the Gergis paper is gone. the Mannian like hockey stick study has been refuted. its too bad that we cant go back and get rid of more of the hockey stick travesties that have been published over the past 15 years. with every data set that gets put into public access, and every methodology that is forced to be explained, the warmists' position gets weaker and weaker.
gergis et al is withdrawn
- Thread starter IanC
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #3
the distortion of scientific principles has allowed climate science to drain the banked esteem of science in the public's opinion. but it is still better to lance the boil rather than let it continue to fester.
mamooth
Diamond Member
What are the loons babbling about? The Gergis paper was never published, only addressed a possible southern hemisphere hockey stick, and was withdrawn for more work back in June. It was a pretty ho-hum matter, showing that peer review worked. It takes one crazy diseased mind to define it as a conspiracy.
It's like denalists have this secret moron code that no normal human can decipher. I'm sure it makes sense to them, but why should anyone care about it? Sure, monkeys manage to communicate with each other, but should we care what they say?
It's like denalists have this secret moron code that no normal human can decipher. I'm sure it makes sense to them, but why should anyone care about it? Sure, monkeys manage to communicate with each other, but should we care what they say?
Oh, gee that stung! Funny how when the paper was released to the press you guys were all over it. Now that it's been shown to be deeply flawed you shrug your shoulders and say ho hum....so which is it.....monkey.- Thread starter
- #7
you cant be serious! it passed peer review only to be slaughtered in web review.
what's more, the weaknesses in Gergis are present in a whole lot of other climate science papers.
flacaltenn
Diamond Member
Ian -- way too diplomatic with the "......in a whole lot of other climate science papers."
I'd say MOST that get press release attention and ALL that get top billing by the IPCC...
- Thread starter
- #9
Ian -- way too diplomatic with the "......in a whole lot of other climate science papers."
I'd say MOST that get press release attention and ALL that get top billing by the IPCC...
perhaps....
but I have never changed anybody's mind by telling them they are full of shit. the only way for people to change is by thinking about the subject. sometimes the best method is by asking someone to defend what they think is an obvious truth, and hopefully they find out it is definitely not obvious and maybe not the truth.
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
Interesting. When a real researcher thinks that there may have been a problem with data or processing and withdraws it for correction, priot to publication, you denialists claim dishonesty. Yet when an undegreed ex-TV weatherman publishes lie after proven lie, you say not a word. Intellectual honesty is not a strong point with you fellows.
There have been more than a dozen scientific studies from many nations now that support the Mann graph. You just cannot lie that away.
NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - Gergis et al. 2012 Australasia 1000 Year Ensemble Temperature Reconstructions
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, "Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium" by Joelle Gergis, Raphael Neukom, Stephen Phipps, Ailie Gallant and David Karoly, accepted for publication in the Journal of Climate.
The authors are currently reviewing the data and methods. The revised paper will be re-submitted to the Journal of Climate by the end of July and it will be sent out for peer review again.
There have been more than a dozen scientific studies from many nations now that support the Mann graph. You just cannot lie that away.
NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - Gergis et al. 2012 Australasia 1000 Year Ensemble Temperature Reconstructions
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, "Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium" by Joelle Gergis, Raphael Neukom, Stephen Phipps, Ailie Gallant and David Karoly, accepted for publication in the Journal of Climate.
The authors are currently reviewing the data and methods. The revised paper will be re-submitted to the Journal of Climate by the end of July and it will be sent out for peer review again.
- Thread starter
- #11
except Gergis et al is removed, it has not and will not be resubmitted because it has fatal flaws that cannot be remedied. cherrypicking and circular reasoning
in typical climate science fashion the authors independently found the same errors that were found at Climate Audit, on the very same day! imagine that! what are the odds?
you guys keep saying that there are all these papers supporting the Mann graph but you never explain what 'supporting' is. if the MWP and LIA are halfway between Lamb's graph and Mann's graph, is that still supporting? consistent with?
also, the supporting papers all seem to use tainted proxies like the bristlecone pines or upsidedown Tiljander, which the methodolgies then turn into a hockey stick. why cant we even agree as to which proxies should be used in paleo recontruction? and have you actually looked at the proxy sets? they are almost all noise. anyone who gets a nice crisp line on a graph out of them is fooling himself, along with a significant part of the world.
and please, bring up some of the blatant errors that Watts has made. I would like to know what he has done to deserve your irrational hate. its kind of like edthecynic hating Spencer and Christie. all bluster and no substance.
edit- remember when I showed you the Mann/Jones paper at RealClimate, and how it was riddled with either highschool errors or blatant misrepresentation? you refused to comment then, which showed a lot about your character.
Last edited:
olfraud you forget that those supporting papers are using the SAME DATA and the SAME methods to derive their results. In other words they are not testing anything.
- Thread starter
- #13
the paper was peer reviewed and accepted for publication. it had already been cited in an early draft of the new IPCC report. when it became available for skeptics to view, it was demolished in just a few days and eventually withdrawn altogether.
but what about the IPCC? they are still using it!!!!!. the main graph anyways. a different article used Gergis2012 as reference material, so now the IPCC is just citing the secondary source rather than the now defunct Gergis2012.
anyone who is familiar with AR4 and climategate will instantly recognize the same disgusting tactics that were used to prop up the hockeystick reconstructions by accepting rebuttals to the McIntyre and MacKittrick papers even though they were submitted after the deadline and never actually published.
the paper was peer reviewed and accepted for publication. it had already been cited in an early draft of the new IPCC report. when it became available for skeptics to view, it was demolished in just a few days and eventually withdrawn altogether.
but what about the IPCC? they are still using it!!!!!. the main graph anyways. a different article used Gergis2012 as reference material, so now the IPCC is just citing the secondary source rather than the now defunct Gergis2012.
anyone who is familiar with AR4 and climategate will instantly recognize the same disgusting tactics that were used to prop up the hockeystick reconstructions by accepting rebuttals to the McIntyre and MacKittrick papers even though they were submitted after the deadline and never actually published.
The IPCC isn't interested in science Ian. That should be obvious by now. They are purely a political entity striving to impose its ideals on the world.
- Thread starter
- #15
Karoly and Gergis vs Journal of Climate « Climate Audit
Gergis et al Correspondence « Climate Audit
I dont know about the rest of you but these types of articles on climate science are really interesting to me. Gergis2012 was a new hockeystick graph for the southern hemisphere. it was peer reviewed and accepted for publication. before it was physically printed in the journal Gergis2012 was released online. within days (hours?) of its release the blogosphere had found fatal flaws in it. Gergis et al then claimed that they had found the same errors by themselves at the exact same time, after months of calculating and drafting and the process of peer review. is that plausible?
Gergis et al then told the journal that they would fix the problem but the paper should be put on hold. reluctantly the journal gave them some extra time. when it became obvious that it couldnt be fixed (and after some Michael Mann advice to just ignore the problem and brave it out) Gergis et al missed the deadline for resubmitting in time for inclusion into the new IPCC report AR5. and finally the journal declared it withdrawn rather than pending.
the funny part is that FOI on the emails from UWA and to the journal present the gong show that was going on in the background, the dramatic difference between the public bravado and the private dismay. in the end at least the journal did the right thing but Gergis et al certainly didnt.
the funny thing is.....if Gergis et al didnt pretend that they were using (relatively) correct selection procedures none of this fiasco would have happened. if they just baldfacedly declared that they were cherrypicking the data sets that they wanted, like all the other hockeystick graphs, then it probably still would have passed peer review and been published even though the sceptics would have complained (again) about the circular reasoning and statistical incorrectness of the methodology.
but the cat is out of the bag now.
Gergis et al Correspondence « Climate Audit
I dont know about the rest of you but these types of articles on climate science are really interesting to me. Gergis2012 was a new hockeystick graph for the southern hemisphere. it was peer reviewed and accepted for publication. before it was physically printed in the journal Gergis2012 was released online. within days (hours?) of its release the blogosphere had found fatal flaws in it. Gergis et al then claimed that they had found the same errors by themselves at the exact same time, after months of calculating and drafting and the process of peer review. is that plausible?
Gergis et al then told the journal that they would fix the problem but the paper should be put on hold. reluctantly the journal gave them some extra time. when it became obvious that it couldnt be fixed (and after some Michael Mann advice to just ignore the problem and brave it out) Gergis et al missed the deadline for resubmitting in time for inclusion into the new IPCC report AR5. and finally the journal declared it withdrawn rather than pending.
the funny part is that FOI on the emails from UWA and to the journal present the gong show that was going on in the background, the dramatic difference between the public bravado and the private dismay. in the end at least the journal did the right thing but Gergis et al certainly didnt.
the funny thing is.....if Gergis et al didnt pretend that they were using (relatively) correct selection procedures none of this fiasco would have happened. if they just baldfacedly declared that they were cherrypicking the data sets that they wanted, like all the other hockeystick graphs, then it probably still would have passed peer review and been published even though the sceptics would have complained (again) about the circular reasoning and statistical incorrectness of the methodology.
but the cat is out of the bag now.
flacaltenn
Diamond Member
It's POSSIBLE that you discover fatal errors in your work as soon as you push send..
That's why I can spend 15minutes on an email and regret that I sent it a minute later. You're wrapped up in the PROCESS of publishing and not really critically reviewing the work at that point.
BUT --- if the nature of the errors is STRETCHING crap data to APPEAR significant. Then your regret in publishing it is just that you didn't obfuscate enough to make a good argument.
That's why I can spend 15minutes on an email and regret that I sent it a minute later. You're wrapped up in the PROCESS of publishing and not really critically reviewing the work at that point.
BUT --- if the nature of the errors is STRETCHING crap data to APPEAR significant. Then your regret in publishing it is just that you didn't obfuscate enough to make a good argument.
- Thread starter
- #17
flac- you really must read the emails! the immediate first panic....the mistakenly honest first admission to the journal.....the hairpulling as it became obvious that they couldnt 'fix' the problem....the journal's scolding.....
one thing that kinda pissed me off is when a reporter was told that the paper was just being adjusted even though the journal editor had already told Gergis et all that the paper was officially rejected. of course the reporter probably should have checked.
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 160,748
- 40,279
- 2,180
Ian, and that has been precisely my point on requesting the experiment concerning 120 PPM. Me personally, can't fathom a professional not running some experiment. One experiment, all of these thousands of scientists, and they can't show one example of their work. Not one!! I therefore, challenge it all. I trust non of it!!!! I don't care what they have a degree in, it doesn't mean I can't ask a question. And the fact they don't produce any material is inexcusable.
Ian -- way too diplomatic with the "......in a whole lot of other climate science papers."
I'd say MOST that get press release attention and ALL that get top billing by the IPCC...
perhaps....
but I have never changed anybody's mind by telling them they are full of shit. the only way for people to change is by thinking about the subject. sometimes the best method is by asking someone to defend what they think is an obvious truth, and hopefully they find out it is definitely not obvious and maybe not the truth.
SSDD
Gold Member
- Nov 6, 2012
- 16,672
- 1,968
- 280
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Trump plans to deport Iranians to violence-plagued Central African nation in new deal
- Started by EdwinAMartin
- Replies: 0
-
-
Iran threatens to walk out of World Cup events in US if old Iranian flag is displayed in the stands
- Started by Mac-7
- Replies: 1
-
Only 10 percent of school children in Brussels , Belgium are actually Belgium- Started by Quasar44
- Replies: 12
-
