Thursday, March 17, 2005

MR POPULARITY

Andrew Bolt and Ted Lapkin have issues with ethical academic Tim Lambert. First, an email from Ted Lapkin:

In November 2003, I argued in the pages of Quadrant magazine that the environmental movement is moral culpable for the deaths of 2 million Africans killed each year by malaria. In mid-February 2005, a left-wing blogger named Tim Lambert (Deltoid) accused me, and others, of participation in what he described as “The Great DDT Hoax.” Without going into all the gory details, the crux of the issue deals with the decision by Sri Lanka to cease using DDT during the mid-1960s.

I remonstrated with Lambert in an email communication that I stipulated was for private consumption only, citing segments from my Quadrant piece that made his accusation factually unsustainable. But Lambert avoided the substance of my counter-argument like the plague. Instead, Lambert cut and pasted to his website the introductory portion of my email that expressed my desire to resolve this issue amicably rather than litigiously.

Lambert accused me of threatening him, using my supposedly menacing verbiage as an excuse to disregard my explicit request that my email missive should remain in the private domain. And of course, through the gambit of playing the victim card, Lambert was able to sidestep my factual rebuttal of his hoax claim. How convenient.

There is an old proverb that proclaims: “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”

In light of Tim Lambert’s past behaviour, I have no confidence that he would not tamper with any comment that I submitted to his site. In order to ensure that my response to Lambert appeared in unaltered form, I appealed to the good offices of Tim Blair who kindly offered to feature my riposte on his weblog.

-- Ted Lapkin, Melbourne

The following email was sent by Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt to Tim Lambert, and copied to me:

Dear Tim,

I became aware only of your web site this week, when Tim Blair pointed out some unethical behavior of yours.

It was only then I discovered you had form - and at my expense.

In particular, can you explain why, among your other deceits and misrepresentations, you said this:

Andrew Bolt, writing in the Melbourne Herald Sun offers this conclusive disproof of global warming: “Melbourne last week had its coldest February day on record, and its wettest day, which should surprise those still naive enough to believe our green gurus.”

I ask because I actually argued the very opposite in the article you quote, as you must have known. Hint: read its concluding paragraph, which states:

Of course, one bit of wild weather in our ever-changing climate doesn’t disprove the holy theory of global warming. But nor should green groups claim the odd cold snap proves it, either ...”

Got it? You say I claim to offer a “conclusive disproof”. I in fact write that this “doesn’t disprove”. Is that simple enough for you?

So can you answer me the following three questions?

Why did you claim I said the opposite of what I in fact did say? Is this deceit of yours typical of your work and your ethics as a blogger and academic? Will you delete your preposterous posting, or at least do the moral thing and apologise for it on your blog?

-- Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun