[Jerry Peters]

In rec.audio.tech MiNe 109 wrote:
In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:15:13 -0600, MiNe 109
wrote:

In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:15:16 -0600, MiNe 109
wrote:

In article ,
flipper wrote:

With your logic drug company testing would be to throw away all the
failed results, dead bodies, and placebo effects and declare the drug
'safe': we throw away data that doesn't work.

I explained the tree-ring thing in a reply to your wing man: it's
possible the tree-ring data has diverged due to anthropogenic CO2.

A "possibility" is not an "explanation" and the 'odds' are not
affected by you wishing it were so.

There's also higher UV-B.

More speculation. Have any idea whether it affects tree rings and, if
so, whether they get large or smaller, or what?

From what I've read, the tree rings aren't getting as big as expected.

'Possibilities' and speculations are not explanations.

I'm not 'wishing' BTW.

I was being generous when all indications are you're 'sure you know'
even with the lack of evidence.

I an not educated enough to second-guess the statistics involved. My
bias is in favor of the peer-review scientific process.

Which of course the CRU guys were subverting.
Which brings up yet another question: My understanding is that the
information that Jones & company lost their original data came because
*one* scientific journal would not publish his article *without*
seeing the original data. Now, what exactly were all the other "peer
reviewers" reviewing if they didn't have the data? Grammar and
punctuation? Spelling?

Jerry