Comments on: Yamal and Oxburgh’s “Blinder Well Played”

By: CRU Refuses FOI Request for Yamal Climategate Chronology « Climate Audit

CRU Refuses FOI Request for Yamal Climategate Chronology « Climate Audit — Tue, 26 Apr 2011 02:31:12 +0000

[...] wrote my recent posts on Yamal here here as an introduction to today’s post by reminding readers that the topic in dispute when the [...]

By: hunter

hunter — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 05:30:12 +0000

It is hard to ascribe good will to what was done to avoid looking into climategate.

By: JD Ohio

JD Ohio — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 01:00:32 +0000

Hu,

Thanks for your response. I have been doing my taxes, so I haven’t been here for a while. Will check out the bristlecone data. Will add that I am a lawyer who has tried 150 cases to juries and that one thing that is very useful is being able to summarize complex issues into a nutshell. Unfortunately, much of what Mann and Briffa do incorrectly is difficult to reduce to basic concepts, and it makes it easier for them to disclaim responsibility for their mistakes. To the extent that their is a simple, basic, accurate description tied to a more extensive and accurate description, I think the realist community will be able to more effectively get out the truth about what has happened.

By: Keith Sketchley

Keith Sketchley — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 22:51:16 +0000

Well, I speculate the term comes from “blinding” as in dazzling.
Obscure, though someone speculated the user this thread is about was punning.

By: Yamal and Oxburgh?s ?Blinder Well Played? « Bee Auditor

Yamal and Oxburgh?s ?Blinder Well Played? « Bee Auditor — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 13:31:15 +0000

[...] Source: http://climateaudit.org/2011/04/11/yamal-and-oxburghs-blinder-well-played/ [...]

By: Hu McCulloch

Hu McCulloch — Sun, 17 Apr 2011 14:17:08 +0000

JD –

Until Muller’s Youtube exposition, it was difficult to sort out the most basic flaw of Mann’s Hockey Stick — that Mann spliced together 2 different types of data.

Although Muller’s utube video illustrates what’s corrupt with the HS industry, it does not relate to the principal problems with Mann’s original HS. He’s focussing instead on the behavior of Keith Briffa’s MXD series in Phil Jones’ WMO cover diagram.

Although Muller does not make it entirely clear, what he is showing is “Phil’s Grand Combo WMO Trick” of combining “Keith’s Science Trick” (deleting the MXD data from 1960 to 1994 that doesn’t correlate with instrumental temperatures), with “Mike’s Nature Trick” (grafting proxy data with instrumental data before smoothing to make the smoothed series look more like the instrumental).

The original HS (MBH 98, 99) did incorporate Mike’s Nature Trick (using either an average of the terminal instrumental data or its annual values), but that was just a minor finishing touch. It’s main problems, as shown by McIntyre and McKitrick, were that it relied heavily on invalid stripbark bristlecone data, and that it misued principal components analysis by normalizing on only the final portion of the data.

In Phil’s Grand Combo WMO Trick illustrated by Muller, the effect of Mike’s Nature Trick is much more conspicuous than it was in Mann’s original articles. Muller was primarily protesting the Keith’s Science Trick aspect of the WMO graph, and may not have been aware of how Mike’s Nature Trick actually worked.

By: Harry Won A Bagel

Harry Won A Bagel — Sat, 16 Apr 2011 07:37:04 +0000

To anyone familiar with cricket, “well-played” is a common cheer (used with typical English restraint.) And also to the English or Australians playing a “blinder” has only one meaning, that is a achieving a brilliant success in sport. So the compliment “a blinder well played” meaning is plain. It is a concatenation of two very common sporting compliments. I am an Australian Poker player and I am not familiar any use of the term “blinder” in Poker.

By: JAF

JAF — Sat, 16 Apr 2011 05:31:42 +0000

Link missing from third paragraph

By: JD Ohio

JD Ohio — Fri, 15 Apr 2011 12:52:48 +0000

If someone could distill both of the last Yamal posts into a simple basic explanation of what went wrong in each I would appreciate it. Until Muller’s Youtube exposition, it was difficult to sort out the most basic flaw of Mann’s Hockey Stick — that Mann spliced together 2 different types of data. I am sure something similar is going on here, but it is hard to read through Yamal and Polar Urals and chronologies and get a basic sense of what is going on. Since the detailed accurate explanation has already been given, simpler ones can be justified with the caveat that a more thorough analysis can be seen in these particular blog posts. It is not that I don’t want the more thorough explanation, but rather it is easier to understand the thorough explanation when you have a basic explanation to guide you through the thicket as you are reading it. Should add that I am awaiting my copy of the Hockey Stick Illusion.

Thanks,

Steve – splicing data is not the “most basic flaw” of the Mann hockey stick.

By: geronimo

geronimo — Fri, 15 Apr 2011 06:23:08 +0000

@Tom Fuller: “Knowing the more casual rules governing grammar and punctuation in emails, I suggest

blinder well played

may in fact have been meant as

blinder, well-played

blinder–well-played!”

Good theory, but Beddington actually said “blinder played”.