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?