- All actors do for our economy is write grant applications – Exports? Employment? Tourism? Bah!
- “1.4 per cent of global carbon emissions” is a negligible amount, even when produced by a country that has just 0.32 per cent of the global population.
- Your prediction might be coming true even if the predicted outcome hasn’t happened yet and the chain of events is completely different from what you predicted. But some predictions are best not mentioned.
-
Pages
-
Categories
- ABC
- Adele Horin
- Alan Howe
- Alison Rehn
- Andrew Bolt
- Andrew Murfett
- Annabel Crabb
- Anthony Dowsley
- Asher Moses
- Australian Press Council
- Barnaby Joyce
- Barry Maley
- Ben Butler
- Caroline Overington
- Catherine Deveny
- Channel Nine
- Chris Mitchell
- Christian Kerr
- Clive Hamilton
- Conal Hanna
- Daily Telegraph
- David Burchell
- David Flint
- David Marr
- David Penberthy
- Dennis Shanahan
- Eddie McGuire
- Emma Young
- Fairfax
- First Dog Onthemoon
- Fran Kelly
- General media
- Gerard Henderson
- Glenn Milne
- Greg Sheridan
- Guy Rundle
- Helen Darville/Dale
- Henry Ergas
- Herald Sun
- Holly Byrnes
- Jamie Briggs
- Janet Albrechtsen
- Janet Fife-Yeomans
- Jason Wilson
- Jennifer Marohasy
- Joe Hildebrand
- John Hartigan
- John Howard
- John Pasquarelli
- Journalism
- Kyle Sandilands
- Leo Shanahan
- Malcolm Colless
- Malcolm Farr
- Marcus Kuczynski
- Margie McDonald
- Mark Dunn
- Matthew Benns
- Matthew Franklin
- Melissa Fyfe
- Mike Rann
- Mike Steketee
- Miranda Devine
- National Public Radio
- National Times
- Neil Breen
- News Ltd staff writers
- News Ltd.
- News of the World
- Online media
- Open threads
- Paul Colgan
- Paul Kelly
- Paul Krugman
- Paul Sheehan
- Paywalls
- Peter Costello
- Peter Dutton
- Peter Faris
- Peter van Onselen
- Phillip Adams
- Piers Akerman
- Poison comment of the month
- Politicians
- Pure Science
- Rebecca Wilson
- Redux
- Richard Baker
- Robyn Riley
- Ross Gittins
- Sally Morell
- Site news
- Steve Fielding
- Steve Lewis
- The Age
- The Australian
- The National Times
- The Punch
- Tim Blair
- Tory Maguire
- Uncategorized
- US media
- Virginia Trioli
- Wendy Hargreaves
-
Archives
31 Comments
I have never learned anything from Tim Blair. Today is no exception.
tob;
Do you know why we’re 1.35 of global emissions? Obviously you haven’t heard of absolute advantage which means we’ve specialized in providing the world raw materials in which we have an absolute advantage.
1. this produces a lot more emissions than say a country like Denmark.
2. If we stopped producing those raw materials global emissions would more than likely turn higher as less efficient mines and semi processors would move in to fill the void.
At least on this issue, Blair is right and you score zero in your understanding of the issue. I’m not saying that Blair would know, however you certainly don’t you’d make things worse rather than better from an emissions point of view. nice try though. 10 for trying and zero for being incorrect.
Has Blair been ignoring you guys lately or something?
I don’t really see any analysis in this piece, rather just plain baiting.
love Tim Lambert’s work! That’s the kind of accountability the iraq war cheer-squadders need to have flung back in their faces. Pity they didn’t canvass greg sheridan’s views as well.
Things we didn’t learn from PP today.
* Government funding represented 17 per cent of the total funding for Australian produced and co‑produced feature films in production (http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/film_in_australia.html ). Instead they pick an irrelevant link to make their point.
* How much cooler the planet will be in 2050 if Australia succeeds in reducing it’s carbon emissions by 0.7% of todays global total. Or how many months it will take China to wipe that 0.7%.
* How many of Tim’s predicitions actually did come true from the source article.
I’ve learned a lot more from Play School than I’ve ever learned from blair and bolt.
Top bananas, B1 and B2 are possessed of greater intellectual rigour than those two second bananas, b1 and b2.
(And in a ‘get down and dirty’ polemic, Jemina tears strips off Janet Albrechtsen.)
Wow, that old ‘RightwingNews’ questionaire Tim Lambert linked to (in your link to Lambert) is mucho interesting:
“If we go into Iraq, how many casualties do you expect to see (on the side of the US and our allies)”
{snip}
‘Tim Blair: “Below 50″‘ [Why would you commit to saying that? Somehow I doubt that eminent military historian & Iraq war supporter John Keegan went on the record with his 'guesstimate'.]
“By the end of the 2003, do you think the general consensus will be that the anthrax letters were mailed by “domestic terrorists”, by agents of a “foreign terrorist group”, or do you think the case will still be unsolved?”
{snip}
“Unsolved:… Tim Blair” [Okay, the case wasn't solved until last year, but I wonder if Tim and the other bloggers had a gutfeeling that it was a lone psycho---which it was---not Arab terrorists. Hence the 'Yes or No' question about a 'general consensus', instead of a question about an actual prosecution? Things that make you go Hmmmm.]
“Osama Bin Laden — do you believe he’s still alive?”
{snip}
“No: …Tim Blair” [Yes, it would be awkward for a Bush supporter if OBL escaped capture for many
monthsyears.]“Pick the candidate who will receive the Democratic nomination from [sic] President? (Ok, we won’t know this for sure until 2004, but what the heck).”
{snip}
“Joe Lieberman: …Tim Blair”
Very thought provoking. Seriously.
Looks like you’ve hit a nerve Tobias.
Confessions,
Lambert is the least reliable blogger in Australia. He’s dissembler/ propagandist and would never be honest about any subject he speaks about even if dishonesty was a disadvantageous to his argument.
I notice that he’s still peddling the discredited Lancet survey in his usual underhanded way when even the school Les Roberts (the lancet lead) teaches, John Hopkins, has sanctioned him over Lancet and has requested that he no longer arrange any survey of this nature again.
Of course Lambert knows about this but continues to peddle this dishonesty.
NERVE STRUCK.
Lambert is the least reliable blogger in Australia.
so says what must be one of the most childish bloggers in Australia, whose own *claims* about DDT use (not to mention this site and its authors) are fallacious in the extreme. If you believe his garbage over a noted academic such as Lambert you are doubly deluded, but at least you’ve clued me in as to which rightwing cesspool you climbed out of in order to find this site.
Odd how tee accuses me of dishonesty without being able to come up with a single example.
I posted the results of the Johns Hopkins review on my blog. How underhanded is that? Here’s the the part of the review that tee chose not to mention:
Yes, the review did sanction Burnham because identifiers were collected when they shouldn’t have been, but this in no way affected the reliability of the results. Read what the review found and compare it with tee’s spin.
Tee, please try and get your bullshit straight.
There were two Lancet surveys. Les Roberts led the first study. The second one was led by Dr Gilbert Burnham, and it was he who works for and was censured by John Hopkins… for lapses in protocol which might have put lives at risk, not for failures in statistical sampling procedure. (These lapses were egregious, but did not invalidate the results.) Moreover, the AAPOR ‘investigation’ is itself suspect, as neither John Hopkins nor Dr Burnham ever belonged to the association, nor have they ever acknowledged its right to hold them to account: Dr Burnham was largely found guilty of refusing to provide his data to an organisation who made it clear from its first communications with him that it was organising a hostile investigations, and did so rudely and presumptively from what I remember from the time. Others who asked (rather than demanded) did get access to the data, and found it solid.
So: would you care to try again?
Odd how tee accuses me of dishonesty without being able to come up with a single example.
I did.
I notice that he’s still peddling the discredited Lancet survey in his usual underhanded way when even the school Les Roberts (the lancet lead) teaches, John Hopkins, has sanctioned him over Lancet and has requested that he no longer arrange any survey of this nature again.
Lambert’s very first sentence is dishonest.
Which he acknowledges later with:
Yes, the review did sanction Burnham because identifiers were collected when they shouldn’t have been
and left out the word “severe” in the sentence explaining the review. In other words John Hopkins actions were severe against an academic. How severe? The academic is no longer allowed to ever serve as a participant in these studies again.
There’s this
In February 2009 Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health published the results of an internal review of the study.[51] The review found that researchers in the field used data collection forms that were different from those approved in the original protocol. The forms used in the field contained spaces for names of respondents or householders and many such names were collected, in violation of the protocol. The press release said the review did not find evidence that any individual was harmed as a result of these violations, and that no identifiable info was ever out of the possession of the researchers. As a result of their investigation, Hopkins suspended Dr. Burnham’s privileges to serve as a principal investigator on projects involving human subjects research.
and
The research team of Professors Neil Johnson, Sean Gourley and J.P. Onella of the physics department at Oxford University, Professor Michael Spagat of the economics department of Royal Holloway, University of London, and Professor Gesine Reinert of the statistics department at Oxford University, claimed the methodology of the study was fundamentally flawed by what they term “main street bias”. They claimed the sampling methods used “will result in an over-estimation of the death toll in Iraq” because “by sampling only cross streets which are more accessible, you get an over-estimation of deaths.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casualties
Lambert wants people to believe that a study isn’t tainted even though an academic is sanctioned for ethical issues related to the very same study and sends people to his blog as evidence.
ROTFL.
Apologies, it was Gilbert Burnham and not Les Roberts that was sanctioned. Roberts conduction the first dishonest Survey while Burnham conducted the second one and was suitably sanctioned
The field forms had spaces for names in what was meant to be an anonymous survey. This potentially put people’s lives at risk. This was an egregious lapse in protocol, and was the cause for the sanction. It did not in the slightest affect the validity of the results.
As for the dissenting paper on Main Street Bias, Tim has talked about this too. Not that you will care, having already decided that he is lying.
And that’s not much of an apology. “Roberts conduction the first dishonest Survey”? Proof? Go ahead, please, give us the evidence that Roberts was deliberately dishonest. It’s quite an accusation in science, so you must have some actual evidence to back it up. Please note, quoting a wingnut warporn blogger does not constitute ‘proof’. (So before you run off to nationalinterest.org, vague accusations of disquiet at process are not sufficient: a specific accusation of dishonesty requires specific evidence of actual dishonesty, which is not the same as saying something you don’t like the implications of.
Would you care to try again, again?
My very first sentence was: “Odd how tee accuses me of dishonesty without being able to come up with a single example.”
tee’s response to this challenge: “Lambert’s very first sentence is dishonest.”
That’s a bit circular.
Notice further how he dodges the finding that “The review concluded that the data files used in the study accurately reflect the information collected on the original field surveys.”
And that he misrepresents the sanction applied to Burnham, falsely claiming that he was “no longer allowed to ever serve as a participant in these studies again”.
Well, you can’t spend percentages, but I would probably commit genocide for 1.42% of Microsoft…
Well, maybe not genocide…
In the past week, some new trolls have appeared in blogs like this one (and LP), suggesting that opposition advisers are on the job.
Nothing else to do chaps, now that your bosses are overseas on their winter “study tours”?
And who are you representing “tee”? Erica Betz perhaps?
I think he means Tim is dishonest in the same way that everyone tee disagrees with politically is dishonest.
GraceP – I’ve been noticing these “rabble soothers” for a while now, always magisterially explaining to the benihgted the error of their distressing lese majeste ways. Never a typo., rarely other than correct, if somewhat inelegant grammar and other indicators of higher education, if not enlightenment or wisdom.
And that he misrepresents the sanction applied to Burnham, falsely claiming that he was “no longer allowed to ever serve as a participant in these studies again”.
Tim Lambert found lying a second time.
As a result of their investigation, Hopkins suspended Dr. Burnham’s privileges to serve as a principal investigator on projects involving human subjects research.
What is it with this person?
Freddie,
You’re out of your league.
grace – they are not new trolls. Just recycled old ones.
“suspended”
You do know the difference between “suspended” and “forbidden to do it ever ever again”, don’t you tee?
And please point out where Tim was ‘found lying’ a first time. Because our eyes aren’t as finely tuned as your for finding imaginary falsehoods.
Tee, whilst your obsession with Tim Lambert is interesting (in a clinical sense), this post is actually concerned with tim Blair. In an attempt to drag you on topic I ask, is your opinion of timmeh still as low as it was in 2003? I quote:
“It did not in the slightest affect the validity of the results.”
Exactly, thing is the rightards have no problems with the casualty figures for Bosnia or Rwanda, these figures were obtained using the same methodology of the Lancet’s report on Iraqi casualties. I suppose these fuck ups (Bosnia/Rwanda) weren’t started by a icon of the American religious Right. What a bunch of hypocrites.
Zoot:
Don’t know what you’re talking about with that link. However good attempt trying to derail the thread even further, thunder shades, by linking an irrelevant piece from 2003 (??)
1. Tob used Tim Lambert as a reference to authority which is like using Bill Clinton as a reference in a sex work harassment case. Don’t get me wrong, I like Bill.
2. I proved that Lambert lied twice in both his comments, which even surprised me. What a chucklehead.
Catshid:
Do I know the difference between suspended and forbidden? That’s your comeback? hahahahahhahaha Lol.
Not even Tim would try that lame attempt. Please stop trolling.
You’re winging this aren’t you? You have absolutely no idea what this about?
zoot, the trolls eventually go away if you ignore them long enough.
zoot, the trolls eventually go away if you ignore them long enough.
Oh good grief. This place would be absolutely stagnant without us so-called “trolls”.
There’s only so much pissing in each others’ pockets a blog can take before it finally fades away.
Pedro, I’m so glad you have Pure Poison’s best interests at heart.