When Anzac Day is unAustralian

Neil James, Executive Director of the Australia Defence Association, writes about the common myths associated with Anzac Day. Plus Tamils, hoodies, the Wilderness Society and more.

23 comments

Leave a comment

23 thoughts on “When Anzac Day is unAustralian

  1. Tamas Calderwood

    And John Bennetts – can I just say: get lost.

    Crikey’s editors decide what to print.

    It’s fine to disagree with me, but do you not see your little totalitarian streak by demanding they shut me up?

    What, only people that agree with you can have their say? Have you ever seen me demand the alarmist case be censored? What possible justification do you have to demand I be stopped from expressing my view?

    I’m intrigued to hear your justification. Please do tell.

  2. Justin

    @Tamas
    “I’ll accept that the quote was taken out of context. I picked it up without looking at the full text. My bad.”

    No. If you’re going to claim it was an accident then you picked it up without looking at the full sentence. Even if I did believe you then your comments go far far beyond the sloppiest research you accuse your opponents of.

    I’m not arguing a case for or against climate change, I’m not defending anyone. I’m calling your integrity into question. You were blatantly dishonest in quoting the report, so by your own standards as you apply to the CRU why should anyone believe anything you say?

  3. Tamas Calderwood

    Justin – Um, because I am not trying to scare the world into spending trillions of dollars on solving a fake crisis!!

    The quote you nail me for is still damning for “other” climate scientists! Oxburgh still says the CRU didn’t get their stats right! Where is the credibility of climate “science”?

    You address none of my points about the CRU’s admission that the last warming trend that stopped 12 years ago was no different to any of the past three that occurred since 1860!

    can you not see the difference? I am saying their case is deeply flawed. You point out one small errors (even though it damned the statistical sloppiness of other climate scientists, if not the CRU in that direct quote) and say that therefore I am wrong, but you address none of the other crtitical points I make.

    That’s just pathetic.

    And don’t tell me you are “not arguing a case for or against climate change”. Rubbish. You are arguing the alarmist, catastrophist case. Yet you refuse to address the lack of warming for the past 12 years, or the fact that the last three warming spurts were of equal magnitude… and so much else. Argue the facts, for goodness sake.

    And give me a break with the value laden “dishonest”, “liar” stuff. I’ll admit my errors but I am arguing for what I believe. To call me a liar is simply lame. Notice how I accuse you of no such thing?

  4. John Bennetts

    @Tamas, 11.06pm:

    I am disappointed that Crikey! has chosen again to publish the work of a contributer who has, again, been shown to be dishonest.

    There is nothing wrong with publishing points of view which vary from those I hold – that is the reason for enjoying reading anything at all.

    Consequently, it is both reasonable and appropriate that I question Crikey editorial purpose in repeatedly offering you space.

  5. Justin

    @Tamas
    You accuse me of no such thing because I have done no such thing. What you did was no small error, it was at best sloppy to the point of dishonesty, at worst just plainly a lie. We now can’t be sure that any of the “facts” you cite are actually truthful without independently verifying every single one. That’s no way to have a discussion. So I will not address your other points and be drawn into your gish galloping.

    I will suggest that if you want to be taken seriously in future you should link to all your sources and be very careful they actually say what you claim.

  6. Tamas Calderwood

    Justin – you are pathetic. Don’t you understand – I want you to check every claim I make about this subject. Check the data. Look at the statistics. Judge for yourself.

    Why do you accept the dodgy “science” of all the alarmists at face value, yet use one minor error on my part as an excuse to dismiss anything I say?

    I note that you still have nothing to say about those warming periods from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998. Hey, why bother arguing the facts when you can just throw insults and call me a liar?

    John – your statement makes no sense. You say you like reading different opinions to which you hold, yet also argue Crikey shouldn’t publish mine…. huh?

  7. Justin

    @Tamas
    You’re not listening, and furthermore you’re putting words in my mouth. Read over this thread again. I haven’t made a single claim about climate change, yet you repeatedly call me an alarmist, blind acceptor of dodgy scientific claims.

    Let me be very clear: if you can’t be honest, then we can’t have a discussion. That’s it.

  8. Tamas Calderwood

    Justin – oh, so by accepting that my quote was out of context, that’s me being dishonest? What is it you want me to say to conform to your standard of honesty?

    And it is disingenuous to say you are not defending the alarmist case. You continually refuse to address the points I make about their collapsing case while focusing on a small error that I have admitted to.

    What, so it’s ok for the CRU to “hide the decline”? Why no warming since 1995? Why were the last three warming spurts all of the same magnitude? Why is it ok for the climate science community to use “inappropriate statistical tools with the potential for producing misleading results”?

    So stop calling me dishonest when I very readily admit to a mistake and go take a hard look at all this climate “science” you seem to so preciously fall for.

    Maybe then we can have this “honest” discussion you keep banging on about.

  9. Justin

    @Tamas
    I believe I’ve made my position very clear. If not to you, at least to the reasonable reader, if any have made it this far. I won’t continue to repeat myself while you insist on repeating your mistakes.

    But I would like to finish with a quote from your good self, in the spirit of our discussion:
    “I am wrong.”
    – Tamas Calderwood, Posted Monday, 26 April 2010 at 12:23 am

    That’s all I have to say on the matter.

  10. Tamas Calderwood

    Oooh… that’s, like, game – set – match Justin. I admit to a mistake and – kapow!! – you’ve knocked me out of the game.

    I guess that must nullify the warming magnitudes been of equal magnitude, the lack of data at the CRU, the use of inappropriate statistical tools with the potential for producing misleading results by some in the climate community, the lack of warming since 1995 or 1998 (Jones says 1995), the cooling trend of the past decade, the lack of an equatorial tropospheric hot spot, etc etc etc.

    Amazing how the arguments about this “science” are conducted.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details

Sending...