Christopher Booker’s Telegraph column used Willis Eschenbach’s recent Open Letter to Nature as the basis for the Sunday column:
Booker writes:
On Friday came the fullest and most expert dissection of the Nature paper so far, published on the Watts Up With That website by Willis Eschenbach, a very experienced computer modeller. His findings are devastating. After detailed analysis of the study’s multiple flaws, he sums up by accusing Nature of “trying to pass off the end-result of a long daisy-chain of specifically selected, untested, unverified, un-investigated computer models as valid, falsifiable, peer-reviewed science”.
Read Booker’s column here
Read Willis’ essay here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/24/nature-magazines-folie-a-deux-part-deux
See also:
The code of Nature: making authors part with their programs
As a commentator who tries to rely on the proper principles of science to challenge some of the more mindless orthodoxies of our time, I am used to receiving the kind of abuse typified in Stuart MacDonald’s post above. Usually I pass it by, But on this occasion, one of Mr MacDonald’s claims is so grotesquely inaccurate that I must correct it. He claims that a column I wrote on ‘Amazongate’ was ‘so cringingly wrong in pretty much every detail that The Telegraph felt compelled to print a full page retraction’. I’m afraid Mr MacDonald has got the wrong newspaper. It was not the Telegraph but the Sunday Times which published a (half-page) retraction of what it had written about the IPCC and the Amazon, The exposes of this bizarre example of IPCC malfeasance I published in the Sunday Telegraph (linked to by WUWT) were exhaustively researched and entirely accurate. No apology by the Telegraph was either asked for or given.
Who is eadler?
He seems to express a bit of attitude.
Does anyone know his field (other than left).?
eadler?…
kbray,
The WSJ has Barrie Harrop; WUWT has eadler.☺
christopher booker says:
February 28, 2011 at 2:32 pm
“As a commentator who tries to rely on the proper principles of science to challenge some of the more mindless orthodoxies of our time, I am used to receiving the kind of abuse typified in Stuart MacDonald’s post above. Usually I pass it by, But on this occasion, one of Mr MacDonald’s claims is so grotesquely inaccurate that I must correct it. He claims that a column I wrote on ‘Amazongate’ was ‘so cringingly wrong in pretty much every detail that The Telegraph felt compelled to print a full page retraction’. I’m afraid Mr MacDonald has got the wrong newspaper. It was not the Telegraph but the Sunday Times which published a (half-page) retraction of what it had written about the IPCC and the Amazon, The exposes of this bizarre example of IPCC malfeasance I published in the Sunday Telegraph (linked to by WUWT) were exhaustively researched and entirely accurate. No apology by the Telegraph was either asked for or given.”
[snip] I apologise.
That said, I still stand by my point, historically you do seem to end up on the wrong side of any scientific controversy.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
February 28, 2011 at 12:40 pm
It appears, sir, that you owe Mr. Eschenbach, an honorable man, an apology and a retraction.
You are correct. I made a mistake in over interpreting one of his references to a pay wall. On reflection it should have been clear to me that he read the paper.
Wow! 2 mea culpas in a row !
When people can admit mistakes and apologize it really enhances the integrity and respect of everyone involved. It makes the blog comfortable to read.
This site is top notch and holds respect. I like it here.
Good work Gentlemen !