On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 1:36 PM, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> > Edward K. Ream wrote: > > Your language gives you away. There is nothing > > "fraudulent" about attempting to reconstruct past > > climate data. > > It is entirely fraudulent to claim to have reconstructed > past climate data when ones results depend entirely > on a group of ten trees, and to refrain for nine years > from revealing how few trees were involved > You've made this point before. Apparently the scientific community does not agree. It is a gross violation of the scientific method, and > rules of the journals involved, to present the results > of one's calculations and for nine years to refuse to > reveal how the calculations were done and what they were > calculated from. > Not necessarily. And btw, without investigation, I have no particular reasons to believe these assertions. Without peer review, such claims could have been made up. Those with axes to grind often do so. Witness the outright lies routinely spouted by creationists. > > Had he originally revealed how he calculated it, or what > he calculated it from, everyone in the world would have > asked: > "TEN trees! Of which only one grew unusually > fast! If I was to pick another ten trees, would > the result be similar?" > The question of whether statistically significant is a technical one, which I, and presumably you, are not qualified to evaluate. What is certain, is that the data were accepted as reasonable by the unnamed referees. > > But let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the article you is entirely incorrect. Does that invalidate the global warming hypothesis? Not at all. The problem with your assertions is that they are far too sweeping, backed up by nothing by unscientific rants (ten trees, ten trees, ten trees). Apparently you can not cite any articles in peer-reviewed journals to back up your claim that global warming is a hoax. Let us be clear. The claim that global warming is a hoax has serious implications. It is, in effect, a claim that thousands of scientists do not know how to do science. It is a small step from there to some wild conspiracy theory that scientists want to believe something that is not true. I do not intend to waste any more time on this discussion. Continue it without citing a peer-reviewed article and you will be banned immediately. Edward --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
