Magazine Duped by anti-GM Activist – A Case of More of the Same

I SUBSCRIBE to a magazine called Quadrant.   It comes out every couple of months and often includes interesting articles by well-known Australian conservatives, libertarians and mavericks on a range of topics from dinning in New York to global warming and it is the only magazine I read that includes pages of poetry. 

When I first took out my subscription to the magazine it was edited by a fellow called Paddy McGuinness – a Veteran Sydney journalist who apparently once worked for a Russian bank in London and for many years was editor of the Australian Financial Review.  In an interview before his death last year, Paddy said that he had been able “to ‘re-establish’ Quadrant as a ‘sceptical and non-ideological’ journal in the conservative spirit of Samuel Johnson, the literary colossus of 18th century England.”

In 2004, Mr McGuiness published a piece I wrote about The Australian newspapers’ Save the Murray campaign (Quadrant Magazine, December 2004 – Volume XLVIII Number 12).  I sent it to Quadrant on the basis he was probably the only editor in Australia brave enough to defy that newspaper.  Indeed at least one Australian think tank feared that if it published my piece this important national newspaper may never again publish articles by its staff.

The new editor of Quadrant is a fellow called Keith Windschuttle.   He is also controversial and disliked by many for the disparaging comments on the recorded history of aboriginal- European relationships in his book ‘The Fabrication of Aboriginal History: Volume One: Van Diemen’s Land 1803-1847’ (2002).  

Mr Windschuttle has a reputation for complaining about the sloppiness of research in his area of expertise, Australian history, and in particular his criticism of authors not carefully checking the authenticity of sources of information.   

Now Mr Windschuttle, as the new editor of Quadrant, is accused of not checking the authenticity of information published in the January- February issue of Quadrant as journalist and anti-GM activist Katherine Wilson has duped him into publishing an article on GM which is claimed to be a hoax.   The article is a hoax in so much as Ms Wilson falsely claimed to be a Dr Sharon Gould, with a PhD in biotechnology, fabricated some of her sources of information and apparently deliberately misquoted the work of CSIRO scientists.   

Ms Wilson’s aim was to expose Mr Windschuttle as gullible and those who support biotechnology as naive.    Perhaps Mr Windschuttle was gullible, but it needs to be remembered that Quadrant is not an academic journal and he was clearly publishing opinion.   Indeed if an editor was expected to make sure every footnote and claim in opinion pieces was carefully checked for accuracy and authenticity then the business of publishing would probably grind to a near-halt.   

Editors reasonably assume that writers making submissions to their publications have good intentions and that the contributor is ultimately responsible for the accuracy of citations and footnotes.   Indeed this is explicitly stated in the note to would-be contributors of some peer-reviewed scientific journals.

The late author Michael Crichton wrote, “The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance.”

Dr Crichton was referring to the barrage of misinformation on a range of scientific issues.   It is everywhere in the popular press, and when I routinely do footnote checks on the writing of Australian academics in the environmental area I am often dismayed by the mismatch between claims in journals, books and reports and evidence presented in the listed citations.   When I discussed this issue  a few years ago with a member of the much acclaimed and influential Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, the Professor suggested that I not concern myself too much with detail because the document of most concern to me at that time was, in his opinion, about policy and “progressing an agenda” despite its scientific appearance.   I left the meeting more concerned than ever about the problem of misinformation – the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda as Dr Crichton described it.

Dr Crichton’s article on this issue continued, “We must daily decide whether the threats we face are real, whether the solutions we are offered will do any good, whether the problems we’re told exist are in fact real problems, or non-problems. Every one of us has a sense of the world, and we all know that this sense is in part given to us by what other people and society tell us; in part generated by our emotional state, which we project outward; and in part by our genuine perceptions of reality. In short, our struggle to determine what is true is the struggle to decide which of our perceptions are genuine, and which are false because they are handed down, or sold to us, or generated by our own hopes and fears.”

I would suggest that this job is not made any easier by activist-journalists who deliberately set out to deceive like Ms Wilson and her recent attack on Quadrant and Mr Windschuttle.  It is remarkable that this hoax has made it onto the front page of The Australian and The Age newspapers without explicit condemnation and incredible that online news service Crikey has actually promoted the hoax as of public service. 

This hoax is by a known activist peddling misinformation against a new technology under the guise of science to discredit a reputable magazine and in particular its new editor.     The hoax is really just more misinformation from those who distrust science and is illustrative of the increasing blurring of the line between advocacy and science journalism.

I suggest revenge by way of support for Quadrant.  Do your bit, follow this link and subscribe to the magazine: https://www.quadrant.org.au/subscribe

,

105 Responses to Magazine Duped by anti-GM Activist – A Case of More of the Same

  1. Roger Kalla January 10, 2009 at 12:25 pm #

    Dear Jennifer,

    as a member of the science community that has been the un/intended collateral of this ‘cultural jamming’ exercise by a self professed activist journalist masquerading as a scientist and in particular a biotechnologist I fully agree with the sentiment of your article.

    This might have been a hox played by an activist journalist on a editor of a journal which she wasn’t particularly fond of but it was no practical joke for scientists at CSIRO or ag biotechnologists in general in this country that were also painted by the same brush.

    Even more disturbing is that serious writers in The Age like Dr Lesley Cannold, an expert commentator on ethics in science (I suppose she isn’t a fictive character too) suggests that ‘the joke” played on Keith Windschuttle ( and by association on ag biotechnologists) was in any way justifiable. I would suggest that Dr Cannold examines the bigger picture and look to other groups that the hoax might inconvenience or cause damage to their reputation.

    I find some solace in that others, from both sides of the history/culture war, have come to the same conclusion, as expressed in a couple of letters to The Age. Academic engagement is a serious business and someone that puts on the robes of academia to act as an invisibility cloak must understand the moral obligations that are associated with talking the talk and walking the walk of scientist.

    Regards,

    Roger

  2. hunter January 10, 2009 at 12:35 pm #

    As your e-mail exchange ebtween the BBC and the AGW promotion community proves, the activists and promoters are not reigned in by any sense of ethic or integrity. The only thing they are after is controlling the public square of ideas and in ultimately controlling the public.
    I would submit, however, that the entire AGW movement is simply an exercise on a world scale of exactly what this hack has done to Quadrant.

  3. Luke January 10, 2009 at 1:04 pm #

    The point by the hoaxers was well made.

    The article was only accepted as it pandered to what they wanted to hear.

    Sucked in and makes a total mockery of their so-called claims for objectivity.

    Any whinging by denialists and pseudo-sceptics is pure sour grapes.

    Hahahahahahahahaha !

  4. Slim January 10, 2009 at 1:08 pm #

    “The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance.”

    “I would suggest that this job is not made any easier by activist-journalists who deliberately set out to deceive…”

    “The hoax is really just more misinformation from those who distrust science and is illustrative of the increasing blurring of the line between advocacy and science journalism.”

    Oh, Jennifer, the irony!

  5. Ian Castles January 10, 2009 at 1:31 pm #

    In its recent media release ‘Hard core data shows 14 per cent drop in coral growth on GBR since 1990’ (Jan. 2, 2009), the Australian Institute of Marine Science promoted a paper by three of its scientists that had just been published in the ‘prestigious’ international journal ‘Science.’ Subsequently, in a post to another thread on this blog, Luke facetiously asked ‘Timmy’ [his sobriquet for Tim Curtin] whether the editor of ‘Quadrant’ had vetted his (Curtin’s) piece ‘like the GM hoax’?, and added ‘You know quality journal and all that – hahahahahahahahaha …..’

    Is it really so funny? In May 2005, the ‘prestigious’ journal that published the AIMS’ scientists’ findings last week published a news feature that began ‘With speed and efficiency that will make waves in laboratories and legislatures around the world, scientists have created nearly a dozen new line of human embryonic stem (ES) cells’ (‘Science’ 20 May 2005, pps 1096-97). ‘Science’ referred to a paper by a group of 15 Korean scientists that it had published the previous year (‘Science’, 12 March 2004, p. 1669), and went on to stress the importance of a further paper by 24 Korean (and one US) scientists that it just published online (subsequently published in ‘Science’, 17 June 2005, p. 1777).

    According to the news item the new findings by the Koreans represented ‘a breakthrough that I [the US-based co-author] didn’t think would happen for decades’. A biologist at Harvard was quoted as saying the Korean team’s work was ‘spectacular’. And an MIT scientist said that ‘it [the Korean work] puts the discussion on a very firm footing now. People will have to rethink the argument that it’s not efficient.’

    Unfortunately ‘Science’ had been the victim of a hoax. The first-named author of both of the ‘stem cell’ papers that the journal had accepted was Hwang Woo Suk, who was soon afterwards dismissed from his post for faking his research results and illegally obtaining human eggs for his experiments. Steve McIntyre posted an illuminating chronology of this episode at Climate Audit. And in his ‘Science and public policy’ (2007) Aynsley Kellow quotes a correspondent to ‘Science’ as noting that ‘If the “Science” editorial staff had paid more attention to the science and less to the sensation … the impact of this sorry affair might have been much less’ (p. 120).

  6. J.Hansford. January 10, 2009 at 2:21 pm #

    This is a perfect example of how the left think in my opinion. It’ is akin to a mugger waiting for a lone victim to walk down the street, who then approaches the person to remark that it is exceedingly dangerous to be alone at night on the street and then carry out their evil intentions to prove themselves right….

    This writer also creates a trap of her own malevolent intent…. then springs it with a triumphant, “I told you so”…. A bit bizarre in my book and unethical.

    But it is also more than that, it is a reflection of the evil intent within them. Ultimately it wasn’t Keith Windschuttle who was at fault, he is actually the victim of an attack, and typical of the left…. they blame the victim.

  7. Gordon Robertson January 10, 2009 at 3:08 pm #

    J. Hansford “This is a perfect example of how the left think in my opinion”.

    Just a bit of feedback for you, with no ill-will intended. The moment you ad hom the left, I turn off from anything else you have to say. I am not a leftist in the true sense of the word and I’m not right-leaning either. I like to think I have transcended those ideologies and labels and that I’m able to take a human being as he/she comes. To me, it’s not what you say or think that marks you, it’s what you ‘do’ physically.

    One of the kindest, most compassionate leaders we ever had in Canada was the Rev. Tommy Douglas. Tommy made speeches that came from his heart, and he could move people along the lines of Martin Luther King. He was the Premier of Saskatchewan for years, and although he never held power federally, he managed to convince Paul Martin Sr., a liberal, to have publically-funded medical health care (medicare) pushed through parliament. Medicare has become so well liked and entrenched, that even right-wingers defend it. Tommy Douglas was exremely well-liked by ordinary folk who cared for people with heart.

    When you put down the left, you are putting down Tommy Douglas in my eyes, and I turn off from that kind of rhetoric. You seem to be confusing wealthy Yuppies and ignorant activists with the left. Some of them may hold left-wing views but it doesn’t make all left-wingers idiots because a few of them are idiots. The same holds for right-wingers. To me, Al Gore and Scharzenneggar are right-wingers, and they are at the forefront of the AGW crusade.

    When you put down left-wingers, you may think you are hitting out at the Stalins and Mao’s of this world, but you are also hitting out at genuinely decent people, like Tommy Douglas, many of whom support your notion of climate change. It makes little sense to blame this AGW nonsense on the left because many of it’s advocate are Yuppie, neo-conservatives, like Schwarzennegar, Gore and the premier of our province here in BC.

  8. Captain Jack Walker January 10, 2009 at 3:27 pm #

    Yer I been readin’ about this Media Maelstrom and awondered to meself where be the Kraken to causen such a hose pipin’.

    I be thinkin’ that Capn Windshcuttle, be wind roarin’ too much and giving land lubbin’ low brows too much free wind in the race to the troof.

    Crikey a source, haw haw. Me I blame Blackbush Blair (I seen his operation scar), he has been a speakin to these low life bottom feeders giving them hairs and graces and the odd bit of audience so they actually think they can navigate the current affairs by sextant and moon and stars.

    They bin readin an hatin’ Blair so long, they actually think they is a mite higher than low brow.

    Just show them the poop deck and sail away to victory and footnote.

    Aw wouldn’t that be rotten me timbers and shivering me downpipe I’m in the wrong port agin, I thort I was on Pirategroupies.blogspot.org

    Apologies all. Yer look like a bunch of mermaid munchers ter me.

  9. xsask January 10, 2009 at 3:32 pm #

    I hpe you are joking about that hypocrite Tommy the commie Douglas, instigator of a huge, money sucking, inefficient so called health care system. His ideas and policys drove many of us away from Sask and left it with bloodsucking socialist governments based on jealousy and envy.

  10. Louis Hissink January 10, 2009 at 3:56 pm #

    Al Gore is a neoconservative? I think the Fabians regard him as one of theirs; my ALP friends certainly do.

    It’s gratifying that Luke continues his mean spirited approach here, but the gloating of the author on Crikey was a stark reminder just how nasty these types can get. I think its a symptom of not much existing between the ears.

  11. Louis Hissink January 10, 2009 at 4:02 pm #

    J. Hansford,

    I have to agree with Gordon on this because I also know many lefties who are much like Rev. Tommy Douglas, though I do become a little concerned when these nice people disparage conservatives as Tories or other perjoratives.

    As for the author who lied to Windschuttle, what is it with these clowns that they have no qualms about lying to score a political point.

  12. Graeme Bird January 10, 2009 at 4:12 pm #

    “Oh, Jennifer, the irony!”

    No slim there is no irony here. YOU ARE AN IDIOT. You have fallen for this baseless racket. You are a self-selected moron slim. Why are you commenting on stuff when you just have no idea. You are a blockhead mate. You are thick. You are just a real thickhead. I go to your site and its just an exercise in endless stupidity.

    And you are dishonest. Because your snarky comment would seem to indicate that you have some evidence.

    WELL LETS HAVE IT THEN YOU STUPID PRICK!!!!!!

    How did you manage to fall for this stupidity slim?

    Were your dropped on your head as a toddler. Explain yourself dickhead.

    Just what is it with you blockheads. You’ve got no evidence for this jive. You’ve never had any. Slim you are an idiot. Get used to it. You are as thick as to bricks and you are a parasite. You are a drain on the rest of us.

  13. Graeme Bird January 10, 2009 at 4:24 pm #

    Hey Louis. What do you make of this fellow Bill Gadea? He’s got this 13 part YouTube series he’s calling “Einsteins Idiots”. I prefer to think of it as “Physics At Last.” I think he’s just sensational. Its decisively pushed me over into the electric universe camp.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I just cannot get over it. Imagine how much life would be easier if we didn’t have to carry all that dead wood like Slim. If all these low-wattage types like Slim had to go out and get a proper job.

  14. Stephen Williams January 10, 2009 at 4:26 pm #

    I am unsure what this so called ‘Hoax’ was meant to expose. The creator of the ‘hoax’ article seems to be upset by Windshuttle showing that many historians faked their sources and even fabricated evidence. So she writes an accurate opinion piece which is mostly true and adds in a couple of dodgy footnotes. This is meant to do what exactly? How do you compare professional historians fabricating evidence to support an idealogical position with an opinion journal not fully checking every bit of an article (one of many) submitted for publication? I really don’t get what the creator of the Quadrant article was trying to prove. Was she trying to demonstrate that if Windshuttle did not check all her footnotes 100% that means that his checking of the historians footnotes was faulty?
    I really cannot see what she was trying to expose, I agree with the opinion which puts this in the category of fraud rather than hoax. It was a reasonable well written article but well short of a hoax.

  15. DHMO January 10, 2009 at 4:58 pm #

    Well I am already a subscriber of Quadrant and have already read the article. I was not so interested in GM as the general thrust of the article. The title was “Scare Campaigns and Science Reporting”, does Sharon Gould aka Ms Wilson maintain because she mislead about the GM detail the rest of the article is worthless? The message I get from it is that science is now driven by the media who listen to activists, who wish to control us by fear. She gives examples that are self evident. By actually being an activist she endorses the scare campaign as being the correct way to influence science. I think we need to take up her statements about GM and feed them back to her as being what she believes.

    Windschuttle is a man who will be remembered long after any of us here. Currently our historians are busy killing history using postmodernism. That is you invent what happened in the past by creating it in the mold of the present. He has convinced me that what I have been told about aboriginal history is a fabrication by activists. This year we will here a lot more about him and aboriginal history because he will expose a great lie of our time.

  16. Jan Pompe January 10, 2009 at 5:04 pm #

    “The point by the hoaxers was well made.”

    I think the point that they lack any sort of moral compass is extremely well made.

  17. DHMO January 10, 2009 at 5:23 pm #

    This “Dud Cheque” as Quadrant has put it also has distracted us from a particularly damning critique of the Garnaut report in the same issue. I suggest we should all read it. One statement is that if we reduce the levels of CO2 as requested the lack of the so call pollutant will kill us. Jennifer I think a discussion of it would be worthwhile.

    BTW
    Q: Why did God create Climatologists?
    A: To make economists look good.

  18. Luke January 10, 2009 at 5:27 pm #

    Come on Ian …. these dudes thrive taking cynical pot shots at others. For them to be taken down like this is excellent. Makes the point. Is it a journal that counts or makes a serious contribution to Australian life ? Is anyone serious going to quote it as a reference.

    Louis – it’s not really that nasty is it. I laugh at you all the time. They just had their leg pulled. Have the authors sought fame or glory – nah – just making a point.

    The fact that Birdy has gone red-line definitely means it got home ! Biting like a big barramundi.

  19. SJT January 10, 2009 at 6:14 pm #

    Windshuttle has made his name by repeatedly accusing others of being slack, lazy and incompetent. Someone just put him to his own test.

  20. Louis Hissink January 10, 2009 at 6:28 pm #

    Luke: ” it’s not really that nasty is it. I laugh at you all the time. They just had their leg pulled. Have the authors sought fame or glory – nah – just making a point.”

    Yes we have all noticed your imbecilic HAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHHAHAHHAHAH’s – it’s somewhat manic – and also means you haven’t a clue how to counter any of my points except by laughing at them.

    Windschuttle did not have his leg pulled, he was targetted by the supporters of the black armband version of Aboriginal History – and what makes it even more a heinous crime is the fact that Windschuttle was a person of the political left until he started checking facts. No greater crime is committed than by those who reject socialism, in all its hues, as Windschuttle did.

    Her goal was to embarrass Widnschuttle and to belittle his position as editor.

    I tire of the character assassinations your lot inflict on decent people – I no longer visit ardent ALP supporters much anymore because I get irritated by the mean spirited derogatory terms used to describe people. President Bush is depicted as a moron, John Howard as “Little Johnnie”, but when Bill Clinton was president, oh now, America then was not the enemy but a comrade. It’s particularly startling to be informed by someone close to you that she hates Bush. How on earth one could utter that is beyond me, but hate is something that your mob have in abundance.

    Luke, you stink of sincerity. Laugh as much as you like but from experience I expect to be having the last laugh.

  21. janama January 10, 2009 at 6:30 pm #

    Windshuttle has made his name by repeatedly accusing others of being slack, lazy and incompetent. Someone just put him to his own test.

    no they didn’t – they put his publication to the test through dishonesty.

    There’s noting gracious about that!

  22. Louis Hissink January 10, 2009 at 6:41 pm #

    Graeme: “Hey Louis. What do you make of this fellow Bill Gadea? He’s got this 13 part YouTube series he’s calling “Einsteins Idiots”. I prefer to think of it as “Physics At Last.” I think he’s just sensational. Its decisively pushed me over into the electric universe camp.”

    Oh? I had better have a gander at his Youtube stuff.

    By the way and excellent blog is http://www.oilismastery.blogspot.com – deals with EU, Abiotic oil and other relevant stuff. Author is a NYC financial guy with, obviously, a great hobby.

    I will get back on the Einstein thing after I look at the video.

  23. Louis Hissink January 10, 2009 at 6:44 pm #

    DHMO

    Actually economist Kenneth Galbraith made the original statement : Economic prediction was invented to make astrologers look good, or to that effect. Read it a couple of days ago on the web but can’t remember where.

    🙂

  24. janama January 10, 2009 at 6:53 pm #

    Maybe this Louis?

    Economic prediction was invented to make astrologers and climatologists look good.

  25. Louis Hissink January 10, 2009 at 6:55 pm #

    Quadrant article – come to think of it, I don’t think I read it – or I did and the topic was not of immediate interest, so I skimmed it.

    But I do always read columnists Frank Devine and Peter Ryan.

    And while Padraic had his editorial page, Keith doesn’t, since, unlike Padraic who was essentially a journalist, I suspect it isn’t in his makeup to need such an outlet.

    Padraic was also hated by the ALP heavies, like Paul Keating and Bob Carr.

  26. Louis Hissink January 10, 2009 at 7:02 pm #

    DHMO

    heh heh, pay that! 🙂

    What really makes me belly laugh is the fact that the IPCC predictions, (this is a nonsense because all the IPCC does is summarise the various scientific papers, including the ones on economics, and publishes it – essentially a collectivist interpretation of a collection of politically biased papers written to ensure future funding), are not predictions but a summary of the various predictions made by many predictors published in the peer censored journals.

    There is no QAQC nor KPI factors documented in the IPCC summaries either.

    Tsk tsk.

    Another reason for another raising of funds to do another study to report on this, and the punters buy it.

  27. Luke January 10, 2009 at 7:30 pm #

    Look at the little apologists go. Trying cover up that their little right wing propaganda rag got roasted.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (Louis – the denialist kook-kat taught be that one….. blame him)

    nah nah nah nah nah naaaaaaa

    And Timmy Curtin referred us to Quadrant for his “excellent” latest exposition. He even suggested I “purchase” a copy at my local newsagent. Oh my. Thank heavens one lives in a quality locale which doesn’t stock such dross. ROTFL !!

  28. Louis Hissink January 10, 2009 at 8:03 pm #

    Graeme

    Into no 6 of the You tube expositions of Einstein’s idiots – will his idiots posting here look?

    He does put Hawking into his proper place as well – though why our culture elevates such people as objects of reverence is unclear.

  29. Louis Hissink January 10, 2009 at 8:05 pm #

    Luke.

    An idiot unexplained, is the cause of our dilemma.

  30. Ian Castles January 10, 2009 at 8:18 pm #

    Yes Luke, ‘Quadrant’ is a journal that counts, and makes a serious contribution to Australian life. Your ‘quality locale’ is the poorer because your newsagent doesn’t stock it. I’ve read the January-February issue from cover to cover, and I don’t agree that it thrives by taking cynical pot shots at others.

    I especially enjoyed reading in ‘Quadrant’ the brilliant speech that Judge Jim Spigelman, Chief Justice of NSW, gave in launching the collection of lectures edited by Justin Gleeson and Ruth Higgins (‘Rediscovering Rhetoric: Law, Language and the Practice of Persuasion’, Federation Press, 2008) – a collection which His Honour described as ‘the most innovative and intellectually challenging education project that the NSW Bar Association has ever attempted.’ Jim praised the ‘insightful contribution’ to the book by Graham Freudenberg, ‘my old comrade, as E.G. Whitlam used to call us – and still does’, and went on to quote from Susan Thomas’s chapter citing Garry Wills’s description of the 272 words of the Gettysburg Address as ‘the words that remade America’ – and her comparison of that speech with the rhetorical skills displayed by President-elect Obama in the announcement of his candidacy for the Democrat nomination in Lincoln’s home town of Springfield, Illinois.

    I also read with interest and pleasure the account by Peter Vallee of his dealings with the SBS on the series ‘First Australians.’ Peter was the author of a splendid study of Aboriginal people, pastoralists, police and missionaries in Central Australia during the 1880s (‘God, Guns and Government on the Central Australian Frontier’, 2007, 460 pps). In his article in ‘Quadrant’, he tells of a column by Alan Ramsay in the Sydney Morning Herald about two years ago, in which Ramsay held former Foreign Minister Alexander Downer to account for the fact that his grandfather, John Downer, was the barrister who defended William Willshire against a charge of murder for killing aboriginals 120 years ago. That made John Downer, in Ramsay’s mind, ‘an accessory to Willshire’s offences, and thereby incriminated his grandson.’

    If there is another side to the story that Peter Vallee tells, we will learn about it in due course from the Letters columns of ‘Quadrant’. Meanwhile, one can only deplore the hypocrisy of the Sydney Morning Herald, which in an editorial today said that Keith Windschuttle ‘stands accused of being an editor who failed to exhibit the same ferocious zeal for fact-checking he brought to bear on fellow historians who wandered before his cross hairs.’

    Keith Windschuttle is no more responsible for the deception perpetrated by ‘Sharon Gould’ than was the editor of Science, Donald Kennedy, responsible for publishing the two scientific papers that incorporated the fraudulent findings of Woo Suk Hwang and his colleagues at Seoul National University. The SMH demeans itself with this petty point-scoring.

  31. Jeremy C January 10, 2009 at 10:00 pm #

    Jennifer,

    “……..Dr Crichton was referring to the barrage of misinformation on a range of scientific issues. It is everywhere in the popular press, and when I routinely do footnote checks on the writing of Australian academics in the environmental area I am often dismayed by the mismatch between claims in journals, books and reports and evidence presented in the listed citations……..”

    “……..Indeed if an editor was expected to make sure every footnote and claim in opinion pieces was carefully checked for accuracy and authenticity then the business of publishing would probably grind to a near-halt…….”

    It seems from the above you are trying to have it both ways.

    What happened to Keith Windschuttle was not only embarrassing to him but it was also embarrassing to people who are fellow ideological travellers with him. Until the hoax blows over they will have to face not being able to loftily refer to Quadrant because of the rasberry response that is going to come back at them.

    So its a blow to pride……… the greatest sin, and something that Samuel Johnson regularly sought to expose.

    WRT to Ms Wilson being an ‘activist journalist’, I would say Keith Windschuttle is also an activist…… perhaps they are made for each other.

    But Jennifer I have to agree with you on the sloppiness of a lot of science journalism. My personal view of one aspect that causes inaccuracy in science journalism is that it in many outlets it has to be ‘fun’. Bugger that! I want it to be interesting and correct not fun.

    There are good science journalists but they have to be able to fight their corner in editorial resources. One I particularly like is Ben Goldacre with his ‘Bad Science’ column in the Guardian. His ruthlessness in demolishing ignorance, hype and bad thinking is a joy to read (even if you look down your nose at the Guardian). His success is demonstrated by the number of times people threaten to sue him (how many science journalists do you know who get threatened legally?).

    The good thing about all this is that everyone will be more careful when publishing science based subjects……. especially when the name Keith Windschuttle’s name is raised. So overall the whole affair is a public service.

  32. bazza January 10, 2009 at 10:05 pm #

    Jennifer says ‘The hoax is really just more misinformation from those who distrust science and is illustrative of the increasing blurring of the line between advocacy and science journalism.
    I suggest revenge by way of support for Quadrant.’

    Slim picked up the extraordinary irony in Jennifer touting on advocacy and science journalism. ( But how tweet and sweet he got Louis and Birdie together.)
    This Quadrant issue seems to be about the ethics of how far a highly motivated advocate should go ( revenge?), and also about what is an advocate. The introduction by Jennifer set out most of the issues and she did do a well researched job on the Murray in Quadrant. But then there is her GMO advocacy to muddy the waters. Are we now to end the charade – this blog is not even-handed and about evidence generally, but simply about advocacy. Or maybe you can be an advocate for the truth.
    This appears under a banner that proclaims:
    ‘ a forum for discussion of issues concerning the natural environment’. Do advocates run forums.?

  33. Luke January 10, 2009 at 10:43 pm #

    Ian – when you speak up against the corruption of the science process here on blog I might listen to you.

    Of course Bazza is right – it’s simply blatant advocacy and the themes are checklist – but hey we all know that don’t we? and I’m OK with it ….:-)

    Windschuttle should just say “fair cop” – you got me. I’m sure the journal will keep going and you’ll all keep reading it.

    Peer review in science is not perfect either. But like democracy it’s probably the best we’ve got.

  34. hunter January 11, 2009 at 12:11 am #

    So Quadrant made a mistake in publishing an opinion piece.
    Will Science suffer here for publishing as a main article fraud on cloning?
    Usually when a theft or vandalism is committed, the perpetrator is the bad person and the victim is, well, the victim.
    But in Luke-land, and others, fraud and theft are just useful tools to support his underlying religious faith.

  35. J.Hansford. January 11, 2009 at 3:38 am #

    Comment from: Gordon Robertson January 10th, 2009 at 3:08 pm ……….

    You responded negatively to my usage of “leftist”….. Perhaps I should have used Socialist then?…..

    Instead of me trying to write a long winded explanation of Socialist thought, ideology and history. Try watching the Documentary, or read the book ” Heaven on Earth, The rise and fall of Socialism” by Joshua Muravchik…….. You may get a better sense of my context when I use the term Leftist.

    Also, don’t confuse the well established tenets of social responsibility as they have been founded by our Judeao Christian traditions, with the corrupt Ideological manifesto that is Socialism and it’s evolution in this modern era….. Socialism is an immoral and cruel Ideology….. That shapes the minds of weak people like our intrepid Ms Wilson and strips from her all good reason and integrity, as her part in the hoax would suggest.

    You say Gordon, that you have “transcended those ideologies and labels”….. I say that you don’t understand them, nor can identify the fundamental differences that would allow a Lenin or Hitler to rise to power in times of stress. Would you understand the differences to be one of the few good men to stand against evil… would you recognize what you seem to misunderstand.

    One must identify with a set of values based on human compassion… This is Christian thinking… Not socialist…. I’d say your Tommy Douglas was reflecting his Christian fundamentals in his desire for Medicare ….. However, the economy to run a Social system, not to be confused with Socialist system, is purely the realm of capitalist expertise…. Socialism’s ideology has failed time and again to fund it’s social reforms and policies… catastrophically in every instance of any scale.

    So separate the terms and understand them… Social responsibility, economy, democracy.

    Socialism failed in all three.

    And what has all this to do with Ms Wilson and her part in a Hoax….. She is the vanguard for a socialist revolution…… The elite that stir and destroy… She wrote, or supported the writing of lies for political reasons. That is their method and she is attractive to it because she possesses no values to give her pause for thought.

  36. J.Hansford. January 11, 2009 at 5:00 am #

    Speaking of Christianity and Socialism…. Our PM labeled himself a “Christian Socialist” back before the election in ’07, in an interview on the ABC…

    Considering that Socialism rejects the idea of Religion utterly, it would seem our Dear leader is a bit confused in identifying political ideology himself….

    Perhaps the Christian-Socialist is a Christian Democrat…???

    Or perhaps people experimenting politically with Socially responsible policies should drop the corpse laden term “Socialism” from their vernacular and examine the ideologies behind the terms used to label more appropriate political distinctions. It may be, that they will discover that they are not, nor never were, Socialists in the first place…..

    :-)…….. Hmmm seem to have wandered OT.

  37. Jeremy C January 11, 2009 at 6:54 am #

    J. Hansford,

    “Considering that Socialism rejects the idea of Religion utterly, ”

    So tell me, where in socialism does it reject either christianity or religion in general?

    If you look at your history of the formation of the labour party (UK) many members were dissenting christians e.g. Kier Hardie. And of course the conservative side of politics has always had christians as well.

  38. Slim January 11, 2009 at 7:18 am #

    While I’m sure the general mood of hysteria and paranoia from many commenters here in the ad homenims against all things and persons of teh left makes you feel good and bonded together, it does nothing to advance the causes of Jennifer’s advocacy work.

    Birdy is suggesting that I am unproductively employed because I teach in the public sector, in a small town. According to Birdy all people in the employ of public entities are tax-eaters and should be sacked or euthenased, or something.

    Over the years my students have expressed their gratitude for the contribution I have made to their lives. I give generously of my time and skills to various community projects and have yet to come across a local who doesn’t think I’m a thoroughly decent fellow. Graeme, remind us of what it is you do that is so productive for society and makes you feel that can disparage the occupations and character of others.

    That’s the problem with assuming too much about other people, based on one’s prejudices and textual exchanges on political blog sites – you’ve really no idea about another’s character. It’s all ill-informed projection and conjecture. Better to stick to the topic at hand.

    But then again, where would advocacy and activism be without ad hominem argument?

  39. Neville January 11, 2009 at 8:17 am #

    In a nutshell this is all about praise for a leftwinger by leftwingers for TELLING LIES, pretty much par for the course.
    But remember former lefty Keith Windshuttle is hated with a vengeance by his former friends because he became enlightened and now uses facts and tells the truth after studying those facts.
    In other words lefties love lefties who are deceptive and are liars.

  40. Slim January 11, 2009 at 8:43 am #

    “In other words lefties love lefties who are deceptive and are liars.”

    Hilarious alliteration, Neville. Got the scientific evidence for that, or is it just your narrow-minded prejudice showing?

    QED

  41. Graeme Bird January 11, 2009 at 9:02 am #

    Whose this idiot?

    “Windshuttle has made his name by repeatedly accusing others of being slack, lazy and incompetent. Someone just put him to his own test.”

    What a moronic thing to say. The magazine goes out and has to hit a deadline. You have to get things done with some sort of despatch. This might be a foreign notion to many of you in the public service bludgeocracy but it is nonetheless the case.

    What Windschuttle was talking about was the systematic attempts of leftists to mislead. This is not what Windschuttle did, its what Katherine did. You know this Jive about “I’ll show Keith ho ho”. I mean its childish. Its moronic. Which means its just par for the course for dumb-leftwingers.

    What Windschuttle found can actually be viewed as holocaust-denial at the second stage. Once these idiots could no longer deny the mass-murder that socialism always and everywhere lead to the only comeback was to practice equivalence. So that the British Empire or Australians had to be equally as culpable as the communist mass-murderers.

    One way or another leftists are all holocaust deniers, enablers or excusers, and what Windschuttle found, with this systematic academic fraud, was a sort of spinoff of this kind of behaviour.

  42. Graeme Bird January 11, 2009 at 9:06 am #

    “Hilarious alliteration, Neville. Got the scientific evidence for that, or is it just your narrow-minded prejudice showing?”

    Of course. Look at the last American election. It wasn’t all deluded conservatives that voted for Barry Soetoro you know. There’s a statistical test right there. A fraud who is not allowed to even run for President. But because he’s such a conman they love him. Like they thought Joe Wilson was marvellous because he was a compulsive liar. And that went for Clinton as well. Lied all the time and was much admired for it.

  43. Graeme Bird January 11, 2009 at 9:21 am #

    “Graeme

    Into no 6 of the You tube expositions of Einstein’s idiots – will his idiots posting here look?

    He does put Hawking into his proper place as well – though why our culture elevates such people as objects of reverence is unclear.”

    You can see why I was spruiking push-gravity. I feel a bit ashamed of myself now. But it was the only way to try and look at gravity that wasn’t voodoo if you are thinking in free-standing particles. I’ve always only thought in those terms. I’m sure I would not have had I studied the history of science a bit more. Its just a stunning job how he’s put all this together. I think I sussed him out about three days ago. Finally. Physics at last. The real deal and not all that silly-talk.

    I’ve been attempting to show people what an inherently dopey idea the Big Bang is. And its a real science-maffia deal there also. There is something seriously wrong with these people. I thought that the Keynesians were the stupidest people around before I ran into the warmers. Now I’m thinking that the special relativity crowd may be even more handicapped again. Since its they that assume that to disagree with them is to fail to understand the theory. They think its a failure of imagination. Not even the Keynesians are quite that stupid.

  44. Slim January 11, 2009 at 9:38 am #

    “One way or another leftists are all holocaust deniers, enablers or excusers”

    Excuse me? Empirical evidence for that? I, for one, am not, other than in the alternate logic universe known only to Graeme. Absolute statements are really unhelpful in discussion – and rather useless in advancing a case because they can be defeated by singular exceptions. And how do we end up here in a discussion about activist advocacy?

    Again, it is a poor argument that relies on ad hominem attacks. What next? Attacking the character of opponents’ mothers? The quality of this type of commentary undermines the causes espoused by Jennifer and her supporters.

  45. Slim January 11, 2009 at 9:46 am #

    I’m on moderation now? Why would that be? Making unreasonable or illogical statements? Abusing fellow commenters with foul language and character assassination?

    Or do my view points need to be vetted for suitability and relevance? The holocaust for chrissakes?

  46. Slim January 11, 2009 at 9:49 am #

    What happened to my previous comment waiting moderation?

  47. Louis Hissink January 11, 2009 at 10:43 am #

    Graeme Bird

    “I’ve been attempting to show people what an inherently dopey idea the Big Bang is. And its a real science-maffia deal there also.”

    You need to be very careful here because any culture that is based on some religious belief, such as the West’s basis in the Judean-Christian one, must also have its science compatible with those beliefs. Astronomy has little choice but to assume a Creation as it’s core principles, especially if most astronomers might also have a sincerely held religious belief.

    Stephen Hawking wrote in his book, A Brief History of Time, recollections of an astronomy conference held in Rome during the late 1980’s in which the Pope explicitly instructed the assembled astronomers that their function was to explain reality 1 second after creation, or in words to that effect while the church had it’s domain in the period before that, ie from time = 0 to Time =1 when the astronomers become involved, and they were not to stick their nose into the area that the Holy See has dominion over.

    I can’t see any science getting any popular support if it rejects the core belief of its community but I have realised there is a way out of this dilemma but it’s too early for this to be widely advertised – too many other ideas need to be published before the next paradigm will logically appear and displace the present fallacies.

    The whole area of relativistic theory is simply a surrealistic mathematical abstraction – and astronomy has really stalled itself in this mathematic cul de sac, because remember, a black hole was initially a mathematical concept to replace the centre of gravity of a galaxy with a quasi-physical object which could supply the necessary mass to explain the physics of galaxy rotation. It was put there to make Isaac Newton’s equations work. (And they can’t seem to muster the intellectual rigor to get themselves back into empirical science, more the tragedy, so we will have to wait for this lot to pass, before new ideas can replace them).

    The plasma scientists instead use the Maxwell Lorentz equations to describe galaxy motion and don’t need to add mass to make it work.

    This is what happens when a group of scientists internalise their work by not having a multidisciplinary approach. I stumbled on the plasma connection from having to understand local aboriginal accounts of what their ancestors observed in a geological sense. Peratt also stumbled on this with his world-wide petroglyphic work and basically something globally happened 10,000 years ago that prompted all cultures to have some memory of a past global catastrophe – every group of humans who survived this event chisled their impressions into rock as petroglyphs found world-wide. Whatever the reason, the earth seemed to have experienced a doubling or more of the solar wind causing long term spectacular plasma phenomena in the atmosphere – Stuart Clark writing in his recent book “The Sun Kings” in which he describes the career of Carrington and the early UK astronomers, described in some detail the CME that affected the earth in 1859 and the near miss the Earth experienced in 2003.

    And the CO2 freaks here obsess over a change in atmosphere chemistry in the region of a few fractions of a percent, when space weather has a far greater effect on the earth’s climate? Who are the whacko’s then?

    Humanity indeed had a near miss during 2003 when the solar CME missed the earth, but not totally, mind you, it did affect airflights, cell phones. power grids, electrical power stations etc.

    Like the astronomers, and as Bernard Goldberg demonstrated in his two books Biased , and Arrogance, liberals or lefties simply restrict themselves socially with people who think as they do and regard anything beyond their world view as not normal. This mind set has control of the AGW issue, it controls all the universities and education systems. Because they don’t socialise with conservatives or others, (And I know they don’t because I do socialise with them) they never need to think with a different set of ideas to explain reality – and we see this on this blog when the Lukians disparage Qaudrant, Windschuttle by deploying their only weapon in their intellectual armory, ad hominems.

    It’s amazing being tolerated as a conservative whose ideas are considered beyond the pale in this liberal or lefty world. I sometimes shudder at the derogatary terms used to identify their political opponents. We see it here every day as well.

  48. Taluka Byvalnian January 11, 2009 at 12:43 pm #

    Luke:”When you speak up against the corruption of the science process here on blog I might listen to you.”

    What about the corruption of science perpetrated by Bradley et al with their disgraceful “hockey-stick?” This was a deliberate move as an IPCC lead writer had previously told Dr David Deming of the University of Oklahoma that “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”

    As Dr Deming said to me; “, the real significance is …. that science is being twisted and perverted to serve an ideology.”

    Let’s decry the hoax perpetrated by the UN IPCC on the world!

  49. Luke January 11, 2009 at 1:08 pm #

    Really the whole pseudo-sceptic movement are essentially a bunch of rightist con-artists. The sooner we legislate you lot into the stone age the better. Basically we need an act of parliament to make Quadrant a banned publication.

    Taluka – I note you’ve left out the 100s of lying faux-sceptics from your list of sinners. And quoted out of context by some rightist idiot.

  50. Louis Hissink January 11, 2009 at 1:40 pm #

    Oh dear – Luke is becoming more strident – we are a bunch of rightist con-artists. Different to leftist con-artists then?

    Actually delivering us into the stone age will probably be achieved if your lot actually manage to implement your AGW policy. The biggest laugh will be when you and your lot wake up wondering what on earth happened as you struggle to hide your self from the marauding mobs who want to inflict justice on you for the stone-age life you forced on us.

    And proposing to using the parliament to ban free speech as well, well, well, finally we are starting to see your true colours Luke, so please keep up your faux-posts here.

  51. Taluka Byvalnian January 11, 2009 at 2:09 pm #

    Taluka – I note you’ve left out the 100s of lying faux-sceptics….

    Well, Luke, just name ONE HOAX perpetrated by the “faux-sceptics”

    I’ve nominated one from your side – the well known hoax of the “hockey-stick.”

  52. Graeme Bird January 11, 2009 at 2:42 pm #

    I think he must have gotten “faux-skeptics” off me.

    “The biggest laugh will be when you and your lot wake up wondering what on earth happened as you struggle to hide your self from the marauding mobs who want to inflict justice on you for the stone-age life you forced on us.”

    The only upside to the return of the four horsemen is that my campaign to sack all these leeches might finally get some traction.

  53. Ra January 11, 2009 at 2:42 pm #

    Wilson appears to have written numerous conspiracy theory threads at LP. One was a thread about the US government responsible for 911.

    LP has removed the threads but the National archives retains copies. The only problem is that the offending thread such the 911 truther post was removed a short while after Wilosn posted it and I can’t recall the date (the nationaal archives data retrieval operates by date search.

    It would be good see what was removed from LP, especially the 911 truther post.

  54. Luke January 11, 2009 at 3:46 pm #

    But Birdy ya gotta get elected LOL – and that would require people to vote for an eccentric wanker. However we’re going to deport you to Ball’s Pyramid for time out to cure your rightist tantrums. Pls don’t annoy the phasmids.

    Anyway the sooner we get back to basic values and reduce everyone’s standard of living to sustainable levels the better.

  55. Louis Hissink January 11, 2009 at 5:19 pm #

    Luke: “Anyway the sooner we get back to basic values and reduce everyone’s standard of living to sustainable levels the better.”

    This is the precise reason given me by my ALP mates as the principal reason for implementing the Kyoto Protocol.

    Social Engineering using the power of the state.

  56. DHMO January 11, 2009 at 6:45 pm #

    I think you are right Louis, Luke is the sort of person who joins the thought police. Probably thinks people like Stalin and the KGB had the right idea. It is also the way of fundamentalist religious fanatics. I wonder when he will start plotting physical violence against unbelievers? His favourite book is 1984. Reducing CO2 is nowhere as important as believing.

  57. Louis Hissink January 11, 2009 at 7:01 pm #

    DHMO,

    Actually the violence has already been committed by the thought – putting it into action is the end motion.

    We will have a sign when Lukes signs on here under an Islamic noms des plume.

  58. Hal G. P. Colebatch January 12, 2009 at 12:29 am #

    I quite agree with this, including your conclusion that it is partly an attack on an important new technology by the anti-science Left and well as on Quadrant. Freeman Dyson, one of the most respected living physicists, has recently noted some important new potentials for genetic work in plants etc and these deserve serious study and attention.

  59. hunter January 12, 2009 at 2:12 am #

    At first I thought Luke’s photo was of something else he strongly believes in, but then after reading a his posts, I realized that the pic is simply how one looks after drinking far too much koolaid.
    In nearly every climate discussion, AGW true believers end up relying argument from authority and desiring to censor those who disagree with their predictions of apocalypse.
    The fact that climate has not changed significantly, that much of AGW data is corrupt or unreliable, and that not one prediction by the AGW promoters has ever come true makes the reach for ways other than evidence to squelch those who remain skeptical.
    Luke is, in his own tiny and prune-faced way, a perfect example of this.
    From Hansen’s ignorant statements linking coal exports from Australia to the extinction of life on Earth, to Gore’s bizarre claim that ‘Earth has a fever’, the AGW fundies eat up each word. Unfortunately, they also eat up and parrot the calls to criminalize those who keep looking at the weather and the climate and ask the simple question, “Where is the crisis?”
    The climate crisis is obviously not happening in the real world.
    As the climate proves in its steadfast refusal to change significantly in any way, and the AGW community demonstrates with their increasingly shrill demands, the AGW crisis is a social movement that has nothing to do with climate science.

  60. kuhnkat January 12, 2009 at 4:00 am #

    OT

    Mauna Loa posts .24 yearly rise in co2 for 2008, the smallest since recording began in 1959!!!

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

    Hopefully they fully checked these numbers before posting!!

  61. johan[oneUNDERgod] January 12, 2009 at 10:44 am #

    i feel this blog has been hit by a hit piece ,i read only the begining and end, and it reads like an advertorial for a magazine as well as gmo casting its dispersions on those who oppose gmo in their food without lables ,

    i suggest you do a due diligence and confirm the posters ,posting here now[who again seem predominantly pro gmo] ,no doudt a pro gmo web site has struck ,sending their people here [as well as the media] seems like a publicity campain ,that pro gmo is good at doing because its facts cant stand debate nor scrutiny[its buisness practice leave a lot to be desired]

    but your the reporter[investigate] dont just republish propaganda
    have you had this many responses so fast to other articles?

    thus this blurb is revealed by being unusually pro gmo
    the normal ration is 4 to 1 against
    [you seem to have 4 to 1 in favour

  62. Patrick B January 12, 2009 at 11:00 am #

    “suggests that ‘the joke” played on Keith Windschuttle ( and by association on ag biotechnologists)”

    What absolute garbage. I have seen a lot of comment on the issue and the “association” of ag biotechnologists with Windshuttle’s incompency has never, ever been raised. This is purely an issue about how much Quadrant is driven by radical conservative ideology. Your quote from Mcguiness is pure doublespeak. Windshuttle further fouls the footpath by trying to quantify how much of the article is hoax. Perhaps you should provide links to his rather inept and sad ripsoste.
    It is sad really, Winshuttle was once a middling journeyman in academic circles. Now, like this blog, he is obessed with tilting at windmills.

  63. jan pompe January 12, 2009 at 12:27 pm #

    “the normal ration is 4 to 1 against
    [you seem to have 4 to 1 in favour”

    Jennifer is fortunate then in having so many more astute readers.

  64. Luke January 12, 2009 at 12:59 pm #

    Gee you guys are gullible – we just pander to your fantasies. Choo choo !

  65. Skeptic January 12, 2009 at 1:27 pm #

    Quadrant is skeptical, non ideological and conservative. People are six billions (and growing exponentially) and consume, consume and consume.

  66. Taluka Byvalnian January 12, 2009 at 2:29 pm #

    Re Kuke:

    I have a ?friend? who is not all that intelligent who when cornered in an argument issues an insult or scoffs a loud HUHH!! Have you noticed that Dr Michael Luke Walker Bsc (hons) uses a similar technique using insults or his infamous HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHa..

    The stupidest thing he does is using a GRAVATAR that looks like the head of a penis.

    For some-one on the public pad, remember Kuke, we pay your salary.

    BTW, have you come up with just ONE HOAX perpetrated by the “faux-sceptics” yet?

  67. Geoff Brown January 12, 2009 at 2:58 pm #

    Well, Luke dodged my question too
    http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/01/a-cold-snap-in-a-warming-world/?cp=all#comment-78774

    When the going gets tough, the touchy P-off!

  68. Luke January 12, 2009 at 3:52 pm #

    Says someone with an ape as a gravatar – hahahahahahahahahaha – good one ! Or maybe it’s your mommy? hohohohohoho …
    And I’m glad to know you have “a friend” – better than none – with a name like yours maybe you are really a mollusc – bivalve – get it? eh eh eh?

    One hoax – – well how about the whole Heartland conference. Every “paper”. The whole Lavoisier library.

    Brownie – Why don’t you ask your question in an intelligible fashion .

  69. Taluka Byvalnian January 12, 2009 at 4:08 pm #

    M’lord, I rest my case!

  70. Luke January 12, 2009 at 4:19 pm #

    Ok Tadzikistan – just one for you

    http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/02/dd.html hohohohoho …

  71. philip travers January 12, 2009 at 4:19 pm #

    Windschuttle is a grown up,the faux writer is also a grown up,that can get up on a roof and explore the potential of vegetable growing. Quadrant is something I rarely buy. All we need now is a friendly polar bear, replacing Humphrey B.

  72. Thin king man January 12, 2009 at 4:21 pm #

    Propaganda is one of the worst evils of bureaucracy and socialism. Propaganda is always the propaganda of lies, fallacies, and superstitions. Truth does not need any propaganda; it holds its own. The characteristic mark of truth is that it is the correct representation of reality, i.e., of a state of affairs that is and works whether or not anybody recognizes it. The recognition and pronouncement of truth is as such a condemnation of everything that is untrue. It carries on by the mere fact of being true.

    Therefore let the false prophets go on. Do not try to imitate their policies. Do not try as they do to silence and to outlaw dissenters. The liars must be afraid of truth and are therefore driven to suppress its pronouncement. But the advocates of truth put their hopes upon their own rightness. Veracity does not fear the liars. It can stand their competition. The propagandists may continue to spread their fables and to indoctrinate youth. They will fail lamentably (source).

  73. Taluka Byvalnian January 12, 2009 at 4:52 pm #

    Ok Glukose – just one for you:

    Have you ever heard of the principles of debate?

    All I asked was for one HOAX – your MS Wilson perpetrated a hoax on Windshuttle, Your Al Gore (failed Presidential Candidate) issued a movie which was a hoax containing at least 41 obvious fallacies -shame on him and Mann, Bradley and Hughes issued a MAJOR HOAX – that despicable and discredited “hockey stick fake”

    “Propaganda is one of the worst evils of bureaucracy and socialism. Propaganda is always the propaganda of lies, fallacies, and superstitions.” Thank you Thin King!

    Gore’s HOAX was one of the worst evils of bureaucracy and socialism. That HOAX was the propaganda of lies, fallacies, and superstitions.

    Understand what a HOAX is – Glucosade?

    Just point to one HOAX by the “faux”- (understand?) not a paper that you don’t agree with – a deliberate HOAX – like Ms Wilson’s, like Bradley et al ‘s HOAX hockey shtuck!

  74. Geoff Brown January 12, 2009 at 5:21 pm #

    “Brownie – Why don’t you ask your question in an intelligible fashion .”

    Sorry, I didn’t realise I was dealing with a simpleton.

    You posted a link that mankind went close to distinction – this happens as a species dies out.

    Are you keeping up so far, M’luke?

    Your post contained IPCC like weasel-worlds like maybe, possibly, perhaps, and I queried whether the post actually led to the outcome that at that time -70,000 years ago – mankind was dying out…..

    Are you still able to follow this simple outline, M’Luke.

    To back up your post, M’Luke, you then posted another link that stated: 
“Previous studies have shown that while human populations had been QUITE SMALL PRIOR to the Late Stone Age, perhaps numbering fewer than 2,000 around 70,000 years ago, indicating a slow build up of the race.”

    I realise it was hard for you to understand such a simple question, M’Luke, but your first link indicated dying out (OK?) and then your second link said a slow build up, (i.e. the opposite – still with me, M’luke)

    Sorry to labour the point, but “Why don’t you ask your question in an intelligible fashion (?)”
    indicates you could not follow this outline.

    With one link indicating the human race dying out and your supporting link talking about a slow build up of the race, my question, which you have said was unintelligible TO YOU, was:-

    O learned Luke, which is the right reading of your two links?

  75. Luke January 12, 2009 at 5:21 pm #

    Well wingnut,

    There are no principles of debate with denialist scum – you just drop them at every instance.

    Why – experience with ongoing bad faith. No it’s not a paper that I don’t agree with – it’s a disgrace like most denialist rubbish.

    If we could outlaw the pseudo-sceptic movement we would. I reckon if Rudd thinks he has the numbers he should do it. Quadrant too.

    As for Mann et al or Gore – well hoax – come on. You just disagree. In any case Mann is most likely correct. And Gore is correct too. You detail here why you disagree if you’re so smart. In any case – what – 1% of the AGW issue that you’re worried about?

  76. Luke January 12, 2009 at 5:26 pm #

    Oh for heavens sake Brownie – suck it up – the point is pretty simple – evidence points to human populations being small and dispersed during the African mega-drought period – lucky we made it through.

    Well from our POV it’s lucky -the planet would obviously had been better off without us. And Louis and Tadzikistan would not have evolved.

  77. Geoff Brown January 12, 2009 at 5:32 pm #

    See – Still couldn’t answer a simple question – we should see what our universities are teaching – obviously not logic perhaps abuse, insults et al.

  78. Luke January 12, 2009 at 6:56 pm #

    On extinctions from your first question

    http://news.mongabay.com/2007/1024-mass_extinction.html

    http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/3x081w5n5358qj01/

  79. Luke January 12, 2009 at 6:59 pm #

    Brownie is you read the link – the hypothesis is that an improvement in climate allowed dispersal into Europe. Yes there may have been a slow buildup too but a mega-drought would have made life very interesting if you read the links I provided. Remaining water contaminated. Simply an hypothesis on available evidence.

  80. David January 12, 2009 at 7:48 pm #

    If left wing activists have to resort to lies to promote their causes it doesn’t say much for either their argument or their intellectual honesty. Perhaps they are what an older generation would classify as smart alecks.

  81. MattB January 12, 2009 at 9:22 pm #

    I know and work with many many many professionals who are passionate about the natural environment… and to me the obvious hoax here is that Jen subscribes to Quadrant and STILL manages to sell the charade that she is passionate about environmental issues!

  82. bazza January 12, 2009 at 9:32 pm #

    MattB reckons:
    ‘the obvious hoax here is that Jen subscribes to Quadrant and STILL manages to sell the charade that she is passionate about environmental issues!’
    The best evidence is the fresh stuff so lets wait a day or two and see if a feel-good story emerges. Otherwise we will have to conclude MattB is a fraud.

  83. MattB January 12, 2009 at 10:02 pm #

    Lol I’ll ‘fess up to that not being my best delivered 1-liner ever if it makes you feel better Bazza:)

  84. hunter January 13, 2009 at 12:05 am #

    As MattB shows, the real goal of the lefty tricking Quadrant was to get people who see the importance of GM products to alleviate human hunger to leave the public square.
    The infantile assertion that one cannot subscribe to a particular magazine and still believe in strong enviro standards is ridiculous on its face, but is a typical tool of lefty extremists.
    Luke is reduced to seeking a new face and making rasberries like a child.
    MAttB is trying to get people who care but disagree with extremist positions to simply shutup.
    All in all, a pretty good thread.

  85. mondo January 13, 2009 at 7:47 am #

    Congratulations to you Jennifer on putting up this post. Very necessary, and timely. And your points are well made too.

  86. MattB January 13, 2009 at 10:43 am #

    “as MattB shows” pull the other one Hunter! Left Extremist! lol. I just think it is pretty funny that Windshuttle got duped simply bacause the article in question suited his political ideology.

  87. Blair Bartholomew January 13, 2009 at 4:19 pm #

    Dear Luke
    Great to know you are still on the planet. But if you are going to have a chuckle about Keith Windschuttle’s predicament why not tell the blogosphere out there that you are are a taxpayer funded “Chief Scientist, Information and Knowledge at QCCCE” and your boss is Mr. Bligh. What is the problem Ken Day ? Potential for rocks on your roof?
    Regards
    Blair Bartholomew

  88. Louis Hissink January 13, 2009 at 8:56 pm #

    Blair,

    Really?

    Thank you – I will check this out.

  89. Louis Hissink January 13, 2009 at 9:02 pm #

    Blair,

    if the heat gets to uncomfortable, contact me or Ian Mott please.

  90. Louis Hissink January 13, 2009 at 9:15 pm #

    Ken Day?

    Ken Done!

    GOTTCHA!

    Luke, like most, you have underestimated me, and now you chickens have come home to roost.

    Thanks Blair, (I am sure it is not your real name), and now we deploy the lawyers.

  91. Louis Hissink January 13, 2009 at 9:17 pm #

    And it’s Phil Done, not Ken, just to spook you more.

  92. Louis Hissink January 13, 2009 at 9:22 pm #

    One point, visit the website http://www.climatechange.qld.gov.au/ and you will find no human being behind it.

    Ken Day, Chief Scientist, or one of its public service officers, seem noted.

    And some of you think the Gestapo was reticient.

  93. Louis Hissink January 13, 2009 at 9:26 pm #

    Hard being a nutter with all this, driving me NUTTS!

  94. Louis Hissink January 13, 2009 at 9:37 pm #

    Just a thought,

    Another Windschuttle effort?

    Another scam to show the “conservatices” as gullible fools?

    Could be, but due to the lack of coments here, equally possible.

    Has Phil Done done a DAy?

    We shall see in a day or so.

  95. Jeremy C January 14, 2009 at 6:48 am #

    Louis and Blair,

    If ‘Luke’ is Ken Day, Ken Done or what ever and his day job is paid for by the government then what is the problem? What exactly are you saying that he is he doing wrong, is it using an alias or are only certain people in society allowed to express their opinions on blogs?

    Are you afraid of him………….?

  96. Louis Hissink January 14, 2009 at 8:51 am #

    Jeremy C,

    You have no problem being publicly veballed, defamed, libelled by a senior public servant on this blog? You approve of this? Obviously otherwise you would not have framed your question as hyou have.

    I can now sue him if I fee inclined, and that fact alone should result in more civil posts from “Luke” if he bothers to post again, of course. The sheer embarassment of being caught out might be too much for him, never to return here.

    It’s not the expressing an opinion Jeremy C, that is the issue but the torrent of verbal abuse directed at those here who have a sceptical position that accompanies that opinion.

    And no I am not frightened of him – let me recount another famous lefty who was libelled here by a poster some years back – John Quiggin – who subsequently threatened to sue Jennifer if the offending comment was not removed. So those of us here are careful not to libel John Quiggin or anyone else for that matter here, especially behind a pseudonym.

    I could have done a Quiggin and threatened to sue Jennifer if Luke etc kept up with the libel and abuse, but I didn’t. Usually posters who abuse other posters are moderated or have their posts removed from the blog so I always wondered why this never happended with the Lukes etc. Now we know.

    But you obviously feel this civility is not necessary for AGW supporters and you therfore wholly support any poster here who libels a sceptic behind a pseudonym, dismissing it as robust debate.

  97. MattB January 14, 2009 at 10:41 am #

    Well I wouldn’t have a problem with it personally Louis. I think you do the blogosphere a world of harm with your present approach to gagging debate.

  98. Blair Bartholomew January 14, 2009 at 1:46 pm #

    “Comment from: Jeremy C January 14th, 2009 at 6:48 am
    Louis and Blair,

    If ‘Luke’ is Ken Day, Ken Done or what ever and his day job is paid for by the government then what is the problem? What exactly are you saying that he is he doing wrong, is it using an alias or are only certain people in society allowed to express their opinions on blogs?
    Are you afraid of him………….?”

    Dear Jeremy
    My point is this; use aliases to comment/criticize articles by other persons using aliases. But if you wish to criticize real living people have the guts to use your own name. Ken is a highly regarded scientist and why he went down the path of abusive blogs using numerous aliases only he can answer. He is employed by a Government Department which naturally has a particular view on climate change. The way Government Departments have operated over the past 20 years he would not be employed there if he had a contrary view. Afraid of Ken? I am more afraid of Climate Change.

  99. Jeremy C January 14, 2009 at 7:23 pm #

    You’re right Louis. I was using ‘Biffo’ Mott as my model….

  100. Jeremy C January 14, 2009 at 7:45 pm #

    Model, in terms of the language used against other people.

  101. Louis Hissink January 14, 2009 at 8:47 pm #

    Jeremy C

    “You’re right Louis. I was using ‘Biffo’ Mott as my model….”

    I cannot be right as I never said you were using Mott as model.

    So how about getting your facts sorted out please.

  102. Louis Hissink January 14, 2009 at 8:50 pm #

    Jeremy C

    I just noticed your following correction and note that Ian Mott lives in Queensland, and additionally note you don’t include Graham Bird, who uses far more colourful expressions than Ian Mott.

    What is this – a paroachial QLD issue?

  103. Louis Hissink January 14, 2009 at 8:55 pm #

    MattB

    And just how, as a mere poster, can I gag debate here?

    By forceful use of language?

    Alas, not I but please do your homework, because, contrary to most expectations, I don’t suffer fools at all.

  104. Jeremy C January 14, 2009 at 9:21 pm #

    Point taken Louis,

    I meant to point out that extreme language is used by all sides, but you are right, I was using Mott as an example of extreme language, and you pointed out Graeme Bird, but both use their own names and the point you were making included using aliases. My mistake, I should’ve thought before writing. However, extreme language isn’t good, aliases or not.

    BTW. I’m not from Qld. I don’t like humidity.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Jennifer Marohasy does irony, again « The Dog’s Bollocks - January 10, 2009

    […] Jennifer Marohasy » Magazine Duped by anti-GM Activist – A Case of More of the Same […]

Website by 46digital