Sorry about the comment outage a few hours ago. I had to reset the Spam Karma logs and forgot I was supposed to reinitialize them, hence the error. The problem was that some people (including Ross McKitrick) immediately fell foul of the spam filter so I had to tell Spam Karma that these were nice […]
Nature has responded to Encyclopedia Britannica’s accusation of "sloppiness, indifference to basic scholarly standards, and flagrant errors" with a response like this: In our issue of 15 December 2005 we published a news article that compared the Internet offerings of Encyclopaedia Britannica and Wikipedia on scientific topics (“Internet encyclopaedias go head to head”, Nature 438 […]
Nature recently carried out an experiment on its own initiative supposedly comparing the accuracy of Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica, reported here in the Register. The study concluded that the Encyclopedia Britannica had quite a few errors, nearly as many as Wikipedia. Here’s what’s reported: Nature magazine has some tough questions to answer after it let […]
If you glance to the bottom of the sidebar on the right hand side, you will find a brand new, shiny, and in keeping with CA’s overriding philosophy, free visitor counter with the added bonus that we can then all view where you’re browsing from. Over time you’ll see that we get visitors, trolls and […]
A propos of nothing, I decided to check out the statistics provided by the webhost (Webserve.ca) on climateaudit.org, since we didn’t know whether the recent statistics were an aberration or a short sample from a long trend. Using advanced statistical analysis tools (OpenOffice Calc) and image transformation technologies (Krita) I present the real statistics of […]
Obviously Climate Audit has captured a small part of the zeitgeist of the scientific world, especially in regards to the obvious failures of peer review to detect bad practice and scientific misconduct. It has been asked by some climate scientists why access to original data and full disclosure is so important, as if proper audit […]
I thought this was too good a report to be buried in a comment thread but deserves a wider audience:
While Steve is away, and in honor of the NAS Panel which is so convivially considering the question of the reconstruction of past climate, Dave Stockwell decided to do his own reconstruction using exactly the same methodology as the Hockey Team. As you can see, his results are clearly consistent with the results of the […]
An interesting article was published in Der Spiegel a week ago on the glaciers atop Mount Kilimanjaro, and the research into why the glaciers are melting. The article features Lonnie Thompson who has been taking cores from tropical glaciers for a long time, and publishing articles about them, without bothering to put the data into […]
In the last few days the issue of funding the BBC was recently discussed on Slashdot. There is a proposal to tax personal computers on the off-chance that they might use the BBC’s online resources and even watch streaming video rather than watch TV. I’m pretty sure that such a tax would fall foul of […]
Climate Audit 
Nature and Britannica: Round 2
Nature has responded to Encyclopedia Britannica’s accusation of "sloppiness, indifference to basic scholarly standards, and flagrant errors" with a response like this: In our issue of 15 December 2005 we published a news article that compared the Internet offerings of Encyclopaedia Britannica and Wikipedia on scientific topics (“Internet encyclopaedias go head to head”, Nature 438 […]