Comments on: Annals of Premature Accusations

By: John Hackworth

John Hackworth — Thu, 06 Nov 2003 08:02:10 +0000

Actually, if one digs in, one finds that Belleisles was guilty of rather less than is generally said; he mostly seems to have been a really poor statistician. Cramer’s something of a crank—try reading his usenet stuff if you doubt that—but he did in fact catch Bellesisles out. As for anthropogenic global climate change, it’s as near to proven as such a thing can be. But that’s not going to stop the political types.

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 05 Nov 2003 16:09:38 +0000

Julian May warned me that one day we’d have to learn to live with the ice again.

By: Thomas Dent

Thomas Dent — Wed, 05 Nov 2003 10:33:48 +0000

In any country apart from the US, an action of libel would lie for knowingly suggesting deliberate academic fraud. However in practice, the result is that anyone who values intellectual honesty will take Murray down a few notches in their estimation, while the ra-ra crowd at NRO will continue to cheer him and smear those on the opposite side.

By: Matthew

Matthew — Wed, 05 Nov 2003 09:56:57 +0000

Oh, any guesses for the next stage? “Didn’t like the ecosystem very much anyway” ? “Shut up and swim” ?

By: Matthew

Matthew — Wed, 05 Nov 2003 09:54:03 +0000

I thought I’d seen a big white mass the other day, out of the corner of my eye… thought it was just a cloud! The glaciers are coming! Seriously, that’s an interesting new layer of spin. Stage 1 was “not happening”. Stage 2 was “not man-made”. Now it’s Stage 3 “Well I quite fancy a bit of warm weather, thank you very much! With that Ice Age coming and all”

By: zizka

zizka — Wed, 05 Nov 2003 03:57:05 +0000

Does anyone care to respond to Mr. Bellmore on the threat of glaciers crushing our cities? Class? Did you read your assignments?

By: Brett Bellmore

Brett Bellmore — Wed, 05 Nov 2003 02:09:32 +0000

Lott just doesn’t excite as many people as Bellesiles, and for good reason. For all I know, they’re equally frauds, but Bellesiles was fraudulently telling us that black was white, while Lott was fraudlently telling us that pale ivory was eggshell. Don’t expect people to get exercised when the difference between Lott and his critics is minute compared to major newspapers predicting a bloodbath if concealed carry was enacted. Regarding global warming, I’m convinced it’s happening, I’m almost willing to accept that it’s manmade, but you guys are really falling short on the “it’s bad” front. Especially given that we’re in an inter-glacial period, overdue for cold spell, and that CO2 might be the only reason glaciers aren’t crushing our cities at this very moment. The costs of “doing something” are evident, and obviously enormous, the benefits are highly speculative.

By: M.K. Hackensack

M.K. Hackensack — Tue, 04 Nov 2003 23:05:15 +0000

How interesting that Mr. Murray did not the far more applicable analogy to John Lott. Actually, Lott has been accused both of faking data and botching the analysis, so he would have both bases covere. How peculiar that Lott was not used instead of Bellesiles.