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