Quote:
Originally Posted by Arragonis
The data doesn't appear to be new, just selected and processed differently. The common thread on comments on Curry's blog, the Register Article (earlier post) and here at DotEarth seems to point out the low frequency of historic data which could mean shorter events and changes (under 500 years) are not shown. The questioning is around the validity therefore of effectively gaffer taping under 250 years of high frequency data to the end which show changes which may have also happened earlier but aren't being shown. |
Let me attempt a translation for you: "I don't like what the best available data shows, so I'm going to pretend it doesn't exist". Or (to steal yet another idea from Terry Pratchett) if you stick your head under the blanket, the boogyman goes away :-)