I have no doubt that the data was presented to best make the argument. I just don't think they are the only ones doing it. Universally in this debate, researchers on both sides tend to draw the curve, then plot the points.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Larry C. Lyons <larrycly...@gmail.com> wrote: > > that said all the crud that the wing nuts are pissing and moaning > about the raw data being edited is pure crap. There are a lot of > artifacts in the data that have to be dealt with. This is quite > acceptable in research. In my own EEG work we typically had to throw > out about a quarter to half of an individual's data because of > artifacts - i.e., head or boding moving, radio interference etc. So > the fact that some climate data had to be discarded because of > artifacts is not surprising. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:308929 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
