However when caught being straight out dishonest and then questioning someone’s sexuality as a result does say something about who is calling who a liar, no? Especially when the topic is AGW.

]]>I should point out that when Tim Lambert starts calling Steve a liar, everyone is free to make their own judgement. Whether that be about Steve, or whether it be about Tim Lambert.

yours

per ]]>

Here, their results are re-tried in order to check whether the neglect to take inter-station dependencies into account may have influenced their conclusion… The linear and generalised linear models in the R-environment (lm and glm) were used to do the regression analysis. These models gave very similar results, and therefore only the results from the linear model are shown here. Table 1 gives a summary of the regression results given by these models. A comparison with Table 4 in McKitrick & Michaels (2004) (their results are reproduced here in Table 2) suggests a good agreement: The R2 are similar, and all the coeffcients that are considered statistically significant at the 5% level (shown in bold) have similar values.

Rasmus decided to test the model some other ways too:

The analysis by McKitrick & Michaels (2004) was repeated using a different statistical modelling technique. If their results were robust, one would expect to find similar patterns with different models. The regression analysis produced similar, although not identical, model coeffcients, t-values, and R2 scores to those reported by McKitrick & Michaels, indicating that the analysis captures similar relationships.

What Rasmus was left to nitpick over was that if he threw out half the data set, namely everything north of 35N, and used various subsets of the explanatory variables, the resulting regression coefficients were not very good at predicting the withheld data. In Pat’s and my reply we pointed out that this removes almost all the rich countries, thereby taking out the information contained in the socioeconomic contrasts. A better test would be to remove data so as as to retain both rich and poor country data, which is what we did in the paper. We took out the North and South American data and skillfully predicting it using the basis of the rest of the data set. “rasmus” evidently didn’t know this, and since my rebuttal on this point a year ago was not posted at RC I suppose he’d have no way to find it out, except, um, if he’d read the original exchange in Climate Research.

As for degrees/radians, this again? Code published, error found, error fixed, results upheld, erratum publshd zzzzz…. losing will to type…

]]>Happy new Year to you too.

]]>🙂

]]>