The 'class act' of Michael Mann and Joelle Gergis

Joelle Gergis and Michael Mann commiserate on Facebook via Tom Nelson

It starts out well enough…except that Kenji never signed off on the UCS report.

“When Research is Attacked” | Facebook

Joelle Gergis Thanks for your encouragement Mike, it’s been a hell of a year. I’ve just chased up the UCS report and forwarded it on through my network to get the word out. Hope things are going well for your these days, you are an inspiration to many of us. I look forward to catching up with you soon…

“When Research is Attacked” | Facebook

Michael E. Mann thanks Joelle–My hope is that this (and the UCS report) proves helpful to you and other young scientists in the field who are increasingly being harassed by the usual suspects. Keep up the great work you are doing, and DON’T let the b@$#aRds get you down!

Tom Nelson: Search results for gergis

McIntyre’s triumph over Gergis, Karoly, and Mann | Watts Up With That?

Mann, in correspondence with the authors Gergis and Karoly, in his typical style tried to sell a collection different workarounds for the problems they brought on themselves, and in the end, his advice was rejected, the JC editors told the authors the paper was not viable, and the authors were forced to withdraw the paper. Full stop.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Manfred

The problem in climate science is that governments very quickly created tens of thousands of new high pay jobs and legions of very ordinay people were able to fill these, while under normal circumstances they would never ever have had an option for such a career.

Camburn

Prof Mann has done such shoddy work that no one in the Scientific community relies on his garbage anymore. His papers are not cited….which is a blow to him. I am not sure he is smart enough to actually do good work.

FergalR

When will Gergis and her co-authors released all the data they used in their risible paper so we can all see whether their Hockey Stick is as bogus as Mann’s?

Manfred

Well, what would you do if your reputation is jeopardized among peers ?
Networking.

Aldous Tenpenney

“When Research is Attacked” = Science
Research is *supposed* to be attacked, have holes poked in it, subjected to scrutiny. The fact they find this offensive is the whole problem. Pathologizing dissent and scrutiny of one’s work is the mark of a sanctimonious charlatan looking for moral authority not scientific truth.

Roger Dewhurst

Climate shroundwavers and sceptics alike, are engaged in a
totally futile argument over questionable data, questionable models and
questionable interpretation all revolving around ‘data’ collected over a
mere 1/ 10^8 of the history of this planet, and influenced by short term
political perspective. For god’s sake consider how this planet formed
4,500 million years ago, how the crust and mantle differenciated from
the metallic core, how primitive forms of life permitted the formation
of an atmosphere containing oxygen, how volcanoes in the process of a
differentiating crust fed the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, how after
plants populated this planet the carbon in carbon dioxide was deposited
in vast deposits of coal, limestone, chalk, oil and gas. From the
beginning volcanic activity has contributed carbon dioxide to the
atmosphere at a gradually decreasing rate. The rate has changed at
times because volcanic activity has waxed and waned. The vast forests
of carboniferous times soaked up the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere
and plants have continued to remove it from the atmosphere since then.
The carbon from the atmosphere has been converted, by plants, to peat
and coal on land and to limestone, chalk, oil and gas in the oceans and
oceanic sediments. That process continues today. The tenor of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere has, irregularly, declined to the point where
it is now sub-optimal for the growth of most plants. This has happened
because, on average, the rate of deposition of carbon in soils and
marine sediments has overtaken the rate of emission of carbon dioxide
from volcanic sources both on land and in the oceans. Many things have
influenced climate throughout the history of this planet, among them are
the output of the sun, the orbit of this planet around the sun, the
positions of the land masses on the surface of the planet which
determine the location and strength of the oceanic currents which
transfer heat from equatorial to polar regions, and changes and
reversals of the earth’s magnetic field. Of all these matters we have
much less than total understanding and over none of them do we have any
control whatsoever. Nevertheless we are beset with idiots knowing next
to nothing, obsessed with the number of angels able to dance on the head
of a pin and insisting that we, puny creatures that we are, are about to
destroy the planet by burning a trivial proportion of the coal, oil and
gas reserves stored in the earth’s crust, thus returning to the
atmosphere that which came from it.

RockyRoad

Face it–Michael Mann doesn’t meet the definition of a scientist (a real “scientist doesn’t hide his work). That’s probably why he’s ignored, maligned, and discredited.

TFNJ

Great comment, Roger Dewhurst.

Jeremy

Roger Dewhurst +1 Nice Summary.

It’s a great pity that science in Australia is dominated by the likes of Karoly, Gergis and Lewandowski, when it should be dominated by Carter, Archibald, Evans, Jensen and co …

Mario Lento

@Roger Dewhurst: I would like to see a cartoon video to go along with a voice over of the summary… maybe tone it down a little for the kids. Then get PBS to broadcast it… Uhm…OK – maybe this could happen in a parallel universe.

Skiphil

Here is the actual UCS “report” which is really a bunch of talking points for how to deflect and avoid virtually all critical scrutiny:
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/science-scrutiny.pdf
It’s clearly influenced by and written with cases of such paragons (sic) as Michael Mann and Ben Santer, the IPCC and the Hockey Team, etc., in mind.
Remarkable (though not surprising) how much it is a whitewash of bad behaviors of Mann and other climate scientists.
The document assumes that critical scrutiny is rarely legitimate and mostly to be evaded. In light of the sordid history of the Hockey Team, the IPCC, CRU/UEA and Climategate etc. this is really a squalid dishonest document from the UCS.

Roger Dewhurst, if you could remove the line breaks in the middle of sentenced, it would be much more readable. For example, I skipped reading your comment all together.

Roger Dewhurst

Line breaks were not of my doing!

What-A-Pimple--For--Christ-Sake!

“I am not sure he is smart enough to actually do good work.”
Observation: He is now and was in the past never smart enough to actually accomplish anything by himself!
OH SHIT!
Cat out of the BAG!

John West

@ Aldous Tenpenney & Roger Dewhurst
Well put!

DaveA

Attacked, scrutinized… same difference in climate science.

What-A-Pimple--For--Christ-Sake!

“1/ 10^8 of the history of this planet”.
That IS the true value of the ‘Anthropocene’ and IS the value of the ‘State of the Anthropocene Mann’ the value of the Life of a one Mr. (Sans Dr.) MEM … and no other.
What a pimple this … Mann thing … should never have been born.
Spartacus

Nigel S

“When ‘Research’ Attacks” = Climate Science

John Doe

[snip . . OT . . mod]

Antonia

The likes of Karoly, Gergis and Lewandowski would never share a platform with the likes of Carter, Archibald, Evans, Jensen and co because they know they’d be outclassed by people far more intelligent than they are. Says it all really.

ConfusedPhoton

“Keep up the great work you are doing” – I thought the paper was withdrawn because it contained serious flaws which even the authors had to accept.
“increasingly being harassed by the usual suspects” – the Usual Suspects are obviously in league with the devil! It is hell being green just ask Kermit the Frog.

Grown-ups don’t worry…They wait until the wheels on the bus fall off.
Mann has failed and he knows he’s failed because his “science” went wonky. Now hie simply waves his arms and pretends that it will all turn out OK because, well, politicians are really pretty stupid and, hey, wo are journalists,
He does not see that the CAGW train has gone off the rails.
We do.
The Emperor has no clothes.

Peter Miller

‘When “Research” is attacked’ would have been a better title.
Not surprisingly, Mann makes no comment on the validity or veracity of any “Research”; I assume he realises that a subject as important as this is outside his area of expertise, assuming such an area exists.

TinyCO2

I hope journal editors notice that there’s still no admission that flawed work has been done, only annoyance at been caught out. Seems like certain people might make unreliable authors and peer reviewers. If journals are nothing more than vanity publishing then this is not a problem. If they want to hold themselves up as records of good science they need to pay particular attention to those who demonstrate a willingness to repeat the same mistakes (or worse), especially if they think they can get away with them.
And if Kenji wants to sue me for this assessment I will make a public apology 😉

Stephen Richards

Roger Dewhurst + n Nice Summary.
Great rant, Roger. What the “éàç was that stupid remark about line spaces and couldn’t read it ??

Re: What a Pimple
Whoever knows fear burns at the touch of the Mann Thing.
Mann-Thing.jpg -1st issue!

oldseadog

Class Act – “Bring on the clowns.”
But having read the UCS report which seems to have an awful lot of writing about how scientists can cope with attacks on their integrity and that scientists should stick to the facts and not make personal attacks, a phrase containing the words “kettle”, “pot” and “black” comes to mind.
I’m certain Kenji didn’t have a paw in approving this report. Maybe he can complain that he wasn’t consulted, but he mustn’t resign over it; he can fight better in the organisation than out of it.

beesaman

Our job ‘is’ to annoy scientists, to put them on the spot, make them explain the errors, biases and discrepancies. Their job is to placate us, the people that fund them, not to prevaricate and obfuscate and then claim they are some sort of self righteous martyrs…

Roger Dewhurst,
The spectrum of blog activities is, as you would know, greater than you mention as wasting the thinking time of people.
For some time I have wondered what happens when a paper is failed, particularly a paper that is a public documemnt in the sense that it was paid for by public monies. The Gergis paper had about 6 figures of $ invested in it, much from the Australian Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. I asked that department if the funding of the paper, having been rejected by the publisher, would be refunded to the Australian taxpayers from whence it came.
In the words of a popular poet
“And an answer came directed in a writing unexpected,
(And I think the same was written in a thumbnail dipped in tar)
‘Twas his shearing mate who wrote it, and verbatim I will quote it…..:”
…………………….
From the Climate Change Science Team (no names given)
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. (more)
………………………
The rejected paper (which might be massaged to rise again) did not properly fill these objectives once the errors were removed. Maybe the proper procedure would have been to return the original funds and make a new application with objectives capable of scientific attainment of high standard.
I have a bumper sticker quoting Margaret Thatcher wrongly. The proper version seems to be “Socialist governments do traditionally make a financial mess.They always run out of other peoples’ money.”
I shall have to ask for a refund of my expenditure on the one that was wrongly researched.

Rob Soria

Writing a dud paper or having a paper rejected by the referees is not the main issue, it may happen to everyone. That’s not the main reason why Ms Gergis is a bad scientist. The really stinking issues we need to mention here are:
1) Gergis & Karoly got a $350,000 public grant (Australian Research Council) 3 years ago. After 3 years, as the money was about to run out, they applied for another 3-yr, $350,000 ARC grant to do the same things they had been paid to do in the previous 3 years.
2) In order to apply for that new grant, of course, they had to show they had done something with the previous grant, so they put out that rubbish paper that fell apart in 3 weeks. It was done purely to allow them a new grant application that could keep Gergis employed for another 3 years. The ARC rules are quite specific about new grants being given only if previous projects had been successfully completed.
3) In order to help the chances of their 2012 ARC grant application, they carpet-bombed the MSM in Australia with their press releases, with the ABC in particular (who else?) giving them heaps of publicity.
4) After their paper was officially rejected, they kept this information secret to everyone for several weeks, so that the referees of their ARC grant application wouldn’t know. (It was precisely the time when ARC grant proposals were assessed). It was their legal and more duty to inform the ARC panel that the paper on which they based their new grant application had been rejected. Perhaps a FOI request is needed to find out whether they did so.
5) Thanks to their dirty tricks and media spin, or perhaps very friendly referees, their new ARC grant application was successful, so Gergis & Karoly have just been rewarded with another $350,000 of Australian taxpayer’s money. (Only the top 15-20% of ARC grant applications are successful).
As a fellow (honest) Aussie scientist, I find the behaviour of people like Karoly & Gergis truly despicable.

Frugal McDougall of Hobart

Tom Harley and Antonia I agree with you, but the real problem in Australia, I must say with utter dismay, is Tony Abbott. He says that he believes in climate change but has a better way to tackle it than the government’s carbon tax. He is easily discredited in terms of the paradigm that the MSM and the JG Gov. have propagated. If you believe in the diagnosis you have to believe in the treatment – after all, “the science is settled.” That’s what my Labor and Green friends tell me. TA is also open to attack because he is perceived to exaggerate the price rises flowing from the C02 tax. He ignores a more potent argument against the CO2 tax.
I was overjoyed when TA knocked off MT, but now I’m disappointed. He has had three years to smash the paradigm. He is having a bet each way, but why? Green voters don’t give their second preferences to the Coalition, everyone knows that, except TA! John Howard was unseated because green prefs flowed to Labor, so his ETS promise did him a fat lot of good!
People get used to new taxes, and the green Labor government might get re-elected, God help us. TA should have recruited Carter et al, three years ago, to demolish the green propaganda. If voters knew that they are paying more for everything because of a great green lie they wouldn’t accept the tax as meekly as they actually accepting it.
Tony Abbott has to change his tune NOW. The fact that the world has stopped warming gives him a rationale for what would be characterized by his opponents as a ‘back flip’, and he needs to give Carter et al the mission of re-educating Australian voters who’ve been duped by green propaganda.
It is rumored that he privately believes that AGW is “crap.” I wish he would hold a press conference with Bob Carter on one side of him and David Evans on the other side, and state that the government policy shouldn’t be based on an proven, (and arguably, discredited), hypothsesis – in the case of the CO2 tax, a hypothesis that is still alive only because politicians of the green persuasion, and others too weak to stand up to them, have kept it on life support. That would be a sensational press conference and it would pave the way for the debates between scientists which Australian voters need to hear.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)

The full sequence of comments is revealing. Listen for the tone of Mike’s replies. Background: They are at “When Research is Attacked” which is an “Article by Theresa Defino in latest issue of “Report on Research Compliance” (http://www.reportonresearchcompliance.com/)”

Joelle Gergis Thanks for the link Mike, very helpful
12 hours ago

Quick question: This is the first comment. Why is Joelle thanking Mike at Theresa’s article? And not thanking Theresa?

Michael E. Mann thanks Joelle– [cut – as above]
11 hours ago
Theresa Defino I can send copies to those who’d like the issue. Just send me a message.
11 hours ago
Michael E. Mann Thanks Theresa ☺
11 hours ago
Joelle Gergis Thanks for your encouragement Mike, it’s been a hell of a year. I’ve just chased up the UCS report and forwarded it on through my network to get the word out. Hope things are going well for your these days, you are an inspiration to many of us. I look forward to catching up with you soon…
11 hours ago
Michael E. Mann sounds great Joelle. I look forward to catching up w/ you soon too ☺
11 hours ago
Theresa Defino mike, you can send to people too; just request no posting.
10 hours ago · Edited
Michael E. Mann thanks again Theresa ☺
10 hours ago

Doesn’t that sound like a best-selling author or a rock star catering to then brushing off the groupies?
J: Oh Mickey, this is great, thanks!
M: Yeah doll, the stuff from you young artists is the future, don’t let the haters get you down.
T: I can send it to anyone you want!
M: Thanks doll!
J: Oh Mickey, it’s been hard but I’m getting the word out, you’ve inspired so many of us, love to talk with you again soon!
M: Thanks doll, talk soon!
T: You can send it to anyone you want Mickey, just no copying please!
M: Thanks doll!
One young artist desperate for Mickey’s help in getting recognition, another is bummed out her karaoke night performance with Mickey and a friend bombed on YouTube… And there’s Mickey showing how he provides fan service!
Maybe Mann, Hansen, Trenberth, and Jones should get together for a “Legends of Science” tour. Coming soon to a university auditorium near you!

Jeremy says: “Roger Dewhurst +1 Nice Summary.”
Except that “skeptics alike” are NOT focused on the short term. They repeatedly stress the entire geological history that utterly disproves the alarmist nonsense. But they can’t ignore short term rubbish like Sandy mania, so they also answer it, as well as addressing the long term.

Chuck L

Gergis wrote a crappy paper and commiserates with the master of the crappy paper, Michael Mann, you have to love the irony!

bkindseth

I recently saw a quote from a scientist who stated that science can be advanced when a hypothesis or theory is disproved as well as when it is supported. Gergis et al should be updated and published even though it does not support the hockey stick. When Thomas Edison was asked about his failures in the course of inventing the light bulb, he stated that he had found 150 ways not to make a light bulb. How many papers are published that shows data does not support a hypothesis? A study should be made of the prominent journals to get the ratio of positive vs negative papers. If what I suspect is true, then the process for getting research published supports advocacy science.

Eric H.

“Climate scientists have become the most recent
high-profile public targets, as industry-funded groups
have attempted to discredit the research and reputation
of notable investigators.”
This lie just doesn’t go away and UCS spreads it thick. Hey UCS, where does your funding come from?
Donations to the UCS in recent years include the following:
2000 – a $25,000 Carnegie Corporation of New York grant for “dissemination of a report on National Missile Defense.”
2002 – a $1 million Pew Memorial Trust grant “to support efforts to increase the nation’s commitment to energy efficiency and renewable energy as a cornerstone of a balanced and environmentally sound energy policy.”
2003 – a $500,000 Energy Foundation grant over two years “to continue to support a national renewable portfolio standard education and outreach effort.”
2004 – a $50,000 Energy foundation grant “to design and implement the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative carbon market in the Northeast.”
2004 – a $100,000 Energy foundation grant “to study the impacts of climate change on California using the latest climate modeling.”
2004 – a $600,000 Energy foundation grant over two years “to promote renewable energy policy at the federal and state levels, with a focus on the Midwest, the Northeast, and California.”
So let’s re-word the UCS drivel to make it a little closer to real…
Real climate scientists have become the most recent
high-profile public targets, as activist-funded groups, such as UCS,
have attempted to discredit the research and reputation
of notable investigators.
Yep, I like mine better.

Eric H.
knr

Gergis is true follower of Mann , and that is pretty much all you need to know about the ‘quality’ of the work they do.
And its hardly a surprise that the central pillar of science ‘critical review ‘ is something they object to, that is after all the anti-science ‘standard ‘ the Teams works to in the name of ‘the cause ‘ were all that matters is how well something supports this cause .

Chuck Nolan

That’s it Kenji. Keep their feet to the fire.
and Happy Thanksgiving to all.
cn

RockyRoad

Roger Dewhurst says:
November 21, 2012 at 6:27 pm

Climate shroundwavers and sceptics alike, are engaged in a totally futile argument over questionable data, questionable models and questionable interpretation …

Your overview is correct except for one major problem: The CAGW/UN/Greenpeace/etc. cabal use the topic as an excuse to tax and control. Look up Agenda 21 from our “friendly” UN to see what they plan for you and the rest of the world. Then fight it with all your might (unless, of course, you want to completely suspend your individual freedoms and bow to your UN masters).

{ A fairy tale }
Imagine Mann standing in front of his bathroom mirror.
Imagine he says, “Mirror, mirror on the wall who is the greatest climate scientist of all?”
Imagine the face of Mother Gaia appears in the mirror. Mother Gaia answers Mann, “Richard Lindzen.”
Imagine Mann making a call to Roger Harrabin complaining to him that he didn’t do enough at the BBC to censor skeptics like Lindzen. Mann yells, “You are fired Roger. I’ll order Revkin to do it instead.”
{fairy tale ends }
John

Frugal McDougall of Hobart says:
November 22, 2012 at 2:34 am
I wish he [Tony Abbot] would hold a press conference with Bob Carter on one side of him and David Evans on the other side, and state that the government policy shouldn’t be based on an proven, (and arguably, discredited), hypothesis

If Harper in Canada can do it, he can too. Why not bring Harper down to flank him too?
[“unproven hypothesis”? Mod]

Frugal McDougall of Hobart says:
November 22, 2012 at 2:34 am
. . . a hypothesis that is still alive only because politicians of the green persuasion, and others too weak to stand up to them, have kept it on life support. That would be a sensational press conference and it would pave the way for the debates between scientists which Australian voters need to hear.

SAY! This could pave the way for a debate that the world needs to hear! Suppose a dozen dissenting scientists from around the world set up camp in Australia to back him up by holding debates, giving interviews, etc., and suppose contrarian organizations produced a set of counterpoints to SkS’s site, and suppose Anthony and the rest of us here at WUWT produced 100 “Do You Know” sound-bites to startle believers and mid-roaders into a rethink, or at least to put them on the defensive . . .
It could be a tipping point–worldwide!

PS: If the rate of sea level rise is downgraded by 50%, which may be in the cards, as Bill Illis has posted (see below), that could give Abbot the ammo he needs to go on the offensive! Abbot should start laying his plans now for a one-two punch.

Bill Illis says:
November 2, 2012 at 5:09 am
They are going to fix the satellite records now because they have improved ocean mass (glacial melt) numbers and improved ocean heat steric rise numbers.
Eric Leuliette (of NOAA) and Josh Willis (managing the ARGO program) are arguing the rise should be reduced to 1.6 mm/year.
Basically, the previous models of glacial isostatic adjustment were not correct (shown by recent measurements using GPS of Antarctica and by redoing the assumptions used for GRACE) and the steric ocean heat rise was over-estimated (shown by the ARGO floats).
The old models allowed the researchers to adjust the Raw satellite data to get the results the models said should be there or something close to 3.0 mm/year. But the old models were flawed and we are back to 1.6 mm/year, the same number as most of the 20th Century.
http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLevelRise/documents/NOAA_NESDIS_Sea_Level_Rise_Budget_Report_2012.pdf
http://www.tos.org/oceanography/archive/24-2_leuliette.pdf

Stephen Richards says:
November 22, 2012 at 1:33 am
Roger Dewhurst + n Nice Summary.
Great rant, Roger. What the “éàç was that stupid remark about line spaces and couldn’t read it ??
==========================================================================
Maybe because it is one long block of text, which can be hard to read as such. Paragraph breaks help to make reading easier. I read it the post and thought it excellent – but my 61 year old eyes struggled with it, I have to say. There’s nothing “stupid” about the remark.

Peter in Ohio

Google Trends shows the interest in the name “Michael Mann” steadily losing interest since a peak in August 2004. (It’s probably not a very accurate assessment since Germany shows up as being of high regional interest. I guess Mann is originally a German surname and maybe there’s a German MM hitting the headlines too.)
There are some interesting peaks though; August 4004, July 2006 and July 2009. I wonder what that little scamp was up to around those dates.

Pouncer

Isn’t part of Mann’s defense of his own “hockey stick” a claim that “independent” researchers arrive at the same historical profile? Why is it at all in Mann’s interest to associate at all with Gergis or similar “independent” researchers, weaken his defense, and VALIDATE the Wegman complaint that social networking tends to bias both results and publications?

theduke

The last refuge of a disgraced, post-normal scientist: name-calling.

troe

“keep up the good work” by all means. Keep putting forward papers unsupported by basic science, have them rejected, claim they haven’t been rejected, and finally meely-mouth the publication process as “bullying” when it doesn’t go your way. I suspect that the whole crumbling edifice will come down to a discussion I had with a professor in early 1989. His career was spent advocating and explaining Marxism to the young. My rejoinder was “Marxism is crap” Later that year we had a vote on that question in various parts of the world. The crap argument won. As a non-scientist I appreciate the fortitiude of those better qualified. As a practical matter stating that the science is “crap” will in the end explain it all.

Gail Combs

Aldous Tenpenney &Roger Dewhurst super summaries.