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!
Displaying (1) Comments | Comment on this piece | Report objectionable art
Dhog, “does not exonerate” does not mean “does impalcite”. It just means I don’t know! Finding a flaw in Ryan doesn’t say anything good or bad about ES!I'm talking about the review process, not the two papers.To repeat myself, since you clearly didn't pay attention: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.Except that RyanO, McI, etc have tried to use the imperfections in Eric's paper to prove climate fraud blah blah.That's probably why they're going to the mat to try to paint themselves as being incapable of imperfection, unless, of course, Eric forced them to be imperfect so he could later shoot them down.Doesn't fit the sociological model that climate science is One Big Fraud, otherwise.
By: | Jul 09, 2012 | Report Comment
HummingbirdSong
wfinklea | Region 4
There are 10 pieces of art in this thread