Douglas Keenan has published an excellent comment on his attempt to replicate the prominent study by Chuine et al [Nature 2004] of harvest dates in Burgundy. The article being criticized is all too typical of a climate article in Nature – lurid headlines, lamentable statistics, ineffective peer review and obstructive authors.
It’s really nice to see someone else wade into this sort of study.
You might want to take the opportunity to browse his website while you’re at it.
UPDATE: Keenan has added an Addendum to the page describing more technical issues with Chuine et al. This tells how the model performs no better than linear regression, and thanks Willis for pointing that out.