Comments on: In Hamilton

By: S2

S2 — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 17:48:17 +0000

Can someone explain to me (and this is genuine question) how you can get negative coefficients of determination (R^2)?

Well spotted!

It is a typo. In context they are trying to point out that the difference between 4, 5 and six months is slight – but they quote a positive value for the 5 month figure and negative values for the other two.

Makes you wonder who the reviewers were, though, and why they didn’t spot this.

By: Mother nature’s sons â€” Hot Topic

Mother nature’s sons â€” Hot Topic — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 10:13:45 +0000

[...] first ripples showed up at Hot Topic on Friday morning, alerting me to this apparently ground-breaking piece of research [...]

By: StephenR

StephenR — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 00:49:32 +0000

…peer-review is a necessary but not sufficient condition for good science.

Indeed. Will be interesting to see the letters/articles in reply in JGR over the next few months.

By: Gareth

Gareth — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 21:53:32 +0000

Well, I have to say that I am surprised it got into JGR. To coin a phrase, what’s interesting in the paper isn’t original, and what’s original is wrong. The claims the authors are making (and which the Dominion Post swallowed whole) go well beyond what’s in the paper… But I’ll have more on the subject later… Worth remembering that peer-review is a necessary but not sufficient condition for good science.

By: StephenR

StephenR — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 21:19:03 +0000

Gareth, could you summarise (either in the new post or here) what the merits of the paper are? It did get published, so I don’t believe it’s necessarily a pack of tired old lies and half truths like what one expects to come out of the various climate ‘science’ coalition groups. Presumably the reviewers thought that it added to the sum of human knowledge in some way.

By: CTG

CTG — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 10:02:49 +0000

Let me guess: It agrees with your POV so it must be right?

Actually, it sounds right up your street: flawed analysis, flawed methodology and flawed conclusions. All your hallmarks.

By: Gareth

Gareth — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 07:59:43 +0000

Nope. It’s wrong, because it’s wrong. For the reasons given above, and for an elegant demolition, follow the link to Open Mind. I shall refer to that of course, but my comments will be of a more general nature…

By: R2D2

R2D2 — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 06:51:38 +0000

Let me guess:
It doesn’t agree with your POV so it must be wrong?

By: Doug Clover

Doug Clover — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 05:04:21 +0000

Yep that is the sentence, well the bit after “and”. I am surprised that the reviewers didn’t pull them up on that. I don’t think even with the “perhaps” it is justified.

By: Carol Stewart

Carol Stewart — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 03:46:04 +0000

I would have thought that having an inflammatory concluding sentence like this ..
“Finally, this study has shown that natural climate forcing associated with ENSO is a major contributor to variability and perhaps recent trends in global temperature”
.. counts as quite a significant flaw if it is not supported by the analysis presented in the study.