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



Gergis hockey stick withdrawn. This is what 95% certainty looks like in climate science.

In May it was all over the newspapers, in June it was shown to be badly flawed. By October, it quietly gets withdrawn.  The apology and press release are coming soon…right?

Thanks to help from the Australian Research Council it only took 300,000 dollars and three years to produce a paper that lasted all of three weeks. But it scored the scary headlines! It was “confirmation”, it was “unprecedented warming”, and it was a scientific certainty that was based on “27 natural climate records” and  “over the last 1000 years”. What could possibly go wrong? They had 2 whole proxies that went right back a thousand years, and they’d used computers (!) to rehash the data 3000 ways!  Frankly, I’m surprised it lasted three weeks. Let’s remember that if one single journalist had simply asked “how much colder was it in 1200AD?” Gergis, Karoly and the rest would have had to say “0.09 of a degree”. No one asked. But Gergis et al, had a proxy in Tasmania, and another in New Zealand, and they were “confident” they could calculate the whole grand continental collective temperature to nine one hundredths of a degree? Seriously.

As Mike E then pointed out in comments,  the error margin was larger than the result:

“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.”

Kudos to the team at Climate Audit (especially to Jean S and Nick Stokes) who uncovered a problem so significant, that ultimately it could not be ignored, even if it could be glossed over, delayed, and put on hold for months in the interim.

The science communication didn’t match the science

The headlines I listed back then:

“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.

Perhaps commenters could get in touch with the news organisations and bloggers above and encourage them to correct the record? No doubt they will be racing to make sure Australians are not misinformed, or overly alarmed without reason.

Prof Lewandowsky tells us that even once bad science is corrected, people often remember the misinformation instead of the correction. So no doubt, he’ll be keen to help us repeat that the Gergis paper should not have been published, its results should not have been promoted, and their certainty was misplaced.

Now all scientists are human, and everyone makes mistakes, so it’s up to Joelle Gergis and David Karoly now to correct the record.

Will anyone thank the skeptical scientists who found the mistake?

(H/t Richard Tol, and Marc Morano).

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.6/10 (159 votes cast)
Gergis hockey stick withdrawn. This is what 95% certainty looks like in climate science., 9.6 out of 10 based on 159 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/9khy3gj

144 comments to Gergis hockey stick withdrawn. This is what 95% certainty looks like in climate science.

  • #
    pattoh

    Perhaps Ms Gergis could get a job working for John McTernan, the PM’s spin doctor.
    /s.


    Report this

    140

  • #
    PeterB in Indianapolis

    I have seen numerous studies that show that trees don’t make very good thermometers – it turns out that they are better proxies for things like annual rainfall and CO2 concentration than they are proxies for temperature. In fact, it is highly likely that all Gergis and Karoly really showed is that trees grew faster as CO2 concentration increased, which is probably the same thing that Michael Mann showed.

    Anyone who is familiar with photosynthesis would instinctively know that at around 200ppm, CO2 is the limiting reagent for the photosynthetic process, and so as you increase CO2 concentration from 200ppm to 400ppm, the rate of tree growth will increase quite a bit, even if temperature stays relatively constant. This is an over-simplification, because a lot also depends on whether it was a wet year, a dry year, or a year with average precipitation, but for me personally, all that any of these “hockey stick” graphs ever proved was “if you give a plant more food, it will grow faster”.


    Report this

    270

    • #

      I would like offer a contrary view in two points.
      First the Gergis paper had 12 tree ring, 13 coral and two ice core proxies. The main conclusion of the paper 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.”

      There were only three proxies out of 27 that covered the first four centuries. It was a flawed coral proxy 2300km outside the study area on that suppressed the medieval warm period, The two tree-ring proxies (from New Zealand and Tasmania) seemed much more consistent than comparison.
      Second, I would offer a different view on tree-ring proxies. The studies that show unprecedented C20th temperatures are not due to a problem with the trees. It is a problem with the data-manipulating scientists. Just one example was the Gaspé tree-ring proxy used in Mann’s original hockey sticks. Steve McIntyre found multiple reasons why this one, flawed, proxy was given undue weighting. It was the data manipulation methods not the trees themselves that had such a big influence on the final hockey stick graph.
      In a decade or two the Gergis paper will be seen as a last attempt of manipulating data in the Mannian tradition. Larger studies with more proxies average out the rogue studies. Along along with more sophisticated techniques along with larger sample sizes mean better quality of results. It is consistently showing that temperatures rises in the C20th century were not unusual.


      Report this

      160

  • #

    They got the headlines they needed and the circus has moved on – the Müller-Fokker effect.

    Pointman


    Report this

    241

    • #
      Otter

      I think you spelled the second half of that effect, Wrong.


      Report this

      170

    • #
      cohenite

      Exactly Pointman; AGW science is absolutely full of examples of where a new ‘proof’ of AGW is wheeled out, the msm is agog, especially and typically the ABC, and then when the stupid paper is revealed to be stupid noone is looking.

      The process began back with the Steig nonsense in 2008; the ABC was all over this like a rash, and then 2 years later when it was revealed as dodgy, not a peep; and now the Antarctic has got ice coming out its fundamental not a peep.

      And it will be the same with Gergis; the ABC won’t look at it; the damage has been done; the MWP was an ice age compared to today, the Gergis paper said so; no matter that Gergis and Karoly couldn’t count their toes and made an elementary statistical mistake, the message has been sent.


      Report this

      190

  • #

    If any revisionists say that the withdrawal was due to a one or two minor issues, please point them to a list of “issues” that I listed with the paper. The issues ranged from the simple observations that I made (e.g. No proxies from mainland Australia, but a number of proxies outside the study area, or only three proxies prior to 1450, but makes claims to cover the last millennium) to the more heavyweight criticisms from Steve McIntyre and Jean S.

    Like the Lewandowsky paper, it shows a major failure of peer review. Like with the Lewandowsky paper, simple checking using descriptive statistics from spreadsheets would reveal that the conclusions were unsupported by data. In both cases, it shows that critical analysis and asking basic questions is more important than sophisticated computer modelling and high-level statistics.


    Report this

    310

  • #
    Mike Spilligan

    JoNo: A wonderfully complete and abrasive demolition, all fully deserved.


    Report this

    100

  • #
    Mark D.

    Jo, ABC AM at least has added this editors note:

    EDITOR’S NOTE: Since this story was originally broadcast, errors have been identified in aspects of the data processing which may affect the results of this study. As a result, publication has been delayed and the research has been withdrawn from online publication. Professor Karoly says the data will be recalculated, peer reviewed and published in due course.


    Report this

    80

  • #

    They may have withdrawn the paper, but it will probably be “regergisgated” by another climate snake oil salesman trying to milk the taxpayers for more grant money!


    Report this

    191

  • #
    AndyG55

    I wonder how long it will be before the climate hypochondriacs admit that the climate is not sick, and is, in fact, recovering very well from a slight cold.


    Report this

    100

    • #
      AndyG55

      ps.. I will henceworth be using the words “climate hypochondriacs” to describe warmist activities
      (saw it on WUWT, and it fits to a tee!)

      I invite others to do likewise.


      Report this

      100

    • #
      sillyfilly

      So hereinafter we can call all those who still follow the absurdities of the dreaded and dastardly D fraternity: the voldemorts (though coldaholics seems to fit as well). You-know-who, those-who-must-not-be-named, the followers of the dark lords of science!

      In any case the error was discovered and the publication pulled. But of course when Jo and David quote or reference discredited studies by Carter, Miskolczi, Lindzen and co. we are supposed to heed the call?


      Report this

      131

      • #
        AndrewS

        In any case the error was discovered and the publication pulled

        Yes, sillyfilly, but please answer these question:

        - Who discovered the error? (Hint starts with Steve, ends in McIntyre).

        - Was the error discovered before or after the press conference and the associated wave of media frenzy?

        - Was the error discovered before or after the paper had been approved by the Climate Science Pal-Review System?

        - Will Karoly, Gergis and friends hold a press conference to advise that their conclusions were, how do I say this delicately, crap?

        Thanks.


        Report this

        260

        • #
          sillyfilly

          From Climate Audit June 8:
          “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”

          And the blogger who found it: courtesy Climate Audit:
          Jean S
          Posted Jun 5, 2012 at 4:42 PM | Permalink | Reply

          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). Simple R-code and data here.


          Report this

          020

          • #
            AndrewS

            sf, I’ll give you one point for question 1 and 0 for the remaining 3. 25%. Fail.

            The whole affair is humiliating for Australian science and climate science in general.


            Report this

            160

      • #
        AndyG55

        “So hereinafter we can call all those who still follow …. blah, blahh…….

        When a chihuahua yaps, I don’t really worry about what its trying to say.


        Report this

        70

      • #
        cohenite

        Who discredited Carter, Miskolczi and Lindzen?


        Report this

        161

      • #
        Duster

        You might want to list some of those papers by Carter or Lindzen (or even Miskolczi) that were withdrawn due to bad science. Google is apparently hiding them.


        Report this

        50

    • #
      observa

      Climachondriacs and climachondria sounds tighter. Just ring up Macquarie Dictionary and no doubt they’ll put it in with the new misogyny meaning.


      Report this

      70

      • #
        Dennis

        Macquarie Dictionary is light years in front of the their competitors, and are likely to remain way out there unless management is given a reality check and a twist from the left to the upright position.


        Report this

        10

    • #
      Dennis

      Note that the alarmists fail to acknowledge the pollution clean up that has been underway for 30-40 years in developed countries where Environmental Pollution Acts have been in force. The dirty power station that featured in the Carbon Kate carbon tax con advert was abandoned and replaced in the UK because of the attack on pollution. Much as been achieved already and the monitoring continues.


      Report this

      20

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Good point Dennis

        Don’t think too many people would be aware of the magnitude of the changes in what is acceptable pollution-wise.

        It has been an incredible achievement.

        “the pollution clean up that has been underway for 30-40 years in developed countries”

        KK


        Report this

        10

  • #
    inedible hyperbowl

    Professor Karoly says the data will be recalculated, peer reviewed and published in due course.

    Unbelievable.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    James

    Don’t you think papers with errors should still be admitted?


    Report this

    012

  • #
    James

    Will anyone thank the skeptical scientists who found the mistake?

    (H/t Richard Tol, and Marc Morano).

    Can you please provide a link to where these guys found the problem.

    I can’t see mention of what the mistake actually was. Should I assume, because you wouldn’t post otherwise, that the error overestimates the amount of current warming? You haven’t just assumed that they’ve overestimate have you?


    Report this

    135

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    I am a romantic when it comes to science. I hope that scientists will look objectively at the data and decide what it means.

    So I am sad to see the increasing and ever more hysterical attempts from certain scientists to torture their data until it screams out what they want it to say. And at the same time they fail to address conflicting data and refuse to even acknowledge it exists.

    So I say this to scientists like Dr Karoly and Dr Gergis. You cannot hide a real phenomenon forever. You cannot cause a non existent phenomemon to be real. CO2 and other greenhouse gases empirically after feedbacks do not cause dangerous warming. Solar magnetism and oceanic cycles are real whether you like it or not, and caused most of the temperature rise last century. As both have now reversed course it is no surprise to me that temperature is flat for 16 years (despite much excited data-torturing) and has now been falling for the last decade.

    Covering up such inevitable and unstoppable natural phenomena does not make them disappear. All it does is discredit the scientists (or should I say activists?) who try to do this. Keep this up Dr Karoly and you will be driving taxis for a living, sonny boy.


    Report this

    190

    • #
      sillyfilly

      Natural phenomena causes temperature increase: so which one dear Bruce?

      Is it solar radiation or TSI?
      How about ENSO?

      Come up with something relevant like:

      Long term temperature trends, perhaps?

      Or Ocean Heat content, perhaps?

      And commentary like this (from your link)
      “Dr. Wolfgang Burkel, who concludes that doubling atmospheric CO2 will lead only to a 0.58°C of warming at the Earth’s surface.”

      is palpable nonsense, unsupported by the evidence, and in the same league as similar fallacies by Miskolczi and Lindzen, as I indicated above!


      Report this

      031

      • #
        Mark D.

        Boy, you warmists have had to lean on that Levitus model guess crap pretty hard lately.

        Is that all you got?


        Report this

        120

      • #
        cohenite

        filly, you’ve been hanging around the geldings and beta males of the AGW crowd for too long.

        Your two graphs are silly, if you’ll excuse the pun.

        The first is simply end point fallacy as originally depicted here.

        This type of hysteria presented graphically is the worst form of cherry picking and is brilliantly rebutted here at figures 15 and 16.

        The 2nd graph about OHC! You have to be joking; OHC only arguably became accurately measured when ARGO was introduced in 2003; what has it been doing since 2003 filly?

        Now, go back out to pasture and flick that tail at the other donkeys in the AGW corral.


        Report this

        200

        • #
          sillyfilly

          You quote Glassman, what a joke.
          The sun did it eh!

          Well you could go here
          “Note that the most recent warming, since around 1975, has not been considered in the above correlations. During these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source.”

          And the evidence TS1 v Global Satellite Temps (UAH) over the last ~30 Years

          C’mon ol’ mineral do show me correlation! Pin the tail on the donkey if you dare!

          You haven’t come up with anything concrete in years, just fluff as usual!


          Report this

          019

          • #

            sillyfilly,

            you just don’t get it, do you?

            All you’ve got is blah blah blah.

            Do something!

            Get your side to close down the largest of those CO2 emitters, those large scale coal fired power plants, which constitute almost 40% of all CO2 emissions.

            If this problem (the word your side keeps referring to it as) is so damned dire, then do something. Shut those plants down.

            In more than four years now, not one of those large scale plants has shut down directly because of this scare campaign, anywhere in the World, and they are adding to them at a huge rate, thanks to China in the main, and also India. Those existing large scale plants everywhere else are still doing exactly what they were doing more than four years ago, still burning the same amount of coal, still emitting the same amount of CO2, still generating monumental amounts of electricity.

            Don’t just come and sneer at us from the lofty height of what you think is your own morality. Lobby your side to close them down, and not at some arbitrary date decades away.

            Get them to do it now. Get off your butt and lobby, demonstrate, have a march, occupy something.

            More importantly, just ask them why they aren’t doing this. One simple question.

            Until you actually do that, all you have is blah blah blah.

            When they shut them down, then people will notice.

            However, look out, because when they shut them down, there will be absolute anarchy.

            That’s why they’re too scared to shut them down.

            Blah blah blah.

            You’ve got no idea, have you?

            Tony.


            Report this

            280

          • #
            cohenite

            Right, Glassman, the rocket scientist is a joke.

            As for solar having no secular trend; maybe not to horses in blinkers but try Meehl.


            Report this

            100

          • #
            Bruce of Newcastle

            SF, I have a reply to your original comment for you which is in moderation due to all the links.

            Meanwhile you might consider this paper by U.R.Rao, who arguably is the most prestigious scientist in India and as it happens a cosmic ray scientist. He says they correspond to 60% of IPCC estimated CO2 effect. After you take out the oceanic periodic temperature signal there’s not much left for CO2.


            Report this

            80

          • #
            cohenite

            Great graph silly but you are still unshod; try this graph.


            Report this

            50

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            cohers, that graph seems to hide a decline, try this for more thought provocation…
            http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1880/mean:256/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1880/mean:256/normalise

            Why hasn’t that darn T line turned the corner more than 20 years after SSN turned the corner?


            Report this

            30

          • #
            cohenite

            I don’t know Andrew; what do you think?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            Well, cohers, as long as we’re hypothesising…
            * The SST could have been fiddled by scientists whose dog ate their homework.
            * The SST could have a logarithmic response to Solar magnetism so an increase from a low level makes SST “turn on a dime” while the same sized decrease starting from a higher level makes little difference.
            * The solar magnetic cycle may not be the only modulator of cosmic rays.
            * If Piers Corbyn is right then the Solar Wind is the main charged particle source, not cosmic rays, so the SSN may not be a good indicator of the true SST driver.
            * The magnetic cycle influence may be routinely overpowered by an oscillating climate cycle of about 60 years in period caused by entirely earthly origins which is presently dampening the effects of SSN decline.

            What do you think?


            Report this

            10

        • #
          AndyG55

          The nag has found out that that red pen mark is not a cancer, and is panicking because its found out that nothing is wrong with it.

          There is nothing unusally happening, so invent it. !!!

          Hypochondria rules !!!


          Report this

          70

      • #
        Bruce of Newcastle

        Hello SF, nice to see you here.

        Here is HadCRUT 3v with a more suitable trendline.

        Now look at it minus a quadratic trend of best fit. I have replicated this myself.

        You will note that the obvious signal, which is also present in AMO, PDO, ENSO and several other climatic datasets corresponds with over half the temperature rise in the last 30 years.

        That is the oceanic 60-ish year cycle.

        Now SF, if you had looked at the 2nd link I gave you will note the correlation of previous solar cycle length with temperature during the following cycle. When you add this to the ocean signal you get this. The residual fits a 2XCO2 of 0.7 C.

        If you do this for HadCRUT 3v the residual corresponds to a 2XCO2 of about 1 C. Which ain’t bad considering how much UHI that they keep accidentally not removing from the data.

        Now Sillyfilly, as you know a long term 2XCO2 of 0.7 C means that we’d have to go from 400 ppmV pCO2 to a bit under 3200 ppmV to add another 2 C of AGW temperature rise. Or about 28 times as much carbon that we’ve burnt since the bad old days in the savannahs of Africa. Its not going to happen.

        I have laid it out here for you SF so you can falsify this analysis. No one has yet done so. You can be the first.

        As to what causes the pSCL-temperature correlation, here is a bit from the paper:

        In conclusion we may remark that, even though the physical mechanism(s) for solar-activity induced changes in climate are still unresolved, there is mounting evidence that a speeding up of the solar cycle appears to be accompanied by an increase in the efficiency of the solar dynamo that ultimately leads to an increase in the temperature of the Earth’s lower atmosphere.

        That was in 1996. We since that time have had the work by Svensmark and Kirkby at the University of Aarhus and CERN respectively, and additional work on the UV cycle. Plus the TSI you can start to see what causes the relationship.

        As I said SF, there’s no sense ignoring reality. AGW is not going to be harmful. 2XCO2 empirically comes in around the 0.5-1.0 C range, short and as you see here long term. Torturing the data to make it seem otherwise will not work.


        Report this

        60

      • #
        Dennis

        Your screen name is perfect.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      cohenite

      Keep this up Dr Karoly and you will be driving taxis for a living, sonny boy.

      If his sense of direction is like his statistical ability then he will have to get to where he is going by faith; it certainly won’t be by observation.


      Report this

      120

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        He will use a computer model for navigation, but his GPS maps will not feature any data after 2003.
        No matter where you asked to be taken he’ll say the journey is UNPRECEDENTED IN HISTORY, when he enters the freeway he’ll tell you natural speed limit is only 40 and NOTHING CAN ADAPT TO 80km/h, and when you eventually arrive at the wrong place he’ll say “SEE, I TOLD YOU IT WAS WORSE THAN FIRST THOUGHT”.
        And the meter will read $100,000.


        Report this

        160

  • #
    Streetcred

    Research which finds contrary outcomes to the expected conclusions should be published … failure is as much a success as success itself in expanding the knowledge.

    Fix the statistics and publish the paper with an revised title the truthful conclusion.

    Is there Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium ?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    indeed, kudos to CA JeanS and Nick Stokes. however, here’s Karoly as an authority in the MDM this very day!

    19 Oct: Sydney Morning Herald: Bianca Hall: Shock jock Jones told to get ‘factual accuracy’ training
    The Australian Communications and Media Authority yesterday released a damning report on Jones’ show, finding he breached broadcast rules by falsely claiming Australians contributed just ”1 per cent of .001 per cent of carbon dioxide in the air”…
    University of Melbourne climate change scientist David Karoly said Australians were in fact responsible for .45 per cent of total carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. ”Obviously, we would much rather prefer that the comments of people like Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt were, in fact, correct, so it is pleasing to get this ruling from ACMA,” Dr Karoly said…
    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/shock-jock-jones-told-to-get-factual-accuracy-training-20121018-27srs.html

    19 Oct: Andrew Bolt Blog: Karoly throws stone in his greenhouse
    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/karoly_throws_stows_stone_in_his_greenhouse/

    and the MSM wonders why it has so little credibility!


    Report this

    100

  • #
    pat

    typos are getting more frequent… MSM not MDM, tho MDM could mean “Mostly Discredited Media”…


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Dolphinlegs

    JoNo do the Australian Research Council hand out money willy nilly without any quality controls? If it was my money I would have checks and safeguards to make sure I was not giving money to people who were incompetent. Should someone in Oz be asking the ARC to investigate? Just a thought.

    Keep on keeping on


    Report this

    20

    • #

      It’d be appropriate for the researchers to publish a paper based on the findings as per a proper analysis of the data. Science deserves at least that as a research outcome.

      After all, in science, that is what matters most.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    AndyG55

    Just went to the WUWT sea ice page.. Darn the arctic ice is recovering well from that little storm last arctic spring !!


    Report this

    132

    • #
      sillyfilly

      Just went to NSIDC and found the long term data.

      Much more illuminating, much more relevant and much less rhetoric!


      Report this

      114

      • #
        Truthseeker

        Stupid nag, do you mean the NSIDC plot that is shown here?


        Report this

        112

      • #
        Bruce of Newcastle

        Peak in sea ice anomaly in 1979 at the start of the data series (ie satellite era) corresponds with the last trough in the AMO.

        The AMO is now at its peak, 33 years later. Sea ice is at its trough.

        The AMO is a sea surface temperature series. Warm water melts ice. The Arctic is geographically well connected to the Atlanic but not much with the Pacific. So since the AMO is cyclic, it is pretty likely sea ice anomaly is too. Except we only have the 30 years of data from the ramp up half of the 60-ish year cycle. So, expect a trend increase in sea ice over the next 30 years.

        Trend lines of best fit, Sillyfilly, are not always linear.


        Report this

        80

      • #
        John in France

        Neigh Lass, What’s interesting here is the rapid ice loss and recovery. You can’t see that in a long term trend.


        Report this

        10

  • #
    Sonny

    I note with interest (but not with surprise) that the climate hypochondriacs
    have not posted anything on this thread (yet).

    Why? This study shows that with $300,000 and three years, the best and brightest at Melbourne University cannot prove (with data) that Australia has experienced any unusual 21st century warming whatsoever! Let alone prove the link between man’s activities and this warming.

    It’s an epic fail for CAGW, and they know it.


    Report this

    90

  • #
    Gee Aye

    some interesting additional points made here

    http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2012/10/18/updates-journal-of-climate-adds-info-about-withdrawn-hot-temps-paper-chemistry-journal-corrects-retraction-notice/

    and on the previous articles linked within. I’m looking closely at how the academic community views/spins/reacts.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    janama

    perhaps Dr Karoly should join Alan Jones and undertake training on “factual accuracy and significant viewpoints” as part of measures agreed with his station 2GB!!

    link


    Report this

    70

  • #
    handjive

    Scientists link magnetic reversal, climate change and super volcano to same time period

    OCTOBER 17, 2012

    In a press release today, the GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences described the connection between the Laschamp magnetic reversal, the Phlegrean Field (Campi Flegrei) volcanic eruption that devastated most of southeastern Europe, and periods of frequent rapid cooling and warming.

    More here:

    “The field geometry of reversed polarity, with field lines pointing into the opposite direction when compared to today’s configuration, lasted for only about 440 years, and it was associated with a field strength that was only one quarter of today’s field.”

    “The actual polarity changes lasted only 250 years. In terms of geological time scales, that is very fast.”

    It is worth noting some comments in the first link:

    Brent Walker says:
    October 17, 2012 at 4:59 pm

    “Besides producing beryllium 10 and radiocarbon 14 cosmic rays produce muons, which are a type of short lived heavy electron.

    Japanese scientists have shown that muons interact with some (not all) volcanic calderas.

    These weakened calderas either precipitate volcanic eruptions or, in the case of extinct volcanoes, cause stresses built up during the volcano’s active period to be released in the form of earthquakes.

    The sun’s magnetic field provides most of Earth’s protection from cosmic rays so it might have been weak at that time.

    A nearby *supernova in our galaxy could also have provided the massive increase in high energy cosmic rays over a long enough period to cause the weakening of the caldera of Campi Flegrei and hence precipitated the eruption.”

    my note-*see: Henrik Svensmark’s latest paper entitled “Evidence of nearby supernovae affecting life on Earth” (via Nigel Calder’s blog)

    Japanese scientists are currently very worried about the current increase in muons due to the current weakness in the sun’s magnetic field.
    This is understandable given the massive pressure currently building up in Mt Fuji’s caldera.

    .

    Sat Oct 13, 2012
    Scientists fear Mount Fuji eruption

    A scientific study is warning that the magma chamber under Japan’s Mount Fuji has come under immense pressure, which could even trigger a volcanic eruption.

    Japan’s National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Prevention say the added pressure could have been caused by last year’s massive earthquake, which was followed a few days later by another large tremor directly underneath Fuji.

    .

    Fun Speculation:
    A quick glimpse again at the Peri Reis map of 1513 shows that when ever it was compiled, there was an ice free antarctic, and also, it is drawn upside down in relation to north-south (magnetic pole reversal) as we know it today.
    This was noted by Charles Hapgood.
    Could the Peri Reis map date that far back?

    Real science is never settled.


    Report this

    40

    • #
      DavidH

      I heard that mention of Mt Fuji on ABC news a few days ago (was just channel flicking at the time, you know!) and went straight to Google for more information. I didn’t find anything recent, but there were news reports for what sounded like the same thing from back in March (from memory); nothing on the Reuters site; no mention on a couple of Volcano blogs (which you’d think would have a fair interest in this kind of news). I just checked Wikipedia and it does say something that seems related to the news report:

      In September 2012, mathematical models created by the National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Prevention suggest that the pressure in Mount Fuji’s magma chamber could be at 1.6 megapascals higher than it was in 1707.[50] However, since there is no known way to directly measure the pressure of a volcano’s magma chamber, such research is only speculative.

      Hmmm, ABC making much of a speculative model? Have I heard of that before?


      Report this

      40

  • #

    I’m confused. If the maths was wrong, fix the maths and republish. Why would it be withdrawn? Because they ended up with the ‘wrong’ conclusions?


    Report this

    80

    • #
      Sonny

      Exactly. They cheated in order to prove CAGW.
      Even so, they could barely coerce a positive signal above the noise, and with the corrections they would have had to admit that their politically correct conclusions were wrong.

      That’s how post modern science works.


      Report this

      110

  • #
    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Now waiting for the news that Al Gore, James Hansen, Gergis, MattyB, sillyfilly, and JB have all chipped in their money to a consortium investing in the Antarctic Palm Oil industry of 2050.

      The Antarctic Palm Oil futures market is a great opportunity to get in on the ground floor of something really big, with huge returns if you get in early.
      sillyfilly, think about your retirement options carefully, because right now dog food is your destiny.
      That could all change for you, with just a bit of confidence in IPCC computer models…


      Report this

      60

  • #
    inedible hyperbowl

    Karoly strikes out again.
    Melbourne uni needs to evaluate the damage to its reputation, when it employs “activists” in preference to scientists.

    If the following graphic gets accepted for publication

    Why is not front page in the Age and climate commission brochures.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    inedible hyperbowl

    Karoly strikes out again.
    Melbourne uni needs to evaluate the damage to its reputation, when it employs “activists” in preference to scientists.

    If the following graphic gets accepted for publication

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/esper_2012_fig4.png

    Why is not front page in the Age and climate commission brochures.


    Report this

    30

    • #
      AndyG55

      pity they couldn’t go back another 500+ years and show that the Mayan period was also a warm period.

      Warm periods are when populations have flourished.. colder periods… not so much !

      Warm + more tha subsistence level CO2 = GOOD !!!


      Report this

      11

      • #
        AndyG55

        ps. Hopefully, before the coming cold perios, we can get rid of this renewable energy junk, and build some decent coal fired or nuclear power station.

        With a decent, reliable, economical energy supply, the cold period will not be half as bad as it might be otherwise.

        We owe it to the next generations to get back to REALITY !!!


        Report this

        41

      • #
        Dennis

        The China delegates to Copenhagen reported that during their 3,500 years of civilisation and records that there had been three periods that were warmer than the last warm period that came to an end in 1998, but I don’t think the alarmists wanted to know.


        Report this

        10

  • #
    pat

    AndyG55 -

    don’t hold your breath!

    19 Oct: UK Independent: Tom Bawden: Government ‘to fix limits for power plant carbon’
    Ed Davey, the Energy Secretary, gave a strong indication yesterday that he plans to introduce a specific emissions target for the power sector as he seeks to attract much-needed investment into low-carbon electricity generation.
    In a speech about the Government’s forthcoming Energy Bill, Mr Davey acknowledged the pressing need for potential investors to be clear about the financial returns from backing projects if Britain is to attract the £110bn of capital the sector needs over the next eight years.
    He said a key way to give investors clarity on returns would be to introduce a “decarbonisation target” for the power industry, putting a limit on how much Co2 energy generators could emit, thereby increasing demand for low-carbon technologies such as wind, solar, water and nuclear…
    Britain has a legal obligation to reduce carbon emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. The specific target for the power industry is expected to be between 50g and 100g of Co2 per kWh by 2030, with the final level kept flexible to see how the low-carbon industry progresses…
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/government-to-fix-limits-for-power-plant-carbon-8217282.html


    Report this

    00

    • #
      AndyG55

      Yep, the people on Brussels have very effectively removed England as any sort of economic power.

      If they try to get to that 80% reduction they will become even more of a basket case than Greece, or Spain.

      The conquest of England…… finally achieved.


      Report this

      40

  • #
    pat

    Big Business wants more taxpayer money:

    18 Oct: Bloomberg: Alex Morales: U.K Energy Reform Pace Is ‘Frustrating,’ Business Lobby Says
    The U.K. energy market’s pace of reform is “frustrating” and risks falling victim to “paralysis by analysis,” the U.K.’s biggest business lobby group said.
    Britain needs to encourage investment in a diverse energy mix including renewable energy, nuclear power, natural gas and carbon capture and storage, Neil Bentley, deputy director general of the Confederation of British Industry, said in an e- mailed speech he’s due to deliver today alongside Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Davey…
    ***The CBI is calling for more clarity on incentives to the energy industry beyond 2015 and a proposed plan to pay power generators for providing back-up supply. Bentley will also demand relief for energy-intensive industries to exempt them from some of the additional costs of new regulations.
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-17/u-k-energy-reform-pace-is-frustrating-business-lobby-says.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    so many “experts”, so much insanity:

    19 Oct: Canberra Times: Bob Douglas: Carbon age must end or we will
    (Bob Douglas is a retired epidemiologist, a director of Australia21 and chair of SEE-Change ACT)
    During a Canberra symposium last week on ”The Future of Homo Sapiens” in a 12-hour day of presentations and panel discussions, 15 leading Australian experts from climate science, public health, theology, philosophy, politics and economics expressed their dismay at the seriousness of the human predicament.
    They bemoaned the continuing effectiveness of entrenched interests to maintain a culture of denial and inaction about the seriousness of the developing climate emergency. The meeting was in honour of Phillip Adams, who, in his keynote address quoted Pablo Casals. ”The situation is hopeless. We must take the next step.”…
    For now, the climate-change denial industry remains in the ascendancy…
    The good news is that many Australians are now acting and that the 50,000 strong Australian Youth Climate Coalition is working strategically with politicians on a number of fronts to awaken the dreamers to the reality that the threat is here and now.
    The Manning Clark conference heard from former Liberal leader John Hewson, who is leading an international ratings agency that is monitoring the extent to which trillions of dollars of investment and superannuation funds are being used to prop up fossil fuels rather than promote renewable technologies. This is a brilliant strategy to force investors to a reality check on how their funds are being used…
    http://www.canberratimes.com.au/opinion/carbon-age-must-end-or-we-will-20121018-27tqz.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    EVERYWHERE U LOOK, FORMER POLLIES! DON’T KNOW ABOUT ANYONE ELSE BUT,FOR ME, THIS IS WHY I ALWAYS WARN…WATCH YOUR SUPER!

    19 Oct: AustnFinancialReview: Union super funds back asset sell-off
    by Sally Patten, Jake Mitchell and Gemma Daley
    Union-backed superannuation funds are supporting an ambitious privatisation plan that could lead to the sale of $200 billion of government-owned logistics, energy and water assets…
    Infrastructure Australia, the federal government’s infrastructure adviser, identified 82 profit-making government assets that could be sold quickly, including $11 billion of ports and $108 billion of electricity transmission, distribution and generation assets, The Australian Financial Review revealed exclusively on Thursday.
    Mark Delaney, the chief investment officer of the $45 billion AustralianSuper fund, said the list of assets identified was impressive. “You would think that super funds would be interested in quite a number of those assets,” he said…
    Steve Bracks, chairman of the $18 billion Cbus super scheme and a former Labor premier of Victoria, praised the plan, which argues that privatisations are needed to close the “infrastructure gap” between tax revenue and spending requirements.
    John Brumby, chairman of the $5.7 billion MTAA retirement scheme, indicated that selling ports and electricity generators to super funds would help to alleviate community concerns. “Asset sales are always difficult. It may be less sensitive politically if they are sold to super funds rather than a merchant bank or an overseas hedge fund,” said Mr Brumby, another former Victorian Labor premier…
    The endorsements from Labor figures are significant because one of the biggest problems is overcoming public fear that asset sales will cost jobs and raise the cost of water, electricity and other essential services…
    Mr Delaney urged governments to start communicating the benefits of privatisations to voters. One obvious advantage was that money could be recycled to fund new projects.
    “It is important that the public is on side,” he said. “It is important that governments demonstrate the benefits for taxpayers of selling off assets.”…
    Mr Bracks warned that asset sales would not be easy and that governments would need to “stay the course” when it came to finalising disposals.
    He pointed to the proposed sale of the Snowy Hydro electric scheme in 2006, which failed after radio broadcaster Alan Jones led a campaign to keep it in public hands.
    AustralianSuper said it would be interested in investing in Snowy Hydro, which is included on the Infrastructure Australia list…
    Nick Minchin, Australia’s longest-serving finance minister, said governments needed to sell commercial assets where it was the regulator and owner. He said the government should make the sale of Medibank Private its top priority and consider selling Australia Post and submarine builder ASC.
    None of these was included in Infrastructure Australia’s list…
    http://afr.com/p/national/union_super_funds_back_asset_sell_DHdX50wKp3VxNL2NphIV7N

    19 Oct: AustFinancialReview: Jeff Kennett calls for power privatisation
    Former Victorian premier Jeff Kennett has urged the federal and state governments to sell the Snowy Hydro scheme and lucrative electricity networks. Likewise, top advisers to the Gillard government have called for privatisation to reduce power prices and raise cash for infrastructure. (SUBSCRIPTION REQD)
    http://afr.com/p/national/jeff_kennett_calls_for_power_privatisation_5Q2EnA35GEGCwD2bHGk0BL


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tim

    Maybe it would be too embarrassing for the media to have a correction referring to errors that they made and initially approved for dissemination-presumably by an editor. That would suggest not only careless editing but a bias among their journalists who they have failed to keep under control by stopping them from blindly accepting propagandist Press Releases from activists disguised as scientists. Unless, of course, we the public hold them to do their research about a (now very contentious) subject.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    should have highlight Bracks’ blaming Alan Jones. given it’s the Unions (many of them Labor) who have fought most against selling assets, & Bracks is Labor and Jones is said to be far rightwing, it seems we are living in a completely topsy turvy world. or am i missing something here?


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    did our lot get the idea from the UK?

    18 Oct: Guardian: Larry Elliott: UK economy still ailing, warns Bank of England insider
    David Miles, one of the nine members of Threadneedle Street’s monetary policy committee (MPC), said that even though the level of stimulus being provided by the Bank was already “off the scale”, there was no evidence that the economy was overheating…
    The MPC announced a programme of £50bn worth of asset sales in August, having decided that inflation would drop back to its 2% target by the end of the year, and fall below it during 2013…
    Some of Britain’s biggest occupational pension schemes have answered the Treasury’s call for them to back a major boost in spending on infrastructure projects.
    Six schemes have become “founding investors” in the Pension Infrastructure Platform, after indicating they could spend £100m each.
    George Osborne said in the budget that he wanted pension funds to step in to support infrastructure spending.
    The initial investors are the pension funds for BT and BAE, the Railways Pension Scheme, the government backed Pension Protection Fund (PPF) and local authority schemes from Strathclyde and the West Midlands.
    The PPF and the National Association of Pension Funds said talks were under way to hammer out a structure that limits the risk of cost overruns, which has traditionally discouraged schemes from investing in infrastructure.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/oct/18/uk-economy-still-ailing-bank-of-england-insider

    Reuters hypes it up a little more:

    18 Oct: Reuters: Sinead Cruise: Elite pension funds back infrastructure investment vehicle
    A government plan to kick-start the economy by drawing billions of pounds of pension fund money into roads and rail has moved closer to reality after several large pension schemes formally signalled interest.
    The BAE Systems Pension Fund, BT Pension Scheme, Railways Pension Scheme, Strathclyde Pension Fund and West Midlands Pension Fund have agreed to become Founding Investors in the Pensions Infrastructure Platform (PIP), a vehicle by which funds can back projects that meet their investment criteria…
    Pension Protection Fund, the government-backed agency that supports underfunded pension schemes or covers the pension liabilities of UK companies which have gone bust, has also signed up to become a founding member of PIP.
    “Since we started this project, we have found that people have been genuinely supportive of the idea that pension funds and infrastructure investment fit well together,” PPF chief executive Alan Rubenstein said.
    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/10/18/uk-pensions-infrastructure-idUKBRE89H0ZC20121018


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Dennis

      Our government will announce new horror budget measures soon, our economy is heading into recession, the first since Labor announced around 1990 as the recession we had to have, meaning their mishandling of the economy. The patchwork economy bad patches are growing in number and the circus alliance government is out of control. Debt ceiling raised this year to $300 billion, cumulative budget deficits at 30 June last $174 billion. The debt burden will cost young Australians for decades to come and will restrict provision of government services and moving ahead as a nation.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    dp

    Not only was this paper flawed, the peer group is rightfully held up to ridicule. This is a disaster for Gergis worthy of a public shunning within the circle of climate science and beyond. This comes close to being a regression of the climate science gene pool. Except there is no comedy here. And she spurned the advice of Steve McIntyre? What ever was she thinking? Dunce and FAIL.


    Report this

    141

  • #
    Peter Miller

    This highlights the deeply flawed pal review process of the Global Warming Industry, where the principal purpose of ‘research’ papers is to generate new funding and maintain comfortable lifestyles.

    It serves to help demonstrate that if sceptics had a tiny fraction of the resources, financial and otherwise, of the Global Warming Industry, then the latter’s headline grabbing ‘research’ conclusions would be routinely sliced, diced and discredited. In this scenario, Mann would undoubtedly be washing out laboratory beakers somewhere and Hansen would probably be his assistant.

    It also demonstrates the huge bias of the left wing, ‘progressive’ sections of the media in support of anything scary to do with supposed global warming. I list below their retractions on previous comments made on the Gergis paper below:

    1.
    2.
    3.

    er……..

    Finally, the obvious supporters of the Global Warming Industry who post here are almost always guaranteed to only use snotty comments in support of their beliefs, relying on what they believe are the time proven arguments of: “Nya, nya de nya nya” or “Yah, boo, sucks to you.” Is it any wonder the high priests of the Global Warming Industry are steadfast in their refusal to debate leading sceptics in public? After all, no one likes being exposed as a fraudster and it is self-evident bad/climate science is best propogated under a dark shroud of deceit and disinformation; public debate is therefore the greatest threat to its well-being.


    Report this

    131

    • #

      I believe it is self evident that much of science has now become a function of political interference . Look at bio technology and the demonization of much of their efforts. Possibly many in the scientific realm, however capable or accomplished are subject to the scrutiny of political imperatives. Many don’t seem to need any encouragement and embrace stupidity willingly. This brings me to a phenomenon that really intrigues me and perhaps someone could shed light on it. How can a person educated to the hilt, armed with all the knowledge their discipline can give them be so blindingly bereft of common sense?. If a person loves science so much that they would make it their life’s work, why would they deliberately seek to undermine it?. Perhaps they don’t love it, I don’t know. Most people don’t visit blogs like this and know nothing of the clandestine war between members of the scientific community over this issue. They are confused because most MSM outlets offer them a fait accompli yet their common sense tells them that all is not well in the house of science. I had my doubts from the early days of Hansen and Gore because whilst I don’t have the wherewithal to debate the science, the distinct stench of politics was obvious. Now, years later it seems to me a scientific fact that you can’t pick up a turd from the clean end.


      Report this

      60

      • #
        Bruce of Newcastle

        Stability is a very attractive thing. In the private sector science (my personal experience) there is often a cull or a downsizing or something about every 4 years. In the public sector there never is.

        If you take two populations, cull one periodically but not the other, you know who you will have more of in a generation or two.

        Humans crave stability due to many noble aims, like paying your mortgage or putting your kids through a good school. This is easier if you are not afraid to lose your job or your funding.

        BHPB the largest mining company in the world decided in 2008 to close all four of their R&D centres around the world as the CEO believed that the public sector (ie uni’s and CSIRO) could provide the required services. That decision is perhaps understandable, but universities and CSIRO tend to be left wing in their politics, so the overall scientific politics shifted left as a result. When politics, money and science intersect, with your personal prosperity on the line, the results are no different to Germany in the late 1930′s. Humans are good at rationalisation.

        Like your sticky simile though, things will eventually get better once the activism is frozen out by time and data. Coprolites are more benign than fresh ones.


        Report this

        30

  • #

    ..make that “by the clean end”.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    For those who cannot know about quiet background work, here are some pertinent emails. The pre-publication listed the Australian Department of Climate Change as a sponsor, so I emailed them on 2 June 2012:
    ………………………………..
    Copy of email:

    From: sherro1@optusnet.com.au

    Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 9:51 PM

    To: enquiries@climatechange.gov.au

    Subject: Disclosure of information by persons under contract

    Might you please describe the requirements for authors of scientific papers to make available some or all of the raw data behind a publication when the publication is funded in part or in full by the Department of Climate Change, and/or under Contract to it. If the information exists in an Act, might you please disclose it and the relevant section. It there are guidelines from the Department of Climate Change, might they please be emailed to me or referred to in a form that has reasonable access properties. If the Department of Climate Change is involved with publications that have no guidelines for data availability and archiving, might you please make this clear to me. In the event that there is a complexity caused by dates of commencement, amendment or cessation of Acts, Regulations, Contracts or Guidelines pertinent to the activities of the Department of Climate Change, Australia, you might use the specific example of Dr Joelle Gergis et al, Melbourne University. The information below is from the public source

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

    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

    This is believed to have led in part or in full to a publication – 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.
    Geoffrey H Sherrington Scientist.
    …………………………………………….

    From: sherro1@optusnet.com.au [mailto:sherro1@optusnet.com.au]
    Sent: Thursday, 14 June 2012 6:58 PM
    To: enquiries@climatechange.gov.au
    Subject: Was email received?

    Would you please confirm that the following email of June 2nd, 2012, was

    (a.) Received and acknowledged as received by the Department; and

    (b.) conveyed to the appropriate person within the Department, a person with the prescribed authority to answer it?

    Thank you Geoffrey H Sherrington Scientist.

    ………………………………….

    REPEATED COPY OF EMAIL ABOVE.

    Geoffrey H Sherrington Scientist.
    …………………
    From: DCCEE Enquiries
    Sent: Monday, 4 June 2012 11:53 AM
    To: ‘sherro1@optusnet.com.au’
    Subject: DCCEE Enquiry – Geoffrey H Sherrington

    Dear Geoffrey,

    Thank you for contacting the Department on 02/06/2012 concerning department related data publications.

    Your enquiry is currently being investigated and the Department will respond to you in due course.

    For information on the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency you may wish to visit http://www.climatechange.gov.au.

    Kind regards,

    Brendan H

    Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency Contact Centre

    http://www.climatechange.gov.au
    …………………………………………………………………
    Sent: Wednesday, 25 July 2012 10:33 PM

    To: enquiries@climatechange.gov.au

    Subject: Due Diligence – Grants from Department of Climate Change

    For the responsible person.

    The Department of Climate Change provided funds to facilitate the preparation of a publication described in two earlier emails I have sent to you and send now for the third time.

    Please note that the Department of Climate Change provided funds for this paper. The paper has now been withdrawn by the first-named author.

    Does the Department of Climate Change have a policy of seeking a refund of monies spent on papers subsequently withdrawn?

    It would be appreciated if you would answer the questions already asked of you in the recopied email below.

    The matter might well gain national prominence and the Department would not, I presume, like to be seen in an uncooperative and unfavourable light.

    Geoffrey H Sherrington Scientist.
    …………………………….
    Dear Mr Sherrington,

    The Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency provided funds to the University of Melbourne in January 2011 for scientific research into the provision of extended estimates of regional scale climate variables (temperature and rainfall) to reduce uncertainties about climate change and its potential impacts in the Australasian region over the past 500-2,000 years. Under this research project, the manuscript ‘Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium’ was submitted to the Journal of Climate earlier this year.

    The Department is aware that the publication of this manuscript was put on hold by the project leaders after the identification of an issue in the processing of the data used in the study. The testing of scientific studies through independent analysis of data and methods strengthens scientific conclusions and is a normal part of the scientific process. The researchers are currently reviewing the data and results and will resubmit the paper to the journal for peer review.

    The paper synthesises palaeo data from a number of sources. The majority of this data is publically available through the NOAA World Data Centre for Palaeoclimatology at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/. The review article Neukom and Gergis, ‘Southern Hemisphere high-resolution palaeoclimate records of the last 2000 years’, The Holocene May 2012 22: 501-524 provides a comprehensive list of references which contain data that were used in the synthesis paper ‘Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming’. Any data which is not available at the NOAA world data centre can be requested from the authors listed in the review article.

    Thank you for your enquiry.

    Regards
    Climate Change Science Team
    9 August 2012
    ………………………………….
    Thank you for your response. There are many questions that one could ask, some that you have not answered.

    You state below that the paper in question will be resubmitted to THE journal for peer review. Do your guidelines allow for it to be submitted to ANOTHER journal for whatever reason, given its history? That is, was it a condition of the grant that publication be made in a nominated or agreed journal?

    Further responses from you do not need to include a lecture about theories and conduct of scientific review. It is likely that I am more experienced and have a better scientific record of achievement than any person in the Department who might seek to lecture me. I’ve proven my skills and retired. You are yet to establish credentials. One way to do that is to take note of the quote below, especially the simplifications available from full and open disclosure. Regards Geoff Sherrington.

    A quotation from 1877.

    There was once an island in which some of the inhabitants professed a religion teaching neither the doctrine of original sin nor that of eternal punishment. A suspicion got abroad that the professors of this religion had made use of unfair means to get their doctrines taught to children. They were accused of wresting the laws of their country in such a way as to remove children from the care of their natural and legal guardians; and even of stealing them away and keeping them concealed from their friends and relations. A certain number of men formed themselves into a society for the purpose of agitating the public about this matter. They published grave accusations against individual citizens of the highest position and character, and did all in their power to injure these citizens in their exercise of their professions. So great was the noise they made, that a Commission was appointed to investigate the facts; but after the Commission had carefully inquired into all the evidence that could be got, it appeared that the accused were innocent. Not only had they been accused on insufficient evidence, but the evidence of their innocence was such as the agitators might easily have obtained, if they had attempted a fair inquiry. After these disclosures the inhabitants of that country looked upon the members of the agitating society, not only as persons whose judgment was to be distrusted, but also as no longer to be counted honourable men. For although they had sincerely and conscientiously believed in the charges they had made, yet they had no right to believe on such evidence as was before them. Their sincere convictions, instead of being honestly earned by patient inquiring, were stolen by listening to the voice of prejudice and passion.

    Let us vary this case and suppose, other things remaining as before, that a still more accurate investigation proved the accused to have been really guilty. Would this make any difference in the guilt of the accusers? Clearly not; the question is not whether their belief was true or false, but whether they entertained it on wrong grounds. They would no doubt say, “Now you see that we were right after all; next time perhaps you will believe us.” And they might be believed, but they would not thereby become honourable men. They would not be innocent, they would only be not found out. Every one of them, if he chose to examine himself in foro conscientiae, would know that he had acquired and nourished a belief, when he had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him; and therein he would know that he had done a wrong thing.

    William K Clifford. Originally published in Contemporary Review, 1877. Reprinted in Lectures and Essays (1879). Presently in print in The Ethics of Belief and Other Essays (Prometheus Books, 1999).
    ………………………..

    [caught in the filter due to the number of links] ED


    Report this

    80

    • #
      MadJak

      Geoff,

      This line is particularly interesting:

      …identification of an issue in the processing of the data used in the study. The testing of scientific studies through independent analysis of data and methods strengthens scientific conclusions and is a normal part of the scientific process.

      They’re making out that it was the peer reviewers who caught the error! What a load of cobblers! This example shows exactly why the peer review process is not, never was and never could be used as a measure of quality.

      It also shows the respondents from the DCC are more than happy to allow someone to take credit for another persons work – surely this borders on supporting plagiarism?


      Report this

      20

  • #
    Gnome

    Fair’s fair folx-

    Karoly withdrew this farrago of nonsense when the flaws were pointed out. mann would have blustered and lied, called the realists dinosaurs and morons, and held the line so that the ABC, kook, etc could bluster and lie and keep the lie alive. There’s a lot of nonsense knocking around in the system under the pretext of “peer reviewed”. No doubt he hoped at first that a bit of tweaking might fix it, but when it didn’t he did the right thing.

    There is a special little place in hell for gergis, but Karoly can go to his grave still saying “scientists are inherently sceptics”, and get away with it.

    Lay off Karoly, or next time he might just take the mannian approach (as stern, garnaut, lewiepoo or steffen would) and keep the ABC, kook, etc well supplied with alarmism. Just because it’s proven nonsense is no reason to back off in the warmist world, as long as it’s “peer reviewed”.

    Credit where it’s due please. Who knows, if Karoly is given the leeway to admit his error without acrimonious triumphalism, he might become a valuable convert. A time is coming, when sceptics will get the grants the warmists are getting now, and Karoly might be an early trumpet on the bandwagon.

    (Then again, I might just be an optimist!)


    Report this

    50

    • #
      inedible hyperbowl

      You are an optimist.

      Besides, I want my NUremburg (rather than send them to re-education camps).


      Report this

      10

    • #

      Who knows, if Karoly is given the leeway to admit his error without acrimonious triumphalism, he might become a valuable convert.

      Ya think?

      You’re talking about the man who was one of two review editors of the infamous attribution chapter of the AR4 (Chp. 9)
      He butchered every single reasonable review submitted by decent reviewers.

      He was a co-author of a terrible paper blaming the drought in the Murray River Basin on AGW. When a paper by Lockart et al showed different, Karoly doubled down. (was supposed to publish a new paper but he never did).

      Karoly is one of the original ‘team’ members. Expecting him to behave as a decent scientist is naive.


      Report this

      40

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        Well Baa isn’t that so typical.
        Once again we see that supposedly high-powered climate scientists commit errors so basic to their field that one must suspect intentional deception rather than mere ignorance.
        He said AGW caused the drought but that is impossible. High temperatures don’t cause drought, drought causes high temperatures. The evaporation of ground moisture creates a natural air-conditioning effect which cools the surface. If anything, higher temperatures would transport more water vapour from the oceans to the clouds and allow even more massive dumps of water than with cooler temperatures, circulation patterns permitting. A change in circulation patterns (eg ENSO phase) will lead to drought, and the drought then allows higher daytime temperatures to develop.

        This is entirely testable scientifically. Just check whether night time temperatures fell quicker and reached lower minimums in the same months that the maximums increased. An increase in DTR (diurnal temperature range) during drought is predicted by empirical climate science, but a reduction in DTR is a key prediction of the CAGW enhanced greenhouse effect. For anyone reading this, I could have checked the records and just told you the answer, but then you wouldn’t bother to check yourself and think about it.

        We say this over and over again, but it seems to fall on deaf ears, and so the circus continues.

        Only a corrupt peer review process would allow such basic physical absurdities to be published. This is why Pal Review is so valuable to the CSIRO’s Global Warming scare campaign.

        Considering the grant issuance incentive that lies behind cosying up to the IPCC bandwagon, we might even say this perverse paper vetting process is PayPal Review.

        - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -

        In Ludwig We Trust.


        Report this

        10

  • #
    The Black Adder

    Well done Jo and Company….

    another rabbit caught in the trap!!!!

    I wrote an excellent letter (according to me) on this subject to my local paper after they published those ALARMING headlines back in May..

    They never printed it and now I wonder if they will print any retraction…

    It was all over the ABC and the MSM…

    They are a joke!!! Keep up the fight :)


    Report this

    50

  • #
    StefanL

    Even the once venerable “Scientific American” is using ridiculous, misleading headlines:

    “Earth’s Strongest, Most Massive Storm Ever”


    Report this

    10

  • #
    DaveA

    Gergis
    verb
    1. To erroneously announce success, esp. prematurely: With 1 minute remaining Richmond cheered their victory, but they Gergised – 4 quick goals gave the Suns the win.


    Report this

    41

  • #
    DaveA

    A little more seriously, there is a scientific discovery here which they have now chosen not to report.

    Their analysis has found that the proxy temperature reconstruction technique has proven unviable when applied to existing southern hemisphere proxies. This itself is meaningful to the science of proxy reconstruction and could assist others who work in this field. They should have reported all correlations and still attempted a best-possible reconstruction with appropriate error bars, and offered possibilities for why correlations are so poor. Their results could have been related to others who claim greater success: why has it worked in the NH but not the south? Does it really work in the NH?

    This is fishing expedition science where results are only reported if they catch a whopper. We need to know about the puffer fish too if we are to get an accurate complete picture.


    Report this

    60

  • #

    Good that it has ‘gone’.

    The real question to me is: will this have an effect on their ability to grant seek? i.e. will they have to raise their standards from now on in, or will they be free to keep producing such rubbish in the future?

    Somebody somewhere with real authority in the grant process MUST take note of this and get the procedures changed to stop such silliness getting out. It’s a waste of the publics money, puts an egg on the face of Australian academia and wastes the time of the academics concerned as well.

    There needs to be a real consequence to this and somebody should act.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Bite Back

    If they drove at highway speeds in the center of their lane plus or minus two times the width of the lane (the same precision as their measurements) just think of what could happen.

    La, la, la…la, oh shi-i-i-i-it! Splat! And we would be rid of them.

    I hope nobody actually does that. But the analogy does cry out to be used. Sometimes they bite themselves.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    clipe

    I think it was Larry who came up with “Climate Hypochondriacs”

    http://climateaudit.org/2007/08/20/computer-programming-and-the-destruction-of-creation/#comment-100381

    Steve McIntyre may have coined it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    I would bet that this paper will be refined and regurgitated at the next most politically opportune time for the catastrafarians.

    Then it’ll take a couple of days/weeks before they’re forced to pull it again, ready to be the next smoke screen.

    This paper from these people are not about the quest for truth – science – it is purely about getting the next headline for “the cause”.

    To that end, this paper has been successful. Of course, one day all of these chicken little moments will be collated together by some Journo who doesn’t care about their next career move and then we get to sit back and watch.

    Of course, I am assuming that this country still has some journalists rather than what appears to be predominantly a bunch of the red queens eunuchs…


    Report this

    30

    • #
      Debbie

      The journos are not statisticians or mathematicians.
      They only rehash the PR that’s delivered to them.
      They don’t have to understand it or critically review it.
      They should however recognise that there is a lack of balance re the PR releases.
      But good PR is very expensive and taxpayers are funding the CC PR.
      Attempting to sort the wheat from the chaff would be a tough gig.


      Report this

      10

  • #
    Alexander K

    If I (or anyone else) publicised, via the meeja, a product that was proved in short order to be utterly deficient and very close to being a con, that same meeja would come down on me like a ton of bricks. The fact that the Australian taxpayer has funded this nonsense should be a cause for further ire from Oz taxpayers, so it’s probably best they don’t find out about it – there seems to be more than enough to thoroughly irritate yer average Oz taxpayer right now!


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Drapetomania

    so it’s probably best they don’t find out about it

    I think “they” are safe from that… :)
    If (post modern)journalists will not research or even ask basic questions when they i/v scientists..then they are most certainly not going to know about(or care) about the details of the retraction/correction/resubmission games are they.?
    The journalists are just as uncritical as the clueless anti CO2 commentators that write boorish posts here.
    As the wheels fall off in about 20 years or 30 years(after a combined cost of trillions lost) ..the scientists will say..we were misquoted out of context by politicians and the politician will say..we were relying on the scientists.
    Really sad for science in general actually.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Sonny

    Again, not one single post from our regular CO2 hating Climate Change fearing cheer squad.
    Shame on you all!!!


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Jimmy Haigh

    Although I like “climate hypochondriacs” my favourite is still “climate bollocks”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    eliza

    Slightly OT but the main reason Australian (climate) Science is so abysmal, is probably due to the incredible mining income which accounts for nearly 100% of Australian wealth, an unaccountable income which drifts to these shoddy scientists and universities ie: no one cares what they produce there’s tons of dough anyway.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richardn

    Can’t see this making it to the ABC newsroom {Just like climategate was largely ignored}.Hope Alan Jones picks it up . Mayby it could be used as an example of poor reporting in his enforced lesson on” checking his facts “prior to going to air


    Report this

    00

  • #

    This is great news…….the fabricating climate bed-wetters can’t handle the sunlight.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Bewitch

    The issue for me is that all dire climate predictions are based on either synthetic data (data massaged to within a millimetre of its life and used selectively) AND atmospheric models that have been built on the premise that carbon dioxide causes warming. How this activity can be termed ‘science’ rather than blather at worst or immature curiosity at best is frankly beyond me!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Skiphil

    Nearly one year since this Gergis et al (2012) paper was announced with such fanfare as having been “published” by the Journal of Climate.

    It still has not appeared yet the press releases and articles from last May remain on the Internet, mostly un corrected.

    Anyone know the status of this fiasco or when inquiring journalists might start to be curious??


    Report this

    20