Fool that I am, I was not challenging the statistical analysis, only the physical basis for the curve fits. I am sure that the marginalization and mathematics are sound and that the correlations are valid. The causal conjectures are understandably arguable. I know that I should never have taken the bait.
DF -----Original Message----- From: Poul-Henning Kamp [mailto:p...@phk.freebsd.dk] Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 12:01 PM To: Leap Second Discussion List; Finkleman, Dave Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 72, Issue 1 -------- In message <3b33e89c51d2de44be2f0c757c656c880d56e...@mail02.stk.com>, "Finklema n, Dave" writes: >Normalizing and fitting arbitrary curves to unqualified "data" is >meaningless. Just before you make a fool of yourself in public: Tamino is probably one of the sharpest minds out there when it comes to proper use of statistics, and he has the track record to prove it. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 p...@freebsd.org | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
