Previous growth-rate studies covering 14 dinosaur taxa, as represented by 31 data sets, are critically examined and reanalyzed by using improved statistical techniques. The examination reveals that some previously reported results cannot be replicated by using the methods originally reported; results from new methods are in many cases different, in both the quantitative rates and the qualitative nature of the growth, from results in the prior literature. Asymptotic growth curves, which have been hypothesized to be ubiquitous, are shown to provide best fits for only four of the 14 taxa.
Everyone knows that dinosaurs were put here SINCE creation for the sole purpose of testing our faith. It’s the weak minded who believe anything but.
I was annoyed to lose Brontosaurus. Then Pluto was demoted from planet to rogue moon or some such.
Science can be at least as unsettling as settled.
And so, Ms. McMillan, on what grounds do you declare that “the science” was settled? It looks
to me as though the original reconstruction of growth rates was highly speculative.
Instead of counting bone scratches, why not just count the number of candles on TRex’s birthday cake?
You’re killing me. What Mr. Lewis said. And, Eagle: Heh.
P.S. Before I brave the rigors of your captcha, it filters about 90% of my posts. That must be the plan.
Tim, I wonder if you are one of John Lewis’s intellectual buddies attempting to mock those who believe in God.
If so, please explain your theory of dinosaurs being here PRIOR to creation?
I went to high school with the author of the article. We used to hotrod Chevys together.
Actually the title is mocking the watermelons’ claims that the science of AGW is settled—irrefutable…..
A legitimate target for mockery.
Yeah … they grow about the same rate as my 22yr old son.
” dinosaur taxa “, those are the ones with ashtrays in the back seat.
The next time I get a boner I will have to check for “lines of arrested growth (LAGs)”
And here you see how science works. A theory is put forth with some evidence to back it up. Other’s look at the evidence, search out other evidence, and either support that theory, or strike it down. This is a strength, not a weakness. It’s only the bumkins who walk around going “stoopid scientists, changin’ they’re mines all the time!!!”
Results that cannot be replicated using the methods described in the paper are always problematic. It is unconditionally a weakness, John.