You have previously admitted that graphs are not a valid basis for your claims. Relapsing into your old bad habits after I've corrected you is an act of intentional dishonesty on your part.
http://www
guinganbresil: "I have shown graphs indicating a slight increasing OLR trend over some long periods - you argue that you can't just look at a graph... fair enough."
To clarify, scientists make inferences from rigorous statistical analysis of data. The purpose of graphs is to SUMMARIZE their findings, for others' convenience. They choose what to emphasize in their graphs according to their rigorous statistical analysis of data. It is not for you to re-define what THEIR graphs mean.
I don't recall whether you have admitted, but it is also fact, that use of graphs or any other part of others' work to support conclusions opposite theirs is invalid and dishonest. Here's why.
The honest and correct course for such claims -- that a scientist made an error, overlooked anything important, etc., is to submit your work justifying the corrections you propose to peer review and ONLY THEN cite your finding in discussion. If you cannot get it through peer review FIRST then you are stuck with the conclusions of those who have passed peer review.
That truly is how science works: every peer-reviewed work means EXACTLY what the authors say it means until somebody else's correction passes peer review. Fact.
About Climate Change
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
No comments:
Post a Comment