This is an interesting and amusing comment on factor analysis, a technique very closely related to principal component analysis: J. Scott Armstrong, Derivation of Theory by Means of Factor Analysis or Tom Swift and His Electric Factor Analysis Machine, The American Statistician, 1967, 17-21 Link
-
Tip Jar
-
Pages
-
Categories
-
Articles
-
Blogroll
- Accuweather Blogs
- Andrew Revkin
- Anthony Watts
- Bishop Hill
- Bob Tisdale
- Dan Hughes
- David Stockwell
- Icecap
- Idsos
- James Annan
- Jeff Id
- Josh Halpern
- Judith Curry
- Keith Kloor
- Klimazweibel
- Lubos Motl
- Lucia's Blackboard
- Matt Briggs
- NASA GISS
- Nature Blogs
- RealClimate
- Roger Pielke Jr
- Roger Pielke Sr
- Roman M
- Science of Doom
- Tamino
- Warwick Hughes
- Watts Up With That
- William Connolley
- WordPress.com
- World Climate Report
-
Favorite posts
-
Links
-
Weblogs and resources
-
Archives
3 Comments
This article discussed PRINCIPAL FACTOR ANALYSIS explicitly. I make that out to be its subject.
Secondly, I wonder if the American Statistician might be a suitable forum in which to publish at least some of the findings being arrived at by McIntyre, McKitrick, and friends.
I had to laugh when reading that “one now gets the impression that the empiricist feels little need for the theorist.” In sci.environment discussion, a fellow thought it was pejorative of me to use the term “multiproxy theorists” in asking the question “Have any of the multiproxy theorists published the results of an investigation into the inherent smearing of variability when combining time series each with its own dating error?”
Obviously, the data speaks for itself