Between this withdrawal and the Esper et al paper showing the MWP and RWP warmer than today, Mike Mann must be having a really, really, bad day. Even SuperMandia in tights can’t help. Thanks to Richard Tol (and Marc Morano) for this tip:
Readers may recall Steve McIntyre’s evisceration of Gergis et al. Steve’s question has now been answered. In retrospect, it looks like David Karoly’s puffed up legal whining was just that, puffed up.
Retraction Watch reports this update:
In June, we wrote about the withdrawal of a paper claiming that temperatures in the last 60 years were warmest in the last 1,000 years. At the time, we reported, following posts by others, that the authors had been made aware of errors in their work and were withdrawing it to correct their calculations.
For several months, the page housing the Journal of Climate study read:
The requested article is not currently available on this site.
It still does. But another page that should house the paper now reads, as commenter Skiphil notes:
Due to errors discovered in this paper during the publication process, it was withdrawn by the authors prior to being published in final form.
In June, one of the authors, David Karoly, told us and others he expected to resubmit the paper to the journal, and that’s what the University of Melbourne also reports on top of the original press release about the paper (also noted by Skiphil):
Scientific study resubmitted.
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, Ailie Gallant, Steven Phipps and David Karoly, accepted for publication in the Journal of Climate.
The manuscript has been re-submitted to the Journal of Climate and is being reviewed again.
========================================================
For all that posturing and mannian bluster displayed by Gergis and Karoly, in the end, it was simply bad science that required retraction. Given the screening errors Steve has pointed out, I wonder if retooling it can make it publishable again.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
As we say in scotland: “Ye cannae polish a shite!”.
Good for Steve Mac! One piece of crap science down, thousands more to go!
So, they wrote a paper, that came to a conclusion based on faulty design and process.
Shouldn’t this paper be published, with the faulty design and process admitted to (therefore invalidating the conclusion, or at least indicating a method that doesn’t work)? It seems like retracting it is like hiding a negative result -> in this case, a clear sign that the choices they made developed an artificial hockey stick.
It seems to me that the dead end found by this paper is an important one for future researchers to avoid – besides the blog writeups, how does the scientific journal establishment preserve this kind of negative result?
But it will still be referenced in the next IPCC report. The other three mentioned here on WYWT strengthening the (already known) reality of the MWP, however, will not.
That’ll teach her to be rude and unpleasant to Big Steve McIntyre! Nobody messes with him on his own ground.
Jimmy Haigh says:
October 18, 2012 at 8:40 am
Or as Peanut says in one of Jeff Dunham’s items: “Polish a turd, it’s still a turd!”
Jimmy Haigh says:
October 18, 2012 at 8:40 am
As we say in scotland: “Ye cannae polish a shite!”.
We say in England that you can polish a turd, still, it is nothing but a shiny turd ( I may have just made that up )
I’m pleased that this paper has been withdrawn. Not for any schadenfreude although there is always a little of that in these cases.
It shows the value of ‘blog review’ and the authors might have come out of this smelling a little more of roses than the above mentioned ( shiny or otherwise) if they had accepted the help the blogosphere provided them rather than hunkering down and lashing out.
krischel says:
October 18, 2012 at 8:55 am
“Shouldn’t this paper be published, . . .
Maybe The Journal of Irreproducible Results would do. They claim an interest in “hypocrisy, arrogance, and ostentatious sesquipedalian circumlocution.”
http://www.jir.com/
A good result!
The spin from Gergis re Steve McIntyre and how ridiculous she now looks may – just may – be a flag to other “researchers” within “the team” – that their poor science is going to get that free and easy ride they got used to.
Well done Steve and all those who stood up for proper research – not the drivel, spin and advocacy we have seen by many on “the team”.
‘Due to errors discovered in this paper during the publication process’
No that is not what happened, but then they just don’t seem to be able not to lie in ‘climate science ‘
They were caught pants down when it PASSED peer review on was on-line in effect already published and initial the authors denied any fault and attacked the person that pointed them out , who they give no cerdit to once they be forced to accept they were wrong . That is quite a different story to one their trying to sell.
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings and commented:
Jimmy Haigh says:
October 18, 2012 at 8:40 am
As we say in scotland: “Ye cannae polish a shite!”.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ha ha ha ha
I know that’s not true – I saw Mr Obama debate 🙂
If any revisionists say that the withdrawal was due to a couple of minor issues, please point them to a list of “issues” that were found with the paper. They 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.
http://manicbeancounter.com/2012/06/27/gergis-2012-mark-2-hurdles-to-overcome/
The system seems to be working. I wish it was not so much like passing a gall stone.
krischel:
At October 18, 2012 at 8:55 am you ask
No!
A negative result is a failure to find what it was hoped to observe. A rubbish result is merely bad science. The paper should be rejected by the journal. Otherwise readers who do not know of its faults may be misled (as happened with the Mann, Bradley & Hughes ‘hockey stick’ papers.
If the authors care to write a paper explaining the errors and how they can be avoided then that may be suitable for publication.
Richard
So, Ailie Gallant has now made a fool of herself at least twice in her short career as a ‘climate scientist’:
It is unfortunate that this was forced to be withdrawn.
Now the experts will have additional reasons and fears to justify witholding data and details from Steve & associates. /sarc
Well done and thank you Steve! Now in UK can we get a forecast from the Met Office that has global warming factors removed and therefore may be accurate?
The outright withdrawal of the paper might seem like a victory to some, but in my opinion, it’s a loss for everyone who cares about science and knowledge.
Yes, the analysis relied on flawed statistical methods which led to erroneous conclusions. Okay, it happens. The methodological flaws have been pointed out and were seemingly acknowledged. All good so far.
The rational course of action from here would be to apply the correct methods to the same data, and publish the improved results… whatever they might show.
However, the decision to withdraw the paper and hide the results suggests that when proper methods were applied to the data, the conclusions were either unremarkable, or ran counter to the intent of the authors.
Wouldn’t it be great if scientists stopped treating this as an “our team vs. their team” competition?
Billy Liar says:
October 18, 2012 at 9:38 am
“So, Ailie Gallant has now made a fool of herself at least twice in her short career as a ‘climate scientist’:… ”
More evidence that people who are orignial thought deficient resort to vile behavior (…or violent threats as seen here: http://twitchy.com/2012/10/17/post-presidential-debate-obama-supporters-renew-vows-to-murder-mitt-romney/?utm_source=autotweet&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter
“As we say in scotland: “Ye cannae polish a shite!”.”
Actually…. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprolite
http://ganoksin.com/blog/differentseasons/
Jimmy Haigh says: October 18, 2012 at 8:40 am
“As we say in scotland: “Ye cannae polish a shite!””.
So true, but you can role it in glitter
One wonders if the UK Guardian and Independent will both lead their environment sections with this breaking story, in the same way that they shouted from the rooftops when the paper was initially released?
Hmmm……..
nah?, what did I tell you. It is just going to get colder and colder.
It will take another 4 years before we have “bottomed out”.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
stop worrying about the carbon. Start getting worried about the cold.
Unless these people stop confusing what they would like to believe (“we’re all doomed unless you do as I say”) with reality, ‘climate scientist’ will become the obverse of ‘rocket scientist’ in the popular lexicography. And we really wouldn’t want that.
A small but vital point – as a matter of accuracy. For reasons i’m sure only known to SuperMandia he appears to be wearing waders not tights. 🙂