Hmmm, yasss!

None of them would make it to the top 10 Boob Tube slots. There are lots of us who don’t actually think of science as entertainment — at least not consciously. Would CA be more entertaining if it followed a WWF Smackdown format instead of resembling a Hissy Fit? I suppose for some it would.

CA wasn’t created to entertain. It’s serious business: an investigation into science results that are being used for political purposes. We there would like to know we aren’t being sold snake-oil. As it is, it’s one of the few places where someone can get firsthand involvement in an ongoing project of this type. Being entertaining would just be a distraction even if it didn’t also supply added reason for dismissal.

Yes, BA is entertaining but deep down I’m sure Phil is really hoping his readers would develop an interest in firsthand investigating and thinking for themselves which often means (OH! NO!) calculating stuff. Ya know: the bo-oring crap.

Take heart! Maybe next year Bo-oring But Doing and Exciting But Just Talking will be separate categories in the Science Blog division.

CA looks as dry as a stick to me, not nearly as entertaining or informative as Pharyngula or Bad Astronomy, both of which are well-written enough for me to think that I’m able to follow their arguments.

Today between 9:30 AM EST and 9:45 AM EST BadAstronomy had 9108 votes some 900 behind CA but your loyal readers rallied and by 11:20 AM EST they tallied up 1446 votes! The largest increase for the rest was: +885 for CA, +103 for JS and +96 for PZ, the others were less.

Did I mention you’ve got a great blog? I’ve been dropping in here periodically even before it became a more or less daily thing.

Congrats!
DAV

In paleoclimatology, it appears people often publish papers based on information they have collected but they keep the source data secret, refusing to make it available to other researchers or the general public even when journal policies and grant policies require this. Without access to the raw data, true independent verification of the statistical conclusions is impossible. When somebody says “I collected some ice cores/tree cores/sediment cores and here are the results of my analysis” but the raw data they analyzed remains secret for 20 years (not an unusual case), it’s likely to take 20 years before it’s possible to find errors in the analysis.

The ClimateAudit project is about getting the data and methods out in the open and actually trying to replicate and validate the results that have been claimed. Double-checking the work. Peer review doesn’t do this, nor does the IPCC process. It seems like a pretty valuable contribution to the science.

One more drop in the bucket!

Dave Mitsky

Which is why you should check things for yourself instead of relying on opinions and comments of others. Had you done that you would have known. Postulating is fun and is even useful at times but has an inherent GIGO danger.

To quote an advertising slogan, “Just Do It!”

Cheers,
DAV