Tuesday
Apr242012
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Quote of the day
Apr 24, 2012 Climate: Sceptics Quotes ...science 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.
Reader Comments (112)
The thing about Goldacre is that he is good on epidemiological studies and dismissive about anecdotal evidence. The quoted so called insight into Goldacre above shows the annoyance of the anti vaccine people mostly because of his dismissal of the massive appeal to anecdotal evidence that was brought to bear in that debate. There was plenty of epidemiological evidence supporting his side.
I think the more important and worthwhile thing to criticise Goldacre on is his laziness in relying on authority with regard climate alarmism. Ironically he is silent about the reliance on anecdotal associations and dodgy science that is the bread and butter of AGW. He is like Simon SIngh in this regard - they are both strangely passive in their interest when you consider they are quite able to investigate a wide range of other subjects for doumentaries and suchlike when it suits them. However on the climate subject they eagerly resort to citing their lack of expertise. This always struck me as very disingenuous and it seems to me it must be because they like the underlying "progressive" agenda of AGW - the science authoritarian reach in lifestyle and politics - so they dare not peer too deeply. To help them on that quest they regularily boost their ego by finding and polishing up all the straw men hate figures they can find, and the quote above is an exampe Goldacre at his most arrogant and self persuading. I think to have him quoted on this subject is almost pointless because he is so passive. His inclusion basically is a way of using the authority of his role in the good epidemiolical work he has written about on other subjects.
If Goldacre actually addresses an AGW controversial point in depth then maybe I could be bothered to care what he does with his cock.
I would suggest, that Ben Goldacre's ranting about 'evidence' (and EBM) is a convenient horse to ride, rather than an outcome of deep study. People are wrong, and right about all kinds of things, and that doesn't mean anything. For eg, Roy Spencer is a creationist (did I get that right?) and a climate science skeptic. What does that tell us about Spencer? Katherine Hayhoe is a Christian and a climate scientist. I don't know what it tells me either, although I see she has little scruples mixing her religious appeals in drumming up support for science. Goldacre is similar: he drums up support from the scientifically-minded for climate change science.
A real problem for Goldacre is that the climate change debate is one where the anonymous rabble has a foothold and cannot be shooed away with a bedazzlement by statistics. It is an area where there is no 'easy win', and the masses actually have opinions other than what they are allowed to have.
Evidence-based Climatology. Let us try that. Instead of modeling, circular reasoning, floor-to-ceiling error bars, and hiding inconvenient data.
Ben Goldacre: Vote for him for a Darwin Award!
*I believe the removal of his genes should also count ...
Personally I'd rather stay at Castle Anthrax (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtcSYPjJbgg) than discuss Climate Change with a CAGW-er.
But that's just me
Troll comment and later references to it have been removed.
Latiner,
Creationism and Mann Made Global Warming (tm) share some common themes, from dodgy science through to the religious zeal that their belief is followed etc.
The connection is pretty obvious :)
Mailman
Shubb,
It appears that Anthony and many of the mods are creationists as well...a point that is not lost on me when I'm referring to Mann Made Global Warming Creationists (tm).
Mailman
We need definitions from Dr G as to what he means by 'his cock', 'phony debate', and 'climate change deniers'.
He could be referring to the possibly symbolic (for him at least) slaughter of a fowl, a radio call-in talk show, and people who think that climate change does not happen.
Does he keep chickens? Does he think doing them in in pecualr ways can be auspicious? Does he hate broadcast discussions? Does he mix with people perfectly insulated from all thought and observations about the climate system?
"Ben is 36 and currently works full time as an academ'ic in epidemiology"
In the same sense that Hansen works full-time for NASA, presumably...
I have lots of doors.
John Shade: If he did carry out such practices, it would not augur well for him. :)
As Latimer said: whatever floats your boat. Some guys hammer nails through it. There are some fearful looking piercings as well which bring tears to the eye...
Goldacre represents those in the UK who out of ignorance believe the IPCC must be right. Following my assertion that there are many continental scientists who think CO2 climate sensitivity is much lower than the IPCC claims. I was asked provide evidence. Here is a key Dutch analysis: climatescienceinternational.org/images/pdf/post_modern_science_ipcc.pdf
Rorsch and I approach the problem from different directions but converge on our assessment that the IPCC 'attractors' in the chaotic system [in my terms, calibration points] are wrong, particularly 2.6 times exaggeration of energy [from assuming radiation coupled to convection at the earth's surface is the B-B S-B level in a vacuum] and the failure to apply the 29 °C upper temperature limit for sea temperatures. The IPCC models a system where radiation dominates, in reality it's convection. It looks as if the aim was to maximise predicted climate sensitivity, not to make a realistic assessment.
If you see a previous comment you can see someone mentioned Robyn Williams head of ABC's Science show the (Oz chief government paid Climate-panic indoctrinator) who repeated his claim that "Yes by the end of the century see level-rise could be 100m" on TV to Andrew Bolt.
- Do you wonder where Ben Goldacre gets his climate expertise from ?
"I have to declare an interest Ben Goldacre is my Nephew" ...Robyn Williams when Ben spoke on his show
And with good reason. He was a freelance columnist with the MSM in Australia until he had the poor judgement to publicly debate Monckton a couple of years ago, and was humiliated in such devastating fashion that he disappeared from sight (and the media) for a year or so.
But the Left/Green always looks after its own, so after a decent interval, he was rehabilitated by the ABC, and now has regained his former bounce. He won't be debating Monckton again, though...
I use "Scotch" to refer to evbrtything Jock as I know it hacks them off.
"evbrtything" = EVERYTHING!
I’ve often wondered why BG’s eyes were so close together - perhaps he’s tried the cock-in-door experiment already? :-)
someone unknown originally said:
When I challenged him to produce a paper rather than interrupting another BH thread with such outlandish claims, he replied:
to which I replied:
Finally a single URL has been proffered - to "a key Dutch analysis," Arthur Rörsch's POST-MODERN SCIENCE AND THE SCIENTIFIC LEGITIMACY OF THE IPCC’S WG1 AR5 DRAFT REPORT, a 'First edition of a working paper, submitted to local authorities'. And there is no mention of climate sensitivity in it at all, let alone agreement that "CO2 climate sensitivity cannot be more than ~0.3 - 0.4 K".
I'll leave the reader to decide how solid the "rapidly evolving consensus from objective scientists" really is - and the implications for what else this poster has to say.
That sounds like animal cruelty.
Apr 24, 2012 at 8:24 AM | TheBigYinJames: He has a cock?
Apr 24, 2012 at 9:05 AM | mangochutney: yes, but clearly no balls.
From the shape of his bat, I presume we're talking cricket and not baseball?
He'd rather go to Bangkok?
..
For emergency use.
Richard: academics don't publish their inner thoughts when it will result in loss of grants. Instead they get a retired senior scientist to do the job because such people can't be coerced easily and have the gravitas to be heard by government.
Be assured though, following the publication of Varanholt's 'Die kalte Sonne', in which he argued that CO2 warming should be halved, and he believes the IPCC modelling, there are others who are quietly concluding that taking all the warming and cooling factors into account, real CO2 climate sensitivity may be very small indeed.
Why didn't you say right away that you had no papers to back up your claims, rather than point to one that didn't come close to doing so? Why didn't the academics you talk about choose a 'retired senior scientist' to speak for them who was willing to be known by his real name? And why would the man chosen then belittle Richard Lindzen, who has been arguing brilliantly in his own name for low sensitivity longer than most of us have been aware that there was a climate debate?
Cowardly bad faith is a common characteristic in the AGW promotion community.
Richard, Dog
Can we get back on topic please.
Mr. Goldacre is a man who is very</> pleased with himself.
A very sensible man. Any physical damage done to his Bird of Paradise would pale in comparison to the reputational damage he would suffer were he to debate a skeptic.
=============
"Ben Goldacre: Vote for him for a Darwin Award!
The Darwin Awards salute the improvement of the human genome by honoring those who accidentally remove themselves from it*...
*I believe the removal of his genes should also count ..."
But surely all humane people should dissuade him from employing his proposed method for so doing?
Bishop, it would help if mdgnn didn't make statements he can't substantiate, then drags out the discussion instead of admitting that simple fact. But happy to desist.
The ABC's bling fanaticism to the religion of Mann Made Global Warming (tm) makes the bbc look like armatures. Black wouldn't even get a look in!
Mailman
"Oh come on. Rapidly evolving consensus? Let's see at least one paper please, before signing up to any of this. Sensitivity of 1K is generally taken even by ardent warmists to be not a problem. Produce at least one paper before interrupting each and every thread with this pabulum.
Apr 24, 2012 at 8:46 AM | Richard Drake"
Uh? From what I recall from my far away school days, pabulum means "food". Perhaps you mean fæx?
From now on let him be known as "Cokinador".
Jeremy, it has two meanings:
1. food
2. food for thought esp when bland or dull; insipid intellectual nourishment
I looked it up after I'd used it so I wasn't quite sure myself :)
Gordon:
I most certainly would not be the one to slam the door, but if he wishes to do such a stupid thing then that is his choice.
Given Mr Goldacre's public school upbringing, perhaps he is merely reminiscing.
So what other anatomical parts are people slamming in doors rather than debate with sceptics?
Ben Goldacre runs the Bad Science website.
http://www.badscience.net/
I searched it for "IPCC" and found only a single entry. It was about the conference in Copenhagen a few years ago. When is Ben going to examine the IPCC reports for evidence of junk?
http://thedowntowncentre.com/portals/2/2003%203210.jpg
I will personally pay Mr Goldacre's travel expenses, he'll have to cover the medical himself.
I am currently reading Ben Goldacre's book Bad Science. So far it is mostly about food gurus and self proclaimed nutritionists and is an interesting view of the way the scientific method has been by-passed in order to sell a product. It's strange how all the sound principles he sets forth in the book get thrown out the window when he looks at how the warmists sell the product of cagw. I had intended to write a review of the book, showing the lack of consistency when his ideals were applied to cagw,but if he doesn't want to engage with me then perhaps I should just offer to slam his cock in the door.
- That's the point when you talk to Ben & his uncle ABC Science show's Robyn Williams they are both perfectly rational & scientific people, but when it comes to climate change they like a lot of other Scientific Skeptics I know & used to respect : they are trapped in some kind of cult; particularly Robyn he thinks he's in some kind of war against climate skeptics & seems manic about getting a warmist story in every edition of the ABC Radio Science Show.
- I've been telling those Science Skeptics for 10 years + now "look people are beginning to think for themselves & not take things at face value, that's a great thing for the Skeptical movement, more thinking critically & looking at the evidence", but no they grab the first headline that repeats the green dogma, take it at face value & repeat it....." Climategate Ah there were 3 inquiries & they were proved innocent"
... I say .."are you going to look at the evidence"
& they say "go away denier"
Make it an elevator/lift door and get it on YouTube. Or a Josh cartoon. Josh is good at small details, I'm sure he can manage a suitable illustration.
After hearing that the correct pronunciation of the surname Gleick rhymed with stick, I came up with this incomplete limerick but I've got stuck on the last verse.
(cough)- clears throat..
Whatever you think about Gleick
whether his morals were worthy or sick
you have to admire
his unstated desire
to never slam any door
on his ?
Can anyone come up with anything better than my current, dismal attempts, eg:-
consensus-agreed statistical trick and
climate-science approved cherry-pick?
On that Readfern blog he gives a temperature graph for recent times: http://www.readfearn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/hadcrut4_annual_global.jpg
Yet when I go to WUWT reference pages I get a graph of global temperature of http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/crutem3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual_bar.png
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.)
He also cites an NSIDC graph: http://www.readfearn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/seaice-e1335233889396.jpg
Yet the ice extent graphs at WUWT give ice extent more or less stable in the last five years. Why is Readfern's one different?
Can any reader here explain to me how this happens?
Maybe rounders? The bat's much shorter than baseball
Apr 24, 2012 at 7:43 PM | Bloke down the pub
I thought his book was a great read and emphasis on what the scientific method is supposed to be. He does pick really easy targets though and I guess one of the issues is when things get less black and white. I'm not sure why he would want to slam it in a door though than want to discuss it with a former 'client scientist'.
Why does Ben Goldacre do a good job on food and medical scares, but go all unthinking and ideological on catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW)?
A few possibilities:
1. He’s used to epidemiology. Real numbers from actual experiments. He doesn’t realise just how different CAGW “science” is. In particular, he’s foxed by the CAGW crowd’s treatment – and even description – of models as “experiments”. He thinks that if 20 different models can’t explain 20th century warming without an AGW component, then that component must exist, and the model average projection can be treated as predictive.
2. It’s too hard. Food and health scares are a dime a dozen. Each one has a few crank or corrupt adherents with a bit of sensationalist press backup, and it’s child’s play to find the contrary evidence and dissenting experts. CAGW is a global government-supported industry where if you don’t believe, you can’t get a job.
3. Clan belief system. Writes for Guardian. Works in academia. Surrounded by people who know a priori that CAGW is true, because global destruction is what you expect from Big Oil, capitalism, America etc. Dropping CAGW would turn him from a gadfly to an outcast.
His “I'd rather bang my cock” line indicates real fear of debate. He sure wouldn’t like to lose, but he is perhaps even more afraid of the pitfalls of working out what is actually true in all this schmozzle. He would have to organise his thoughts on a vast field, and work out what he thought of each link in the rather long chain of CAGW logic. The chances of finding a weak spot, that he might have to admit, would be large, and even a nuanced view of CAGW would court ostracism.
Insightful David. Would-be hard men like Goldacre pour scorn on James Delingpole but it turns out the Oxford English graduate has the balls to make tough calls in a vast and complex area into which they won't even put their dainty feet - let alone any other sensitive body part.