Tim Lambert has posted one of his usual poorly written, incoherent hit pieces about Australian groups attending the Heartland conference on AGW. The obsessive compulsive is obviously against anyone attending.
Down the list of participants he refers to John Humphreys and the ALS saying:
Australian Libertarian Society. Basically this is John Humphreys, whose response to any disagreement is to accuse you of lying. True to form, when I commented on his post, Humphreys accused me of lying, though this time he also deleted most of my comments as well.
Err, as I recall John deleted Lambert’s comments because he was unnecessarily abusive to him.
John doesn’t accuse people of lying in disagreements, unless they’re being flagrantly intellectually dishonest like Lambert. Lambert is of course the person who was peddling that Lancet Survey which suggested 7.8 trillion Iraqis had died as a result of the war and the death rate was compounding at a 30% factor per hour.
John always eloquently explains his position in a polite way. I vividly recall the thread in question. Lambert was being intellectually dishonest as usual, finally resorting to bringing up old arguments going back to 2004 that were totally irrelevant to the subject matter and rightly removed from the thread. In fact it became so bad that Lambert had to be moderated off the ALS site: an honor, which he shares with Bird making the term,“ Lambird” quite fitting indeed.
Here’s what John H actually said on the thread.
I don’t think your answers to the 6 questions are entirely accurate.
1. The earth did warm during the last few decades of the 20th century, but it has stalled lately. It is quite likely that it will go back to warming soon… but there is a small chance that it won’t and we should retain some hope.
2. The impact of global warming depends very much on how much warming there is. Some areas will benefit and some will lose, and there is no clear net cost until the warming exceeds 2 or 3 degrees. So far we’ve only seen 0.6 degree warming. Remember that humans are always adjusting for a number of reasons, so slow adjustment to a changing environment is not a new trick for humans.
3 & 4. It seems likely that co2 (& other greenhouse gases) released by humans are contributing. But it is uncertain how much they are contributing. The IPCC says that they are the primary cause, and they may be correct.
5 & 6 depend very much on the details of the policy solution. While I have no doubt that it’s possible to create a climate policy that passes a benefit-cost analysis (I believe my suggested carbon tax does), I do have quite a bit of doubt that the chosen policy will be as good.
The theoretical possibility of the government doing the right thing is not generally matched by actual government action.
This sounds like a perfectly reasonable view, however Lambert suggests he’s lying.
Lambert seems to posses that fine gift of poisoning almost every discussion whenever he jumps onto a thread, which is one of the reasons the Online Opinion editor referred to him as a bully and a tick.
Lambert responds with more lies and distortions in the comments section of his silly thread:
John, you claim that you deleted my comments because they were off-topic. But you did not delete a host of off-topic comments abusing me and my blog. Care to tell us the real reason?
John did actually delete quite a few of my comments.
In a post on your blog Joe Cambria claims that my deleted comments were “abusive”. You know this to be false. Why haven’t you corrected him?
Lambert assumes to know who I am. He also suggests his comments aren’t abusive. But they were insulting and irrelevant to the conversation. They could be best described as poisonous.
I don’t have a copy of your comments, but I think folks can work out what you were saying from my replies, but feel free to explain yourself — I won’t censor you.
Of course he does. Lambert keeps everything that he can use to distort future debates. I’d bet the first toilet paper roll he used is safely tucked away somewhere.
Your claim that “the current temperature is nearly exactly the same as the average over the 1970s.” wasn’t remotely close to being true when you wrote it. Study the graph, which shows what the situation was when you wrote your post.
More dishonesty. John has said that he was using contemporaneous data. Lambert ignores this.