Brignell vs Source Watch

Posted by Tim Lambert on September 30, 2005
(9)
More »

The Source Watch wiki page on John Brignell quotes extensively from some of my criticisms of Brignell. Rather than address this criticism, Brignell edited the page to add this comment:

What follows is the work of an individual known as The Adhominator. You can recognise his style, as he never attacks the argument, only the arguer. You can identify him, because he is the only authority he quotes. Enjoy!

This is classic Brignell. He can’t bring himself to mention my name, he makes blatantly false claims (specifically, I do attack his arguments, and I do cite other authorities) and indulges in name-calling.

His comment was deleted and the reasons explained to him. Brignell responded by repeatedly restoring his comment until his IP address was banned. So then he asked his readers (scroll to “An appeal for help”) to restore his comment. Unfortunately he failed to provide a link to the page, so not many of them have done so. If you choose to edit the page, please do not automatically revert edits made by Brignell supporters. Obviously Brignell’s comment is not appropriate, but factual edits should be allowed.

(9)
More »

Comments

  1. #1 William Connolley
    September 30, 2005

    I haven’t looked much yet but… if you check this by JB he says “…this author does NOT hide behind noms de plume, respond to gratuitous insults, take part in ever-decreasing-circle discussions, comment on the intellectual calibre of his attackers.” Which becomes rather ironic.

  2. #2 Paula Mitchell
    September 30, 2005

    The linked article on SourceWatch seems to quote only from this website and Mr. Brignell’s own. The article is desperately in need of some balance.

    Anyway, if he is a krank, wouldn’t it be more compassionate to just pity him rather than poke fun at him in public? Surely he’s best left to poke fun at himself.

  3. #3 Seixon
    October 1, 2005

    Wow, sounds like what you did to me Tim. Your silence over in the Lancet thread is noted. A question I posted about 9 hours ago has been avoided like the plague. I sent this question to you on e-mail. I wonder when it will be answered…

  4. #4 Pinko Punko
    October 1, 2005

    Seixon, “silence” of someone about some random stuff is not an argument. I don’t think you appreciate details of the situation. For example, Jay Leno has remained silent in face of harsh criticism here. I reckon it has been over a week, and nothing but crickets chirping. Also, Seixon, is there anywhere else that you might obtain the answer to your question? Or is it a Tim specific query? I doubt that. I would guess that you are just trying to muddy the waters. What do I know, though. Nothing. I just know that I hear “deafening silence” from Jay Leno.

  5. #5 david tiley
    October 3, 2005

    The reason for responding is simple. If the believers in global warming, the ozone layer, evolution, the truth about DDT etc etc do not go after the junk science mob, they get traction over the public debate.

    They are not just pitiful – sadly – they are dangerous. So we waste huge amounts of time endlessly refuting them. But it is worth it.

  6. #6 John A
    October 4, 2005

    Quite right Tim. Censorship is pathetic.

    That’s why you immediately took David Appell to task when he blocked people from his weblog who asked too many questions of his “journalism”. Or not as the case may be.

    That’s why when you libel someone on a wiki, make sure to ban them from replying or correcting the libel.

    Or make comments about Ross McKitrick which are patently false and then keep repeating them.

    Or block the IP addresses of certain people on your web server and then blame the Internet.

    On the other hand, make sure to remove the bristlecone pines from your own eye before removing the mote from others. Otherwise people will think you’re just a hypocritical whinger.

    By the by, I deleted your interjection on thermodynamics (which you don’t understand, but make up with invective what you lack in intelligence) from Climate Audit. I did so, because Steve McIntyre specifically requested that conversations about thermodynamics which involved me be not posted on his weblog – which of course you didn’t respect because you have no respect for people much brighter than you.

    If your correspondent wishes to contact me concerning thermodynamics directly, then my e-mail address is on the “Contact Us” page on Climate Audit. Don’t bother writing to me to yourself, Tim, as I find that conversations with ignoramuses less than a good use of my limited time.

  7. #7 Tim Lambert
    October 4, 2005

    John A, Brignell was banned for repeatedly making false claims on the wiki. I have not made false claims about McKitrick. You were blocked by the Bad Behavior plugin because it detected spam from the same IP address. And [entropy is not a form of energy.](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2005/08/climate-audiot2.php#comment-9225)

  8. #8 an
    October 4, 2005

    One can tell The PosseTM and their constructed narrative by looking for clues in their speech – ‘bristlecone pine’ being a clue.

    Best,

    D

  9. #9 Spence_UK
    October 8, 2005

    It seems perhaps Brignell’s views are not so isolated in the world of epidemiology as some might have us believe. John Ioannidis, a Greek epidemiologist, is of the view that applying 95% statistical significance has resulted in most scientific research being false!

    http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

    He doesn’t suggest this is a bad thing in itself, research cannot be perfect, but advises not to invest too much in one single paper, ’cause it is probably a crock. Luckily he does not rely on marginal significance in his paper otherwise it could have been the first ever self-falsifying paper in scientific history :-)