Hacker News Reader

Fallacy of bringing absolutely nothing to the debate and asserting to the point of ad homonim that scientists would have skipped basic statistics on their data. Please see the post immediately above yours and go demonstrate that the method is flaw before continuing this debate.

The standard of evidence to show fault is yours. Assuming that papers published in freaking NATURE have sound statistics is a reasonable thing for a layman to do.

View on HN

>Fallacy of bringing absolutely nothing to the debate and asserting to the point of ad homonim that scientists would have skipped basic statistics on their data.

I thought that's what you were asserting. My assumption is that scientists have correlated tree ring data with other sources and found it to be unreliable. But of course, neither my nor your assumptions about what's possible and impossible in this area are worth a damn, because we __don't know what we're talking about__. That is my point.

Also, all this talk about fallacies, ad homonim, etc. etc., is very "internet". Especially since you only seem to have a vague grasp of what these words actually mean. Do you think we could maybe leave all that stuff out and have a serious discussion?

Moving the goalpost.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com