First the link to this week’s complete list as HTML and as PDF.
I have grave doubts abouts Chimps’ ability to evaluate abstract tokens correctly, in fact I expect most humans to act differently when using symbolic tokens from what they’d do when actually distributing tangible goods. That said, if Proctor et al.’s result is good enough for Milinski, whom I’ve found always to be exemplary in his rigour, then it’s good enough for me.
With the IPCC being a political rather than scientific organisation and having repeatedly been shown to have deliberately falsified data I have always adhered to the sceptic camp and shall continue to do so. On the other hand the simple fact of something being stated by a known self-serving liar does not on its own constitute proof of its being wrong. To my mind Tung & Zhou have finally succeeded in settling the matter. While there’s always room for quantitative adjustment I doubt their result is going to be superseded by something fundamentally different.