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.