Comments on: AGU 2005 Draft

By: Mats Holmstrom

Mats Holmstrom — Sat, 10 Dec 2005 04:50:05 +0000

Hi John,
there was two questions, but I think I will let Steve write that up. It is not my field, and I do not want to misrepresent anything. Anyway, the questions were constructive, but AGU conferences with 10-15 min talks does not allow much discussions. Probably there was a lot of talk at the coffe break afterward, but I had left by then.

Regarding science: It seemed to me that Steve’s concerns were taken seriously. If anything happens is another thing, but I have been to several controversial presentations where the insults have flown, and this was not one of them.

In fact, my impression, as an outsider, was that people was genuinely interested in Steve’s results. I only attended a couple of talks in the session, but all seemed to have a critical view of data. So maybe Steve have started something. This might also be the first example of “blog science”…

Mats

By: John G. Bell

John G. Bell — Sat, 10 Dec 2005 04:17:16 +0000

Mats,
How were the questions? Was there a good exchange? Did they seem to get it, that is, to really follow the material?

By: Mats Holmstrom

Mats Holmstrom — Sat, 10 Dec 2005 03:34:14 +0000

Just to let you know,
Steve’s talk today was very good. I think he got the main points through, without rushing it. He said that it was the first time he had an oral presentation for an academic audience, but that did not show.

There was 60+ people in the audience, and the reception of the talk seemed good.

Regards,

By: Armand MacMurray

Armand MacMurray — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 21:06:12 +0000

Re: #43
I’m sure you would agree that the FDA doesn’t have to go out and find a cure/treatment for a disease just so they can rule that another drug submitted to them doesn’t work or isn’t safe enough.

By: nanny_govt_sucks

nanny_govt_sucks — Tue, 06 Dec 2005 03:05:05 +0000

Dano, is it so hard to understand that some people are good at cutting up trees and others are good at math?

By: Dano

Dano — Tue, 06 Dec 2005 01:36:51 +0000

Next you go out and collect some data.

This (now viewable) .ppt will at least get people to look up to see what’s causing the dogs to bark, but if you don’t show people what’s in the tree, this will be just another buncha yippy-*ss little dogs, tugging on your pant cuff, waiting to be a field goal.

Best,

By: TCO

TCO — Mon, 05 Dec 2005 13:13:28 +0000

1. I would argue that any of the reasonably well thought out, but not published (yet) arguments on this board. I.e. anything other than MBH criticism is “new”. You are creating two too-far-apart extremes with new analysis (that you are actually crunching now) versus the MBH slams.

2. Your abstract does pull together and create a theme for all your slides. I still wonder if you are making too broad of a theme, though. And if you really know what your point is. Is it: “bad statistical methods in paleoclimatology”, “why do reconstructions differ from each other”, “why are they all wrong” or what? Actually, I think that you need to do a discrete paper on autocorrelation. You always mention it and such. But it is worth of individual attention. Honing in solely on this issue. (At times, you have an annoying almost warmer tendancy to throw the kitchen sink at things and to confuse ripping a paper to shreds with examining a specific issue.)

3. I will look at the new PP though.

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Mon, 05 Dec 2005 03:37:46 +0000

It’s correct as written – DW stats in the calibration period.

By: Paul

Paul — Mon, 05 Dec 2005 02:56:58 +0000

#2 – Last Bullet

Currently reads: …which are typically marked by adverse calibration period Durbin-Watson statistics and very poor out-of-sample R2 statistics.

Should it read: …which are typically marked by adverse calibration period, Durbin-Watson statistics and very poor out-of-sample R2 statistics.

Note the comma after period. Is this correct, or am I reading it wrong?

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Mon, 05 Dec 2005 02:04:10 +0000

Thanks to everyone and especially Ross. I’ve incorporated most suggestions. I’m leaving slide #18 in for now, but will be fast on the trigger.