Q&A if you are making an admission, please say after me "The Mann et al Hockey Stick graph is not a valid reconstruction of global temperature". Otherwise I stand by my comments. Happy to make a retraction if I am wrong.

This is hilarious. None of these catastrophists can admit error. They would rather fall on their sword.

It's so funny.

James McCauley must be laughing his grave, probably with bottle in hand and a copy of his poetic hoax, "Ern Malley" in the other.

As the early editor of Quadrant, it is ironic to see the current editor hoaxed and not join the fun.

GrahamY: << 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. >>

Speaking of misrepresentation, what I actually said was "...Lambert was among the first to point out his own sloppy scholarship in the article that this thread is ostensibly about". In this thread it was actually mac who pointed out the glaring error first, Lambert second and Bahnisch third. Are you claiming that your decision to continue your earlier feud with Lambert on this thread had nothing to do with the fact that his initial post identified an error in scholarship that you found "embarrassing"?

I thought that error was quite ironic, given Windschuttle's only claim to fame is to have found relatively minor errors in the footnotes of the work of his academic betters. Admittedly, your error with respect to 'Social Text' only shot a great big hole in one of your secondary discursive points.

Having said that, of course you have every right to divert discussions about your articles on your site in whatever direction you choose. However, I think it doesn't reflect very well upon you or OLO - any more than Lambert's pursuit of the hapless Jenkins does for him or his blog. I note that Marohasy hasn't quite managed to acknowledge her own errors with respect to her claim that Jenkins was "dismissed" from Bond because of the climate change denialist views in his article in 'The Australian'.

Morgan:

You suggest

<i>Having said that, of course you have every right to divert discussions about your articles on your site in whatever direction you choose</i>

Only thing is it what Lambert who diverted the conversation.

<i>If anyone is interested in Young's conduct in my earlier interactions with Young, please see these posts:</i>

As I said he poisons every single discussion he ever has at other blogs. A few have banned him and Graham ought to consider this action as well.

He brings up discussions from years ago as though they are somehow relevant to the present thread. It's actually quite irrational behavior (and I don't mean this in a smearing way to be honest).

Graham
You know the difference between a hoax and the scientific process.

Spin your anti-science guff all you like (here and in your most recent sermon) – it generates confusion and divisiveness. You do it with impunity, CJ is right about schadenfreude.

Happy to make a retraction if I am wrong.

The ‘2nd Coming’
You wouldn’t have a clue.