I’d love your explanation of the R2 vs. RE statistical issue – what’s necessary, what’s sufficient, and why.

to which Connelly (aka Belette) replies:

R2 vs RE: Sorry to JF for not replying, busy etc: but I’m obviously out of touch: what is it code for? Is this some Bartonism?

Now, maybe this is an attempt at humour, but I don’t get much support for that reading from the context. If it’s not an attempt at humour, I’m shocked, shocked that so staunch a H-S supporter should have such a lacuna in his statistical arsenal. Someone should tell Tim Lambert.

Cheers, — Jo

Why ?
In 2003, this was the one group (M&M) that was trying to replicate (audit) MBH’98. Their behaviour to this one group speaks volumes. Strangely enough, they didn’t behave the same way to all the other people in the world- who- coincidentally- were not trying to replicate their data.
I think the logic of your position is not crystal clear to me.
yours
per

Well, who’s using that old study anyway, I mean besides some bulldog-types here?

See figure 2 in Damon and Laut (EOS, 28 September 2004), referenced from the Contrarians page of Schneider’s web site. Damon and Laut are attempting to refute a number of claims to do with solar-climate links. Sure, they have a later reference to Jones and Moberg, but figure 2 would look rather different with MBH omitted. (The graphic says MBH ’98, while the references say MBH ’99, and the actual “MBH” data is shown from 1850 to 2000, an end-date which is pretty smart for a reconstruction.)

Anyway, one can presume that, because Schneider is willing to cite Damon and Laut, he believes MBH 98 or 99 is still load-bearing in scientific argument.

Cheers, — Jo

Your 1st reply doesn’t address primary researcher’s time constraints.

I refer you to my statement: “… With practice, it needn’t even take a lot of time.” Again, I’m just relating my observations from the environments I’ve been in — YMMV. I’ll also note that defending others’ work without at least a rough evaluation of that work yourself seems risky to me.

Your 2nd reply appears to argue folk can judge the quality of the work of something out of their field.

Yes, to at least a first approximation.

I presume, then…

Why?

Your … presumes that they acted this way to lots of people…

I disagree.

Your argument would be a lot stronger if you could show this happened to more than one person.

I disagree.

decision-makers need you.

I do what I can as, I hope, do we all.

Oops – I should have said, “I could have worded it better’, and avoided yet another opportunity for someone to misstate what I said to make a point.

Nothing was misstated. You are simply attempting to weasel out of, what was clearly an ignorant statement, without admitting you were wrong.

Oops – I should have said, ‘I could have worded it better’, and avoided yet another opportunity for someone to misstate what I said to make a point. It happens a lot around here, so my bad. When will I learn?

But if you want to discuss how and when to use scenario analysis and adaptive management, I’m game – we can use that thread for me to re-state too. So go for it. I’m not comfortable at scales above a watershed, but I’ll try and keep up with you.

Armand,

I too spent time (more than a quarter) as a grad student poring over papers. Your 1st reply doesn’t address primary researcher’s time constraints.

Your 2nd reply appears to argue folk can judge the quality of the work of something out of their field.

I presume, then, you have looked at the copious r^2s and error bars provided by S&C and registered your complaint, and discussed that work in the S&C section here on this site.

Your The various problems…as well as the authors’ subsequent behavior, would seem to me to have severely limited MBH’s credibility… presumes that they acted this way to lots of people, rather than one person. Your argument would be a lot stronger if you could show this happened to more than one person.

And your last reply: decision-makers need you. Need you badly. They are doing ‘bad/wrong’ things. Make them stop. Society needs you to act to stop this.

Best,

àƒ’?anàƒËœ