Welcome to the Gallery – a place where you'll find hope and strength through the healing power of art and the universal reach of technology –
a place where you can Connect, Create, and Thrive!
Interested in partnering with us?
Click here to find out how!
at one point as suggested by the aturohs oops.Eric's paper had some problems. O'Donnell's paper had some problems. Overall, Eric's praised O'Donnell's paper for its creativity and good ideas regarding how to better attack the data. While at the same time pointing out what he, at least, feels like are some problems (like reconstructing a trend of 0.8C for the Byrd station while the data shows a 0.25C trend, this is clearly an indication that O'Donnell's methodology could stand improvement).Two imperfect papers, both useful. Extremely sparse data. Steig's said that his group's working on new ways to attack that data and improve results, which is pretty much what one expects scientists to do.Steig praises O'Donnell's efforts while making some criticisms. O'Donnell, McI et al respond by trying to ruin his reputation and destroying his credibility.And by publicly pointing out that Steig was the reviewer, which is confidential information, and which he explicitly promised not to do.And publishing the confidential reviews, which he probably has absolutely no right to do. Though they do, indeed, help to exonerate Steig.
By: | Sep 29, 2012 | Report Comment
There are 1 pieces of art in this thread