what y'all make of this?

[Speckmeister]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Yes, we are aware of the competing hypotheses. They are discussed in detail in the draft paper. The draft paper has been circulated privately to a number of experts and the feedback has been generally positive. Each year, we've drafted a paper and privately invited reviews from a number of experts.

We are aware that it is an overstatement to definitively conclude causality (fish decline due to oyster reef destruction), but we have made a strong case that the decline in fish condition is correlated with the decline in oysters. We have also considered whether any of the prominent competing hypotheses explain our data as well as the oyster reef hypothesis. Right now, it seems that they do not.

My colleagues and I recently discussed whether to publish our first three years of data or collect another year and then revisit the issue. We've decided to collect another year. The case will be much more convincing if the condition factors of fish rebound with the oyster populations. The more years of data we have, the more likely statistical methods are to reveal more confidence in the likely importance of various causal factors.

In general, our work is covered by various non-disclosure agreements, and I obtained the needed approvals for general release of the graphs you've seen. PM me and I'll see what might be possible, but I don't think some of the parties would approve sending the draft paper to a journalist. Some journals explicitly prohibit releasing drafts to the press prior to publication.

Hi MathGeek,

I did send you a Salty Cajum PM as you requested.
Did take me a while again to figure out how to do that again.
Thanks!