Originally posted by RicS:
G'day all,
I have to disagree with you dehammer. The study to which you refer, actually did have some faults. Not necessarily any worse than those lauded pro global warming studies but faults just the same. Their definitions of what constituted a warm period was just too broad and while many of the periods they were discussing would be considered warm they simplified their reasoning by pointing to increased rainfall when the subject was about temperature. It might have made the process easier but it did leave them open to critisicm as to the scientific method adopted. Where they wrong? Actually not often, from the other data they had but less than perfect scientific method is less than perfect scientific method regardless of what it supports.
What happened after the publication is a rather different story and I tend to agree with you. What should have happened is a correction should have been published, omitting conclusions tha the scientific method's faults caused concern about, and reinforcing the main points where the definititions, even when tightened up to something reasonable still enabled the periods to be considered to be warm. That didn't happen of course and passions did run rather high.
Regards
Richard
actually i was aware of the faults, but it pointed out the flaws in the original articles. but mostly it proved that there scientist that disagree. according to some on this forum (who pointed out many times) there are none that disaree.
the main point is that the rest of the "peer review" system attempted to destroy the article, even before reading it, simply because it disagreed with their statements.
