Or deliberate corruption.

]]>Hi Greg,

When considering the radiative response (change in net outward radiation with zero change in applied forcing) delta_R to a change in surface temperature delta_T, which is what ‘climate feedback’ refers to, it is logical to regress delta_R on delta_T. As there is more fractional noise in delta_R than in delta_T, one would want to do it this way round anyway if using OLS.

I agree that it is the SD of the errors in x and y that is needed for Deming regression – IIRC just the ratio of their errors is in fact sufficient. I inadvertently misworded that sentence. Good spot.

]]>Jeff,

Thanks. FYI, I plan shortly to post an article about another, somewhat more central, part of this paper.

I read this post two times completely through. I didn’t read the paper though so all I can say is that it is extremely clearly written and I don’t see any controversy with your version of the math. Thanks again for your extreme efforts.

]]>Thanks for your interest Nic, it seems that very few people show any interest in their findings.

I’d be interested to know what you think after you’ve had a chance to look at their studies.

Thanks, Neville. I will look at the slides for their balloons talk, at least.

]]>