Q123 Dr Harris: My question is: in
subsequent papers when that was done was it always explicit, albeit only by reference to the Nature paper to which you were referring?
Not exact matches
After reviewing the Levitus et al 2008
papers abstract, (as I do not have access to the
paper it's self), I assumed that the data you were referring to was based on some earlier data sets which seemed to demonstrate a ever increasing distributed localized temperature swing,
when subsequent data, as indicated in the Levitus et al 2008 suggests a systemic imbalance of oceanic heat content increase in the range of a 0.31 Deg.
Major magazines and
papers ran cover and front - page stories proclaiming that electromagnetic fields were associated with cancer, and then ran stories
when subsequent studies found the risk was unclear, if there was one at all.
When papers in those fields are shown to have made material misrepresentations, then that should be broadly reflected in
subsequent work.
They would rather not be cited in
subsequent papers than let go of what they collected (even
when it was techs who did the collecting).
The fallacy attending such methods may be recognized
when it is known that actual reliable measures of solar radiation may be made within the atmosphere which exceed the supposed value outside the atmosphere, as I shall show in a
subsequent paper.
After all, if the student doesn't learn to hand in her
papers on time while in law school, won't she be developing bad work habits that she will carry with her into practice,
when a late filing could result in dismissal and a
subsequent malpractice suit?
Not coincidentally the end of term is
when I get out the metaphorical flame thrower and terraform those mountains of
paper, I enjoy the
subsequent two days......