else, and stopped this stupid campaign to vilify and silence a detractor, which just reflects very poorly on our acadaemic community. Otherwise, we are to suppose that lies will suffice instead of scholarship and integrity, and I just can't accept that.

You will flock as you please, clearly, but it's not for me.

Dear Blairbar,

"You have your view I have mine; both of these views are valid and neither of us will convince the other." A curious post-modernist view: we disagree totally but both are views are valid? If we disagree we can't, logically, both be right. Logically either one of us is wrong, or both of us are wrong.

If you were a serious scholar, you wouldn't need me to point you towards the roll call of eminent historians (repeat historians) who assess Windschuttle's work as partial in both senses - i.e. one-sided and incomplete. Windschuttle's supporters are not historians in the main, but fellow ideologues and newspaper columnists who got used to brown-nosing Howard (there might be an ABC Board seat in it - as Windschuttle found) and can't shake off the old ways.

You yourself use the term 'eminent historian' to describe Windschuttle. The man couldn't even complete his PHD. His highest qualification in History is a BA. Nor could he deliver on his 1992 promise to have his second volume out in 2003 and his third volume out in 2004. We all know that his first volume was self-published. Did the publisher send his drafts of volumes 2 and 3 back for a complete re-write? Or has he had second thoughts on his ideological position?

Gee Graham, your post is directly underneath mine where I wrote that you said "that I was like a Nazi". And you respond by saying that "I didn't call you a Nazi". Well, duh, I never said that you did. See those words "like a" in my post? Consequently your whole rant about how I don't know what a metaphor is, is more than a little wide of the mark.

Brownshirts were Nazi thugs. Calling some a brownshirt is abusive. And yes, it's a metaphor, but that doesn't make it less offensive. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law

And I'm fascinated by your claim that the hockey stick is a "hoax". How come the climate scientists don't seem to share your opinion on this? Is it your thesis that they are all involved in giant conspiracy or what?

Dear Pynchme,

So the the only example you gave was from Windschuttle own web site "and surely you know that". Well, yes, that's why I pointed it out to you. Now I notice you don't give another example; and I notice to don't reply to my asking whether you checked out that lone example carefully as Mr Windschuttle says we should.

So you refer us now to Prof. Blainey, John Howard's favourite historian and inventor, as I understand it, of the phrase, the 'Black armband view of history', a phrase much admired by Howard to justify his failure to act on reconciliation.

As one who proposes that we should not let passion prevail over all else, perhaps you could point to the evidence to justify your allegation that those who rebut Mr Windschuttle
are engaged in what you call a "stupid campaign to vilify and silence a detractor"?

Otherwise, we might, as you so nicely put it, "suppose that lies will suffice instead of scholarship and integrity, and I just can't accept that".

Interesting that Quiggin says this at his blog about KeithW:
<i># jquiggin Says:
January 19th, 2009 at 2:25 pm

“That is outside the scope of the controversy between Windschuttle and the historians he discountenances.”

Except as regards the new vaporware Volume 2 mentioned in the post, which is supposed to be about the Stolen Generations.

Perhaps Windschuttle could make an annual announcement of a virtual Volume 2, alerting the right to historical evidence they should disregard, but without the necessity of actually writing anything.</i>

Quiggin wrote a book published in 1994 carefully explaining that the fight against sky high unemployment over the past 15 years was lost and so we should expect that nothing could be done by the private market and that only massive doses of recurrent government spending in the people services would alter that “fact”. The fight against unemployment was coming from an economist no less.

He’s smearing keithW now for not writing a second volume he supposedly promised obviously suggesting that W was lying about the second volume.

Here's a thought while we’re waiting for W to write publish, perhaps Quiggin could publish a book to explain what happened to the view that we were destined to remain with high unemployment, why he was wrong and why Howard succeeded when 13 years of labor rule failed. Now that would be interesting.

Of course that’s intermission while waiting for Keith’s book.

He’s always good with the old smear, the old Quiggler. Pity he’s always threatening to sue people when he gets the same back.

“Quick, give me the phone, I calling my lawyer on speedial” LOL.

These two clowns -Quiggin and Faulty-Lambert- are the biggest cry-baby bullies on the web bar no one. No wonder they collaborate on smearing tactics.

Just look at how these two complete clowns are part of the bigger effort by lefties to swarm W at the first sign of trouble.

It’s sick stuff.

Hi Spikey,

There are loads of examples; some contained in those links. It's rather silly to expect me to copy and paste each of them when you can read them just as well from those links or from other sources.

It seems to me that you believe that contemporary political allegiances justify dishonesty. Just FYI in the past I have stood for one reason or another with each of our major parties but for several years have had no political allegiances - both our major parties repell me.

I do have convictions though about honesty and integrity in scholarship. Therefore the carry on about whether one is right or left and blah blah based on whether one supports Windschuttle or not is neither here nor there. It's a red herring at best. In I think the first link I provided he explained how he became intrigued with the subject under discussion.

Now Blainey (yes of course I am familiar with the black armband school of thinking); is an historian who is, I think, pretty much above reproach as far as honesty goes. That doesn't mean that I agree with many of his overall theses, interpretations or conclusions... and that's ok. I can disagree with an historian and still respect their work.

I can't respect people who do dishonest scholarship and then compound that by trying to bully, belittle and diminish their critic; especially without addressing the core issue of honesty in scholarship.

Tim, when you come across someone who defends the Hockey Stick Graph you know you've moved out of the realm of science and into that of irrational belief. Fits with your literacy problems. I see from your post that you still don't understand figures of speech. I didn't call you a Nazi of any sort, or even say you were "like" a Nazi.

I've just realised how much you share in common with the fundamentalist Christians of the Deep South. You have your sacred texts - IPCC,and a smattering of peer-reviewed papers etc. Your beliefs depend on excluding a large number of other texts and a selective reading of those which you privilege, ignoring context and nuance. And instead of reviewing and changing your beliefs when reality doesn't turn-out to match them, you actually become even more fervent a believer.

What is so hard about accepting that it is not unusually warm at the moment, even on the standards of the last 1000 years? All the physical evidence points to that being the case. But that gets in the way of your Apocaplyptic world view I suppose.

Dear Spikey“
""You have your view I have mine; both of these views are valid and neither of us will convince the other." A curious post-modernist view: we disagree totally but both are views are valid? If we disagree we can't, logically, both be right. Logically (my italics and bold) either one of us is wrong, or both of us are wrong.””
Cripes Spikey I was giving you the benefit of the doubt re your intelligence. Why can’t we both be right? We are talking about VALUES/BELIEFS. We are not talking about statements that are capable of being proven wrong eg “If you were a serious scholar, you wouldn't need me to point you towards the roll call of eminent historians (repeat historians) who assess Windschuttle's work as partial in both senses - i.e. one-sided and incomplete.” Just show me the results of the study; who was surveyed, the question(s) asked etc. Then we can argue about facts not values.
“You yourself use the term 'eminent historian' to describe Windschuttle. The man couldn't even complete his PHD.”
Well dear Dr(Ph D)Spikey he has had a few books out there for people to read, and numerous journal articles etc published so he can be criticized/evaluated/ praised/damned.
I look forward to reading your contributions out there in the wider non-blog world or will they be written under a nom de plume?
Regards
Blai

It doesn't seem to get into his head, Graham. You couldn't shift it with a pic ax.

It's like he looks at a temp chart for the past 8 or 9 years and sees it pointing north in a big way. So save you breath/keyboard strokes. Look he could end up frost bitten and still think its 40 degrees and the frost bite is sun burn.

Dear alias blairbar,

You say: "We are talking about VALUES/BELIEFS. We are not talking about statements that are capable of being proven wrong"

Once again you are proven wrong. We are not merely talking about values and beliefs - quite a few of your statements and mine that are empirical claims and can be tested against the evidence, as can beliefs statements (unless you still have a belief in the tooth fairy or black cats bringing bad luck).

There is no single study (or survey) showing that the majority of eminent historians who assess Windschuttle's work as partial - and inadequate. You simple have to look at the responses in the professional journals to find evidence of that. (Interestingly, almost all of Windschuttle's supporters are non-historians who like the song he sings.) These are not my beliefs but facts.

Or you could go to the records of the debate Windschuttle with Henry Reynolds on ABC television, the National Press Club or the special conference of historians at the National Museum in Canberra. In response to the many criticisms of his work raised at these functions Windschuttle failed dismally to answer his critics and pretended that the criticisms were mere ad hominem.

While Windschuttle accused historians of having political agendas, he claims to have no political agenda of his own. Hypocrisy.

As for your (empirical) claim that "he has had a few books out there for people to read, and numerous journal articles etc published so he can be criticized/evaluated/ praised/damned", I repeat that since 1992 he has put none of his publications on the line through the normal commercial publishing houses. Google Macleay Press which he founded in 1993.

As for my own publications, my last two books - one commissioned the other accepted in mss by a commercial publisher - sold out (one with a print run of 4000 and the other 3000). And there was no nom de plume. And you?

Elizabeth

Online Opinion.... go back and try and read what you 'all' have written. If there ever was a rocketship to mars.. I beg you all to get on it, don't you know history is always one sided bull(I have to write faeces in place of sh..t, please excuse the pathetic "FILTERING" ), you all sound like you just came from the mad hatters tea party to me.
" windschuttle" what sort of airbus is that anyway... mummmble mumble n good on yer spikey stick it in em!

Dear Spikey
"Once again you are proven wrong. We are not merely talking about values and beliefs"
I was arguing that it is wrong for persons who use nom-de plumes, aliases etc to attack persons who use their real names. That is a value I believe in. I was making a moral judgment. You argue differently citing the reasons for use of nom-de-plumes, aliases etc. But neither of us can be proven right or wrong.
"almost all of Windschuttle's supporters are non-historians who like the song he sings.) These are not my beliefs but facts.". Well as an esteemed academic (although I notice like Keith Windschuttle, the Ph D has still eluded you), one simple reference could establish that it is indeed a fact. If you wish to make factual assertions it is your responsibility to back them up not my responsibilty to check them out.
""As for your (empirical) claim that "he has had a few books out there for people to read, and numerous journal articles etc published so he can be criticized/evaluated/ praised/damned", I repeat that since 1992 he has put none of his publications on the line through the normal commercial publishing houses. Google Macleay Press which he founded in 1993.""
As you well know people can easily access many of his articles, old and new at his web page. And his web page states as you correctly point out that his recent books have indeed being published by his own publishing company. http://www.sydneyline.com/Home.htm
So is my claim wrong?
Congratulations on your most recent publication on Case Management. Your field of study and scholarship seems very interesting and challenging.
Regards
Blair (retired non- PhD economist)

Dear alias blairbar,

"I was arguing that it is wrong for persons who use nom-de plumes, aliases etc to attack persons who use their real names. That is a value I believe in." Yes I agree, but that was just one of your several arguments.

On the other hand, perhaps you're better off restricting yourself to values and beliefs. When it comes to facts, you get things horribly wrong. Nothing in what you assume about my academic life and publishing is true, except my field is "very interesting and challenging". Oops! (And that's an empirical statement and not a moral position).

The fact that Windschuttle has an accessible web page is no guarantee of quality. Uncle and Auntie Cobbly can put up a website these days. Most ideologues want their beliefs to be accessed - and absorbed - by the multitudes. The fact remains: all his recent books are self-published and I'm aware of no refereed journal publication.

On the assumption that you're not merely a member of Windschuttle's cheer squad, I'll give you a hand with some names to help with your research. But remember we are all restricted space-wise on OLO.

Chief cheer squad members: John Howard, Janet Albrechtsen, Imre Salusinszky, Frank Devine, Christopher Pearson, Paul Sheehan, John Dawson and (not without reservations) Geoffrey Blainey. The last two are historians, breaking the sequence of journalists.

Chief critics: Stuart Mcintyre, Cassandra Pybus, David Day, Henry Reynolds, Ian McFarlane, Lyndall Ryan, Robert Manne, Shayne Breen, Christine Williamson, James Boyce, Andrew Markus, Ann McGrath, John Mulvaney, Rebe Taylor, Andrew Bonnell, Dirk Moses, Naomi Parry, and Aboriginal historians: Peggy Patrick and Greg Lehman. Most are historians.

Regards
Elizabeth

Well Elizabeth
If you are now Dr Elizabeth Moore congratulations.
"Nothing in what you assume about my academic life and publishing is true". Well blame Charles Sturt University if their information about you is out-of-date or me if you are you are not the Elizabeth Moore mentioned on their website :http://www.csu.edu.au/faculty/arts/humss/staff/elizabeth_moore.htm

"The fact that Windschuttle has an accessible web page is no guarantee of quality". Who said it was a guarantee of quality, not me.
Stuart Mcintyre? Is that the same ex-communist as Keith Windschuttle?
And what is your point about aboriginal historians? They somehow have some unique insight into Australian history that transcends the boundaries of accepted research and scholarship?
Regards
Blair

Graham, it's odd that such a simple observation that you said "that I was like a Nazi" is giving you so much trouble. First, you somehow missed the word "like" in there, going of on a silly rant about how I didn't understand metaphors. Now the fact that you called me a brownshirt, while I wrote "Nazi" in the quote above has also confused you. Brownshirts, in case you were unaware, were Nazi thugs. It's as if I said you lived in Australia and you said that I was wrong because you lived in Queensland.

I'm intrigued by your assertion that "when you come across someone who defends the Hockey Stick Graph you know you've moved out of the realm of science and into that of irrational belief." The hockey stick is included in the latest IPCC review (AR4). Are all the climate scientists part of conspiracy to cover up this alleged hoax? Or is it your thesis that have they all been tricked?

And why are you so sure that the current warmth isn't unusual in the past 1000 years? Can you cite any peer-reviewed scientific research to back your claim? No articles from Quadrant or Andrew Bolt columns, please.

Tim Lambert,

Graham Young, editor in chief of On Line Opinion, comments:

“Hoaxes like the hockey stick graph” and,

“When you come across someone who defends the Hockey Stick Graph you know you've moved out of the realm of science and into that of irrational belief”.

If Graham Young truly wanted to delve further into his so called “hobby horse” he would have perused the numerous papers (or abstracts) referenced in Chpt 6 of WG1 of the AR4.

He would have found that there are numerous ‘hockey stick graphs’ from many different studies (all pointing to the same conclusion) – not just that of bristle cone pines in the USA.

To make the assertions he has made, IMHO ... he hasn’t read Chpt 6, he doesn’t understand it, or he is deliberately being obtuse ... take your pick.

On the other hand, if he is referring (like many of his ilk) that the Mann et al 98 paper is a hoax, then this convinces me Graham Young is deliberately spreading disinformation and misrepresenting what science is telling us.

Graham Young goes for the jugular;

“The Internet is chock-full of sites like yours that look respectable, but peddle half truths, sometimes using a university as a cloak of respectability. They are a blight on the Internet.”

To me, this is the epitome of hypocrisy.

Not only does Graham Young “peddle half truths” on OLO (apologies to the likes of Windschuttle) when he 'publishes' Bob Carter and Co, but he accepts and acknowledges Carter‘s “cloak of respectability” from James Cook University.

Graham Young continues the hypocricy; by attacking, bullying and accusing others (often with ad hom) of the very behaviour he employs himself, hardly befitting a chief editor.

If Graham Young wants to rant on his Ambit Gambit blog so be it. However, for him to deliberately spruik half truths and distortions about the reality of AGW ... he would be better off doing that at WUWT or Marohasy’s blog – IMO.

_____

jc2
Are you the 2nd coming ... or GrahamY’s lapdog? Metaphorically speaking of course.

Dear alias blairbar,

You can't blame Charles Sturt University for your mistake. That's one university I haven't worked at. Fact-finding doesn't seem to be one of your strengths, eh?

It's interesting the way you try to cover for your inadequate argument about the Windschuttle hoax.

You point us to Mr Windschuttle's website and then concede that you were making no claims about its quality.

You select one name from my long list of reputable historians and insinuate (under your alias) that his personal political history is somehow relevant (but to cover your tracks cleverly noting that Windschuttle shared that history).

And you try to make a point about my inclusion of some Indigenous historians. No, I am not claiming that they "...somehow have some unique insight into Australian history that transcends the boundaries of accepted research and scholarship". As historians they have a commitment to the rules of evidence like anyone else.

I thought you might have the wit to see that there might be a particular commitment to ascertaining and documenting the truth of their own people's history (Windschuttle only came to this field of history very late in his career and is not an expert). Weren't you the one previously arguing the importance of values and beliefs?

Regards

Liz

Hey You Two!
How about you both get a case of your poison n go somewhere this weekend and sort this out so you can makeup n get onto something worthwhile.
Horstrailer day could be worthwhile for some

Dear Spikey
I guess i didn't allow for two eminent Elizabeth Moores; I thought I was on the right track with the Charles Sturt Elizabeth Moore 'cos judging by her photo she has spikey hair.
My reference to Keith Windschuttle's website was to point out that his articles are there for people to make up their own mind about their worth or otherwise. His articles are in the public domain. As I have got the wrong Elizabeth Moore I am not in a position to examine your publications.
"I thought you might have the wit to see that there might be a particular commitment to ascertaining and documenting the truth of their own people's history". I would have thought the challenge as indigenous historians was to avoid being locked into a particular historical position. I see you have them in the McIntyre/Reynolds camp; I guess it won't be hard to see what "truth" they arrive at.
Regards
Blair

So Tim, with your new found understanding of metaphor and simile do you now acknowledge that I didn't abuse you and didn't suggest you were a tick, or that you were a Nazi. And if so, when are you going to correct your blog post? Oh, and you repeat the accusation in the thread above at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8387#132771 "Calling some a brownshirt is abusive. And yes, it's a metaphor, but that doesn't make it less offensive." Plus you then rely on an invented "law" to justify your position. Good stuff

Dear Alias Blairbar,

"I would have thought the challenge as indigenous historians was to avoid being locked into a particular historical position." Would you? How kind of you! Perhaps these historians are capable of deciding for themselves what historical work they will undertake. Moreover, one can be an expert in a particular area of history without being 'locked in'.

"I see you have them in the McIntyre/Reynolds camp..." Your words, not mine. Your artificial construct, not mine. At your request I supplied a list of eminent historians who challenged Mr Windschuttle. It's your (inept and inapt) idea to call it a 'camp'. If you want to label the list of Windschuttle critics as a camp complete with name, what would you call my list of Windschuttle supporters - Windy ideologues?

"I guess it won't be hard to see what "truth" they arrive at." That would depend on what the evidence shows, wouldn't it?

Regards

Betty

Oh no, the angry, nasty George Costanza imitator is back trying to instruct people on Costanza science methods. LOL.

No articles from Quadrant or Andrew Bolt columns, please.

(FOTFL). Lambert is of course not including himself seeing he’s the most intellectually dishonest blogger in Australia.

I would say that Brownshirt (little thug) would be a very apt description of you, Tim; therefore Graham has it about right in describing your tactics. Your sycophants are always referring to other people as fascists and racists.

Dear Spikey
You win. In future when I see the author Spikey I will avoid any comment. Hopefully any remaining bloggers can now safely return to ONO without being bored to death.
Regards
Blair

Blairbar and Spikey. A bit "off topic", but it seems like almost anything goes here.

I wonder where you both stand on the matter of the credibility or otherwise of the "Bringing them home" report as an historical document?

David

Graham, I see that as well as bringing us AGW denial, you also denying that your post was abusive. Are also going to deny that brownshirts were Nazis?

I'm intrigued by your assertion that "when you come across someone who defends the Hockey Stick Graph you know you've moved out of the realm of science and into that of irrational belief." The hockey stick is included in the latest IPCC review (AR4). Are all the climate scientists part of conspiracy to cover up this alleged hoax? Or is it your thesis that have they all been tricked?

And why are you so sure that the current warmth isn't unusual in the past 1000 years? Can you cite any peer-reviewed scientific research to back your claim? No articles from Quadrant or Andrew Bolt columns, please.

Oh no, the hockey stick.
The scientific accuracy of the hockey stick has been questioned by someone you’ve promoted at your site.

See here: http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/hockey-stick-is-broken.php

“So while MBH, in my mind, are in no way guilty of fraud or incompetence (many of the accusations do go this far), the judgement of their research must be approached in reverse: given any reason to doubt, I will reject it until it is proven to me that the criticisms are invalid.”

And:

“Recently the National Academy of Science in the US did a report on the Hockey Stick study and found it "plausible" though more uncertain the farther back in time it went. But then, true to form for this debate, another report commissioned by another Senate committee came out right after and condemned it.”

Furthermore there were lots of things contained in the IPCC report that were not central to its conclusion. To suggest that because it was contained in the IPCC gives the stick some air of official acceptance is to ignore that it was NEVER EVER central to the conclusion reached by the IPCC. This another example of Lambert lying through omission.

Nothing you ever say can be trusted, Lambert, because you are a thug and totally dishonest.

Graham, ban him like other sites have done or you won’t be able to get the tick off you back.

It appears jc2 can’t comprehend what he has linked to.

Here it is again;

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/hockey-stick-is-broken.php

“The fact is there are dozens of other reconstructions. These other reconstructions do tend to show some more variability than MBH98 (the handle of the hockey stick is not as straight), but they ALL (my emphasis) support the general conclusions that the IPCC TAR presented in 2001: the late 20th century warming is anomalous in the last one or two thousand years and the 1990's are very likely warmer than any other time in the last one or two thousand years.”

The general conclusion:

"Although each of the temperature reconstructions are different (due to differing calibration methods and data used), they all show some similar patterns of temperature change over the last several centuries. Most striking is the fact that each record reveals that the 20th century is the warmest of the entire record, and that warming was most dramatic after 1920."

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html

Indeed, the most recent IPCC report has heaps of hockey sticks that make quite a compelling team!

QED

So jc2, it appears you are no different to your master:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8387#133002

woof.

ps: No matter how much you wish it to be, rose coloured glasses can't make the blind see.

Dear VK3AUU,
My interest in the "Bringing them home" report relates to the documentation or rather lack of it concerning the "stolen generation" of Torres Strait Islander children. I had discussions with CJ Morgan on this subject earlier this month on ONO.
Monday, December 29, 2008
"An Indigenous reflection on 2008
Something to do, something to love, and something to hope for" by Stephen Hagan.
Regards
Blair

VK3AUU,

The "Bringing Them Home" report accurately traced the history of laws, policies and practices dealing with removal of Indigenous children from their families and communities.

Throughout Australia's 'white' history common law says that parents have the right to decide where the children live and how they will be educated and raised. They should not be removed from their parents unless a court makes that decision based on evidence proving removal is in the child's best interests.

Yet in WA (1905-1954), NT (1911-1964), NSW (1915-1940), SA (1911-1923) and Queensland (1897-1965) Indigenous children could be taken WITHOUT a court order.

In WA, SA, NT and Queensland most Indigenous parents lost their parental rights because the law made the Protector or Protection Board the legal guardian of their children. No such laws applied to non-Indigenous parents.

It would be an act of utter denial to insist these discriminatory powers were not used.

As to the numbers of children forcibly removed and specific cases there will always be room for debate because you are dealing with human memory in a highly charged context. I have no evidence of any individual story being a deliberate fabrication. Maybe you do?

The Inquiry heard evidence in every capital and most regions of Australia, from Cape Barren Island to Torres Strait and the Kimberley. Evidence was given in public and private from Indigenous people, governments and churches, former mission staff, foster and adoptive parents, doctors and health professionals, academics, police and others. It's hard to believe they all conspired to lie or got it wrong.

As to the effects on the children, these would vary because the range of placements varied. Some went to 'good' white families, some to horror homes and many to institutions. In one of the institutions that I grew up in, where 10% of the 200 inmates were Indigenous - standard for Victoria - their treatment was just as abusive as anyone's.

Numerous later accounts (eg. the Senate's "Lost Innocents" and "Forgotten Australians" document the sexual and physical abuse and the emotional deprivation that these hell-holes inflicted. Aboriginal children were not exempt.

Well yes I can, Q&A. It’s you that can’t comprehend basic English.

The question is if Mann’s hockey stick stands up to scientific scrutiny, not if later on, subsequent studies /representations are valid or even show similar trends. Even if they did, it doesn’t prove that Mann’s stick was scientifically valid.

Suggesting Mann’s hoax is legitimate because other studies show a similar correlation is absurd.

“Indeed, the most recent IPCC report has heaps of hockey sticks that make quite a compelling team!”

You’re confusing charts showing this century’s rising temps and Mann’s hockey stick. They weren’t derived the same way and the point of contention with Mann’s is that it doesn’t stand up to scientific examination and only cult like anti-science thugs like Faulty-Lambert would be diving off that bridge into a drought-ridden stream.

Christ, you guys are extreme cultists, aren’t you?

Oh, so Graham is my master, yet sticking up for a thug like Lambert and then failing basic comprehension doesn’t make you one? Stop being so pathetic.

Both you and Fault- Lambert demonstrate having a bias towards being anti-social. Get yourself checked out.

Further explanation of the hockey stick hoax.

The real question is why Tim Faulty-Lambert is still pushing this absurdity.

http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2008/12/25/horse-hockey-climate-scientology-%E2%80%9Cgetting-rid%E2%80%9D-of-the-medieval-warming-period/

Tim, of course I deny that my post was abusive. You've amply demonstrated on this thread that you "stick like a tick" - you're still coming back, aren't you? And you have also given us some useful links to your use of "brownshirt tactics". The post that you did on your site about me, and that of Quiggin on the same subject, which you link to, is just the sort of brawling intimidation that the brownshirts went in for. They disrupted meetings of their opponents, and physically beat them up. You do the equivalent of this on the 'net. QED.

Also ironic that you affect such disdain for allusions to Nazism, but you continually refer to people who question any part of whatever you ordain to be tbe orthodoxy, as "deniers", or "denialists", a word chosen because of its links to Holocaust denialism. You feel free to throw this term of abuse around, but if anyone points out that it is abuse, then you accuse the whistle-blower of abuse themselves!

As for the Hockey Stick graph. It has been reviewed twice and found wanting by official committees or inquiries and also by independent researchers who have tried to replicate its findings. When properly analysed the data doesn't show what it purports to show. http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/APEC-hockey.pdf. It is an "artifact of poor mathematics" http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/13830/?a=f. The reasons why it is poor mathematics are easy to follow, and people like you and Quiggin, should have the maths to be able to understand them.

The graph is also contradicted by other proxy reconstructions, as well as even by the graphs that Q&A links to.

He knows the stick is a fraud but he continues to perpetuate it hoping that he can convince enough people that it is in legitimate. In other words Faulty-Lambert doesn’t give a stuff about science otherwise he wouldn’t be peddling Lysenko swill like a leather-coated thug over the web.

He’s basically a hard left political activist that tries to take no prisoners and doesn’t give a stuff when innocent people get hurt like the example I gave of the stalking incident.

This is how the thug operates. Here he is virtually giving away where his latest victim lives.

“Bond U is on the Gold Coast, close to the NSW border, and Jenkins lives close to the border on the NSW side.”

You begin to even wonder if he’s insane. Not content with trying to ruin the guy, he also gives clues as to his address.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/jon_jenkins_was_not_an_adjunct.php#more

Back to the stick:

Here’s what a real live climate scientist says about the stick:

Recently Stephen McIntyre and I received an email from Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of the Royal Meteorological Institute of the Netherlands. He wrote to convey comments he wished to be
communicated publicly:


“The IPCC review process is fatally flawed. The behavior of Michael Mann is a disgrace to the profession…The scientific basis for the Kyoto protocol is grossly inadequate.”

Here’s the real question. Would you believe Faulty-Lambert, the most dishonest blogger in Australia or Doc Hendrik. I like betting only on sure winners so I’ll take my chances with the Doc.

Very entertaining, these blog wars.

GrahamY: << Also ironic that you affect such disdain for allusions to Nazism, but you continually refer to people who question any part of whatever you ordain to be tbe orthodoxy, as "deniers", or "denialists", a word chosen because of its links to Holocaust denialism. You feel free to throw this term of abuse around, but if anyone points out that it is abuse, then you accuse the whistle-blower of abuse themselves! >>

I've noticed that some people who are in entrenched denial about climate change are increasingly precious or disingenuous about the use of the term. Yes, "denialism" is a neologism that was originally applied to Holocaust deniers, but is now widely used to describe people or groups who actively reject scientific and scholarly consensus on various issues, including climate change, evolution and AIDS.

<< Denialism is the term used to describe the position of governments, political parties, business groups, interest groups, or individuals who reject propositions on which a scientific or scholarly consensus exists. Such groups and individuals are said to be engaging in denialism when they seek to influence policy processes and outcomes by using rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none.

The term was first used in the sense of 'holocaust denialism', but the usage has broadened to include 'AIDS denialism', 'climate change denialism' and 'evolution denialism'. >>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism

I use the term because as defined above because it more accurately describes the rhetorical tactics used by climate change deniers than does the term "skepticism". Climate change deniers per se have no more in common with Nazis than do evolution and AIDS deniers, and to claim that referring to someone as a "denialist" is offensive in the same way as calling someone a "brownshirt" is precious at best, and disingenuous at worst.

"Brownshirt" doesn't necessarily suggest someone secretly walks around the house in a Nazi uniform, Morgan.

It suggests thuggery and hooliganism. If you think "denier" is an appropriate term to use towards people that don't belong to the green religion that's fine with me. However you also shouldn't be critical of people applying the term such as thug and hooligan to those who display that sort of behavior like AGW religious fanatics.

Don't be scared the world is not going to incinerate just yet.

Want to see Tim Lambert (UNSW) and his cult brigade trash people?

In Lambert’s latest thread he implies that the victim he’s attacking doesn’t have a PhD because Lambert couldn’t find it on the website that carries this information.

Lambert says:

"I can't find any record of a PhD thesis by you on the ADT database. Could you tell me where you did it and when it was awarded?"

It’s here.

http://adt.caul.edu.au/homesearch/find/?recordid=25945&format=main

I notified Lambert at his website and he deleted my comment;

So Lambert deletes my comment, refuses to update his thread and allows his cult following to trash the guy with impunity.

However he calls time out here because it was suggested he uses Brown shirt tactics and plays the victim.

He trashes the guy, basically tells people where he lives, suggests he doesn’t have a PhD and when Lambert is notified that he has a PhD (even linking the site with the information) lambert ignores it and continues to allow his commenters to abuse the guy.

JC2 I've just checked Tim's site, and while I don't see any comments from you, they now accept that Jenkins has a PhD after someone else pointed it out on the thread. There's a uniformity of point of view on his blog, so maybe that is why your comment was deleted.

I find the way that Lambert has approached the issue of Jenkins objectionable. It is basically all ad hominem. Jenkins claims to have been reprimanded, then sacked as an adjunct professor by Bond University after he wrote something in The Australian. Jenkins claims it was because he expressed a skeptical opinion on climate change. Jennifer Marohasy has reported it on her blog. Both Jenkins and Marohasy come in for abuse from Tim who advances an alternative theory as to why Jenkins was reprimanded and sacked.

He makes no attempt to check the theory with Bond University, and appears to have no basis for it apart from his inability to find out various things about Jenkins, like where he obtained his PhD. Apparently in Tim's world if he can't find it, it doesn't exist. So, on the same basis he says Jenkins got reprimanded for claiming he was an adjunct professor. But Tim's claim is that he can't be an adjunct prof because he isn't listed on the website. But then, how do you reprimand someone who doesn't work for you.

UNSW ought to be reprimanding Lambert. We know that he works for them, and that he brings the university into disrepute.

He should updated his thread to admit his mistake, Graham. However hell would have to freeze over twice before he's seen doing something like that.

He set up the thread to make it look as though "not finding' the reference to Jenkin's PhD on that website meant it doesn't exist.

It seems Windschuttle is but a memory with the thread turning into an 'online biffo' playing man against man - very dreary.

FWIW, science isn't a cult, it's not even a religion - although creationists or 'intelligent designer types' may beg to differ.

AGW does not rest on the hypothesis of the bristlecone, no matter how much some people would like it to be.

Nevertheless, corrections are made when errors are found (it can take time). This was done. Hoaxers do not do this.

The outcome made little difference to the temperature record of the contiguous USA (2% of global land mass?), less so when you factor Alaska (or Canada) into the data set.

Global and hemispheric values were even less effected.

It is very dishonest (if not a hoax in itself) to infer 'the hockey stick' belongs only to one person. Attacking the hockey stick is akin to attacking all the other scientists who have drawn similar conclusions using other sources and data.

jc2: << He set up the thread to make it look as though "not finding' the reference to Jenkin's PhD on that website meant it doesn't exist. >>

No, jc. That thread on Deltoid is clearly about Marohasy's very dubious claim that Jenkins is some kind of martyr to the denialist cause. Lambert's pedanticism with respect to Jenkins' qualifications doesn't reflect very well upon him, but as Graham says the fact that Jenkins has a PhD in Science has been well established by several of the intelligent commenters who post there.

Q&A: << It seems Windschuttle is but a memory with the thread turning into an 'online biffo' playing man against man - very dreary. >>

Quite so, Q&A - and the fact that it is OLO's esteemed Chief Editor and moderator that is driving it reflects poorly both on him and OLO. Personally, I think that he's miffed that Lambert was among the first to point out his own sloppy scholarship in the article that this thread is ostensibly about.

Dreary - but also quite droll in its own schadenfreude way.

Quite so.

<i>No, jc. That thread on Deltoid is clearly about Marohasy's very dubious claim that Jenkins is some kind of martyr to the denialist cause. </i>

Really? It took Lambert 1563 words to write that thread. 22 words were used to describe JenniferM, which is 1.4% of the total words use. You obviously are not reading what I am.

“Remember Jon Jenkins and his sixth degree polynomial fit? Well, Jennifer Marohasy is presenting him as a martyr for the denialist cause.”

The other 1541 words were to raise questions about Jenkin’s education levels and his positions at Bond University.

Later on in the comments thread Lambert basically told people where Jenkins lives.

Sorry, I don’t accept your silly assertion that this thread at Deltoilet was about JenniferM as even the header was referenced to Jenkins.

“Lambert's pedanticism with respect to Jenkins' qualifications doesn't reflect very well upon him, but as Graham says the fact that Jenkins has a PhD in Science has been well established by several of the intelligent commenters who post there.”

Not true actually. I posted a comment at Deltoilet with a link to the website detailing the PhD which Lambert deleted. Ask him.

It was only after he realized that quite a few people found out he was forced to concede, otherwise the troll wouldn’t have deleted my comment or at least updated the thread.

Q&A: << It seems Windschuttle is but a memory with the thread turning into an 'online biffo' playing man against man - very dreary. >>

Well yea. Blame Lambert as he poisons almost every thread he goes.

<i>Personally, I think that he's miffed that Lambert was among the first to point out his own sloppy scholarship in the article that this thread is ostensibly about.</i>

Not really, as I think Lambert came off worse for wear. Lambert is very vindictive which is why he changed the subject to the January 2007 discussion very quickly. In other words he’s a troll of the worst order.

CJ I'm not driving anything. I'm responding to your attempts to misrepresent me and suggest that I am abusive. It wasn't Lambert who first pointed out my error, it was Mark Bahnisch. I suggested to Mark that he post on the thread, and at the same time I put a correction in the text. That's how people who care about facts deal with them. It's not a major error and doesn't invalidate the main thrust, it's just a embarrassing to me.

The main point of the article was in the first paragraph which reads:"...The Windschuttle hoax, where writer and blogger Katherine Wilson convinced Quadrant editor Keith Windschuttle to publish a piece on science reporting containing deliberate errors, shows how petty, provincial and tribal Australian public intellectual life is. It also underlines the need for journals like On Line Opinion which have an open and Socratic publishing philosophy."

I haven't strayed from the article. You, Q&A and Lambert have just provided more examples of pettiness, provincialism and tribalism. You also provide an example of why I say in the article "We’ve had some successes, but despite those, I’m sure that the standard of public debate has become more toxic over the last 10 years..."

If Q&A was really interested in playing the ball he wouldn't be trying to distract from the Hockey Stick he'd say that it was wrong. Instead he's scratching around for references to confuse the matter, and manages to conflate two quite separate issues in his post above. Windschuttle admits a mistake and Q&A et al won't ever. That was another thrust of the article.

GrahamY, you are being dishonest again.

I said above;

"corrections are made when errors are found (it can take time). This was done. Hoaxers do not do this."

Which part do you not understand?

Q&A if you are making an admission, please say after me "The Mann et al Hockey Stick graph is not a valid reconstruction of global temperature". Otherwise I stand by my comments. Happy to make a retraction if I am wrong.

This is hilarious. None of these catastrophists can admit error. They would rather fall on their sword.

It's so funny.

James McCauley must be laughing his grave, probably with bottle in hand and a copy of his poetic hoax, "Ern Malley" in the other.

As the early editor of Quadrant, it is ironic to see the current editor hoaxed and not join the fun.

GrahamY: << I'm responding to your attempts to misrepresent me and suggest that I am abusive. It wasn't Lambert who first pointed out my error, it was Mark Bahnisch. >>

Speaking of misrepresentation, what I actually said was "...Lambert was among the first to point out his own sloppy scholarship in the article that this thread is ostensibly about". In this thread it was actually mac who pointed out the glaring error first, Lambert second and Bahnisch third. Are you claiming that your decision to continue your earlier feud with Lambert on this thread had nothing to do with the fact that his initial post identified an error in scholarship that you found "embarrassing"?

I thought that error was quite ironic, given Windschuttle's only claim to fame is to have found relatively minor errors in the footnotes of the work of his academic betters. Admittedly, your error with respect to 'Social Text' only shot a great big hole in one of your secondary discursive points.

Having said that, of course you have every right to divert discussions about your articles on your site in whatever direction you choose. However, I think it doesn't reflect very well upon you or OLO - any more than Lambert's pursuit of the hapless Jenkins does for him or his blog. I note that Marohasy hasn't quite managed to acknowledge her own errors with respect to her claim that Jenkins was "dismissed" from Bond because of the climate change denialist views in his article in 'The Australian'.

Morgan:

You suggest

<i>Having said that, of course you have every right to divert discussions about your articles on your site in whatever direction you choose</i>

Only thing is it what Lambert who diverted the conversation.

<i>If anyone is interested in Young's conduct in my earlier interactions with Young, please see these posts:</i>

As I said he poisons every single discussion he ever has at other blogs. A few have banned him and Graham ought to consider this action as well.

He brings up discussions from years ago as though they are somehow relevant to the present thread. It's actually quite irrational behavior (and I don't mean this in a smearing way to be honest).

Graham
You know the difference between a hoax and the scientific process.

Spin your anti-science guff all you like (here and in your most recent sermon) – it generates confusion and divisiveness. You do it with impunity, CJ is right about schadenfreude.

Happy to make a retraction if I am wrong.

The ‘2nd Coming’
You wouldn’t have a clue.

jc2,

"As I said he poisons every single discussion he ever has at other blogs. A few have banned him and Graham ought to consider this action as well."

It doesn't matter who 'he' is in principle. Why ban him? If you think he's wrong, you can ignore him or - better still - demonstrate that you are better informed and have better arguments to put forward.

Rationality is preferred to censorship in my opinion. Let an irrational person express their mind and expose their irrationality for all the world to see. Censorship merely creates a diversion to another site - as you've already indicated ('A few have banned him') or possibly more damaging creates a martyr.

True Spikey, I wouldn't ordinarily advocate banning anyone. However consider this. There are two libertarian blogs that have an open door policy and both have banned or moderated him as they simply can't be bothered with his dishonest antics any longer.

He doesn't add to any discussion and simply discourages dialogue in every way. His modis is to basically get attention by suggesting the site owner is a liar or is being dishonest and most times everyone reacts to that sort of attack.

I can't think of anyone else who's like that as he personalizes every discussion and introduces venom in every thing he does.

Example:
Online opinion is a pretty moderate site in the sense that you can read opinion from all sorts or people and political philosophies. Lambert suggests that it isn't so, ignoring the fact that he practices Lysenko science on his own site. He's just not worth worrying about, which is a pretty sad indictment for someone calling themselves an academic.

CJ Mark Bahnisch sent me an email pointing out the error. I asked him to post a comment on the thread. It took him a while to do that. I corrected the point in my article. I don't think that I can do more than that. It doesn't substantially affect my argument, and I don't see how someone like you, who is apparently an academic, could honestly think that it did. It only reflects on the quality of it as a hoax, which was a minor part of what I argued.

And no, I don't have a problem with Lambert picking up an error, and instancing him as one of the problems with Internet debate had nothing to do with that. I don't have a problem with people picking me up on errors. What I have a problem with is me perpetuating a mistake when I should know better. I am embarrassed when I am wrong. So embarrassed that I correct my mistake rather than try to cover it up.

But if you actually look at the exchanges, it was Lambert who came onto the thread and started criticising OLO. Am I not allowed to defend our integrity? Am I not allowed to point out the unprofessional conduct of Lambert?

Q&A, you seem to be saying that I claimed the Hockey Stick was a hoax. I didn't. I said it had been discredited, which it has. You seem to tacitly accept that, but you're not prepared to admit it. That reflects on everything else that you post.

Graham, just to be clear – you say:

“Q&A, you seem to be saying that I claimed the Hockey Stick was a hoax. I didn't. I said it had been discredited, which it has. You seem to tacitly accept that, but you're not prepared to admit it. That reflects on everything else that you post.”

Yet in your response to Lambert on Saturday, 17 January 2009 2:04:12 PM, you said:

“Hoaxes like the hockey stick graph.”

What I objected to was your implicit (if not explicit) statement suggesting the so called MBH98 “hockey stick” a hoax. It was not.

It may have been discredited by the tenacious work of M&M – but, it was not a hoax as you have clearly stated.

Therefore, I’ll bounce one back:
You seem not prepared to accept you said the hockey stick was a hoax. To me, that reflects on everything else that you post, articles included.

Just rechecked again, and you're right. I did call it a hoax when by the time it was finished with it should probably have more correctly been called a fraud. I thought I had checked everything that I said, but apparently not. So, do I take it that you now accept the Hockey Stick is wrong?

Might be worth discussing whether in fact it could be classified as a hoax. There was certainly evidence that Mann knew his statistics were wrong. Circumstantial and otherwise. Can a hoax describe something which is submitted just to trick someone, or must the trickery have the aim of exposing something about the person you are hoaxing?

Dictionary definition; Hoax

noun
a humorous or malicious deception.

Was the hockey stick meant to deceive? Yep.

Was it with malicious intent? Yep.

Here's more;

hoax
noun
joke, jest, prank, trick; ruse, deception, fraud, bluff, confidence trick; informal con, spoof, scam, setup.

It's hoax.

Pretty amazing this hockey stick cult.

Here's Climateaudit carefully and methodically explaining that the newer studies supposedly supporting the stick are actually not independent at all.

I am absolutely gobsmacked by the findings pointing to a cover-up and further collusion to protect the stick.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4945


This sort of stuff totally discredits science and those involved in the fakery ought to be strung up by their hind legs.

Graham, thanks for your reply, I have been busy elsewhere.

I am fully aware of the errors in Mann et al's method. I even think it 'wrong' that it slipped through the review process. However the tenets of their findings have held up to rigorous criticism, imo. Nonetheless, I would have done it differently.

In the same vane, I would no more say Roy Spencer was "wrong" in releasing his work in the blogosphere prior to accepted publication without proper review (I'm still waiting to see his retraction on 'ocean cooling').

I believe it is wrong to imply "the hockey stick" a hoax (or fraud) as that perpetuated on Windschuttle (he will make changes I am sure).

Your question:

<<Can a hoax describe something which is submitted just to trick someone, or must the trickery have the aim of exposing something about the person you are hoaxing?>>

The problem here is that one must assume the *trickery* (and intent) in the first place - it can be debated, I would suggest not here.

Q&A

the hockey stick is a hoax meant to deceived and anyone that makes excuses for the dishonesty is perpetuating it. This also applies to anyone like you that suggests other studies have backed it. Stop the two bob each way. It's a bunch of scientific crap. the only person I've seen suggest otherwise is Lambert and we all know how intellectually dishonest he is. Do you want to be tagged with the same brush as him?

Read the climate audit link i provided and tell exactly what is wrong with it?

go on.