Jo Nova chronicles the snapping of the Gergis hockey stick

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

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

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

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

Blog review is where the real science gets tested

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 It has been withdrawn from the American Meteorological Society website.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

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

Will any of these media outlets update their news?

(The Uni Melb news feed is here).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Funding?

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

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

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

———————————————————————-

REFERENCES

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

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

ARC Funding: ARC Linkage Project Funding Outcomes

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

2606 ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES

The University of Melbourne

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

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

2009 : $ 65,000

2010 : $ 117,500

2011 : $ 105,000

2012 : $ 52,500

APA(I) Award(s): 1

APDI Dr JL Gergis, Collaborating/Partner Organisation(s), Australian Bureau of Meteorology, Met Office Hadley Centre, Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Department of Sustainability and Environment,

Melbourne Water , National & State Libraries Australasia, National Library of Australia,

State Library of Victoria , State Library of New South Wales, Powerhouse Museum, Administering Organisation The University of Melbourne,

Summary of Linkage Projects Proposals by Primary Class Code for Funding to Commence in 2009

Updated 13 August 2009 Page 14

Project Summary

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

Thanks to Geoff Derrick for tadvice.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Bloke down the pub

It’s not suprising climate scientists don’t like sharing their data, it’s so incovenient.

Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings and commented:
“Did any journalist really ask any hard questions to start with?”

DAVID KAROLY: Nothing is absolutely certain in science but we say with very high confidence because…
…because we have redefined very high confidence to mean “sorta-kinda somewhat maybe”…

kim2ooo says:
June 9, 2012 at 11:23 am
“Did any journalist really ask any hard questions to start with?”

Yes — “Does she spell her name ‘G-e-r-g-i-s’ or “G-e-r-j-i-s’?”

“Apparently she [Gergis] didn’t appreciate his [Steve McIntyre’s] expertise with statistics and told him to get the data himself from the original authors, and added ” This is commonly referred to as ‘research’. We will not be entertaining any further correspondence on the matter. “
This again evidences the well confirmed mathematical principle, that the snottiness of response is directly proportional to the ineptitude of the AGW researcher.

Slide2112

The link to the Real Climate post on this has been removed….get it on Google cache

Andrew Greenfield

Send an email to ALL mainstream media on this story and point out that paper has been WITHDRAWN due to unacceptable sloppy work.

Leonard Lane

Good work in finding the outlandish claims were nonsense, 0.09 deg C indeed. And thanks for reporting it and getting the fraud out to the public. Incompotent and lazy scientists doing dirty work. The yardstick of quality declining with number of authors seems to be holding.

ferdberple

http://cooley.libarts.wsu.edu/schwartj/pdf/Geddes1.pdf
This paper provides a good explanation of the “selecting on the dependent variable” problem inherent in selecting trees that appear well correlated with temperature as a basis for doing temperature studies.
If you only select trees that appear correlated with temperature, you are ignoring the larger body of trees that are telling you that trees are not a good proxy for temperature.
For example, say we selected companies that were highly profitable to study why they were profitable. We found that factor X was common to all successful companies. This might lead us to conclude that factor X cause companies to be profitable.
However, by not studying unprofitable companies, we overlooked the fact that factor X was common to unprofitable companies as well, and thus had little or no influence of profitability.
The same situation with trees. The assumption is that temperature (factor X) determines tree growth (profitability). By only studying trees that correlate with temperature, climate science has ignored the large body of trees telling us that temperature (factor X) is also common to trees that show no growth (low profitability) and thus had little of no influence on tree growth (profitability).

kim2ooo

Bill Tuttle says:
June 9, 2012 at 11:37 am
Ha ha ha ha…..
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I REALLY LIKE THAT THE FUNDING HAS BEEN EXPOSED!!! 🙂

Lady Life Grows

The article asks, (Is that the same kind of high confidence he has in future predictions of warming?)
I laughed hard at that one, but nonscientists, and the general public will not get the pun. The general public definition is the emotion of being sure of oneself. In a scientific paper, high confidence means there is less than 5% or less than 1% probability that you would get such unusual results by chance alone.. And real scientists know that just ruling out chance does not tell you what caused the result. Systematic errors such as miscalibrated instruments, or urban heat island effect, could have cause the observed change, not the cause you think it was, such as “global warming” or “carbon dioxide” or sunshine changes.

rogerknights

Speaking on “snapping the hockey stick.” I appeal once more to anyone with graphics skills to create a stick-snap logo for Our Side. Here’s what I’ve written in the past:
I have an idea for a powerful and aggressive visual image: a pair of upraised hands decisively snapping a hockey stick (with its blade upturned at the right). It is based on the well-known (to warmists) logo of the War Resisters League, in which the hands are snapping a rifle.
It’s a clear, clever “grabber.” It’s a way for people on our side to identify themselves and give a Bronx cheer to the climate consensus. It would be a great conversation-starter.
I donate this idea free to WUWT and Josh, who could split the revenue. I think WUWT could sell a million of ‘em, metaphorically speaking. (It would work for lapel pins, coffee cups, book covers, web-site medallions, and T-shirts too.)
A preliminary but unsatisfactory-to-me version of this image, drawn at my request by S. Weasel, can be seen on my page on Photobucket at http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y254/RogerKni/Misc/87a659ba.png
It needs the following changes, which I hope Josh [or someone] will make:
1. The legend around the perimeter should be larger and changed to “Gore Resisters’ League.” (This quip ought to irritate any warmists who see it.)
2. The hands should be redrawn so they don’t exactly copy the hands in the WRL’s logo.
3. The wrists should be shackled to each other, indicating our defiance despite our suppressed and marginalized status.

Scott

So two questions for people that follow this stuff more closely than I. First, was this paper published a few weeks ago so it could specifically get into AR5 before any counter research could be done (if so, what does this now mean for AR5)? Second, I know that the researchers are now claiming they found the problem before Steve M (didn’t they say June 5?). So, is there an FOIA in Australia, and if so, could someone living there request the documentation of them finding it on that date before Steve M and coworkers? Personally, I’m having my doubts they actually found it before the blogosphere did, and they’re just saying they did because the “ineptitude” of Steve M. with climate things is one of the huge talking points of the CAGW crowd and had to be maintained. If it could be shown that they lied about figuring it out themselves, it would be a huge blow to the CAGWer’s credibility.
-Scott

Chris B

Blog review is where the real science gets tested. or Blog review is where the science gets the real test. The latter, until the peer-review process is reformed.

crosspatch

The way I read the statement on SteveM’s site, they simply realized they forgot to detrend the data first so they are going to fix that step. There appears there may be an even larger flaw with inverted series but one step at a time. As Steve says, don’t get too excited yet. This zombie might return in slightly different form.

John in NZ

Scott says:
June 9, 2012 at 12:09 pm
“So two questions for people that follow this stuff more closely than I. First, was this paper published a few weeks ago so it could specifically get into AR5 before any counter research could be done (if so, what does this now mean for AR5)?”
You will be right about the release time. Will there be a hard copy printed of AR?. If so it is probably already being printed. I wont be suprised if this was to feature prominantly as proof that humans are responsible.

crosspatch

If it could be shown that they lied about figuring it out themselves, it would be a huge blow to the CAGWer’s credibility.

Past experience shows that it will not matter. Certain people are “spring loaded” to believe anything that validates their own conclusions, credibility notwithstanding. They have shown that they can rationalize anything. Gavin Schmidt has apparently done the very same thing (claimed to have independently discovered something in order to prevent CA getting the credit) in the past and has not suffered from it to any noticeable degree. As long as they come to the “correct” conclusion, it doesn’t seem to matter much how they get there. That is why they can get away with refusal to release data and methods. They just don’t matter … the ends justify the means.

MartinGAtkins

Gergis (noun)
A peer review paper that is released with much fanfare and then promptly pulled.
My paper featured in the environment section of the Guardian but it turned out to be a gergis
Other meanings:-
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Gergis

Peter H

But, hey, at least this place wont be full of smug ‘I told you so’ comments from the kind of people who scrabble around in haystacks and when they find something pointy that could be needle they shout ‘This is a pile of steel!’….Or, indeed, the final nail – ho hum…
Btw, yeah, yeah, call me a troll – as a long time watcher of WUWT I notice that more and more name calling is what commentators here do to anyone who dares to offer a view off the party line.
[Reply: Thank you for your content-free opinion, which you will note is not censored here like it would be at your typical alarmist blog. ~dbs, mod.]

Gary Pearse

Its hard to believe after the upside down plot of the the tiljander proxy in the Mann hockey stick:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/22/manns-inverted-tiljander-data-survives-another-round-of-peer-review/
that another upside down plot would be used again in manufacturing a hockey stick. Surely everyone in the climate synod has heard of and fears Steve Mac by now!
Funding should come with it the necessity of having a real statistician as a co-author (as opposed to the sociology- psychology-climatology-type statistics skills)

DirkH

Peter H says:
June 9, 2012 at 12:46 pm
“Btw, yeah, yeah, call me a troll – as a long time watcher of WUWT I notice that more and more name calling is what commentators here do to anyone who dares to offer a view off the party line.”
Did you offer a view? Did I miss it? You’re complaining about name calling without even offering a “view off the party line”? Do you have anything to contribute? About temperature proxies? No? Oh, you’re just trolling, I see.

Robin Kool

This is so wrong in so many ways:
lousy science;
lousy peer review;
lousy journalism.
If not for the blogosphere, who would ever get the truth?

peterhdn

“Did you offer a view? Did I miss it? You’re complaining about name calling without even offering a “view off the party line”? Do you have anything to contribute? About temperature proxies? No? Oh, you’re just trolling, I see.”
Phew, that was quick!
My view? My view I made clear. That is that as per usual this is so much WUWT ado about nothing. Yeah, you all get all outraged but that has little effect on science. On politics you might have more effect but on science none.
Anyway, sorry, but beyond that I KNOW there is no point in further comment. The name calling will simply increase and I’ll save everyone the bother by dipping out again (which I guess will provoke accusations of ‘running way’ or the standard ‘See, he IS a troll’)….QED eh?

Anteros

Jo Nova in her link asks the question

Are climate scientists a self-selecting set of climate activists?

Well, I think certainly some are.
Here’s a good example. Chris Colose, junior alarmist and a sort of proto-Gavin had this to say on his blog before he even became a climate scientist (in 2007) –

Scientists are clear on a few issues- the globe is warming, and we’re responsible. Climate Sensitivty is enough to be worried. It will take effort, and money, to solve the problem but the benefits outweigh the risks.

With the best will in the world, think how that prejudice will affect every subsequent choice – of topic, colleagues, institution, research problem, method, etc etc etc. With such a strong prior belief what chance of objectivity?
I strongly suspect that this permeates whole swathes of climate science and the production of Hockey Sticks wasn’t merely a likelihood, it was an absolute certainty. A graph simply waiting for the least objective researchers to make the necessary 30 ar 40 dubious choices and assumptions. And to be fair, without the necessity of conscious cherry-picking.
This isn’t to demean all climate scientists, simply to say – as Jo Nova does – that we should be extremely sceptical of anyone who thinks they can be an objective scientist at the same time as being a committed subjective believer.

Latitude

No one can get temperatures or even climate from trees…all you can hope to get is the length of that particular growing season….
With no explanation of why.

Latitude

peterhdn says:
June 9, 2012 at 1:14 pm
. Yeah, you all get all outraged but that has little effect on science
=======
Don’t know about that…got the paper pulled and made a lot of people aware of it
…more people read this blog than all the others combined….that includes the pro CAGW ones

Stephen Richards

Surely everyone in the climate synod has heard of and fears Steve Mac by now!
Oh you wanna believe it. That’s why Gergis wouldn’t let go of the data. They are starting to get the message that the Mounted statistician will be on their tails. In this instance, les félicitations à Jean S. Bien fait mon ami, très bien fait.

Stephen Richards

Latitude says:
June 9, 2012 at 1:22 pm
No one can get temperatures or even climate from trees…all you can hope to get is the length of that particular growing season….
With no explanation of why.
And warmth for the winter.

Joe Public

Whilst I can accept some ‘scientists’ may make “mistakes”, either accidentally, or, deliberately; what is the excuse used by ‘Peer Reviewers’?
Surely, they should be named-and-shamed.

Stephen Richards

This isn’t to demean all climate scientists, simply to say – as Jo Nova does – that we should be extremely sceptical of anyone who thinks they can be an objective scientist at the same time as being a committed subjective believer.
I think we should demean all climate scientists. None of them has spoken out against this tribe of crooks.

Paul Coppin

Latitude says:
June 9, 2012 at 1:22 pm
No one can get temperatures or even climate from trees…all you can hope to get is the length of that particular growing season….
With no explanation of why.”

Yup. Any climate paper that uses trees for climate temperature proxies is trash without even reading past the abstract. Doesn’t matter about the stats, the methodology, or the results. It’s all garbage. Every tree lives within its own ecosystem. Trees are barely proxies for other trees of the same species in a forest, let alone anything else. GIGO.

Stephen Richards

peterhdn says:
June 9, 2012 at 1:14 pm
Yeah, you all get all outraged but that has little effect on science. On politics you might have more effect but on science none
It’s not science we are trying to affect. It’s fraud we are actually exposing. You see, real science is not done the way these criminals do it and there are many scientists who comment on this site who are better qualified than the so-called climate science community.
The chances of having any effect on Politicians is zero. They have only two competences: deceit and lying. You might like to add cronyism to that as well but they are not alone with that one, witness the climate techician group.
Stephen Richards BSc Physics MSC Applied Physics

Sean

Here’s an encore for Gergis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAlMomLvu_4

Stephen Richards

peterhdn says:
June 9, 2012 at 1:14 pm
You completely missed the points being made by the commenters so let me help you a little.
If you say we will have no impact on the science explain why. Is it because the scientists ignore everyone, is it because we are wrong. If so explain why. Get the gist ? Explanations is what make a troll not a troll. Compris?

Anteros

Joe Public –
What odds that the ‘reviewers’ are residents of RealClimate?

EthicallyCivil

Linus Law’s “given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow” — it’s a principle that has served Open Source Software well. The fact that so many are so intent on hiding both method and day means they understand this.

oldseadog

Seems to me that the real problem here is that once the MSM have published the “results” and said that these results look reasonable, they will look silly if they now write that they were hoodwinked; and journalists just can’t be seen to look silly or susceptible to being hoodwinked.
So the chances of a retraction in the MSM seem slim.

Disko Troop

Ouch! and double Ouch!! Ouch for the hockey stick and double ouch for the snotty reply to Steve M.

Crispin in Waterloo

@ferd berple
“If you only select trees that appear correlated with temperature, you are ignoring the larger body of trees that are telling you that trees are not a good proxy for temperature.”
One often sees this interpretation: that some trees tell the truth and some lie.
There is the other possiblity that the trees are good for telling the temperature and that most of them are saying the temperature is not going up.
They may very well be good proxies for temperature. Are we sure? Obviously it is illigitimate to prefer the trees that confirm one’s initial bias. That is how the first Hockey Stick was created (weighting ‘acceptable’ temperature profiles more than ‘unacceptable’ ones, not actually deleting them). Of course assigning arbitrary virtues like ‘good quality’ and ‘complete’ and ‘confirmed’ to the ‘right’ series can enhance public acceptance of the published results. If that fails, scream loudly and claim McIntyre is an oil company shill, a-la-Mann.
[PS Is ‘a-la-Mann’ French for ‘ad hominem’?]

George E. Smith

“””””…..Peter H says:
June 9, 2012 at 12:46 pm
But, hey, at least this place wont be full of smug ‘I told you so’ comments from the kind of people who scrabble around in haystacks and when they find something pointy that could be needle they shout ‘This is a pile of steel!’….Or, indeed, the final nail – ho hum…
Btw, yeah, yeah, call me a troll – as a long time watcher of WUWT I notice that more and more name calling is what commentators here do to anyone who dares to offer a view off the party line……”””””
And YOUR view off the party line was what ?
Oh, don’t bother; I see mod says “content free”; got it !

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/may/17/australasia-hottest-60-years-study?INTCMP=SRCH
Well, I shall be writing to the Guardian next week if nothing appears regarding the paper’s withdrawal by Tuesday. The Guardian’s AGW agenda is total. CiF moderates like Real Climate. You will not speak against the True Faith, else you will be excommunicated. We can at least cheer ourselves up that the Guardian is reportedly losing £1 million a day.

vigilantfish

@ Roger Knights:
I like your emblem, but fear that raised hands snapping a hockey stick might be interpreted as a slight against the Canadian national religion here in Canada.
@ Jo Nova:
Excellent summary – this is one for my uni office door!

ThinkingScientist

And lets not forget this paper claimed that the warmest pre-instrumental 30 year period was 1238-1267. The temperature was apparently 0.09 degC below 1961-1990 levels. But the quoted uncertainty is +/0.19 degC, which means the statement has no statistical significance and that it could have been warmer in the period 1238 – 1267. Why was that question not asked in the TV interview of Gergis? Is she going to be interviewed again about the papers failings, or is she going to issue a statement to retract her previous premature interview comments?
Or perhaps journalists could ask her how she could make such sweeping statements about the climate over 1,000 years without a single proxy in the study actually being on the Australian land mass.
Or perhaps journalists could ask her how, given that there are only two proxy series in that time period used in the study, and that they only retained 27 series and discarded 35 out of 62 series without stating why, is it really realistic to quote temperature accuracy to tenths of degree? The adjustments alone in the instrumental period post-1910 in GHCN amount to around 0.3 degC over a century. If we need adjustments of that magnitude in the instrumental period and are constantly changing temperatures from instruments just 100 years ago by more than a tenth of a degree, how can we possibly know the temperature a thousand years ago so accurately?
These are some of the questions the media and journalists should be asking. They don’t because either they have no scientific training or they are sympathetic to the views of these climate activists pretending to be competent scientists.
Gergis is a climate activist posing as a scientist. The withdrawal of this paper (even if temporary) shows clearly how peer review is just another form of appeal to authority. Publish the data (all of it), publish the code and let the results be reproduced by others. Anything less is bordering on criminal irresponsibility by those informing and making public policy.

Crispin in Waterloo

@Peter H says:
Btw, yeah, yeah, call me a troll – as a long time watcher of WUWT I notice that more and more name calling is what commentators here do to anyone who dares to offer a view off the party line.
+++++++++++
Actually Peter it is good to have you raise the subject because I have noted particularly low levels of ad hom when the subject is not a person. When someone like M Mann is quoted long and loud in the Vancouver Sun without a single sentence from him that did not contain a fat lie, deliberate misrepresentation or partial truth, you can expect the vitriol to pour forth upon his person just as he pours it on any disagreeing evidence, person or plain fact.
It may surprise you that the ‘party line’ you refer to is not a party line at all but simply a demand that science be conducted properly and accountably and reproducibly. Is that too much to ask? I don’t think so. When someone tells me that vacuum cleaner can suck up the dirt and it doesn’t, I can get my money back. Not so with this climate alarmist lot. Frankly, that matters.
People can publish all the rubbish they like (and often do) but they normally can’t pry any of my money from my calloused hands without my consent or wilful blindness. $360,000 to reproduce the defective and deceptive (but not shoddy – it was done very carefully) work of MBH98 is very bad value.
You are free to offer any un-party-like views on this channel but you had better know your facts and methods before you put your name tag on it. If Gergis had submitted that as a term paper, would it have been given a failing grade? Of course because it would have received a proper review. So how did it get through peer review? Why were data sets from ‘continents away’ included? Just how stupid is the climate science community anyway? Is there no depth of incompetence they will not plumb?
I am presently reviewing funding applications. If I find that the proposed evaluation methods are not precise enough to give confident results they won’t get 5 cents, let alone get to peer review to then find out they made a boo-boo. It is shocking to see the level of incompetence to which Funders and Journals have fallen these days when it comes to matters of climate.
Oz: Demand the money back or else they must publish the data, the methods and the reproducible result(s).

NZ Willy

Where’s all the global warming that we are paying for? Plumb cold here in New Zealand for the last 5 weeks, bought extra firewood, brrr.

clipe
Richard Sharpe
Warrick

“South-eastern Australia is in the grip of a severe water crisis due to the worst drought in recorded history and increasing temperatures. ”
Flooding in SE Australia happening right now – http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/victorias-flood-threat-eases/story-e6frf7jx-1226388532817
Impeccable timing.

Peter Miller

Tomwys says: “This again evidences the well confirmed mathematical principle, that the snottiness of response is directly proportional to the ineptitude of the AGW researcher.”
Brilliantly incisive, but you should have said “ineptitude and duplicity”.

David Jones

NZ Willy says:
June 9, 2012 at 3:00 pm
Where’s all the global warming that we are paying for? Plumb cold here in New Zealand for the last 5 weeks, bought extra firewood, brrr.
Christ almighty!! You are in winter. Here in UK we are in what passes for “Summer.” The coldest and wettest April in over 100 years! May was no better and so far in June it is getting wetter and colder!! Now let them tell me that it is the hottest spring on record!! Bullsh*t!!