by John Holbo on July 15, 2006
I’m looking forward to the release of Lady in the Water. Like everyone else, I appreciate that The Village was ridiculous, but I loved Unbreakable. I even enjoyed Signs. This thing I’m about to link to is a little old. But, well – last call to lay your bets. I’m torn between:
“It turns out Paul Giamatti is trapped on a planet of sea nymphs, who’ve actually “discovered” him – who’s the sea nymph now?”
And:
“The sea nymph’s mother was dead all along – just a wig and a rocking chair.”
Consider this your M. Night Shyamalan weekend open thread.
by Henry Farrell on July 15, 2006
In the “NYT”:http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/15/washington/15boehner.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5090&en=9b975fea628d8ca1&ex=1310616000&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss today.
bq. Mr. Boehner’s views on what is permissible were outlined in a 37-page manifesto that he sent to House Republicans when he was campaigning for majority leader in January. In the part dealing with “institutional ethics and reform,” Mr. Boehner made a virtue of being friendly with lobbyists, saying that “absent our personal, longstanding relationships, there is no way for us to tell” which ones might be corrupt.
by John Q on July 15, 2006
The latest round in the Republican War on Science is a report prepared for US Representative Joe Barton aimed at discrediting the ‘hockey stick’ analysis of global temperatures first undertaken by Mann, Bradley, and Hughes, and subsequently supported by many other studies. For reasons that aren’t entirely clear, this peripheral issue in the analysis of climate change has attracted disproportionate attention from denialists, most notably Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre. One result was that the US National Academy of Sciences recently reviewed the work, reaching conclusions broadly supportive of MBH.
The report for Barton was prepared by three statisticians, Edward Wegman, David Scott and Yasmin Said , and its only novel contribution is a social network analysis, which is meant to show that the various independent studies aren’t really independent and that peer review has broken down, since the same group of interlinked academics is reviewing each others’ papers.
Kieran and Eszter are the CT experts on this stuff, and I’ll be interested to see what they have to say. But in the meantime, I have a couple of observations (feel free to correct errors in my interpretation).
Note: A reader (who indentifies as TCO in the thread below) asked for this in another thread, but I couldn’t find it again when I posted.
[click to continue…]