Windschuttle's vote of no confidence in Quadrant's climate science articles

Last week Keith Windschuttle, editor of Quadrant declared:

People who are really confident [of their facts] relish debate.

It seems that Windschuttle has no confidence in the articles on climate science he has been publishing. Windschuttle rejected without even looking at it, an article by David Karoly correcting the errors and misinformation in those articles. His reply to Karoly (quoted with permission):

Thanks for your offer but at the moment Quadrant is focusing on offering a platform for the sceptical position on this issue. We find that the pro-IPCC position is very well represented in almost every media outlet in the country, including academic journals and websites, but it is very difficult for sceptics to find any outlet for their voices to be heard. Hence, in the interests of balance, we believe the sceptics deserve a fair go in a little journal like ours. If the current position changes, we will be glad to consider pro-IPCC articles such as yours.

If Windschuttle had any confidence at all in the accuracy of the articles he published, then he would have accepted Karoly's article. His case would be greatly strengthened if the articles he published promoting it could take Karoly's best shot and remain standing. It seems he is frightened that Karoly would score a few knockouts on them.

More like this

Quadrant follows the fashion of much of the rest of the right in Australia in making war on science. It has promoted Creationism, HIV/AIDS denial, the DDT ban myth and, of course, global warming denial. But ever since new editor Keith Windschuttle took over earlier this year, Quadrant has cranked…
Keith Windschuttle has just published a hoax article full of pseudo-science in Quadrant. And it wasn't this article by Tim Curtin which contains such gems as the claim that Arrhenius borrowed his formulation of the enhanced greenhouse effect from Malthus (he didn't), that the water vapour from…
To their credit The Australian has published an article by David McKnight: On climate issues The Australian still gives voice to a global PR campaign largely originated by the oil and coal companies of the US. On this score genuinely sceptical journalism is missing in action. Instead, an…
David Glenn has an article (subscription required) in The Chronicle of Higher Education on the Ayres/Donohue/Lott dispute. Here are the responses from Lott and Whitley to the allegation of coding errors: Mr. Lott replies that the alleged coding errors are irrelevant to the larger debate. "…

> It seems that Windschuttle has no confidence in the articles on climate science he has been publishing.

By now I'm no longer surprised. Whenever climate inactivists whine about activists being guilty of something, it usually means that they themselves are much, much worse.

Eek.
I'd thought Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen of Energy&Environment was the main representative of this approach, but it appears OZ has its own.

By John Mashey (not verified) on 01 Dec 2008 #permalink

It's clear now. Plimer is silenced and Karoly isn't.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 01 Dec 2008 #permalink

"the pro-IPCC position is very well represented in almost every media outlet in the country". Even this little snippet is false. The Australian , for example , makes sure that the pro-IPCC position does not get a fair run. Somebody needs to point out to Windschuttle that a so called argument is not a argument if its assertions are not argued. The conclusion that giving sceptics a " fair go" gives them the right to make assertions without argument is idiotic.

By Bill O'Slatter (not verified) on 01 Dec 2008 #permalink

"the pro-IPCC position is very well represented in almost every media outlet in the country".

Every other media outlet, but NOT in his own magazine, is that it ?

People who are really confident [of their facts] relish debate.

Even fools who are confident that the denialist tripe they read is "facts". So they relish passing on talking points. So what? What value is this?

The value is that this approach continues the attempts to keep the FUD out there.

At least they are honest about their tactics.

Best,

D

>but it is very difficult for sceptics to find any outlet for their voices to be heard.

Mr Windschuttle, are you delusional or simply dishonest? You know perfectly well that the GW "sceptic" viewpoint is repeatedly supported in a number of newspapers, and especially in Australia. It is clear that you have little interest in the truth of the matter.

Is 'Quadrant' anything more than a mouthpiece for right-wing anti-science propaganda?

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 02 Dec 2008 #permalink

I'm beginning to like this Quadrant publication.

I will write them an article on the visionary nature of Marxism-Leninism and the damnable lie that Stalin was guilty of atrocities in helming the Soviet State to greatness. This is a POV which is, unfortunately, even more suppressed than climate skepticism. The filthy capitalist paradigm - with its obviously self-serving function and lack of real data - should be a veritable pinata for me as I enter into my new close, friendly working relationship with Quadrant. And I want no classical economics true-believers to use their George Bush-derived pseudoscience babble to pretend this won't be a smashing success. He's been getting FAT lately!

I shall, I think, follow up with the benefits of Mithraism, Wicca, and eugenic euthanasia.

Quadrant superstar status, here I come! G'Day, science world!

By Marion Delgado (not verified) on 02 Dec 2008 #permalink

So Keith wishes to promote anti-scientific gibberish? This from the man who decried the supposed lack of rigour in the work of Australian historians? Can't be the same bloke,surely....

Note the phrasing: there is a "pro-IPCC" and presumably an anti-IPCC "position" on this "issue". To Windschuttle it's a political debate. No sense that there might be actual facts involved.

By James Haughton (not verified) on 02 Dec 2008 #permalink

Just change IPCC to evolution and this looks eerily familiar ...

Thanks for your offer but at the moment Quadrant is focusing on offering a platform for the sceptical position on this issue. We find that the pro-evolution position is very well represented in almost every media outlet in the country, including academic journals and websites, but it is very difficult for sceptics to find any outlet for their voices to be heard. Hence, in the interests of balance, we believe the sceptics deserve a fair go in a little journal like ours. If the current position changes, we will be glad to consider pro-evolution articles such as yours.

That is a good analogy Skeptic but the idea that the IPCC position is well argued in the Australian press is false.

By Bill O"Slatter (not verified) on 02 Dec 2008 #permalink

Am I missing something here? Has anybody else bothered looking at the link to David Karoly's supposed critique of the Quadrant articles? If they had, they would have been directed to a transcript of the ABC's Catalyst program, 15/11/07. If David Karoly's actual response to the Quadrant articles is available, could we please see it ?

By Richard McGuire (not verified) on 02 Dec 2008 #permalink

> Whenever climate inactivists whine about activists being guilty of something, it usually means that they themselves are much, much worse.

This is true of right-wingers in general. They are always projecting. Whether it's family-falues senators having gay bathroom sex or earnest creationists complaining about their views being supressed, the surest way to know what a right-winger is up to is to pay attention to what he is accusing his opponents of.

Whether it's family-falues senators having gay bathroom sex or earnest creationists complaining about their views being supressed, the surest way to know what a right-winger is up to is to pay attention to what he is accusing his opponents of.

Agree 102%

I wonder if we should formalize this into a law, something like: First Law of Wingnuttia.

Best,

D

He rejected my article criticising these views on the grounds that it had already been published on my blog. That wasn't true - the blog post was a first draft. Everything I publish I initially post on a website somewhere for feedback.