James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote: > > Genuine science is replicable. And "replicable" > > does not mean two priests recite the same doctrine, > > it means they explain what they did in such a > > fashion that anyone else could do it also. > > > > If they refuse to explain, they are not scientists, > > but priests of Gaea.
Edward K. Ream wrote: > You can't be published in journals like Nature or > Science (or any other reputable scientific journal) > if you can't explain your work. Unsupported and unexplained politically correct pseudo science appears all the time in "Science" and "Nature" For example: <http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/10/01/ross-mckitrick-defects-in-key-climate-data-are-uncovered.aspx> : : Despite the fact that these papers appeared : : in top journals like Nature and Science, none : : of the journal reviewers or editors ever : : required Briffa to release his Yamal data. : : Steve McIntyre’s repeated requests for them : : to uphold their own data disclosure rules : : were ignored. This sort of thing (that PC science is in practice exempted from data disclosure, and proudly proclaims results on the basis of secret evidence) has been an ongoing scientific scandal from the very beginning of the global warming movement, and everyone aware of this unscientific practice should have realized that global warming science is not science, but politics and religion, and that global warming scientists are not scientists, but priests of Gaea. Environmentalism, and several other isms, are state sponsored religions, which because of state backing have the privilege of publishing their holy texts in scientific journals despite conspicuous and infamous failure to comply with the standards and rules of those journals. Nine years later, Briffa's Yamal data for twentieth century temperatures turned out to be that one tree of ten selected trees grew unusually rapidly during the twentieth century as compared to fossil trees of the same type from the same area. These ten trees were selected by Bricca after a great many other trees in the same area were measured, but the rest of the measurements were not included. The larger population of trees, taken as a whole, shows much the same growth pattern as the fossil trees. Take out one tree from those ten, Yamal06, and most of the evidence for climate change vanishes. Restore the much larger set of tree measurements from which the ten trees were selected, and all of the evidence for climate change vanishes - the population as a whole is has the same growth rates as the fossil tree. Take out one tree from half a dozen graphs of global warming in near a dozen papers, and suddenly they do not show global warming any more. Bricca has, at this time, not yet explained why those ten trees, and not other trees in the same area measured in the same survey. And whatever his explanation, ten trees is not enough. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
