tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post112690244186304856..comments2024-03-27T23:59:49.801+00:00Comments on Stoat: R2 and RE? Err, no.William M. Connolleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-1130687781416589292005-10-30T15:56:00.000+00:002005-10-30T15:56:00.000+00:00I thought Mann was evasive in his answers. (and I...I thought Mann was evasive in his answers. (and I have my union card, not that that should matter). It reminds me of my CO asking someone if they had performed a specific safegaurd in a procedure (accident critique) and them answering that it didn't matter. May or may not be true. But first answer the question.<BR/><BR/>P.s. Steve may or may not be wrong. But his engagement on the math is serious. He's not some creationist. And obviously the math does matter. this is statistics after all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-1128362508430573322005-10-03T18:01:00.000+00:002005-10-03T18:01:00.000+00:00This is an odd blog. Comments are invited and the...This is an odd blog. Comments are invited and then uninvited, questions are invited and then not really answered, and the blogger says that you should really be somewhere else anyway. <BR/><BR/>In such a <I>parti pris</I> debate, self-parody is always just one step away (on both sides, I hasten to add). Ah, wad some pow'r ...<BR/><BR/>Later, -- Jo CalderAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-1128346427809911042005-10-03T13:33:00.000+00:002005-10-03T13:33:00.000+00:00I think comment 7 makes more sense. Nigel Persaud ...I think comment 7 makes more sense. Nigel Persaud has lost the wood for the trees. BTW, if you're actually interested in this, you're better off posting to sci.env: I really doubt that many people read the comments in old posts.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-1128296271352195872005-10-02T23:37:00.000+00:002005-10-02T23:37:00.000+00:00A quick PS. You get an interesting reaction to M...A quick PS. You get an interesting reaction to MBH98 assumption (1) from people who grow things for a living. <BR/><BR/>Cheers, -- Jo CalderAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-1128295977175329222005-10-02T23:32:00.000+00:002005-10-02T23:32:00.000+00:00Hi,On your last comment, if the best evidence that...Hi,<BR/><BR/>On your last comment, if the best evidence that can be mustered is an<BR/>assertion by a not-really-disinterested party, one should probably<BR/>remember Wittgenstein's advice.<BR/><BR/>To write your answer to John F for you (briefly, I'm afraid): for a<BR/>correlation to have "skill", a good RE and a good R2 are individually<BR/>necessary and jointly sufficient. A description of R2 as "not<BR/>adequate" is rather too economical. Approximately zero for R2 is, umm,<BR/>not very good.<BR/><BR/>There's a story on from that about why the R2 measure fails in this<BR/>case, namely that assumption (1) from MBH98 (p780, column 2) of the<BR/>linearity of dendro indicators is false. See the comments<BR/><A HREF="http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=383" REL="nofollow">here</A> (and in<BR/>particular those by David Stockwell, esp #29) for the full relevant<BR/>MBH98 quote and insightful remarks.<BR/><BR/>Cheers, -- Jo CalderAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-1128191019047825862005-10-01T18:23:00.000+00:002005-10-01T18:23:00.000+00:00Jo - if you have anything of substance to say, you...Jo - if you have anything of substance to say, you should probably read the Mann letter I've linked and comment on that.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-1128163503535882072005-10-01T10:45:00.000+00:002005-10-01T10:45:00.000+00:00Re: "sounds entirely plausible". Yes nullus in ve...Re: "sounds entirely plausible". Yes <I>nullus in verba</I> is really awfully old hat, isn't it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-1127064156454273522005-09-18T17:22:00.000+00:002005-09-18T17:22:00.000+00:00Oops, I'll accept that correction re his title/sta...Oops, I'll accept that correction re his title/status. Apologies.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-1127000744794222252005-09-17T23:45:00.000+00:002005-09-17T23:45:00.000+00:00For future reference, Barton is a member of the Ho...For future reference, Barton is a member of the House of Representatives (referred to as a "Congressman), the "lower house" (House of Representatives) composed of 435 voting members. The Senate ("Senators") is the "upper house" with only 100 members. Unlike in Britain, where wholly-owned creatures of the fossil fuel industry seem to be sequestered in the Lords where they can't do too much harm (aside from issuing bogus reports), in the U.S. they can be found in all too influential positions in both houses. <BR/><BR/>This term "Congressman" is used a bit inconsistently since both bodies together are "Congress" but Senators are not referred to as Congressmen. The strictly proper title of Congressman is U.S. Representative, but that's not commonly used. A little more common is Member of Congress/MC similar to the British Commons practice (but again Senators aren't referred to by this term, although they sometimes use "USS" in place of MC, but much more commonly just writing it out all the way -- I say to avoid confusion with ships).<BR/><BR/>Members of both houses are referred to as the "Honorable," although this term seems to be resorted to more frequently by Congressmen, who probably have a greater need for it due to their much higher rate of scandal, indictment and conviction (being closest to the people and all). It's an interesting country where the quickest route to honor is to buy an election. <BR/><BR/>This seems a good place to mention my all-time favorite campaign slogan, a little OT for this post but still broadly topical since it involved a race for governor of Louisiana between a notably-corrupt former governor and a Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan: "Vote for the lizard, not the wizard!" I don't think the shaky state of the levees was an issue in the election. To the relief of all, the lizard won but true to the slogan pretty promptly went to prison for bribe-taking. BTW, those who were wondering why those casinos were in Mississippi rather than the more apt New Orleans will be pleased to know that it's because Louisiana politicians such as the aforementioned Honorable Lizard (governors and former governors get that title too) held out for too much bribe money.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-1126903898647808782005-09-16T20:51:00.000+00:002005-09-16T20:51:00.000+00:00You are judged by the company you keep. I'm not su...You are judged by the company you keep. <BR/><BR/>I'm not sure why you'd want to be surrounded by that crowd unless you like yes boys. But you're not going to be legitimate having a site like that. <BR/><BR/>DDanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03709762632849004871noreply@blogger.com