I agree here. The graphs showing the trend lines in the bubble graph read to me as pretty much noise. I looked at the paper Scott pulled it from and couldn't f

I agree here. The graphs showing the trend lines in the bubble graph read to me as pretty much noise. I looked at the paper Scott pulled it from and couldn't find the r2 value. Perhaps someone with a better stats knowledge can help me out here in trying to interpret how the 95% CIs that are presented help relate to something like an r2 value? Is the data presented three dimensional? What's going on here? The authors of the paper state: "These findings strongly suggest a significant decline in male reproductive health, which has serious implications beyond fertility concerns". But because of my limited stats knowledge, I'm seeing the opposite of their conclusion. Help?