Comments on: Bishop Hill: Caspar and the Jesus Paper http://climateaudit.org/2008/08/12/bishop-hill-caspar-and-the-jesus-paper/ by Steve McIntyre Mon, 20 May 2013 15:48:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: UC http://climateaudit.org/2008/08/12/bishop-hill-caspar-and-the-jesus-paper/#comment-158471 Fri, 22 Aug 2008 14:21:04 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3427#comment-158471 No damage. Large blog this is. And these ‘laws’ indeed seem to match with some parts of climate science.

]]> By: Pat Keating http://climateaudit.org/2008/08/12/bishop-hill-caspar-and-the-jesus-paper/#comment-158470 Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:43:46 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3427#comment-158470 UC
I see what you mean. That was before my time, though….

]]> By: UC http://climateaudit.org/2008/08/12/bishop-hill-caspar-and-the-jesus-paper/#comment-158469 Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:59:27 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3427#comment-158469 #92,

No need to steal, try CA search with “pathological science” .

]]> By: Pat Keating http://climateaudit.org/2008/08/12/bishop-hill-caspar-and-the-jesus-paper/#comment-158468 Thu, 21 Aug 2008 01:39:09 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3427#comment-158468 Stolen from Harmless Sky (Robin Guiniere), with some additions:

It seems that the climate alarmists’ views are increasingly complying with Nobel-prize-winning Irving Langmuir’s (1881 – 1957) “Laws of Bad Science” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science).

These ‘laws’ are:

• The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and

the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.

• The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability, or many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results.

• There are claims of great accuracy.

• Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested.

• Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses.

• The ratio of supporters to critics rises and then falls gradually to oblivion.

]]> By: DeWitt Payne http://climateaudit.org/2008/08/12/bishop-hill-caspar-and-the-jesus-paper/#comment-158467 Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:23:16 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3427#comment-158467 The HS controversy is about statistics. RC has no special expertise in statistics AFAIK. A link to RC but not CA on a climate page is reasonable. CA, OTOH, is all about statistics so it should really be a link to CA on the HS controversy page but not to RC. If you are going to allow a link to RC because of the connection to authors of MBH98 etc., then a link to CA should be required on the HS controversy page because Steve McIntyre is half of the MM papers. But whoever said life was fair was wrong.

]]> By: Sam Urbinto http://climateaudit.org/2008/08/12/bishop-hill-caspar-and-the-jesus-paper/#comment-158466 Wed, 20 Aug 2008 17:34:43 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3427#comment-158466 I do see that for 3 days, news from the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder (through Pielke Jr’s blog) has stayed on the HS controversy page. Certainly one would think that a fellow at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, a cooperative institute of CU-Boulder and NOAA, would be a reliable source, right?

But as to the rest, as Splette put it: “It has been decided that Realclimate is a notable scientific blog that is allowed.”

Why would a blog with a lot of Wikipedia editors participating be any more or less reliable than personal pages of W&A at UCAR, press releases, 3rd party summaries, and such?

Don’t they realize how bad this makes them look? Don’t they see how others will see this as a double standard?

]]> By: Jeff Alberts http://climateaudit.org/2008/08/12/bishop-hill-caspar-and-the-jesus-paper/#comment-158465 Wed, 20 Aug 2008 00:26:26 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3427#comment-158465

You ought to have a “CA for Dummies” parallel to this website.
Then layman-people like myself could figure out what you’re saying a whole lot faster.
I’m going to read Perry’s narrative this evening when I hit the sofa.

I’ve requested something similar before, just a quick Layman’s Summary at the end of the post would do wonders.

]]> By: Hans Erren http://climateaudit.org/2008/08/12/bishop-hill-caspar-and-the-jesus-paper/#comment-158464 Sat, 16 Aug 2008 21:30:09 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3427#comment-158464 I reported it in my sleeping dutch weblog
http://www.volkskrantblog.nl/blog/6752

]]> By: Hans Erren http://climateaudit.org/2008/08/12/bishop-hill-caspar-and-the-jesus-paper/#comment-158463 Sat, 16 Aug 2008 20:59:38 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3427#comment-158463 Why am I not surprised?

]]> By: Bishop Hill http://climateaudit.org/2008/08/12/bishop-hill-caspar-and-the-jesus-paper/#comment-158462 Sat, 16 Aug 2008 19:12:47 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3427#comment-158462 Carl

You just made me very happy!

]]>