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

curry Via Baron von Monckhofen an interesting video, though I think it has been doing the rounds for a while now.

[Update: While I'm on the silly people, there is a nice takedown of the Jonny Ball nonsense by Deltoid. Which features the familiar elements: ridiculous claims which fall apart under the flimsiest examination, but which are nonetheless repeated by the std.septics.

And for something more sensible: Bart goes where I tend not to and discusses biodiversity.

Oh dear. But my blog-reading has now got as far as Tamino, who provides a wonderful example of US political stupidity (see-also the Phytophactor). mt's example isn't much better.

Oh dear. And Tim Worstall has an all-too-plausible pice about the possible Triumph of insanity of "gender neutrality" in insurance / pensions. As far as I can tell, anytime you ask a court to rule on issues like this they f*ck it up because lawyers can't understand maths or science. Or possibly because they have a perverse incentive to make ridiculous judgements in order to foment more business.]

[More update: JB points me (oh thanks) to more nonsense from Curry which is really just FUD. But don't miss her witty replies to Gavin in the comments, where he makes substantive points and Curry's only answer is "I'll take lazy and prejudiced over dishonest, if you insist". Which is indeed lazy and dishonest of her.]

More like this


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]

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:
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]

By Nick Barnes (not verified) on 16 Feb 2011 #permalink

"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]

By TheGoodLocust (not verified) on 18 Feb 2011 #permalink

Perhaps you should read this, Locust.


"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.""


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]

By TheGoodLocust (not verified) on 18 Feb 2011 #permalink

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.


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]

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

And for further clarification, I prefer Thai to Indian.

By Rattus Norvegicus (not verified) on 22 Feb 2011 #permalink

@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.