Thanks for the input, Mosh, but a more neutral way to bring that up would have been to say “Did you know that Anthony used reanalysis data in his paper”?
Then I could have said, “No, Steven, I didn’t know that, haven’t a clue if he did or didn’t, but if he did it would seem like a mistake to me”. Then I could ask you “Which paper and where?”, and the beat could go on.
Instead, you go all snarky, asking why I’m not “pitching a fit”, as you quaintly describe my scientific objection to calling computer model results “data”. You want to know why I haven’t commented regarding something I’ve never even noticed … which doesn’t improve your reputation for mildly unpleasant drive-by posting.
Nor does it address the question of Judith’s use of ERA40 computer model results, much less speak to the question of her calling computer results “data”. Instead, all you have done is call them “data” yourself. They are nothing of the sort.
w.