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I wonder where you both stand on the matter of the credibility or otherwise of the "Bringing them home" report as an historical document?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