Just a teensy tiny bit more Curry. But not much.

Ouch, I guess I really must've hit a raw nerve for you to delete that comment in its entirety.

The truth really stings doesn't it?

@TheGoodLocust.

I love it when the memes reach their logical conclusion. It justifies my contempt for McIntyre and his friends.

They don't publicly claim anyone has to be fired for breaking their honor code, but that's what's zooming around the blogosphere in the next week. A job well done, dogwhistle politics at it's finest.

Your blog is boring.

[Sorry. But if you feel that way, I suggest you don't bother visit :-) -W]

Anything is, compared to the esteemed Baron, except maybe Inferno's observations at Denialdepot.

http://i566.photobucket.com/albums/ss102/infernojones/skeptic_forcing1…

This blog is fine. If you find it boring, sHx, go elsewhere.
In the meantime, the UK's Daily Telegraph has a band of self-congratulatory anti-AGW commenters who drown out any attempt at rational discussion, as, for instance, here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/8328705/Floods-caused-by-cli…
One comment calls for the reporter to be sacked for telling lies!
You have to register, but I could sure do with some help here.

Mmmm, curry.

[It was good, thanks. Oh and Hugo says "Hi, hippie" :-) -W]

"One comment calls for the reporter to be sacked for telling lies!"

Ironic? I post at the telegraph when I'm feeling irritable, mainly links to Skeptical Science or other peer reviewed science. Mainly for the benefit of anybody who is actually interested in reality. I also prefer the Telegraphs comment system to the Guardians. The telegraph shows the most recent comments at the top rather 5 pages further on, there is also some threading so you can actually focus on some egregious misinformation.

[I gave up on trying at the Torygraph, but it is good that some people haven't -W]

@ Clam

I've been registered there for a while and have yet to see a single comment make it past moderation. They were all polite, by the way ;)

[Snip] I'm still waiting for the "Stoat perspective" on the ethics of anonymously reviewing a paper critical of your own...

[Standard. You'd have found it earlier if you'd looked in the right placem viz Are the wackos wacko enough? please -W]

May I have another bingo card please?

Oh goody, you mean we can get Roger Jr fired?

[Sorry, I had to delete the trolls -W]

Perhaps you should read this, Locust.

http://blogs.chron.com/climateabyss/2011/02/welcome_to_peer_review.html

"I was chatting with a professor from another department yesterday, and mentioned that I was engaged in a discussion about an acrimonious argument that had arisen as a result of the peer review process, and that one of the factors was that the authors were relative outsiders to the process. The professor responded, "Yes, you have to have a very thick skin to go through peer review.""

Thick skin certainly needed if you're on the receiving end of some of these. One of my all-time favourites from Not Spaghetti. http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/content/the_nothing_that_was_climat…

Perhaps if some people had seen this lot they might have responded a little differently to entirely reasonable (and helpful) comments from someone within the system.

@Locust

It is in fact quite normal to have a reviewer in that situation. In fact, according Montford, McIntyre did exactly that.

"Oddly enough Delingpole earlier wrote that Geoffrey Lean should:

Try reading AW "Bishop Hill" Montford's superb, gripping The Hockey Stick Illusion

And on page 205 of that book:

As the CC paper was critical of his work, McIntyre was invited to be one of the peer reviewers"

The peer review process worked as designed in this case. The paper was published. The only difference to the normal publishing process was team McInytre creating their usual storm in a teacup. But it worked, you now expect that Steig should be sacked.

[If any of the comments here read oddly, it is because I've deleted TGL's trolling. Alas, he is no better here than he was on wiki. The correct place to discuss all this, and indeed the place where you can read the existing discussion, and pointers to other peoples endless discussion, is Are the wackos wacko enough? -W]

I do know that Steig broke that journals policy regarding a conflict of interest...

[Wrong, and dull. But also in the wrong place: you want the post Are the wackos wacko enough? which is over that way, and where you'll find many of your questions already answered -W]

Let me introduce you all to Metarhizium acridum.

Eli has finally figured out who Judy is and who the trolls under her blog are, but he can't get the rhyme right.

Little Ms. Muffet
Sat on her tuffet
Eating her bacalhau and pasteis
Along came Tallbloke
Sat down besides her
And shared his secrets that day

British Government Chief Scientific Adviser John Beddington goes on the offensive against pseudo-science, calling for it to be tolerated as much as racism is.

http://www.researchresearch.com/index.php?option=com_news&template=rr_2…

Dellingpole's upset. Beddington must be doing something right. It's strong stuff and inspirational.

[Thanks for the link. Coming soon to a posting near you... -W]

Just when you thought it was safe to order a good pa nang curry again.

All I can say is: "what an asshole".

Maybe I should have included the word "ignorant" in that last sentence.

And for further clarification, I prefer Thai to Indian.

@17 Rattus, but you see, the only rule in BlogScience(TM) as practiced by Curry and ilk is that there is no rule, or so Shub reckons, and he should know.

Quite how Curry proposes to examine the merits of "arguments" of "both sides" while slinging mud remains to be seen.

I see Curry's called for mercenaries from WTFUWT to give Gavin Schmidt a hard time at her blog.

curryja really has zero credibility.