Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Twitter
Support

 

Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Josh 7 | Main | What Jones said about station data »
Monday
Mar012010

Mistaken identity

I meant to apologise for some cases of mistaken identity. I was using Parliament's own video feed, which didn't superimpose the names of speakers. This led to me making a bit of a pickle of several of them, including Graham Stringer, the star of the show, who I labelled as Ian Cawsey for a while. I've been through and fixed them all, including in the comments. Sorry.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (4)

Great work overall. Thanks for going. I should tip the jar while the GBP is still down against the USD. :-)

Mar 1, 2010 at 9:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterKevin

Is he the MP who mentioned me by name?

Mar 1, 2010 at 11:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Graham-Cumming

Don't apologise, it's a sign of a weakness - Captain Nathan Brittles (John Wayne in She Wore a Yellow Ribbon). You did well today, Bishop Hill, unlike Jones.

Mar 1, 2010 at 11:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterPops

John G-C, you were mentioned two times I think and certainly one of those (probably both) was by Graham Stringer. Well done for getting that level of attention on the source code - even though inevitably it was a glancing blow at the problem. It would be good to pick your brains on how much of the latest practice in the open source world we should expect of climate science. I intend to bang that drum a good deal this year but we need to build a wide coalition and I think that's possible - see Glyn Moody's reaction on my birthday, 17 Nov (quite a memorable day as it turned out) and George Monbiot's at the Free Word debate on 3 Dec.

BH, you did a sterling job, especially in the write up for Channel 4 beforehand and how you concluded:

We may therefore not learn much about Jones' explanation of the notorious 'Nature trick' email remark, a story which sceptics see as grossly misleading. This is probably just as well, since the committee have chosen not to hear evidence from Steve McIntyre, the sceptic best equipped to give the other side of this story. This failure puts the committee on dangerous ground. By not hearing McIntyre, the man outside CRU who knows most about the content and context of the emails, the committee risks appearing negligent or even worse, of refusing to hear the truth.

It seemed groundbreaking to see that stated in black and white in the 'MSM'. Very well done. The truth will out.

Mar 2, 2010 at 12:41 AM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Drake

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>