If you haven’t been watching the Roger Pielke Jr train come off the rails and the carriages smashing into each other and exploding, I suggest you look at this post from James Annan:

Roger Pielke has been saying some truly bizarre and nonsensical things recently. The pick of the bunch IMO is this post. The underlying question is: Are the models consistent with the observations over the last 8 years?

Hey, hypothesis testing. First year stats stuff. So Annan carefully explains how it’s done.

Marvel at Pielke Jr’s response:

All he does is draw some graphs and wave his hands around. Does he calculate the probability of getting such a result if the null is true? Hell no.

Annan does the work for him:

Even if the null hypothesis was true, there would be about a 21% probability of observing data this “extreme”. There’s nothing remotely unusual about it.

And that’s using Pielke Jr’s cherry picked starting point …

**Update:** More carriages exploding here.

*Related*