Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
  • May 20 - golf charlie on
    COP 23
  • May 20 - golf charlie on
    COP 23

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Another CSA moves on | Main | Representative of what? »

Quote of the day writer and academic Ben Goldacre would rather slam his “cock in a door” than engage in a phony debate with climate change deniers.

From here.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (112)

Seriously guys...if you wanted to make a living out of debunking strange claims, would you choose (a) writing a book about obvious quacks who can't put two sentences together or (b) try to find a flaw in the reasoning by Montford, Delingpole, Watts, Monckton and the likes?

Why, Pampered Ben opted for the easy option, the area where he can coast tranquil knowing his 'opponents' can't tell blue sky from pain. Literally. Climate change is also a complex topic where Ben's mates and relatives might be actually wrong, and that's a lot more aggravation again for Lazy Ben.

Apr 25, 2012 at 10:31 AM | Registered Commenteromnologos

Warmists in general, and paleo-ideologues such as Goldacre in particular, operate ever from ill will, in bad faith under false pretenses. Absent open-minded debate of objective, rational premises, their hoots and squawks are but teeny-bopper venting. Though Goldacres infest junk-science precincts from here to Blondlot's N-rays, why waste your time?

Apr 25, 2012 at 1:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Blake


"On that Readfern blog he gives a temperature graph for recent times:

Yet when I go to WUWT reference pages I get a graph of global temperature of

How does one know which one is correct? Why does Readfern not point out the Brohan graph? (Don't answer that BTW, we know why.)"

You are looking at 2 different data sets - hadcrut4 is the newly revised land+sea index. Crutem3 is the previous version of land-only temperatures.

Does that help?

Apr 25, 2012 at 2:18 PM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

Official 'skeptics' such as Goldacre are really just cheerleaders for establishment science. While there are many issues where establishment science is pretty much correct and its opponents are mainly cranks, it does not follow that this is true for all issues. By attacking cranks on easy issues, it biases people in favour of establishment science on all issues. That's the real purpose of official 'skeptics': to create the impression that there is a neat division between the rational consensus views of establishment science and cranky ideologues on all issues. That's why they spend all their time attacking fringe groups with little to no influence on anything of importance instead of investigating corruption and incompetence within the scientific establishment, something that might actually be useful.

Apr 25, 2012 at 3:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterLemniscate

I don't think even he would claim to be an academic (someone who, after years of study, has gained a deep understanding of a subject). He's a medic who has learned some basic principles of practical statistics, which he chooses to ignore when they conflict with what he waqnts to propagandise about - the claimed risks of passive smoking, for example; and now, it seems, climate change. Unfortunately he has become one of the pin-up boys of the chattering classes.

Apr 25, 2012 at 5:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterJonathan Bagley

I hope Josh is not inspired by this thread.

Apr 25, 2012 at 9:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterCoalsoffire

I think it's a shame. I like and respect Ben Goldacre to the point of being willing to buy his books.

But, as with Steve Jones, he doesn't get it right all the time. I found some sensible people on his website, but also some very loud and much less sensible ones.

Apr 26, 2012 at 1:49 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

The irony of all this is that I had read Goldacres' book before it became obvious where his sympathies lay, I was particularly taken by his rules for judging what was bad and what was good science. It was the application of this method that first led me to believe that CAGW was bad science!
Is he unable to apply his own rules when appraising climate science?

Apr 26, 2012 at 6:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterSunderlandSteve

I want to slam the door pn the totally of his gonads and I would pay good money to do so.

Apr 26, 2012 at 9:38 PM | Unregistered Commenterstephen richards

From now on let him be known as "Cokinador".

Apr 24, 2012 at 6:11 PM | John in France

Or penisàporte. Cockistador ?

Apr 26, 2012 at 9:49 PM | Unregistered Commenterstephen richards

The Goldacre quote came from an ABC TV documentary which was shown last night, and can now be seen on ABC iView:

It's called "I can change your mind about climate" and the Goldacre segment is in the second half - sorry, can't give an exact time reference, but it's somewhere between the last 5 minutes and the first 35 minutes.

Remarkably fact free, which is surprising as Ben could easily have cribbed from his uncle Robyn Williams, warmist extraordinaire, who hosts the ABC's Science Show.

Apr 27, 2012 at 3:25 AM | Unregistered Commenterjohanna

Great. Just shows that natural selection is alive and well.

Apr 28, 2012 at 9:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterRobin Pittwood

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>