Interesting reading the comments in the Graun ignoring that the variations are within statistical deviations & using them to ‘prove’ the statistical analysis in error.
bloke in spain
Sorry, missed out an expected in there. You’ll know where it fits better than I do.
Mactheknife
Perhaps we could get these guys a job at the UEA Climate Research Unit ?
Unfortunately, in the smug world of scholarly research, this usually won’t do.
I wrote a paper almost 20 years ago about something similar: that economists were all crowing about the results of their unit root tests, when the tests suggested that variables that couldn’t have unit roots – like unemployment rates – actually did. I, too, had the provocative title, and instead of starting my abstract with “Probably not.” I used “No!”.
That paper was never accepted. Anywhere. It’s still in my file cabinet, and the problem is still outstanding.
![\"\"](\"//342306-1115410-raikfcquaxqncofqfm.stackpathdns.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/abstract-berry.png\" "\\"abstract")
Via.
That’s great news!
From the same site:
http://mungowitzend.blogspot.com/2011/11/little-knowledge-isthe-bbc.html
Interesting reading the comments in the Graun ignoring that the variations are within statistical deviations & using them to ‘prove’ the statistical analysis in error.
Sorry, missed out an expected in there. You’ll know where it fits better than I do.
Perhaps we could get these guys a job at the UEA Climate Research Unit ?
Unfortunately, in the smug world of scholarly research, this usually won’t do.
I wrote a paper almost 20 years ago about something similar: that economists were all crowing about the results of their unit root tests, when the tests suggested that variables that couldn’t have unit roots – like unemployment rates – actually did. I, too, had the provocative title, and instead of starting my abstract with “Probably not.” I used “No!”.
That paper was never accepted. Anywhere. It’s still in my file cabinet, and the problem is still outstanding.