Monthly Archives: March 2010

Temporarily Offline

We’re moving. That means that for nearly a week we’ll be without internet access. That of course means I’ll be unable to moderate comments — so if yours waits in moderation for a long time, I hope you’ll understand. I might be able to get a moment here or there during the “blackout” — but I can’t guarantee it.

Continue reading

Bad Bayes Gone Bad

In the last post I discussed what I thought was a mistaken application of Bayesian analysis. I didn’t claim that Bayesian analysis isn’t appropriate for the problem, in fact I showed the kind of Bayesian analysis which I think is appropriate. But some readers objected to my claims; I think we have some Bayesian zealots out there.

Continue reading

Good Bayes Gone Bad

A reader recently linked to a book about information and inference, which definitely leans toward the Bayesian rather than frequentist view of inference. I do too. But I’m not the avowed anti-frequentist that some Bayesians are.

Continue reading

The Power — and Perils — of Statistics

A recent article in ScienceNews calls into question scientific results established by statistics. It was excerpted by WUWT at great length (I wonder whether Anthony Watts knows the difference between “fair use” and violation of copyright), apparently an attempt to discredit global warming science because, after all, it uses some statistics. Of course Watts fails to consider the outrageous statistical follies coming from his side of the fence (many from himself and his contributors). Lubos gets in on the act, purportedly defending statistics but insisting on a ridiculously high confidence level — and of course, getting in some potshots at global warming science himself.

Continue reading

Still Not

Those who can’t bear to believe that the laws of physics govern global temperature, still want to maintain that it’s a random walk. They base this on the fact that the ADF (Augmented Dickey-Fuller test) doesn’t reject the presence of a unit root, if you refuse to use the BIC (Bayesian Information Criterion) for model selection and you’re willing to ignore the Phillips-Perron unit root test.

Continue reading

Not a Random Walk


Euler appeared, advanced toward Diderot, and in a tone of perfect conviction announced, “Sir, \frac{a+b^n}{z}=x, hence God exists—reply!”.

One is tempted to be amazed how often such arguments are made about serious issues. But it shouldn’t be such a surprise when one considers how often people are taken in by such sophistry. If you can’t persuade them with logic, dazzle them with bullshit.

Continue reading

Update, and a good post by the Rabett

I’ve almost completed the first draft of the paper about the analysis of GHCN data. I intend to send it to Professor Rabett for his opinion before submitting it; I hope he’s willing to offer his valuable advice.

I’d also like to direct readers to a worthwhile post by the Rabett; he’s becoming my favorite climate-science blogger.

Message to Anthony Watts

Anthony:

It has now been independenly confirmed, by multiple persons, that my results regarding the impact of station dropout on global temperature are correct. Your claims, in your document with Joe D’Aleo for the SPPI, are just plain wrong.

You’ve avoided answering this criticism, claiming that you can’t replicate my results without my code. Yet several others managed to do just that. It’s not that difficult, and you were irresponsible not to investigate this issue before publishing your claims. The posts by E.M. Smith are so incoherent they resemble the ravings of a lunatic more than the results of a qualified analyst. Your only other response has been to call me a coward for blogging under a pseudonym. That’s nothing but a desperate attempt of a scoundrel to deflect attention from his own misdeeds.

Furthermore, your use of false claims to accuse NOAA scientists of deliberate deception was not just mistaken, it was unethical.

If you have any honor at all, you’ll set the record straight. You owe it to everyone, and especially to NOAA, to admit that you were wrong. And you certainly owe it to NOAA to apologize. You need to make a highly visible, highly public admission of error, and apology, for using falsehoods to accuse others of fraud.

Are you man enough?

Global Update

I’ve finished processing the southern hemisphere GHCN data, and computed the temperature according to the simple procedure for the entire globe.

Continue reading

Replication, not repetition

By now it’s clear to many readers that others have replicated my results. There’s even one at the blackboard.

Continue reading