Peter wrote:-
These Cornell people have published their interpretations
of the data they have discovered, but not the data itself. So their
results cannot be checked by their peers or anyone else. There is no way
to check whether their particular matches between different tree ring
sequences are the only possible ones, or just the possibility out of
several which fits best with their chronological presuppositions (see
the quotation below). This failure to publish one's data is bad science.
And yet everyone thinks they can depend on their results.
Oh, come off it. This is a ***WEB*** site not an article in a peer
reviewed journal. This is classic anti-science talk, quick and dirty
hand waving objections which require hours to rebut. I'm out of this
thread.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.