Bobsyouruncle
Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2012
- Messages
- 5,836
- Reaction score
- 6,904
BTW- McIntyre has now done 3 more articles of the sort of excruciatingly detailed analysis he's known for and they are quite good, especially the last.
http://climateaudit.org/2015/07/03/ruling-out-high-deflation-scenarios/
http://climateaudit.org/2015/06/29/exponents-transients-bodge-or-botch/
http://climateaudit.org/2015/06/28/the-referees-over-inflated-patriot-balls/
http://climateaudit.org/2015/07/03/ruling-out-high-deflation-scenarios/
Remarkably, for Non-Logo initialization, the only manual deflation that is not precluded are amounts equal (within uncertainty) to the inter-gauge bias of ~0.38 psi. Precisely why Patriots would have deflated balls by an amount almost exactly equal to the bias between referee Anderson’s gauges is a bizarre coincidence, to say the least. I think that one can safely say that it is “more probable than not” that referee Anderson used the Logo gauge than that such an implausible coincidence.
Again, from a statistical and data analysis perspective, I believe that the most troubling aspect of Exponent’s technical report was their false claim to knowledge on points that remain indeterminate. (Actually, I started my own analysis with their statistical “model” which I haven’t written about, but it is appallingly bad data analysis. It’s so bad as to be uninteresting in respect to determining what happened. But I should really write it up purely as an exercise in bad statistics – especially since it touches on random effects models, a technique that I’ve written about on many occasions and about which I’m knowledgeable.)
http://climateaudit.org/2015/06/29/exponents-transients-bodge-or-botch/
http://climateaudit.org/2015/06/28/the-referees-over-inflated-patriot-balls/