JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



300,000 dollars and three years to produce a paper that lasted three weeks: Gergis

The paper might have been scientifically invalid, but it was a box-office success.

The headlines were everywhere

“1000 years of climate data confirms Australia’s warming” said the press release from University of Melbourne. It  was picked up by  The Guardian: “Australasia has hottest 60 years in a millennium, scientists find”; The Age and  The Australian led with “Warming since 1950 ‘unprecedented’. The story was on ABC 24  and ABC news where Gergis proclaimed:” there are no other warm periods in the last 1000 years that match the warming experienced in Australasia since 1950.” It was all over the ABC including ABC Radio National, and they were “95% certain“!  On ABC AM, “the last five decades years in Australia have been the warmest. ” Plus there were pages in Science Alert,  Campus Daily  Eco newsThe Conversation, Real Climate* and Think Progress.

Blog review is where the real science gets tested

Skeptics have been looking through the paper, and three weeks after it was published a team at Climate Audit (kudos to Jean S and Nick Stokes) uncovered a problem so significant that the authors announced that this paper is “on hold”. It has been withdrawn from the American Meteorological Society website. Bishop Hill has probably the best summary of what this means, and how it unfolded.

When Steve McIntyre asked for the full data, she refused.   Gergis has an activist past which she has recently tried to hide.  She was proud to mention in her biography that her data has been requested from 16 nations: So requests from  Tunisia, Cuba, and Brazil are OK; but Canada — not so much. Apparently she didn’t appreciate his expertise with statistics and told him to get the data himself from the original authors, and added ” This is commonly referred to as ‘research’. We will not be entertaining any further correspondence on the matter. “

Will any of these media outlets update their news?

(The Uni Melb news feed is here).

On AM, David Karoly raved about how the study was strong because it relied more on observations not modeling (it is getting to them that skeptics keep pointing out they have no empirical evidence), and claimed he had “high confidence” in the results. (Is that the same kind of high confidence he has in future predictions of warming?)

MATTHEW CARNEY: Professor Karoly says the strength of the study is that it’s relied more on direct observations and measurements than climate modelling.

DAVID KAROLY: Nothing is absolutely certain in science but we say with very high confidence because we have repeated the analysis alone for the uncertainties that the warming in the last 50 years is very unusual and cannot, very likely cannot be explained by natural climate variability alone.

How concerned are they with accuracy? Are all these media outlets happy to leave their readers or viewers with the impression that these results are robust, reliable, and strong? In truth, even before this paper was withdrawn, before it was promoted, investigative reporters had plenty to wonder about.

Did any journalist really ask any hard questions to start with?

Let’s not bother to get into the point that the results of crunching the data 3000 different ways means their “confidence” came from models, not from the 27 proxies, most of which didn’t cover the full 1000 years, or the Australian mainland either.

The litany, the message went on and on and on in the media and apart from Adam Morton in The Age,  most investigative journalists never thought to ask the question “How much warmer are we now than 1000 years ago” because if they had, Gergis would have had to say “by a tenth of a degree”. (That much eh?) Technically it was 0.09C.

The certainty of Australia being 0.09 of a degree cooler 1000 years ago comes down to observations from a batch of trees in Tasmania and New Zealand. (If we can calculate the regional temperature so accurately that way, why do we bother with a network of 100 thermometers? We could pop a max-min gauge next to those trees and “interpolate” the rest, No?)

Why not skip the thermometers and just go with the trees? They’re accurate to one hundredth of a degree across a continent and sea.

Funding?

Funding apparently ran to $340,ooo but may have been nearly a million dollars (at least that’s what Gergis thought in 2009, I can find no official record of it):

“The project, funded by the Australian Research Council’s Linkage scheme, is worth a total of $950K and will run from mid-2009 to mid-2012″. [Source: Joelle Gergis has deleted her blog. Cached copy here. Webcite copy]

UPDATE: Did Gergis get more funding for this from outside the ARC? If so where?

“Proposals for funding under Linkage Projects must involve a Partner Organisation from outside the higher education sector. The Partner Organisation must make a significant contribution in cash and/or in kind, to the project that is equal to, or greater than, the ARC funding.”

Is this how policies are promoted now? The government finds b-grade activist scientists, funds them to produce papers that may or may not stand the test of …a few weeks, and the media rush to rubber stamp and repeat the story without asking hard questions, and in the end the government gets “third party” policy promotion — seemingly independent endorsement of the purest kind.  At $340,000, it’s returned decent value some would say.

———————————————————————-

REFERENCES

Cook, E. R., Buckley, B. M., Palmer, J. G., Fenwick, P., Peterson, M. J., Boswijk, G. and Fowler, A. 2006. Millennia-long tree-ring records from Tasmania and New Zealand: a basis for modelling climate variability and forcing, past, present and future. J. Quaternary Sci., Vol. 21 pp. 689–699. ISSN 0267-8179.  [abstract]

J. Gergis, R. Neukom, S.J. Phipps, A.J.E. Gallant, and D.J. Karoly, “Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium”, Journal of Climate, 2012, pp. 120518103842003-. DOI.  [ Paper (PDF)]

ARC Funding: ARC Linkage Project Funding Outcomes

[It's hard to find the original grants, this is one, which doesn't add up to $950k could be part of the funding, or extra funding, or perhaps the original offer of $950k didn't come through?...]

2606 ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES
The University of Melbourne
LP0990151 Dr JL Gergis; Prof DJ Karoly; Prof N Nicholls; A/Prof DS Garden; Prof CS Turney; Dr AM Lorrey; Dr K Braganza; Dr RJ Allan; Miss G Skelly; Ms RJ Moran; Dr K Tan; Mr RA Neville; Dr NR Lomb

Approved Project Title Reconstructing pre-20th century rainfall, temperature and pressure for south-eastern   Australia using palaeoclimate, documentary and early weather station data.

2009 : $ 65,000
2010 : $ 117,500
2011 : $ 105,000
2012 : $ 52,500

APA(I) Award(s): 1
APDI Dr JL Gergis, Collaborating/Partner Organisation(s), Australian Bureau of Meteorology, Met Office Hadley Centre, Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Department of Sustainability and Environment,
Melbourne Water , National & State Libraries Australasia, National Library of Australia,
State Library of Victoria , State Library of New South Wales, Powerhouse Museum, Administering Organisation The University of Melbourne,

Summary of Linkage Projects Proposals by Primary Class Code for Funding to Commence in 2009
Updated 13 August 2009 Page 14

Project Summary
South-eastern Australia is in the grip of a severe water crisis due to the worst drought in recorded history and increasing temperatures. This landmark project brings together a team of Australia’s leading climate scientists, water managers and historians with the common goal of reconstructing south-eastern Australia’s climate history. The greatly extended record of annual rainfall and temperature variability will allow better planning for water storage and use, and improved testing of climate model simulations. Improving our understanding of the historical impacts of climate extremes on society will assist with planning for life in a hotter and drier future.

Thanks to Geoff Derrick for advice.

 

*UPDATE #2: Real Climate link fixed

UPDATE #3: (kudos to Jean S and Nick Stokes)

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.1/10 (149 votes cast)
300,000 dollars and three years to produce a paper that lasted three weeks: Gergis, 9.1 out of 10 based on 149 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/85ly9q8

221 comments to 300,000 dollars and three years to produce a paper that lasted three weeks: Gergis

  • #
    Sean2829

    A million dollars in research funding that justifies ten billion dollars in carbon taxes. I’d say that’s a pretty good ROI…if it holds up.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] I’m reposting this excellent essay from Jo Nova to give it a wide as an audience as possible. Be sure to bookmark her site if you have not already. [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    crosspatch

    This appears to me to be yet another example of screening data for series that produce the desired result before you even process them. So imagine I have 100 series of data. I want to show significant modern rapid temperature change. I screen those 100 for the subset that show rapid modern change and use those. But it gets even more subtle than that. I want to show modern temperature change of a greater amount than past change. So I select series that show significant modern change, throw away the sign of the change, and simply operate on the absolute value of that change. So if I have a series that change +1 unit and a series that changed -1 unit, I have two series that changed by 1 unit. Now I operate on the magnitude of the change (disregarding the sign of the change) and bingo! I have a hockey stick!

    What a crock.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    kim2ooo

    Thanks for putting the funding price with this.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Fitzcarraldo

    Excuse me but this incessant bit@@@@g about the AGWers is getting nowhere. What people here need to do now is to WRITE AN EMAIL to every single MSM newspaper (that praised the findings such as the Australian etc) pointing out that the paper has been withdrawn because it was full of BS or similar and point them to Climate audit etc


    Report this

    20

  • #
    ferd berple

    http://cooley.libarts.wsu.edu/schwartj/pdf/Geddes1.pdf

    This paper provides a good explanation of the “selecting on the dependent variable” problem inherent in selecting trees that appear well correlated with temperature as a basis for doing temperature studies.

    If you only select trees that appear correlated with temperature, you are ignoring the larger body of trees that are telling you that trees are not a good proxy for temperature.

    For example, say we selected companies that were highly profitable to study why they were profitable. We found that factor X was common to all successful companies. This might lead us to conclude that factor X causes companies to be profitable.

    However, by not studying unprofitable companies, we overlooked the fact that factor X was common to unprofitable companies as well, and thus had little or no influence of profitability.

    The same situation with trees. The assumption is that temperature (factor X) determines tree growth (profitability). By only studying trees that correlate with temperature, climate science has ignored the large body of trees telling us that temperature (factor X) is also common to trees that show no growth (low profitability) and thus had little or no influence on tree growth (profitability).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Morph

    I can’t be the only person who thinks that when Gergis responded with her “this is what we call research” email that the response would be “Yes, but taxpayers funded it, so spill the beans Ms”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    bob

    A good way to handle the publicity on this right now is to “Like” this blog to your Facebook account, and encourage others to do the same. That way, the MSM is circumvented, and people that trust you will believe you rather than their lying newspaper.


    Report this

    10

  • #

    [...] old story as told by Jo Nova:http://joannenova.com.au/2012/06/300000-dollars-and-three-years-to-produce-a-paper-that-lasted-three… Like this:LikeBe the first to like this post. This entry was posted in climate. Bookmark the [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] JO NOVA BLOG 300,000 dollars and three years to produce a paper that lasted three weeks: Gergis June 10th, 2012 http://joannenova.com.au/2012/06/300000-dollars-and-three-years-to-produce-a-paper-that-lasted-three… [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Carl Chapman

    There’s no way to know the temperature from 1000 years ago to an accuracy of 0.09C. If their techniques were valid, their conclusion could be stated as “Within the limits of our study, the 20th century warming wasn’t unusual. It’s no hotter than 1000 years ago, before industrialisation.”


    Report this

    00

  • #

    If Austrialia’s “sponsored research” is like the U.S., then the study had a direct cost of whatver, plus an approximate 50% mor ethat is “indirects,” or overhead, that goes to the home university of the awardee. So, a study that was approved with a $300,000 budget would take the govt an outlay of around $450,000.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Fred

    The problem is an entrenched culture in government agencies and, notably the ARC, in which hype and political posturing are substituted for science. Correcting it will require a 90 degree change of course, restructuring imposed from the highest levels of (new) government.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Manfred

    J. Gergis et al. (2012) have manufactured a gigantic global omelette, now spattered on the MSM, CAGW driven ruling elite and self-serving, government eco-bureaucrats. They have inadvertently driven another nail through Mann et al. (1998). In summary, Gergis and colleagues have not only done the rest of us a huge favour, they have run out of feet to shoot themselves in.

    The growing vacuum of corroboration behind CAGW becomes ever more apparent. Reality inexorably asserts its presence due in no small part to the persistent and painstaking efforts of dedicated groups and individuals that we all know and recognise for their immense contributions.

    So now we wait for the ‘yes, but..’ brigade as new reasons are identified to justify the primitivising shackles of the Ministry-of-We-Know-Best. The big question: just when will opposition parties wake up and re-educate the brainwashed with the science? There is an urgent imperative to develop an informed, compelling counter position in policy and ultimately, government.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jayjay

    Brilliant article, well done can’t wait for any follow-up.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Lars P.

    “Blog review is where the real science gets tested” – how very true Jo.

    And the proposal to “name and shame” see climate audit:
    http://climateaudit.org/2012/05/31/myles-allen-calls-for-name-and-shame/
    is the only valid way.

    There should be no need of painful process with FOI and skeptics begging for data.
    Either the data is provided and the work can be reproduced and verified, or the data is hidden and the work is on the “suspects-work-without-data-thus-irreproducible-result” list and is a good candidate for the journal of irreproducible results, a fine journal after all, for good amusement not for policies.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #

    [...] ook door McIntyre op ClimateAudit.org is verpulverd. Lees het hele sneue verhaal op Bishop Hill en Joanne Nova. Hierrrr het laatste stukkie op ClimateAudit.org waarin we zien dat de printpublicatie in de [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Leo G

    The Gergis paper was obviously published in haste without adequate internal review- apparently to some Australian political imperative.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    manalive

    If the screening fallacy as well described by Steve McIntyre, David Stockwell and others is so well understood, how can supposed PhD students and their leader (Karoly) fall into the same fundamental reasoning error?
    Doesn’t the scientific method demand that scientists strenuously try to falsify their pet hypotheses?
    Has any paleoclimate study, instead of using proxies which correlate with the instrumental record (such as it is — and there is no reason to do so other than get a desired result), used randomly selected proxies or proxies that do not correlate, to see what results?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    THis is an excellent example of why the peer review process cannot be relied to provide any real level of quality.

    For issues such as AGW, the data and methods should be made public during the peer review process for any member of society to be able to check and critique.

    For any “climate scientist” to claim they’re capable of providing independent quality control on papers is utter bunkum. Too many specialised disciplines are involved.

    The question is, how can members of the public be rewarded for their work. In this case I understand the claim from the scientists was that they somehow discovered the flaw at the same time. What a load of stinking cr*p. Totally disingenuous.

    Isn’t it interesting that there is talk about a media council for media that critiques, but no talk of a quality control group for Global warming papers.

    Peer review is not a quality control technique – never has been and never will be.

    All Data and methods should be made available to the public for issues of public concern – Particularly when public funds have funded it!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve O

    I’m happy to spend a few hundred thousand dollars. It’s the billions and trillions to which I object.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] I’m reposting this excellent essay from Jo Nova to give it a wide as an audience as possible. Be sure to bookmark her site if you have not already. [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sonny

    Amazing how they accuse the skeptics of “cherry picking”.
    I think Cadbury’s “Cherry Ripe” should become the official chocolate bar of Climatology.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Steve McIntyre (along with help from Jean S) is to be congratulated on a thorough examination of the paper. For the lay-person, the correlation tests are complex. There are three, simpler, problems with the reconstruction which are sufficient to classify this paper as pseudo-science.

    1. Geography

    The study is a

    temperature reconstruction for the combined land and oceanic region of Australasia (0°S-50°S, 110°E-180°E)

    So why are Palmyra Atoll coral proxy (>2100km NE), 2 Rarotonga coral proxies (2000km east) or 2 Vostok Ice Station proxies (>3100km S) included?. 5/27 of the proxies are well outside the area.

    2. Proxy Correspondence

    Fiji (<150km across) and Rarotonga (<10km across) both have two coral proxies. The temperature proxies, if any good, should give similar results. They are massively different. I have graphed them here.

    3. Unrepresentative proxies

    By far the biggest land mass in Australasia and Oceania is the sub-continent of Australia covering 2,900,000 sq miles. There were a couple of coral proxies off the coast of Western Australia, but nothing on the mainland. The only proxies more than 250 miles from the coast are at Vostok, Antarctica, holder of the the world record for lowest temperature ever recorded. I have never visited Australia myself, but I believe permanent sub-zero temperatures is hardly representative of the Outback. Of course climate scientists who actually live in Australia might know different:)


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Sonny

    This would be an opportune time for the puppy dog Maxine to use her Bachelor of Science degree to join the debate on this issue…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Winston

    I notice that “MAXINE THE OMNISCIENT” is strangely silent on this issue. Perhaps she has taken her B.Sc and gone home, tail between her legs. Perhaps this was the crackpot science to which she was referring in the last thread-

    Crackpot science is just that, crackpot!

    Maxine’s own advice would have best been applied by Messrs Karoly et al before trumpetting the merits of junk science.

    Why not stop and think and research the case

    And some sage advice for Ms Gergis…..

    bet there is something important she left out. That is how astroturfers work don’t you know?

    The definition of “real science” takes a hammering, and yet it takes “krank sites” to hold the “real” scientists to account and guess who is found wanting!

    Try reading real science, not krank sites.

    Science that can’t stand the glare of the spotlight of scrutiny is not, by definition, science.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    NotSoGullible

    If the paper is reworked and comes back up in a different form, does that mean we can say it was reGergisated?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Wayneofperth

    Jo the refusal to release the data underlining the study in a form that can be used to replicate the study is indefensible.

    Taxpayers funds were used to find this study and as such the research should be in the public domain.

    It needs to be tested with a FOI request by someone such as yourself who knows what information is required.

    I appreciate that this takes time and money and for one would be prepared to contribute towards the costs of such an action. I’m sure that many others who support your work would also join in.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    connolly

    We are in the end days of the AGW hysteria. These are grand days indeed. Now about that election?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Dennis

    Minister Combet will be very very angry


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Fitzcarraldo

    Unfortunately the warmists won this hands down. The heading on the top of this posting “The headlines were everywhere” this is what they wanted. They dont give a Rats #### if its correct or not. You will not see any mainstream say it has been withdrawn, they were wrong etc… ANYWHERE.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ursus augustus

    It occurs to me that this preselection of data sets for “correlation” with the thermometer record is really little different in its scientific value than searching for a group of stars that might be said to exhibit a pattern of say a bull or a bear or some ancient god.

    I would just love to see people like Gergis put in front of a judicial inquiry and have some senior counsel just take them through their “scientific” logic and process. I reckon that would be great and hilarious television.

    I also hope that the apparent collapse of the scientific credibility of this peer reviewed, published (toilet) paper asserting a hockey schtick australis opens up the public imagination to the constructive nonsense behind the Mannian hockey schtick major and the broader issue of self referenced logic in so called “climate science”. It is becoming crystal clear in the skeptical blogoshpere that “climate science” is branch of human enquiry and endeavour that has slunk and shrunk back from the enlightenment into the penumbra of belief based, ideologically inspired activity.

    The next step is to see that view being properly articulated in the MSM. After all , when it comes to public policy, it is the numbers of voters ( as measured at the ballot box or indicated by properly conducted polling) who will accept a particular policy or policy advocate rather than the asserted number of alleged scientists who support some cartoonish depiction of where the centroid of the “science” is located. The MSM is where the Gaugemala, the Waterloo, the El Alamein, the D-Day or the Bulge will take place. Otherwise the MSM will let this struggle become another Khe Sanh, ie part of a mythology of defeat.

    (Also posted at WattsUpWiththat except the last phrase)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    J.H.

    Excellent work Jo. Another ecofascist activist “scientist” and their propaganda exposed.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Dave

    Garbage => 3,000 random reconstructions => 3,000 garbage reconstructions.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Imkay

    Just a note, if one goes to skepticalscience (which I loathe reading, but curiosity got the better of me):

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/new_research_20_2012.html

    The paper is still linked there:

    http://web.science.unsw.edu.au/~sjphipps/publications/gergis2012.pdf

    Should we time the disappearance?

    Apologies if that sounds sarcastic, but rather tied of those who play the AGW game, and decry the ability of statisticians and so forth (who work for nothing usually to test the outcome) – calling them all sorts of names and questioning their intelligence.

    Interesting to really see who the free thinkers are – who has the “closed minds”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Leigh

    “All lying is an attempt to alter reality but there should be a special category of lying to describe AGW ‘science’.”
    There already is a category,
    Its called FRAUD!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    UPDATE: Did Gergis get more funding for this from outside the ARC? If so where?

    “Proposals for funding under Linkage Projects must involve a Partner Organisation from outside the higher education sector. The Partner Organisation must make a significant contribution in cash and/or in kind, to the project that is equal to, or greater than, the ARC funding.”

    Can anyone track down the other source of the funding? Is that what makes this up to $950k, or did that promised funding never eventuate?

    PS: Sorry. The Real Climate link in the first para was wrong (it had an extra http// typo – the page is still up at RC and the link works now.)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Unsatisfied with the northern original, the Gergis Team were looking for a Hockeyroos Stick.
    They thought they’d found a Scorcher worth a medal but it turned out to be a little vat of Van Demons and flotilla of frosty Ice Fernz which sometimes played with their sticks upside down.
    McIntyre cautions us “do not oversell this” but Karoly and Co are only embarrassing themselves by not giving credit where it’s due.

    A good proxy is only as good as the land temperature record used to select it. The CRU’s convenient glossing-over of the south’s warm 1940s makes a delusional dog’s dinner of Gergis’ greenhouse outgassing.

    If hockey mining was profitable, Clive would do it too! :)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    having switched off a NatGeo docu on frogs this morning when they started on how scientists were racing to save frogs from “climate change” (the program had begun by telling viewers frogs had survived everything thrown at them for 350 million years mind u, i have no doubt the MSM will not report anything that goes against the CAGW meme. the individual MSM employees (whom i cannot even call journalists/reporters) would lose their jobs if they broke rank, but nothing stands in the way of them quitting their jobs. however, don’t hold your breath waiting for them to do the honourable thing:

    10 June: Scotsman: Eddie Barnes: Global warming and the economic effect
    THE doomsday scenario for global warming is as chilling as ever, but in the shadow of economic meltdown there are fears that Rio+20 will just be a talking shop…
    And the build-up to this summit has been so low-key as to be unnoticed. United Nations secretary-general Ban Ki-moon warned last week that progress on any kind of deal has been “painfully slow”. Preparations are going ahead anyway in Rio for the imminent arrival next week of the 50,000-strong army of government ministers, bureaucrats and NGOs. But the optimism of Rio 20 years ago has given way to low expectations and scepticism.
    That is a paradox, for the warnings of global destruction which prompted world leaders to meet in Rio in 1992 are only becoming more urgent. In a paper published in the journal Nature last week, a group of international scientists declared that the trends of rocketing population growth, rising temperatures and rapid development had left the Earth at a “tipping point”.
    “The net effects of what we’re causing could actually be equivalent to an asteroid striking the Earth in a worst-case scenario,” said lead author Anthony Barnosky. “I don’t want to sound like Armageddon. I think the point to be made is that if we just ignore all the warning signs of how we’re changing the Earth, the scenario of losses of biodiversity – 75 per cent or more – is not an outlandish scenario at all.” By the time a child born today turns 58, “we’ll live in a hotter world than it’s been since humans evolved as a species,” the report concluded…
    http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/scotland/global-warming-and-the-economic-effect-1-2347269


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tim

    When scientists and universities are drawing conclusions that can affect the very future of mankind – us out here in ‘Mankind land’ should at the very least have the right to know what the formulas are for these conclusions … particularly as WE are paying for the research. Instead, we’re having FOI and full data requests refused, plus obfuscation at every level.

    Instead of going before a ‘jury of their peers’, they release scripted and edited, PR – friendly conclusions to a media that is either naïve or complicit.

    I smell a recurring theme – and a rat.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jim

    Re: FUnding

    With respect to funding, a likely source is some federal or state
    govt department. Many ARC linkage projects have government funding.
    Many govt scientists like to do their bit for the cause. There
    also is probably a contribution for uni of Melb internal funds
    from research block grants.

    Sincerely

    Jim Mitroy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    Joelle Gergis has an article that would interest TonyfromOz -

    http://climatehistory.com.au/tag/joelle-gergis/

    “Salvaging Sunken Treasure” – “Journal of the Weather Situation Each Day at Noon on His Majesty’s Ship Sirius”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    rukidding

    Jo it would appear that this article would make a great article for The Drum over at our ABC.Seeing how they trumpet every bit of GW hysteria.It would show to a wider audience how they trumpet their successes but bury their mistakes.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    The Uni of Melbourne release has:

    The study published today in the Journal of Climate will form the Australasian region’s contribution to the 5th IPCC climate change assessment report chapter on past climate.

    I went to take a look at the IPCC website. Google knows!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MikeE

    “The average reconstructed temperature anomaly in Australasia during A.D. 1238–1267, the warmest 30-year pre-instrumental period, is 0.09°C (±0.19°C) below 1961–1990 levels.”

    So… the degree of warming is less than half that of the error? Is it just me, or does that make it unsafe to draw any conclusions regarding a trend, either positive or negative?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    Hi Jo, There is more than one grant or contract. Perhps your $340,000 mention is for the first and the $950,000 is for one or more of the later. The partner is presumably the Dept of Climate Change, but I can’t see with a short search any category that extends specific research beyond Australia. It might be there, I just can’t see it.

    Grants
    Title, Role, Funding Source, Scheme, Award Date
    Reconstructing pre-20th century rainfall, temperature and pressure for south-eastern Australia using palaeoclimate, documentary and early weather station data. Chief Investigator. AUST RESEARCH COUNCIL. Linkage Projects, 01/01/2009.

    Contracts
    Title, Role, Funding Source, Award Date
    ESTIMATING NATURAL CLIMATE VARIABILITY IN THE AUSTRALASIAN REGION OVER THE PAST 2,000 YEARS: DATA SYNTHESIS FOR THE IPCC 5TH ASSESSMENT REPORT. Chief Investigator.DEPT OF CLIMATE CHANGE. 01/01/2011.
    ESTIMATING NATURAL CLIMATE VARIABILITY IN THE AUSTRALASIAN REGION OVER THE PAST 2,000 YEARS: DATA SYNTHESIS FOR THE IPCC 5TH ASSESSMENT REPORT. Chief Investigator. 15/07/2011.

    PALAEO RECONSTRUCTION OF RAINFALL AND STREAMFLOW FOR MELBOURNE WATER CATCHMENTS. Chief Investigator. MELBOURNE WATER CORP. 01/04/2012.

    Additional Grant and Contract Information
    Reconstructing pre-20th century rainfall, temperature and pressure for south-eastern Australia using palaeoclimate, documentary and early weather station data, Australian Research Council Linkage Project LP0990151
    http://climatehistory.com.au
    From http://www.findanexpert.unimelb.edu.au/researcher/person203094.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    The problem is that science about AGW is too polarised. Particularly high profile stuff like this paper. There continues to be lots of good science being done, some of which supports AGW, and some which casts doubt on aspects of it. But when “warmists” proclaim the imminent end of civilisation, and “skeptics” call for the gaoling of climate scientists, it doesn’t help us figure out what is really happening.

    I went to David Evan’s talk at UWA the other day. David raised some good points, but his conclusion was faulty. He showed data indicating that the models had problems, and then said that since the basic premise behind the models was “CO2 causes warming”, therefore that premise is wrong. Jorg Imberger pointed out that there could be lots of other reasons why the models differed from reality.

    Jorg’s position is a good starting point. The models aren’t perfect (and serious climate scientists know this), so we need to know why the models aren’t as good as they could be. After all, when you are looking at the future, with only the models to guide you, they need to be good!

    But the “skeptic” mindset that challenges anything that might be “warmist” is no help. For example, the surface temperature record has been done to death, with several different methods being used, the most recent being BEST. And they are all basically the same, including BEST, which was done by a typical physicist who knew that other people couldn’t possibly have done it properly. And BEST found? That their results matched everyone elses. So you’d think that it would be game-over for challenging the surface temperature record – but no, we still see alarmist pictures of poorly located thermometers – even though we now know that they make no difference. How does that help? Whilst it was originally justified, now it just confuses people who want to be confused. It is as though these “skeptics” are not actually interested in understanding.


    Report this

    02

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    What would they say if the weather turned really bad as in days of yore – here’s a sample -

    48 A.D. The River Thames in England flooded and 10,000 drowned.
    The River Thames in southern England overflowed. The water extended through four counties. 10,000 people drowned and there was much damage to property.
    50 A.D. There was a severe winter in England and all rivers and lakes froze from November to April.28
    51 A.D. A great famine in Greece.
    52 A.D. A great famine struck Rome, Italy.
    54 A.D. A grievous famine struck England.

    http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/Weather.pdf


    Report this

    00

  • #

    “Its most high-profile practitioners gradually became what can only be described as the media stars of the movement, but what actually happened, was the more they sucked greedily on the teat of notoriety, the more they degenerated into nothing more than advocates, masquerading as scientists”

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/06/08/how-environmentalism-turned-to-the-dark-side/

    Gergis to a tee …

    Pointman


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Stacey

    Dear Gergis et al
    Just so you know what a big lie is see below, source Wiki:

    The expression was coined by Adolf Hitler, when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, about the use of a lie so “colossal” that no one would believe that someone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.”

    Please understand that we have learned much since 1925 and if you are going to waste public money in the name of the
    Cause then you are going to have to be be a bit smarter; difficult I appreciate for a so called climate scientist.
    We wont get fooled again.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    The litany, the message went on and on and on in the media and apart from Adam Morton in The Age, most investigative journalists never thought to ask the question “How much warmer are we now than 1000 years ago” because if they had, Gergis would have had to say “by a tenth of a degree”. (That much eh?) Technically it was 0.09C.

    Punchline: ±0.19°C … i.e. the error bars are twice the magnitude of the “signal”.

    I have little confidence in the ability of proxies to produce reliable temperature records. The Ningaloo same’s readme file says:

    DESCRIPTION:
    The data set contains d18O and d13C in bimonthly temporal resolution for the time period 1878-1994. The material consists of a vertical core from a colony of Porites lutea. Samples for isotopic analyses were taken using a low-speed dental drill. Untreated samples were measured on a Finnigan MAT 251 mass spectrometer. The age model in the data set is based on the density banding of the skeleton and the seasonality in d18O.

    A 116-year record of coral skeletal d18O is presented from a colony of Porites lutea from Ningaloo Reef, west Australia. Interannual variability of sea surface temperatures (SST) inferred from skeletal d18O is dominated by a 9.5-year period, and may constitute a characteristic signal of the Leeuwin Current. On long-terms coral skeletal d18O indicates a near-continuous increase of sea surface temperatures at Ningaloo Reef over one century. The skeletal d18O time series was checked for the presence of seasonal cooling events resulting from major volcanic eruptions. A ~1° C cooling is evident following the eruption of Pinatubo in 1991, which reproduces the results of earlier investigations. However, only weak or no signals can be related to the eruptions of Krakatau (1883) and Agung (1963).

    (emphasis mine)

    Note that the data appear to be from a single core sample. Coral, not Bristlecone Pine this time.

    Nearby Onslow Airport’s data, which are from 1943 to 1973, “thanks” to the Japanses, were not used to “validate” the Ningaloo Reef data. Why would a researcher ignore measured temperature data and use proxies instead? Perhaps because the data don’t fit the model?

    The “uselessness” of Ningaloo as a temperature proxy has been known for a while.

    Professor Pattiaratchi said the ecology of the Ningaloo Reef system was closely linked to water motion, which transported and dispersed vital materials such as nutrients and larvae. For example, Ningaloo reef has not experienced coral bleaching because of southerly winds, which bring colder water to the reef which acts as an insulator.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Gowest

    Once again the reputation of Australian Climate Scientists has been trashed.
    How long are they going to stand for this blatent politicisation of what is a useful and important branch of science?

    Watched Penny Wong spinning on “meet the press” this morning, once again omitting that the carbon tax was supported only if Copenhagen got every country to bring in the same tax. She keeps treating us like we are stupid, no wonder voters are carrying baseball bats for the next election.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sean McHugh

    This is the email I sent to Leigh Dayton, science writer for the Australian:

    Re: http://tinyurl.com/7ux3e7h

    Dear Leigh,

    I read with interest your newspaper article (The Australian) on unprecedented warming in Australia, as evidenced by the recent paper by the overtly political Gergis et al. That paper’s findings are now in serious doubt following review by Steve McIntyre and others:

    This is from Simon Turnill, the blogger whose investigations exposed the falsity of dearth threats, allegedly made to climate scientists at the Australian National University in Canberra:

    http://tinyurl.com/6p6jwou

    Aussie Hockey Stick paper ‘put on hold’ Again, thanks to the tireless efforts of Steve McIntyre, truly a hero of the realist cause, the paper by Joelle Gergis (climate activist), which claimed a Hockey Stick in ustralia (and who then refused to release the data), has been put on hold.

    This more technical description is quoted from the Bishop Hill site:

    http://tinyurl.com/cwjy7zl

    Despite the flat refusal to allow replication of the paper, it was still possible to verify certain aspects of the filtering process. In particular, the data for the 27 proxies that had been used was available and so it would be possible at least to replicate the calculation that showed that these had significant correlations to their local temperature once the 1921-1990 trend had been removed. This task was taken up by statistician “Jean Sibelius” but rather remarkably he found himself unequal to the task:

    Steve, Roman, or somebody, what am I doing wrong here? I tried to check the screening correlations of Gergis et al, and I’m getting such low values for a few proxies that there is no way that those can pass any test. I understood from the text that they used correlation on period 1921-1990 after detrending (both the instrumental and proxies), and that the instrumental was the actual target series (and not the against individual grid series).

    Sibelius’s difficulties were confirmed by others, including Steve McIntyre, but perhaps most significantly, by CSIRO’s Nick Stokes, who is no sort of a sceptic. Stokes agreed with Sibelius that, when detrended, the correlations for the 27 proxies used in the Gergis reconstruction were insignificant, completely contradicting Gergis’s paper. However, extraordinarily, Stokes also ran the calculations without detrending and found correlations that were significant.

    I’ve run Steve’s code with and without detrending, and with and without the Quenouille correction. Without detrending (but with zero mean) or AR1 correction all (exc maybe Madang) proxies do seem significant

    This seems to suggest that Gergis’s declaration that the correlations were based on detrended data was false and that she and her co-authors had indeed fallen foul of the circular argument noted above. The finding of unprecedented warmth reported in the Gergis paper appears as though it is a function of the methodology used rather than of the underlying data.

    And there is this from Anthony Watts:

    http://tinyurl.com/bt9425z


    American Meteorological Society disappears withdraws Gergis et al paper on proxy temperature reconstruction after post peer review finds fatal flaws
    Posted on June 8, 2012 by Anthony Watts

    UPDATE: It appears the paper has been withdrawn and credit acknowledgement given to Steve McIntyre, see below:

    Jo Nova deals with the matter here. She majorly addresses the media handling of this (and other) global warming information. She asks the following:

    http://tinyurl.com/85ly9q8


    Will any of these media outlets update their news?

    (The Uni Melb news feed is here).

    On AM, David Karoly raved about how the study was strong because it relied more on observations not modeling (it is getting to them that skeptics keep pointing out they have no empirical evidence), and claimed he had “high confidence” in the results. (Is that the same kind of high confidence he has in future predictions of warming?)

    MATTHEW CARNEY: Professor Karoly says the strength of the study is that it’s relied more on direct observations and measurements than climate modelling.

    DAVID KAROLY: Nothing is absolutely certain in science but we say with very high confidence because we have repeated the analysis alone for the uncertainties that the warming in the last 50 years is very unusual and cannot, very likely cannot be explained by natural climate variability alone.

    How concerned are they with accuracy? Are all these media outlets happy to leave their readers or viewers with the impression that these results are robust, reliable, and strong? In truth, even before this paper was withdrawn, before it was promoted, investigative reporters had plenty to wonder about.
    Jo also shows why it would not have been necessary for a curious journalist to have a degree in climatology, in order to see a fairly simple problem:


    Leigh, will you and the Australian be correcting or at least cautioning with the earlier sensational revelation? Will you ease the need for readers to visit blogs to obtain the news (for free)?

    Best regards,

    Sean McHugh


    Report this

    00

  • #
    The Black Adder

    I feel like after reading this and all the comments that…

    …we are about where we were a year ago!

    - Picking holes in the argument.

    - Exposing the lies.

    - Exposing the fraud and complicity.

    … and the UN, IPCC, the OZ Govt. and the MSM just go about their merry way.

    Just what the hell is going on here ? Is this Climate Groundhog Day?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Lars P.

    Interesting when reading through the project scope and summary I find a disconnect to what the team delivered in the papers. It is not what they have been asked to do or am I missing something?
    In summary: “South-eastern Australia is in the grip of a severe water crisis due to the worst drought in recorded history and increasing temperatures. This landmark project brings together a team of Australia’s leading climate scientists, water managers and historians with the common goal of reconstructing south-eastern Australia’s climate history.” – what they brought was an analysis on proxies from which none is from the region?
    Then the uncertainty monster is laughing mad -they pretend to know the average temperature of “Australasia during A.D. 1238–1267, the 45 warmest 30-year pre-instrumental period, is 0.09°C (±0.19°C) below 1961–1990 levels.”.
    So, if I choose any 17 thermometers in the giant area – based on 1960-1990 behaviour of those thermometers – I can tell the average temperature of the area with a precision of ±0.19°C for now? and this will be the same with other selected thermometers which behave like the trend between 1961-1990? But what is really the trend 1961-1990? Is it also not influenced by what thermometers I choose? If it is not influenced by the thermometers I choose why is HADCRUT4 different to HADCRUT3? And how about local climate and influences?
    So they used a grant for a study to investigate possible water crisis to promote an alarmist agenda, not to do the science requested and have been busted at Climate Audit.
    As Steve there says:
    “I urge readers not to get too wound up about this, as there are a couple of potential fallback positions. They might still claim to “get” a Stick using the reduced population of proxies that pass their professed test. Alternatively, they might now say that the “right” way of screening is to do so without detrending and “get” a Stick that way. However, they then have to face up to the “Screening Fallacy”. ”
    http://climateaudit.org/2012/06/08/gergis-et-al-put-on-hold/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jessie

    Hi Jo,

    I’ve posted three responses over at WUWT in regard to your question of [other] funding. Tough question, I’ve had two brief web searches.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    mydogsgotnonose

    For those who might be interested, here is an analysis of why there is no possible net CO2-AGW, apart from second order effects: http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/06/07/mdgnn-limits-on-the-co2-greenhouse-effect/#more-6600


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    I can’t help asking why should I worry about .09 degrees C (about .16F) when the thermometers on my patio swing back and forth between 29 and 105F during the year (-1.6 to 40.6C)?

    Those are actual observed readings from two thermometers that agree within 1 degree F when in the shade. It’s been that way since I’ve lived in this once desirable little haven in Southern California (43 years). Some summers are hotter, some are cooler. Some winters are colder, some are warmer. We’re influenced by cool ocean breezes, ocean currents, El Niño, La Niña and Santa Ana Winds. Take your pick. They’re all uncontrollable by us puny little humans, even if we wanted to.

    It’s all been happening for millions of years and will keep on happening for millions of years more. And the tree rings in Tasmania, Russia or wherever else don’t mean as much as my cup full of cold coffee about the climate of this planet.

    Actually my cold coffee means more right now than tree rings and I’m going to get it warmed up pronto.

    Nothing changes. It just gets more outrageously abusive of science, statistics, good judgment and self-respect. Maybe I should add, abusive of the patience and the tax dollars of the people of Australia and the rest of the world. Outrage is not a strong enough word.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Boadicea

    Its all got to do with the imminence of the start of the idiot Carbon Tax on July 1

    Its no wonder that the Press Releases went out to all and sundry, and picked up mainly by the ABC

    IT is also not surprising in the least, that there has been no follow up retractions by the ABC.

    I reckon Gergis and Karoly will be a lot of pressure from academics in Melbourne University and Uni NSW for having bought the supposedly good name of the Uni’s into disrepute…and so they should ..its not the first time Karoly has set the side down


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I wasn’t really going to mention this because some people may think I’m drawing a pretty long bow to associate the two, but it is worthy of some thought and does actually fit in with the main thrust of this Post from Joanne.

    Being an old guy, I remember and old TV show from the mid 70′s called Quincy ME, and it starred that guy from The Odd Couple, Jack Klugman. It was the forerunner of all those forensic shows around at the moment, and probably the closest of them would be Silent Witness. Keep in mind that this was from the 70′s, and while (probably) feasible today with DNA and the huge advances in forensic science, this was long before any of that.

    In one episode (and after all, this is TV we’re talking about) a thigh bone was found at a construction site, just the thigh bone. Given to Quincy, he then determined the age, the sex, and from that he constructed the body, which, amazingly bore a striking resemblance to who it turned out to be. He also determined, from the thigh bone alone, and not after he found out who it was, that the person was murdered, and during the course of the one hour episode he solved a 20 year old murder.

    Now, little resemblance to the Post here in question you may think.

    It seems to me that in this case, and even for CAGW in the overall sense, I get the impression that they have taken one thing in isolation and comprehensively constructed, around that, something that they ‘want’ to fit into that. From that, they then found a cause, so they can lay blame. Then, they have investigated, and in the process, they have found other things that they then attempt to fit the original premise.

    They are looking for things that will fit in with their argument. The models are the same. They also are used to fit an end result they hope to find, and I get the impression they just keep ‘fiddling’ with the model(s) until something close to, or exactly fitting that desired end result is achieved.

    Then it’s just a matter of ‘feeding’ it to the punters.

    In much the same manner as the Quincy script writers fed that episode to the punters in the 70′s, when forensic examination was something the punters had never seen before. They had to make that script believable, and now, with all this CAGW, a somewhat similar case, they have to make the ‘script’ for CAGW believable.

    Everything is designed to fit the argument if you can see that.

    One inherent problem with this is that sometimes, the ‘punters’ actually follow the same process, and come up with different results, as happened here.

    I know, I know, this is another case of Tony using an ‘inefficient’ analogy, but hey, you guy know me now.

    Tony.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ianl8888

    Gergis et al (which includes Karoly) do have an out:

    “[For predictor selection, both proxy climate and instrumental data were linearly detrended over the 1921–1990 period to avoid inflating the correlation coefficient due to the presence of the global warming signal present in the observed temperature record.] Only records that were significantly (p<0.05) correlated with the [detrended] instrumental target over the 1921–1990 period were selected for analysis"

    By removing the square bracketed comments, the box-office blurb then accurately describes the paper's actual methodology. Of course, this destroys the original "we didn't cherrypick data" stance, but which MSM outlet will publish that ?

    H/T Climate Audit


    Report this

    00

  • #

    20 days till Carbon Price mechanism operating!

    Re solar generation projects you will be happy about this:

    $450m solar project for outback NSW
    June 9, 2012
    Read later
    Ads by Google
    1.52 KW Solar Systemwww.eurosolar.com.au/
    Complete Solar System Packages Price From $1399. Free Quote
    One of Australia’s largest solar projects is to be built in NSW after AGL Energy and PV manufacturer First Solar were awarded a $130 million grant from the federal government.

    The $450 million project, to be built across two sites in Broken Hill and Nyngan, will generate enough electricity to power 30,000 homes when completed by the end of 2015.

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/energy-smart/450m-solar-project-for-outback-nsw-20120609-202cd.html#ixzz1xRoXlLUM

    As you know, WA getting lashed by severe storms—something that will become more common due to AGW.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    here we go again:

    11 June: Radio Australia: Research shows humans main cause of global warming
    A US-led research group is claiming to have bolstered the argument that global warming is real, and humans are largely to blame…
    The research has been published in the journal Nature Climate Change.
    The team looked at rising ocean temperatures over the past 50 years, and a dozen models projecting climate change patterns.
    Australian based co-author, Dr John Church from Australia’s island state of Tasmania says there’s no way all of the world’s oceans could’ve warmed by one tenth of a degree Celsius without human impact…
    He says nature only accounts for 10 per cent of the increase.
    Leading climate change and oceanography expert, Professor Nathan Bindoff says scientists are now certain man-made greenhouse gases are the primary cause.
    “The evidence is unequivocal for global warming,” he said…
    http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/2012-06-11/research-shows-humans-main-cause-of-global-warming/958298


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    and this is just one part of the horror story that is CAGW/carbon dioxide tax and emissions trading:

    11 June: Daily Telegraph: Carbon tax shoots holes in Liberty balance sheet by: EXCLUSIVE BY STEVE LEWIS
    STRUGGLING small businesses face punishing power bill rises of up to 25 per cent due to the carbon tax and are warning of job losses and flow-on price hikes.
    Putting a lie to Julia Gillard’s claim that only big polluters will pay, the owner of six McDonald’s outlets in Sydney estimates the carbon tax will add hundreds of thousands of dollars to his annual operating costs.
    Melbourne-based firm Hardchrome Engineering estimates the government’s greenhouse scheme will add $70,000 – or 25 per cent – to its energy bill and says each of its 3000 customers will likely pay more from July 1.
    NSW service station operator Craig Glasby has been told his power bills will rise by 15 per cent and is now considering cutting back his staff to cover the increased costs…
    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/carbon-tax-shoots-holes-in-liberty-balance-sheet/story-e6freuy9-1226390604484

    11 June: Daily Telegraph: $46m carbon tax bill for hospitals, schools by: EXCLUSIVE BY SIMON BENSON
    With 220 hospitals across NSW, the average cost to power each hospital will increase by $120,000 a year, according to the budget papers.
    Hospitals are particularly energy intensive due to the hi-tech operating, diagnostic and emergency equipment and the fact they are open 24 hours a day.
    But the education department will also have a four-year liability of $77 million – or $19.25 million a year. With 2177 schools across the state, the average bill increase per year for every school will be $9000.
    Railcorp will pay an extra $57 million over four years, or $9000 a year for every one of its 1650 train carriages.
    Even NSW Police will be slapped with an annual $4 million increase to power bills for its 500 police stations.
    The state’s jails would pay an extra $58,000 a year each to cover the carbon tax, while State Transit would pay an extra $1 million a year to run city buses…
    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/m-carbon-tax-bill-for-hospitals-schools/story-e6freuy9-1226390600021


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    outrageously misleading headline from reuters:

    10 June: Reuters: China emissions study suggests climate change could be faster than thought
    By David Fogarty and David Stanway
    Editing by Jonathan Thatcher
    China’s carbon emissions could be nearly 20 percent higher than previously thought, a new analysis of official Chinese data showed on Sunday, suggesting the pace of global climate change could be even faster than currently predicted…
    “The sad fact is that Chinese energy and emission data as primary input to the models will add extra uncertainty in modelling simulations of predicting future climatic change,” say the authors of a study in the journal Nature Climate Change.
    The team of scientists from China, Britain and the United States, led by Dabo Guan of the University of Leeds, studied two sets of energy data from China’s National Bureau of Statistics. One set presented energy use for the nation, the other for its provinces.
    They compiled the carbon dioxide (CO2) emission inventories for China and its 30 provinces for the period 1997-2010 and found a big difference between the two datasets.
    “MORE UNCERTAIN THAN EVER”
    “The paper identifies a 1.4-billion tonne emission gap (in 2010) between the two datasets…
    Guan added the China is not the only country with inconsistent energy data…
    The findings also expose the challenges China faces in introduce emissions trading schemes, which need accurate measurement, reporting and verification of energy use and carbon pollution at the local and national level…
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/10/us-china-emissions-idUSBRE8590AD20120610

    what fun the banksters will have trading carbon dioxide derivatives!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ianl8888

    @Maxime

    You deliberately evaded the point of my comment (golly gee, fancy that)

    The Gergis et al paper loudly proclaimed that “We haven’t cherry-picked data” – a large neon light selling point

    It has been conclusively demonstrated that in fact this paper DID cherry-pick data. That is why the paper has been removed

    We are predicting that the way around this – the “out” – will be for the authors to say “Oh well, we did cherry-pick … but so what ?”

    You think that science progresses this way ? Oh dear !


    Report this

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    How for do the reactionary morons in Canberra have to go to get their (C)riminal Tax as Gillard and Swann single handedly destroy the Australian economy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    the Peoples Liberation Army

    Someting else to worry about about Gillard and her Gov is up to. Bite the hand that feeds you..
    “CHINA Warned Australia For Their Deepening Military Ties With US While Using China For Their Economy”
    http://www.4thmedia.org/2012/06/10/china-warned-australia-for-their-deepening-military-ties-with-us-while-using-china-for-their-economy/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Frankly Skeptic

    “Cherry Ripe, Cherry Ripe, Ripe red cherries…………………..” More smoke and inverted mirrors.

    Goodness gracious me I am astounded our recent warming is clearly less than a bee’s digit warmer than it was in the Medieval Warm Period. Or if you take the lower error bar its less.

    The question you need to ask however, if it’s warmer then why is Greenland not ‘green’ at present as much of it clearly was in the Medieval Warm Period with Viking colonization? The answer is simple – it was actually much warmer than at present. Research (see Salby 2012 – Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate p 71) by four listed authors indicates temperatures of up to 2 deg C warmer than in the late 20th Century.

    There you are 3 years of “research” disproved in a matter of seconds with commonsense and some basic historical data. No need for proxies, 3000 iterations and flawed statistical analysis.

    What a load of old hockey piffle propaganda this study turned out to be.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    How Gergis Suppressed The Medieval Warm Period

    In the Gergis paper, the major headline conclusion was

    The average reconstructed temperature anomaly in Australasia during A.D. 1238-1267, the warmest 30-year pre-instrumental period, is 0.09°C (±0.19°C) below 1961-1990 levels.

    Out of the 27 proxies in the Gergis paper, only 3 had data prior to 1430. Of these, the suppression of the MWP was due to one rogue data set – Palmyra Atoll. I have analyzed the impact, and list five reasons why it is rogue data. The reasons are not leading-edge science – more high school or first year undergraduate.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    My summary of the Gergis affair, “The Gergis Paper Debunking – Peer Review is Inadequate” is here.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jessie

    Jo, another list of possible funding sources for the Gergis project posted over at WUWT.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Jo Nova Share this:PrintEmailMoreStumbleUponTwitterFacebookDiggRedditLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. This entry was posted in Climate Change and tagged climate fraud, climate models, climate research, PlayStation® climatology, weather superstition. Bookmark the permalink. ← Agenda 21: Alabama may have outfoxed it. Why you should care. [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Guardian), ”IT’S OFFICIAL: Australia is warming and it is your fault ” (News). JoNova


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Gergis et al 2012 (Mk2) is shortly to be submitted for peer review.

    I have tried to catalog the numerous faults and errors with the original – both those I have found, along with those raised at Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit.

    These lists are not exhaustive by any means. Maybe others can find more, or are able to restate in more succinct terms.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Skiphil

    Gergis et al. (2012) delayed again, now the U. Melbourne website says they hope to re-submit by end of Sept. This is “curious” in the extreme since Gergis pretended (or believed) that it was going to be a quick and minor fix that should not greatly affect the study’s results. Meanwhile, more interesting aspects have emerged (Neukom is one of the co-authors and apparently at the core of handling the proxies and stats according to the Gergis announcement when he came to Melbourne to work on the project):

    Climategate emails in which Phil Jones and Raphael Neukom discuss possibly dodgy statistical methods for another SH reconstruction


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Skiphil

    hmmm I’m not sure why my new comment plunked into the middle of the thread at #78 but there are updates on Gergis et al. (2012) and the fact that it has not yet been re-submitted as planned. Evidently the data/stats issues are more serious than Gergis and her co-authors first recognized, because they have now missed the IPCC deadline for inclusion in AR5, so far as one can tell.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Skiphil

    Can anyone determine what happened with the Gergis et al (2012) paper? per my post at Climate Audit, now even the announcement that a re-submission was expected (“likely”) by the end of Sept. 2012 seems to be removed from the Univ. of Melbourne website. Stranger, stranger, strangest:

    http://climateaudit.org/2012/08/02/gergis-and-watts-delayed/#comment-348628


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] – as Jo Nova noted – this shocking story exposing man's greed, selfishness and wanton refusal to accept the [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ExWarmist

    An apt description of cherry picking and is standard practice in paleoclimatology.

    All “interesting” proxies are determined by the same method – correspondence with the expected result.

    Definently a crock and intellectually corrupt.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    The paper actually goes beyond this. Consider the following from the abstract.

    The average reconstructed temperature anomaly in Australasia during A.D. 1238–1267, the warmest 30-year pre-instrumental period, is 0.09°C (±0.19°C) below 1961–1990 levels. Following peak pre-industrial warmth, a cooling trend culminates in a temperature anomaly of 0.44°C (±0.18°C) below 1961–1990 levels between A.D. 1830–1859. A preliminary assessment of the roles of solar, volcanic, and anthropogenic forcings and natural ocean–atmosphere variability is performed using CSIRO Mk3L model simulations and independent palaeoclimate records. Solar and volcanic forcing does not have a marked influence on reconstructed Australasian temperature variations, which appear to be masked by internal variability.

    Create a hockey stick, and compare it to known historical CO2, solar and volcanic variations, and your climate models will proclaim just what a quick eyeballing of the graphs will say – it is mostly down to CO2.
    Create an unbiased temperature reconstruction, using the peer-reviewed data at CO2Science, and the climate models will (a) tell you natural factors predominate, or (b) spew out huge unexplained errors, as the inbuilt parameters will be unable to explain the Medieval Warm Period.
    The Gergis paper suggests something important about Hockey Stick graphs. They are not just pretty graphs to convince the non-scientists. Suppression of natural variability before 1800 is necessary for the climate models to project unprecedented warming in the 21st century.
    This also explains the extraordinary story of getting a hockey stick into the 2007 UNIPCC AR4 report, as recounted at Bishop Hill.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Agreed! But what you suggest is not the way.

    Email bombing (for that is what you suggest) is an excellent way of annoying the clerical staff at the media outlet, and getting your email address pointed at the spam bin.

    What we do need to do, and what Jo is doing, is to name names, quote monetary values, and explain how the scams are perpetrated.

    People have two reputations – Public and Professional. Karoly et al, are preening their public reputations. But as this continues, their professional reputations start to suffer. They are now at the point where they are entirely dependent on political largesse for their survival. And what politicians give, they can take away, if and when the political mood changes.

    I don’t think what we are doing is “bitching”, but rather, as the Irish would say, “Poking the Pig”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    handjive

    Fitzcarraldo, don’t expect the lickspittle Australian MSM to do any thing.

    After Prof. Ian Chubb lied to the faces of journalists at the National Press Club, I wrote this email to the NPC:

    29 May 2012
    To whom it may concern,

    On 24th May 2012, (6 days ago) Professor Ian Chubb unequivocally led the National Press Club of Australia to believe that the “Death Threats” were real and he had acted properly by relocating the scientists concerned.

    See video of Ian Chubb’s address and in particular question put to him by Christian Kerr of the Australian at 30mins 40seconds of the video.
    Video of Ian Chubb’s Address

    On the face of it, having regard to his reported evidence to the Senate Committee Ian Chubb fair and square and carefully mislead the National Press Club.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/chubb-no-death-threats-in-emails/story-e6frg8y6-1226370442926

    Why did Chubb provide those answers, when he now admits he never read the offending emails?

    The NPC awarded this ‘misleader of the truth’ for his ‘misleading’ efforts.

    Will the NPC take back the free membership and/or demand a apology?

    Is there not one journalist in the NPC prepared to seek the truth or reason why this man needed to exaggerate?

    This scandal has a long way to go, like a snowball traveling downhill, as it is more than just misleading the NPC, but goes to the heart of journalism and it’s desire to tell the truth.

    Remember, the internet never forgets.

    Regards,

    Australia’s ‘leading’ journalists, and not one squeak.
    No response, or even acknowledgement of receiving the email.
    The NPC stands accused of being an accessory to mis-information.
    A Walkley award awaits them all.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Dennis

    I agree with you however most of them in Australia lean to the left and the alarmist fairy tales are what they print.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    lawrie

    Fred,

    I think the point you make is very sound. I farmed for 50 plus years and forever tried to discover the x factor and found instead many x factors which might affect growth (profitability) this year but not the next. Water, warmth and nutrient were all critical but insects and weed competition also played significant roles. I suspect that long age trees also respond to many factors which sometimes support growth and sometimes don’t. My limited and unscientific experience tells me trees are poor proxies for anything, especially temperature and more especially .09 degrees Celsius.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Debbie

    Well explained Fred,
    It has very little to do with science and very much to do with torturing figures (statistics and projective modelling).
    It is amusing that the Gergis’ of the world don’t understand that economists, insurers, financial brokers, stock brokers, business owners, educators and even hard core gamblers know exactly what has been done and also how easy it is to do it.
    Statstics and projective modelling are seperate disciplines and are merely useful tools.
    Anyone who uses them (and just about every type of business and profession does) also knows how easy they are to ‘tweak’ depending on who or what they are to be presented to.
    If you can tolerate the childish behaviour, just listen to one full session of parliament (upper and lower) and count the number of times exactly the same data sets are used to ‘prove’ completely opposing positions in every single contentious issue.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    lmwd

    I agree Rereke, bombarding the media with individual emails is not the answer.

    However, alarmists rely of being able to make whatever claims they want, and to not be held accountable via public retractions in the media. They have got away with this for too long.

    Even if unequivocally proven as flawed, you can bet the likes of Steffen (and Labor/Green politicians) will continue to trumpet the findings of this research as fact. They really don’t care because they know that the majority of people who read mainstream media will not find out it was dodgy research and it still feeds the general perception that dangerous global warming is something to be frightened of. That is all they require.

    I think a well worded critique published somewhere like The Australian (who at least are attempting some level of balance and like to take a poke at other media for greater imbalance on this issue) and drawing parallels with Mann’s hockey stick etc would go a long way towards ensuring the kind of accountability and transparency the alarmists hide from.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Streetcred

    That is all well and good on blogs that the majority of Australians don’t even know exist; talking amongst ourselves doesn’t bring this level of research dishonesty to the attention of the public at large.

    Not only should the MSM publish this misfeasance but the journal in question should also be made to reject the paper and it should insist in future that all such papers are thoroughly peer-reviewed and all assembled data is published on-line with the paper.

    After her explicit rudeness to such eminent people as McIntyre and others, Gergis should be very embarrassed with her behaviour and should also apologise, not only to the individuals concerned but also to her university … this is after all “what we call research.”

    As for Karoly, as he is want to do if he had any wiggle room he would not have rolled over for a tummy scratch … he knows as well as the next person that the paper is a load of bollocks. No wonder she wouldn’t part with the data.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    “Poking the Pig”. Is that anything like, “taking names and kicking butts”?

    Anyway — bad humor aside, the idea is a good one. Nothing will hurt these so-called scientists nearly as much or in any more beneficial way for our cause than discrediting them in the public eye.

    The unfortunate things here are the great difficulty in getting the other side of the coin widely published and the general public’s ignorance of statistics.

    I don’t mean the comment about ignorance to be a put-down. It’s just a fact that many people can’t recognize the most basic statistical misuse. An example from experience: I once read a columnist declaring that since most driving accidents occur within 25 miles of home (true), the area within 25 miles of home is the most dangerous place to drive (false). It’s equally dangerous to drive at any distance from home. Readers should be able to tell what the fallacy is with no trouble.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    I am afraid that climate “scientists” living in Australia don’t know differently.

    Thank you for your articles and comments. Very informative.

    It is becoming increasingly obvious that “climate science” is much different to normal science. The only thing you can say about it, is that at least they haven’t introduced crystals and their paranormal properties into their papers. But then AR5 is still to come.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sonny

    It is time to end the myth that blogs like Climate Audit and Jo Nova are “krank science”, “extremist anti-science”, etc. Here is a letter from David Karoly thanking bloggers and independent auditors for their work in exposing fundamental errors. The problem is Gergis et al and David Karoly et al get paid big bucks for publishing papers that get instant recognition in the media (whether they are krank science or not), yet people like Mckintire and Jo nova don’t get paid, nor do they get any real traction in the mainstream media.

    I think that Gergis, Karoly and other authors of this paper should be forced to refund every cent and Melboune University should be held vicariously liable for damages. They have abused the trust of the Australian Public. Peer review has failed. It is completely unacceptable that they cannot check their own work for such obvious errors and that this be left to unpaid volunteers.
    Without the work of these independent auditors do you think this would ever be corrected?

    Dear Stephen,

    I am contacting you on behalf of all the authors of the Gergis et al (2012) study ‘Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium’

    An issue has been identified in the processing of the data used in the study, which may affect the results. While the paper states that “both proxy climate and instrumental data were linearly detrended over the 1921–1990 period”, we discovered on Tuesday 5 June that the records used in the final analysis were not detrended for proxy selection, making this statement incorrect. Although this is an unfortunate data processing issue, it is likely to have implications for the results reported in the study. The journal has been contacted and the publication of the study has been put on hold.

    This is a normal part of science. The testing of scientific studies through independent analysis of data and methods strengthens the conclusions. In this study, an issue has been identified and the results are being re-checked.

    We would be grateful if you would post the notice below on your ClimateAudit web site.

    We would like to thank you and the participants at the ClimateAudit blog for your scrutiny of our study, which also identified this data processing issue.

    Thanks, David Karoly


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ExWarmist

    Excellent summary of quotes effectively applied to this case.

    Well done.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    The Gergis paper suggests something important about Hockey Stick graphs. They are not just pretty graphs to convince the non-scientists. Suppression of natural variability before 1800 is necessary for the climate models to project unprecedented warming in the 21st century.

    Yep; the hockeystick typifies AGW science: which is the rejigging of the past to conform to the theory. But it is not just past “natural variability”, it is also happening to every modern temperature record.

    All lying is an attempt to alter reality but there should be a special category of lying to describe AGW ‘science’.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Winston

    Bet Karoly wrote that through gritted teeth. It absolutely oozes sincerity. I bet his initial response was something like….”Oh, great”, or perhaps “Oh Shit”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sonny

    I love how Karoly talks it down as a “data processing issue”. It is so much more than that.
    If I had submitted an assignment as an undergraduate which purported to use a particular methodology but infact did not, and instead (accidentally or deliberately) used a methodology known and acknowledged by myself to cause biased results I would fail that assessment, fail the unit and potentially face disciplinary action.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Dennis

    The statistics three-drawer filing cabinet:

    Lies
    Damn Lies
    Statistics


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Debbie

    Yep,
    I also like:
    ‘torture figures for long enough and they will admit to anything’
    :-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sonny

    Perhaps, but it’s cold and wet right now in the biggest population centers in Australia. The media hyping “unprecedented warming” is likely to raise more and more eyebrows.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    .
    While I don’t disagree with you general observation Fritz, I wouldn’t sweat it too much. The bottom line is that most places where the original story got mileage were all preaching to the converted anyway, and any form of correction now would be seen as the media responding to “pressure from big oil” or some such.

    Ms Gergis is young, professionally qualified, is “making it in a man’s world”, is reasonably attractive, and looks as though she would fit into a size 10 or smaller dress.

    In other words, before her fall from grace she was ideal material for an endless string of articles in women’s magazines, appearances on women-orientated day-time chat shows, and guest spots on any one of a number of ABC current affair-type programs.

    Think of a semi-articulate Anna Rose capable of at least looking and sounding like she knew what she was talking about.

    Be grateful it got nipped in the bud when it did.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Thanks, you’ve got the system figured out.

    JoNova is an extremely rare journalist who still regards the integrity of news reporting above personal gain. Sadly, Gergis followed the well-funded path of modern science.

    Two landmark papers [1,2] published in 1946 managed to “twist the truth, and shape the future” of science into misinformation that:

    a.) Disrupted 4 centuries of scientific advances (1946-1543 = 403 yrs)
    b.) Deceived the public for the next 66 years (2012-1946 = 66 yrs) !

    http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-105

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    http://www.omatumr.com


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sonny

    Forget about an “egregious error”.
    This is a case of “agergis error”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sonny

    $400,000 or $950,000. It’s still one heck of a lot of money.

    I bet the government would be awfully sour if their investment resulted in the conclusion that
    “warming in the last 100 years is not unprecedented”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Gee Aye

    ARC makes this statement in several places and this is a part of their Act:

    The ARC is required to comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act 1988 and the Freedom of Information Act 1982.

    details of what each researcher and co-funder is signing up for are contained in one of the appendices for rules for each year’s funding. Probably the same each year since I don’t think the Act has changed for ARC disclosure rules.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sonny

    Jo, the other funding bodies are listed on the Melbourne University website.

    “The study was funded by the Australian Research Council, Federal Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and Past Global Changes (PAGES).”

    http://newsroom.melbourne.edu/studio/ep-149


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Marian

    And the New Zealand MSM. Are equally culpable.

    They’re very quick to publish any form of AGW/CC sensational junk science. Like a PR agency propagandist. Very slow to correct or withdraw if any of it. When as usual it’s been shown to be a complete load of garbage, flawed or false!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Kevin,

    oh! nyuk nyuk nyuk.

    I can just see the furrowed brow of Captain Phillip aboard the Supply right now, boring along with the roaring Forties pushing him, and thinking to himself.

    “Damn, looks like that Fwenchman Laperouse has got here first and is already building those damned coal fired power plants.”

    Tony.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    rukidding

    Hmmm I may have missed something but it took them days to get back out to sea and back to,what is now,Sydney harbor.Yet the Sydney to Hobart yachts take about 3 days to go from Sydney to Hobart.Why would you have to go out to sea to cover the 20 odd miles from Botany Bay to Sydney harbor or did Cook not make that plain on his maps.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Its called winter, Sonny.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mike Jowsey

    The whole warmist camp is deafeningly silent on this issue. I think they are still in a huddle trying to work out the spin. Good luck with that one. Failing to figure out any spin, they will just ignore it and hope no one remembers it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    That is a good idea.

    I’m sure Jo could do a Drum suitable article, if it were not for the 1000 other things she is doing:-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    This particular ABC envirojourno wants to remind us of the other, “unfashionable” green issues.
    The ABC preparing for a hasty retreat from the global warming scam perhaps? We live in hope.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    The Black Adder

    What about the 7.30 Reoprt with Leigh Sales and her slippery lips quivering as she says…

    ,,,and once again, on behalf of ABC Management, we sincerly apologise for our error in reporting that bit about climate alarmism….

    I think we will be waiting a while for that one!

    The Drum and Crabb, arrggghhh, I cant watch it!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    You’ve been told before John, about the deficiencies of BEST; and it does not match the other land temperature records; go to WFT and graph it yourself.

    The models aren’t perfect

    jennifer Marohasy has recently witten a paper comparing the predictive capacities of the $million AGW computer models used by CSIRO and BOM with a Neural Network model she and John Abbott put together with bits and pieces from Price Attack for about $7.50. Her model was far superior; the comparison is discussed here.

    AGW no longer pretends to be science; it is a rotten combination of ideology, pride and money.

    Wake up and smell the roses, Johnny boy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    There continues to be lots of good science being done, some of which supports AGW

    Care to give us an example – something that involves empirical evidence as opposed to a computer model?

    “skeptics” call for the gaoling of climate scientists

    They allegedly hanged Saddam Hussein, shot Osama bin Laden, and beat Gaddaffi to death for their claimed “crimes against humanity”. An awful lot more people are going to die over the next decade because of the dishonesty of some of these “climate scientists” – especially those in the “team”, than are claimed to have been killed by the above-named three.

    When the dying starts in earnest JB, what do you suggest we do with the “climate scientists” responsible – dock them all a week’s wages?

    Jorg Imberger pointed out that there could be lots of other reasons why the models differed from reality.

    Yeah – like GARBAGE IN = GARBAGE OUT

    After all, when you are looking at the future, with only the models to guide you,

    Ah, so we are only have models to guide us – that would explain why “climate scientists” studiously ignore 10,000 years of historical and geological records clearly demonstrating the natural, cyclical nature of climate. Probably also explains why when ignoring the record fails, “climate scientists” keep trying to rewrite it.

    they need to be good!

    How about we start trying to incorporate things like “honesty”, and based on FACT?

    For example, the surface temperature record has been done to death

    If that’s the case, how come the “climate scientists” keep having to go back and change it? Hansen got caught out altering the early records no less than SIX times in ONE MONTH not so long ago. One would assume if the record had really been “done to death”, there would be no need to keep altering it (and almost always DOWN in the past, and UP in the present).

    So you’d think that it would be game-over for challenging the surface temperature record

    I see. The cultists can go on changing the record as often as they like and by as much as they like, in whatever direction they like and whatever it is at any given moment, it MUST be accepted because “this time they got it right”. That about cover it?

    It is as though these “skeptics” are not actually interested in understanding.

    Oh, we understand alright. We understand dishonesty, fraud and corruption only too well.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Otter

    We understand that you want to be confused, brooksie. And I suspect that, long after your heroes have been hauled off to jail- and good men like Dr. Ball will have been exonerated- you’ll still be quite confused.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    So John, did you ask David any questions?
    I asked him if you went, and he said he didn’t think so, because “he would have come up and said hello”… Jo

    PS: Faulty models wouldn’t matter a toss, if only you could find that one empirical paper that shows that positive amplification occurs and is significant in the long run. Good luck with that. 2 years 5 months and counting… models are all you have, and even you admit they are wrong.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Lars P.

    Oh yes. Who is polarising this?
    Who is calling the others names like “deniers”, making videos like 10:10 splashing deniers to pieces, intimidating: we know who you are, we know where you live, bulling, who did for years not provide the data, said for years the science is settled and so on?
    Who did whitewashing enquiries of climategate where nothing has been clarified, no hard questions asked?
    No John, the time of begging for data and nice talking had passed. Name and shame is the right procedure now. The “warmistas” (is this name calling?) had their fair chance to come out and say: maybe we made some mistakes and exaggerations. But nothing of the kind happened.
    The “science” that you try to defend – has to come out with clean policies, raw data and methodology availability as a condition to be even taken into consideration. And this is your work to clear up with the “warmista-science”, not our. Go and talk to them and come back with information where the raw data for their studies is.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sean McHugh

    John Brookes said:

    Jorg’s position is a good starting point.

    Really?

    The models aren’t perfect (and serious climate scientists know this), so we need to know why the models aren’t as good as they could be

    Your question assumes their basic value, the very thing being challenged. One could suggest your question is rather like asking why young-earth creation models aren’t as good as they could be.

    You also said:

    And BEST found? That their results matched everyone elses. So you’d think that it would be game-over for challenging the surface temperature record – but no, we still see alarmist pictures of poorly located thermometers – even though we now know that they make no difference. How does that help?

    BEST was using essentially the same data, so it is hardly surprising that it found the same. The data has been, and still is being manipulated to produce an upward trend. It is done by lowering past temperatures and increasing present ones. Feel free to challenge me for examples.

    And Muller was not the sceptic that you seem to imply.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Markus Fitzhenry

    “The models aren’t perfect (and serious climate scientists know this), so we need to know why the models aren’t as good as they could be.”

    “Serious” Brooksie, superior physicists know proxies of an ancient incomprehensible system cannot be used for a modern commandable incomprehensible system experiment. It is fraught with difficulty. Results eg, the Gergis studies, are really no more than pseudo science. The simple fact that wood is discarded if the signal isn’t readable tells us that science from proxies isn’t pure science and certainly nothing for realists to hang their hats upon.

    But “climate scientists” do hang their hat on fallacious logic and even make silly models compounding their errors.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Otter

    And it is a whole .09 degrees warmer, brooksie.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Pat

    And in the Old country, June, summer, icy blast in London for the Queen’s jubilee! Did you see how many thick coats people were wearing? Must be the new cold warm, like the current drought wet in Aus.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sonny

    It’s called “nobody can see, feel, taste, smell or touch global warming and it’s a travesty that they can’t”.

    Gergis and team’s fraudulent virtual reality is only as strong as peoples faith in the AGW dogma – it will always play second fiddle to reality – global warming is not perceptible because we cannot feel a 0.09 degree change.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    50 A.D. There was a severe winter in England and all rivers and lakes froze from November to April.28

    And then on April 29th they thawed…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    The “Great Flood” of 48 AD killed about 80% of the population of the area at that time. This is a death ratio larger than that of Hiroshima. Puts that flood into perspective, doesn’t it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    So neural networks are great at recognising patterns, and could be the best way to forecast rain in the near future. Great idea, and well done. But it has nothing to do with climate predictions in the longer term.

    Anyway, saying:

    AGW no longer pretends to be science; it is a rotten combination of ideology, pride and money.

    doesn’t really help, does it? I could just as well say that “skeptics” are closed minded buffoons knowingly peddling misinformation for the coal industry, couldn’t I? But that is dumb – some no doubt do that, but others have nobler motives.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Ah, so we are only have models to guide us – that would explain why “climate scientists” studiously ignore 10,000 years of historical and geological records clearly demonstrating the natural, cyclical nature of climate. Probably also explains why when ignoring the record fails, “climate scientists” keep trying to rewrite it.

    Maybe the 10,000 years of records are used to produce better models?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    But it has nothing to do with climate predictions in the longer term.

    Why not? Are you saying there are no long term patterns in the climate?

    As for my little dummy spit; tell me how the Gergis debacle doesn’t demonstrate the point; sure Karoly came up with some belated acknowledgement of CA, but really, after the usual unabashed fawning by the usual supects in the MSM about the paper, the fact that there are no equivalent retractions and mea culpas says it all, doesn’t it?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    That is all well and good on blogs that the majority of Australians don’t even know exist …

    The demographic that the propaganda around carbon is aimed at is known, in the trade, as the pre-millenials. This is the generation whose current age is somewhere between fifteen and thirty five.

    This is the generation that grew up with the early web, and are well used to informing themselves via blogs and online news sheets. They were also the generation who were taught about the acid rain scare in Germany, in their formative years. They also provide the majority of foot soldiers for activist groups.

    This is the generation who read blogs. Blogs link or ping-back to other blogs, including this one, and some blogs repeat whole stories verbatim, so this generation, and those that follow do get to know that these blogs exist. That is one of the reasons why the MSM (including television) is on a decline. They may not comment, but they do read them and talk amongst themselves.

    So the word is getting out there, and it is generally not liked because it calls into question what previous role models, for this group, have espoused. But it is noticed, and that can only increase, and at some stage the pre-millennials will realise that they have been systematically lied to. They will not be pleased.

    Gergis and others are rude and arrogant because they realise they are loosing the game, but can’t quite figure out why. So they blame the messenger in preference to blaming the message. That is their failing, and their problem.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    … models are all you have, and even you admit they are wrong.

    And let us not forget that computer models, can, at best, only explain the past by identifying a range of influencing factors. They can depict the past in mathematical terms.

    But you have no way of knowing if all of the influencing factors are consistent or regular, nor if there are other influencing factors that you know nothing about. So you cannot use models to predict the future with any certainty.

    In fact, if you try to produce a prediction, and that prediction fails, then the model is shown to be faulty, and all predictions made on the basis of that model must be considered null and void, and no better than chance.

    I think the general misunderstanding between depiction and prediction describes the lack of clarity in climate science quite well.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    No, I had to get home, so left after the talk – and it looked as though there were some people keen to carry on the conversation for some time.

    All models are wrong, but some are useful (somebody famous said that).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    The 28 is a reference number -

    28. Christopher Chatfield, Landmarks of World History: The Gallery of Natural Phenomena, 2010, URL:
    http://www.phenomena.org.uk/Landmarks_index.htm [cited 19 June 2010].


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Debbie

    So John,
    that’s unusual or alarming or profound because? ? ?
    It was either going to stay frozen or thaw or a combination of both.
    The most unlikely would be static.
    After all, the climate does change despite our best efforts.
    :-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Hey Pointy, any chance this link is ever going to resolve to a published comment?
    It’s not like I didn’t alert you to it before posting. It’s not like you don’t know the comment is there.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    The Black Adder

    Maybe the 10,000 years of records are used to produce better models?

    Well JB, if that were the case the models would be right!!! :)

    Own goal JB, Just keep your head in the sand…

    Rolling around on the floor a lot…:)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Streetcred

    … and still garbage in = garbage out !

    The models are constituted on the premise that >CO2 = >warming which is wrong … CO2 is a consequence of warming + 800 years. Another anomaly of CAGW models that the oceans are aggregating CO2 causing de-alkalinisation … but they also claim that the oceans are warming … and we all know that warming ocean degass CO2 … you can’t have it both ways … which is it ?

    The only conclusion that can be reasonably arrived at is that the fundamental algorithms of the (CA)GW models are WRONG.

    Willis Eschenbach neatly exposes the models in his article, “Sun and Clouds are Sufficient”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    The Black Adder

    All models are wrong,

    JB, another own goal I`m afraid.

    WTF does that just mean? If all the models are wrong, why the hell are we;

    - implementing a economy changing carbon dioxide tax?

    - believe anything any climate scientist (or Railway engineer) says?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Debbie

    That’s right John,
    They’re useful tools.
    Nearly everyone uses projective modelling.
    It is only a tool however.
    It should not be regarded as a substitute for reality.
    It seems that some climate scientists and paleoclimatologists don’t understand that projective models lose their usefulness if they’re not updated with real time data.
    If real time data is telling a different story then the models need updating to match reality. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!
    Apparently, the weather, the climate, the ocean, the polar caps etc aren’t on the govt payroll after all and don’t see a need to ‘comply’ ? ? ?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Streetcred

    … much like the CAGW ‘climate scientists,’ … useful idiots.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    SNAFU

    So JB, when you went home, did you put a jumper on? And a raincoat and a brolly? Geeze it’s warm outside…….NOT!!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    SNAFU

    All models are wrong, but some are useful (somebody famous said that).

    Wasn’t you


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    John Brookes
    June 10, 2012 at 9:31 pm · Reply

    All models are wrong, but some are useful (somebody famous said that).

    Another famous saying you might want to pay attention to is:
    “Engage brain before putting mouth in gear”.

    Here are some issues to practice on:

    How are massive transfers of money and power justified by “models that are wrong”? Why is this not just a con game?

    Exactly what is it about the latest flaky “analysis” of the thermometer record (BEST) that makes it “game-over for challenging the surface temperature record”? Isn’t that the same claim always made for every new modification? If the new analysis is flawed, is everybody just supposed to shut up so you won’t be ‘confused’?
    (I pointed out — in a previous comment now languishing in Limbo — that BEST’s “new mathematical model” defined Urban Heat Island effects as “Global Warming” — they built their conclusion into the model they used, even before looking at a single thermometer reading. Far from UHI “not mattering”, it was essential for BEST’s conclusions. Kudos to BEST though for publishing all their assumptions, so that this could be determined.)

    now it just confuses people who want to be confused. It is as though these “skeptics” are not actually interested in understanding

    Is your goal not to be confused? Then choose something to believe and believe it — regardless of evidence or lack thereof.
    If your goal is understanding, then confusion is an unavoidable part of the process, unless you are omniscient.
    Do you even understand what I’m talking about?

    All con games strive to remove your confusion by giving you something false to believe. The elimination of confusion is an extremely poor and dangerous motivation for belief. Learn to live with confusion, if you value truth, since you will never know all the truth. The inability to understand this makes you a natural target for con games (and a poor engineer).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ExWarmist

    Hi Wayneofperth,

    The issue goes a lot deeper than “who funded it”.

    The bottom line is – how can you call it science if it is not repeatable, and to be repeatable the data and the methods must be both available and explicit.

    Hence it follows that the data and methods must be made available in forms that facilitate replication of the study (or fault finding as the case may be).

    The Man Made Global Warming movement claim to be doing science to dress themselves in the borrowed authority of science. They are standing on the shoulders of giants of the past that built real credibility with significant and substantial scientific breakthroughs that have made major improvements to the welfare of billions of humans.

    That authority now slips away like mist under the glare of the rising sun when it is shown that are are not actually doing science.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ExWarmist

    Skeptical science are linking to http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00649.1 which provides

    The requested article is not currently available on this site.

    So all they have is a broken link – how sad – I think that I’ll shed a tear…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ExWarmist

    Excellent screen shot – insecure indeed.

    The biggest threat to the UN is the GFC Mk II that is barrelling down the entropy tunnel towards us…

    Broke soverigns wont be able to fund it – watch out!!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Just a comment on “pre-millenials”: They aren’t the only demographic that needs to be reached. And it seems to me that they have some of the most closed minds I’ve ever seen…a real tough sell.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Roy,

    “Don’t try to teach your pig to sing. It wastes your time, and annoys the pig”. The Irish have lots of sayings, regarding pigs.

    “Poking the pig” is, to me at any rate, a graphic example of Irish pragmatism.

    If a pig is lying down, there is no way to physically move it by brute force. And what is more, the more you try to move it, the more the pig will resist.

    But if you get a chair and a stick, and sit there poking the pig with the end of the stick, it will eventually give in and move. You can then, apparently, direct where the pig goes by touching its flanks with the stick.

    Now I am not Irish, and I don’t think I am a pig, but that is where the saying comes from. I think it kinda describes what the sceptics are doing to the body politic.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Hi Greame,

    Thanks for the compliment.

    You are right about this not being “normal science”. The Joelle Gergis paper is “normal” for climate science in that.
    - Choose the “filter” criteria and the tests to suit the result.
    - Be coy about other criteria used. In the case of Gergis, it was failure to reveal which series had been rejected that got Steve McIntyre’s suspicions.
    - Fail to show correlations for each proxy against the local temperature data. For instance, the narrow Yamal data series not only does not stand up against the wider proxy data in the area, in the twentieth century, it is does not correlate with the local actual temperature data either.

    Gergis, however, did something out of character with mainstream climate science – uploaded the data. This meant that the paper fell in three weeks, not a decade or more.

    For, probably, the majority here – “normal” science means substantiating one’s hypotheses. That is, providing the full information for others to replicate the results, and to test to see if the results are valid. With temperature reconstructions that proclaim unprecedented current warmth, once the results have been examined, every single one has been debunked. The only ones still standing are those where the crucial results are still hidden from view.

    My view is different. An idea only becomes established once it has seen of a number of failed rebuttals. An analogy is a court of law. We know that the prosecution’s case is a good one only after a strong defence has unsuccessfully tried to undermine it. But the court will take a dim view of the prosecution’s case if evidence is suppressed, the witnesses bribed or intimidated, or the defence councel denied an opportunity to cross-examine the evidence. In the area of Climate Change, the “prosecution” has long ago switched from presenting its case to silencing any opposition.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    But the globe is still warming!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    I think it’s a case of the Socialists and their dupes wearing you down and using every means to bring to fruition their belief that the world would be better run if unaccountable and unelected international bureaucrats ran it.

    A big step towards their goal is the “Law of the Sea Treaty” which Australia signed in 1994 [see Australian Treaty Series 1994 No 31]and on which subject an ongoing battle is being held right now to prevent it being signed by the United States.

    A video discussion warning of its dangers can be seen here -

    http://noisyroom.net/blog/2012/06/10/national-security-expert-law-of-the-sea-treaty-a-question-of-sovereignty/

    Bill Clinton’s office called it “the greatest environmental treaty of all time.”

    Socialism says it is about centralisation of power and the redistribution of wealth so that everyone benefits, but the pigs as in “Animal Farm” hog it to themselves and make slaves of everyone else.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DirkH

    They have an endless supply of goons, all of whom embarked on a green academia career because
    a) saving the planet seemed a worthy goal
    b) funding is abundant
    c) it’s easy

    All of these people have an easy job and get richly rewarded with money looted from the productive sector.

    This will go on forever.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    brc

    It’s not going to change until there is a change in government, and the gravy train gets permanently sent into a siding for scrapping.

    It can happen, it should happen. What is needed is to (a) get the current misfit governmnet out of office and then (b) put pressure on the incoming coalition government to withdraw from the climate wars.

    These people can only put out these papers because of government funding. Dry up that funding and they will disappear into obscurity, eventually collecting in little pointless groups where they will rail and rant and nobody will listen.

    The ABC won’t be able to scare the masses with crap if there is no new crap being created.

    It all starts with a change in government. Let QLD be the example – all climate programs except for solar panel rebates scrapped. No more department of climate change, no more gravy train.

    It can happen on a nationwide basis. The incoming government will have the excuse of the need for the budget to be balanced to axe all this stuff. The academics will just move on, chasing other gravy trains.

    The US election is critical – without a rollback of keynesian idiocy the US economy cannot recover. If the US economy can recover (it will take a long time, but it is possible) then it makes the socialist economies look even more pointless in comparison.

    Then, if the Australian government changes, and the ‘climate’ programs are either cut or placed on the lowest responsibility, this will start to go away, and fast.

    It might be hard to believe, but scarcely 8 years ago the papers were full of the threat from terrorism, and politicians were running about promising this and that (no doubt if Labor was in power they would have come up with a terrorism tax). Do you hear much about that these days? No, because the world moves on and politicians only trade in things that people think will affect them.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    The Black Adder
    June 10, 2012 at 11:43 pm · Reply

    …we are about where we were a year ago!

    Just what the hell is going on here ? Is this Climate Groundhog Day?

    It’s all part of the Big Lie technique BA — never acknowledge contravening evidence.

    We win when nobody takes them seriously any more — which is starting to happen.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Any reply Sean?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ExWarmist

    Hi Sean,

    A very interesting post – could you please keep us upto date with any response from the Australian.

    Thanks

    ExWarmist


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sean McHugh

    I have received Leigh Dayton’s reply:

    Thanks S, but I deal only with peer-reviewed science, not cheery-picked
    “evidence” from people not engaged in research.

    Cheers,

    L

    Worse than we thought?

    Here is her profile page if anyone wishes to contact her.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Debbie

    I think it’s an excellent analogy Tony,
    especially after looking at the subtitle of this piece by Jo.
    ‘Runaway Box Office Success’
    I believe the correct term in the world of filmaking,stage and literature etc is ‘the suspension of disbelief’.
    If it’s done successfully then the audience doesn’t question the highly unlikely methodology because they are enjoying the entertainment.

    :-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Truthseeker

    Tony, I remember the show and even that episode. The difference here is that I do not think that the “researchers” had as much as a thigh bone to work with. I think they have the equivalent of the impression of a toe-nail.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Tony,

    I remember Quincy as well. At least it was entertaining. I wish these warmists had that little amenity to offer along with their demand to suspend disbelief (Debbie hit it on the head for both). They might be a little easier to swallow that way.

    As I said earlier, outrage is not a strong enough word.

    And speaking of strong words, Quincy had another advantage too. The language was clean and you didn’t have to explain to your small children why actors could say things you wouldn’t permit them to say.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    J Knowles

    Fair point TonyfromOz and we all need to be careful to avoid falling into the trap of only seeing what our subconscious minds are really wanting to see. On the wall at school we had the B & W photo of a Jesus face in a pattern of melting snow and for months I saw just a random patchwork until one day my mind recognised the face pattern that my peers were on about. I looked at it just now (after a 30 year gap) and wondered how anyone could fail to see the face. Perhaps Gergis et al. are suffering from a similar precognition and are sketching-in the rest of the torso so-to-speak.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    I figured it had to be something like that. But I couldn’t resist the temptation to a little, as I said, bad humor.

    You are definitely not a pig!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    This is how science works. I am sure the paper will be reworked and resubmitted and be the stronger for the critiques.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Markus Fitzhenry

    “As you know, WA getting lashed by severe storms—something that will become more common due to AGW.”

    1. Shit, it’s raining and my solar hot water system doesn’t work.

    2. Shit, they didn’t tell me that at only $1399, this hot water solar system would only last 2 years out here.

    3. Shit, they should have put that project up on the hill away from the flood waters.

    4. Shit, they told me I would reap a bundle from selling power back into the grid. But why didn’t the $450mil get spent to convert the grid to accept my power?

    5. Shit, why is this the coldest winter in 5 Decades?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Oh, Maxine, how glad I am that you took the bait mentioned this. I know it’s way way off topic, but Maxine, you brought it up.

    This is two solar plants, one at Broken Hill and one at Nyngan. They total in all 150MW, and wow! Mar’n Ferguson was right when he said at the announcement that it was refreshing to see ‘industrial scale’ renewables coming on stream.

    Industrial scale!

    Oh, what a hoot!

    These two plants are Solar PV, meaning that the panels generate the power. because of this, the power is only produced during clear daylight hours.

    Now, a large scale coal fired plant generates its full power while ever it is running. Solar PV may produce some levels of power for the full daylight period, but it equates to its full power for, on average around three to four hours a day, and even that is the theoretical best case CF of 25%, and the actual CF for all Solar PV comes in at around 17%, and that’s around four hours a day at their maximum power rating. In Summer, that might mean its full power for around five hours a day, and in Winter perhaps two to three hours at its full rating spread across the whole daylight period.

    So, then at that best case theoretical value we are looking at a certain amount of consumable power, and that comes to around 350GWH of power.

    This will cost $450 Million for both plants, provided they can raise the private financing, something the other two major Solar announcements for last year haven’t, hence this new ‘announcement’, and the Feds, in their infinite wisdom are chucking in one third of that total.

    This is so pleasing that we will finally be getting power that can fill all our consumption needs.

    Umm, just to add a little perspective to the immensely huge amounts of power delivered from these two plants, Bayswater generates for consumption the same amount of power produced from these two plants in ONE WHOLE YEAR in five days.

    That’s FIVE DAYS Maxine.

    You must be beside yourself with joy at this Government’s foresight in placing our money in such worthy hands.

    Oh Maxine, as I mentioned earlier, you’ve been had.

    I can’t believe that with your ever so subtly mentioned B.Sc. that you were so stupid as to actually take the bait.

    Old lawyer joke Maxine …. Never ask the question unless you already know the answer.

    I know this is ad hom, but Maxine, you’re a damned fool!

    Tony.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    rukidding

    As you know, WA getting lashed by severe storms—something that will become more common due to AGW.

    Yep the same old climate change storms we have every year.
    But you are right it will be good when we take all the CO2 out of the atmosphere and get back to those good old storms of centuries ago.(/sarc)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ExWarmist

    Hi Maxine,

    As you know, WA getting lashed by severe storms—something that will become more common due to AGW.

    The UN IPCC disagree with you. REF 1: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.ca/2012/03/handy-bullshit-button-on-disasters-and.html

    I really wish that you would actually study the official United Nations science position on MMGW before pretending to know what you are talking about.

    WRT Disasters – there is no trend.

    WRT Accumulated Cyclone Energy – there is no particular trend. REF 2: http://policlimate.com/tropical/

    Next time – please bring the evidence for your claims with you!

    Evidence = respect. Show some self respect and bring evidence next time.

    Yours sincerely ExWarmist


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sonny

    Now we see Maxine’s true agenda!!! On a thread discussing a serious malfeasance in the Gergis et al paper, she inanely says “this is how science work” and then posts some renewable energy propaganda.

    Stop pretending to be a scientist Maxine, or even remotely concerned about honesty, integrity
    morals and ethics.

    Just admit that you are a propagandist, and a lousy obvious one at that.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    First Solar were awarded a $130 million grant from the federal government.

    As I stated on the previous thread, just another parasitic blood sucker on the tax payer. And just to supply overpriced, unreliable power, still needing fossil fueled reserves ticking away in the background to pick up any shortfall

    Another socialist hoax on us all.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Maxine,

    Green energy is BS any way you stack it. That you and many others don’t understand that doesn’t change what the truth is.

    Do you get advice from a politician or salesman when your appendix is acting up, or do you get advice from a doctor?

    Answer the same question about installing solar panels, replacing doctor with engineer and you’ll have the beginning of actual wisdom.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Gee Aye

    Can I suggest one week in the sin bin for anyone who responds to Maxine?

    Who is dumber, the commenter or the people clueless enough to respond to a dumb comment?

    Then there is my comment commenting on these comments. Two weeks off for me.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Winston

    Tie a ribbon on rubbish and it is still rubbish.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Maxine , I thought you hung your hats on Peer Review.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ExWarmist

    Maxine – the issues with proxies is deeper than that.

    What is wrong with the following statement.

    The proxie data that is deemed to be temperature data and is included in the study is the proxie data that has a hockey stick shape. Proxie data without a hockey stick shape is deemed not to be temperature data and is excluded from the study.

    Can you see the logical flaw?

    Why is there no theory that explains the cases where the proxie data does not have a hockey stick shape?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    This is how science works. I am sure the paper will be reworked and resubmitted and be the stronger for the critiques.

    Yeah that’s right Maxine. An activist junk paper passes peer review and is published with great fanfare in a “reputable” journal. When a couple of volunteer bloggers find faults in it, the paper is withdrawn (for rejigging no doubt).

    Yep, climate science at it’s finest.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sonny

    “This is how science works” says Maxine.

    “This is a normal part of science. The testing of scientific studies through independent analysis of data and methods strengthens the conclusions.” says Karoly

    What a 180 degree turn for the CAGE scientists and their subservient foot soldiers.

    For years anyone requesting data or methods or questioning the CAGW dogma is ridiculed ignored and called names: “denier”, “extremist”, “conspiracy theorist” etc.

    This time the skeptics are apparently valued as a part of the scientific process to establish robustness?

    Excuse me if my bullshit meter has just gone off the dial!

    Looks like they’ve been caught cheating again but this time they realize name calling won’t cut it!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    This is how science works. I am sure the paper will be reworked and resubmitted and be the stronger for the critiques.

    Maxine,

    I think rather than being how science works it’s how people work — some honestly searching for whatever they find; some searching for something that fits what they want to find.

    A paper withdrawn so quickly from the public eye for obvious flaws doesn’t bode well for science having been at work.

    By the way, didn’t you notice that the stated measurement uncertainty is twice the supposed temperature increase (.09 ± .19)?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    rukidding

    Tony as you are on top of this carbon tax boondoggle more than most.

    If Tony Abbott can’t undo the carbon tax legislation can he hobble it by providing the polluters with all the permits they need for free and defunding things like the clean energy fund or is the government of the day locked into the amount of permits they can issue.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Maxine,

    just another snippet from your pure as the driven snow, tell the absolute unblemished truth, pure emerald green, renewable solar power plant blurb, where it says, and from your direct quote:

    … will generate enough electricity to power 30,000 homes when completed by the end of 2015.

    Huge eh?

    At no stage ever will these two plants be connected solely to 30,000 homes.
    At no stage ever will these two plants supply all the electrical power requirements for 30,000 homes.

    So, that would be surely be subject to the truth in advertising legislation then you might think.

    Well no, because it’s a very clever and deceptive way of hiding the truth in plain sight, because no one understands what it actually means, especially those friends of the dirt green followers.

    (a) They have an idea of the (theoretical) power that the plant can provide over a whole year, and (b) they know how much an average residence consumes in a year and they just divide (a) by (b), and voila, 30,000 homes.

    On top of that, the plant is only connected to the grid, and the overall grid supplies its power to the three sectors, Residential (38%) Commerce (37%) and Industrial (24%).

    As I mentioned, these plants will barely manage their full power rating (averaged over the full day) for three to five hours only, so power for 30,000 homes becomes laughable at best.

    Luckily for the plant itself, that whole grid supplies all its power from every source for the full 24 hours, so it may actually seem that a plant of this nature supplies its power 24/7/365, so umm, there’s no real need to know how much of all that total is coming from these two puny boutique plants, so I suppose they can get away with not telling anyone the real truth of what they actually are supplying.

    Maxine, we need you to keep posting here (but hey, I wish you’d just stop) because every time you hit the ‘Post Comment’ button, you crap in your own nest.

    Keep it up Maxine. You make our own case for us.

    Tony.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Maxine, I know there won’t be a reply, because after all, it is pretty embarrassing, but maybe you might consider this when it comes to value for money.

    This is just for the Government contribution of $130 Million, and not the total cost of $450 Million, just the part contributed by the taxpayers, because, after all, this is the CO2 Tax.

    These two plants will be adding to Australia’s total Power for consumption, and for our $130 Million, that addition amounts to 0.083%.

    I’m so glad that Mar’n Ferguson thinks that this is Industrial Scale Renewable Power.

    What a hoot!

    Tony.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ExWarmist

    Maxine.

    How do you prove that the warming that has naturally occurred since the end of the little ice age is caused by human industrial emissions?

    REF 1: http://joannenova.com.au/2012/04/so-is-the-hotspot-a-fingerprint-or-signature-is-it-unique/

    The fingerprint of humanity is missing.

    Also that warming is not unusual REF 2: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/10/a-big-picture-look-at-earths-temperature-peter-gleick-edition/

    Read the data – question your assumptions and get the conclusion.

    What’s your answer to that?


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    SNAFU

    So is my lounge room, but that has nothing to with AGW.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sonny

    Yep, hold on to that mantra for dear life Maxine.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sean McHugh

    Only an “Out of office” message. I would be surprised if I receive a reply, but you never know.

    As I wrote to Jo, my posting had errors (mine) in the translating from the email text to WordPress code for this site. Material also got lost. The corrected and complete version is at ACM:

    http://tinyurl.com/7osf8fd

    I intend sending a similar email to the other media sources of the Gergis findings. As I said to Jo, I believe the sceptics are winning the science, winning the debate and winning the public opinion – thanks to people like Jo Nova. We have yet to win over the media. I think that this is where sceptics now need to start focussing.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Markus,

    I’m getting the odd phone call here and there about getting in and installing rooftop solar power before the Boondoggle ends time runs out.

    Now, I know full well that these calls are just from ‘hired help’ to man the phones, so, it’s of no point my arguing a case with them and besides, that’s impolite, so I just politely mention that I’m just a pensioner and cannot really afford it, and as soon as they hear the ‘P’ word, they thank me and ring off.

    However, the other day I had a call from a guy who is a small operator, and cannot afford the manpower to run phones.

    So, I asked him about ‘islanding’ and he was at a loss as to what that meant. When I explained it in a manner that could be understood, he agreed with me, and when you hear what it means, you’ll be somewhat taken aback, as this is something they dare not mention.

    Rooftop Solar in a conventional built up area means that the home has to remain ‘on the grid, and you cannot get approval to go ‘off grid’ unless you go through a number of processes, and needless to say, they are enormously expensive and time consuming bureaucratic mumbo jumbo, so suffice to say you must stay on the grid.

    Because of that the systems are less expensive as the main ‘off grid’ component is the Battery bank which takes the price from $32,000 to $62,000 fir a residence of average yearly power consumption.

    However, because the PV has to be converted to AC, it has to have an Inverter, and that inverter is then connected so that excess power is fed back to the grid.

    Now, here’s where that term ‘islanding’ comes into play.

    In the event of any power outage, eg blackout, then they cannot any power on the grid while people may be working on it to fix the outage, hence each rooftop solar system will automatically disconnect the rooftop solar inverter from the grid for the duration of the outage. Hence, the Inverter stops generating power, has to in fact, and no Inverter no household power.

    So, if you have rooftop solar power grid connected and there is a blackout, you also lose power.

    Nice one eh!

    The man at the other end of the phone explained that I was correct, and that without the batteries then the residence would in fact be blacked out.

    Not wishing to be argumentative, I politely mentioned the battery bank, the need for a bank large enough to provide five days worth of backup power, those five days being the recommended best case. That battery bank will in fact cost in the vicinity of $30,000 Plus and the man himself stated they would most probably need replacing every five years or so, so given that the best case rooftop solar system has a 25 year life span, then if you are off grid, there’s the initial battery bank, and three to four replacement battery banks, hence after outlaying the original 62K, you are looking at an extra of between 90K to 120K

    So, rooftop solar!

    Well worth it at any price eh?

    Yeah! Right!

    Funny how it’s never really as great as is made out.

    Oh, and Maxine, thanks for including that Ad. You must be so pleased.

    Tony.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Streetcred

    She’s just an idiot undergrad, Markus … trying to stir things up … it’s all she has.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    J Knowles

    Link button don’t work with my old computer but try pasting the link.
    http://www.rejesus.co.uk/site/module/unexpected_faces/P7/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ExWarmist

    Hi Tony,

    If you have PV Solar, are you able to hook up a deisel generator to the house to cope with blackouts?

    Noting that the inverter will have been shutoff the deisel will not be pushing current onto the grid.

    Thanks

    ExWarmist


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Lot of work, lot of cost, for very little result, and why would you bother?
    Then, if you do go the direction of the diesel generator, you’ll need an automatic UPS, with wiring separate to and independent of the grid connection so it also does not feed back.

    So, you spend a motza on the Solar PV system, and then the extra on the extra.

    It’s infinitely cheaper all round to just stay connected to the normal grid power.

    Tony.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ExWarmist

    Hi Tony,

    What if I just want to be able to reliably run my fridge, etc, in an extended blackout scenario.

    Couldn’t I simply run a small deisel generator and plug the fridge, etc into it.

    Thanks

    ExWarmist


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Yes, you can get those small portable generators for that, but what is MOST important to remember is that you need that generator running outside the home and not inside. Use an extension cord to bring the power inside.

    Tony.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ExWarmist

    Hi Tony,

    Thanks for that.

    Yes – I had figured that it (the generator) needed to be outside :-) . Mind you – you are commenting on the internet and have no way of knowing that I would know that – so thanks for playing it safe.

    Cheers ExWarmist.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Pat

    I recall reading an article on the stuff website in about 2000 where a weatherman stated NZ hasn’t warmed at all since 1941. It didn’t stay up for long. And then more recently we have had NIWA state its temperature data, “vetted” by the Aussie BoM, was invalid. The MSM have a lot to answer.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sean McHugh

    Thank you. Will do.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    What’s your answer to that?

    Crickets …


    Report this

    00

  • #
    SNAFU

    The “warmistas” (is this name calling?)

    Careful….could be taken as a ‘death-threat’.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    … the data and methods must be made available in forms that facilitate replication of the study …

    No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” Albert Einstein


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    ExWarmist

    Thanks Sean,

    She doesn’t dig very deep does she – keeps the blinkers on.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Dave N

    “..I deal only with peer-reviewed science, not cheery-picked
    “evidence” from people not engaged in research”

    I wonder whether that typo (“cheery”) was intended, and whether Leigh realises that McIntyre is engaged in research and has relevant peer-reviewed publications?

    Of course those concerns are moot, especially since Karoly acknowledges the errors, and it is irrelevant whether someone is peer-reviewed or even has qualifications; neither changes one iota whether or not what they say is truthful. Leigh obviously didn’t even bother to check.

    What was that about “research”, Leigh?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sonny

    Yep, that’s post modern journalism for you.
    The future looks grim


    Report this

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    ‘how for’ should read how FAR…apologies


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sean McHugh

    SNAFU,

    Thank you for that.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sonny

    Polish a turd and it is still a turd


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Roy Hogue
    June 11, 2012 at 2:39 am · Reply
    I can’t help asking why should I worry about .09 degrees C (about .16F) when the thermometers on my patio swing back and forth between 29 and 105F during the year (-1.6 to 40.6C)?

    In particular, why should you worry about 0.09 ±0.19°C — since the direction of the temperature change is not even certain?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    If you mean the measurement uncertainty greater than the supposed change by a factor of 2 — well, you have to leave something as an exercise for the reader.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    Good China is feeding the plants with increased CO2 it needs for food production !


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Gee Aye

    MODS – a bug report. Two thumbs up appeared the instant I posted, maybe the system just recognised how good this post is? The other thing is that I am still on the same IP address and rather than seeing greyed out thumbs, it appears I can click on thumbs in my own post.

    I think it is your duty to prevent us from thumbing ourselves. [Ooo I dunno, I reckon you've had your thumb up your a.....never mind. mod oggi p.s. yes we're aware of the bug. searching for a strong bug killer]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    I think it is your duty to prevent us from thumbing ourselves.

    Noticed this myself over the weekend, I would hope we are all mature enough to not stroke our own egos.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Sonny

    For a three year study worth a half a million dollars I wonder how much actual time went into producing this rubbish.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sonny

    Jo, your question about funding is answered.

    http://newsroom.melbourne.edu/studio/ep-149

    The study was funded by the Australian Research Council, Federal Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and Past Global Changes (PAGES).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sonny

    http://www.pages-igbp.org/

    “The PAGES (Past Global Changes) project is an international effort to coordinate and promote past global change research. The primary objective is to improve our understanding of past changes in the Earth System in order to improve projections of future climate and environment, and inform strategies for sustainability. more…
    PAGES is a core project of IGBP and is funded by the U.S. and Swiss National Science Foundations and NOAA.”

    NOAA wonder Gergis deleted her blog. She is is a lot of hot water.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sonny

    Other information available. Any questions about climate science? Ask an expert.

    http://www.findanexpert.unimelb.edu.au/researcher/person203094.html

    Contact Details

    Organization: Earth Sciences
    Position: POSTDOC RESEARCH FELLOW – CLIMATE
    Email: jgergis@unimelb.edu.au
    Homepage: http://climatehistory.com.au
    Work: 834 49868
    Room: 416a

    I have a few questions I might ask! Politely ofcourse!
    Level: 04
    Building: Mccoy Building/Earth Sciences
    Campus: Parkville


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Gee Aye

    Well done responding to my comment without making my innuendo worse.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sonny

    No thanks required Jo


    Report this

    00