Discussion > Five glorious years
I guess that was a no then :)
Never mind, I still think it was notable, as the gatekeepers of Wikipedia would say. And I only had three more days in the month to point it out.
Andrew was meanwhile busy with his latest for the GWPF, as revealed five days later. Things have moved on since 2008 and in so many good ways.
Richard Drake
I guess that was a no then :)Up to a point Richard. Some of us being momentarily distracted by holidays and stuff.
I too noted the Caspar article - as the moment I realised it was possible for your average sceptic to do more than just bleat about how unfairly the dice are loaded.
My two thoughts at the time were:
1) Here’s definitive proof that the scientific establishment is supporting a system which is evidently corrupt; and
2) The story is so complicated that it’s never going to interest more than a tiny minority of obsessives.
Five years later, Bishop Hill is a blog big enough to attract significant irritating advertising.
The connection between the two facts is not evident. I doubt whether more than a tiny percentage of BH boys have read “Caspar” [and why the potentially offensive title?].
But connection there certainly is. Andrew is where he is because he is the most serious among us. (As the least serious, I can say things like that).
Here’s hoping a few more will manifest themselves to testify.
geoffchambers
It's not been 5 years, about 3 and half years for me.
shub
Geoff and Shub: One of the strange things about BH for me is a lack of historical perspective about itself. Everything seems to be defined by what I have called the current vocalists, who are taken without reflection to be "everyone on this blog". But the true history makes the place far more interesting, as one can even pick up from Wikipedia:
Montford published the summary on his Bishop Hill blog and called it Caspar and the Jesus paper. Montford states that word of his article caused the traffic to his blog to surge from several hundred hits a day to 30,000 in just three days ... After Montford saw the hockey stick graph used in a science book manuscript he was reviewing, he decided to expand his article into book form.
As for potential offensiveness of 'Jesus Paper' it's not bothered me - and I follow NT Wright on the meaning of 'resurrection' in the first century (Michael Potemra gave a surprise introduction to this in a US political mag back in 2003). An ironic allusion that can serve as a reminder of other studies not so far removed in space and time, for Professor Wright has moved to St Andrews. There's no need to tie up all loose ends.
Richard Drake
On 11th August 2008 the little-known Bishop Hill blog saw a significant new post called Caspar and the Jesus paper. As I was trying to think through various 'meta' issues of interest to me three days ago I wrote this:
It was only then that I looked to see when Andrew had penned Caspar and the Jesus paper. For I personally would date the importance of this blog for the global climate change debate - and I think it is important - from that moment. Anyone like to join me in expressing appreciation and, within reasonable limits, reflecting and reminiscing?