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?