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.
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Re: What a Pimple
Whoever knows fear burns at the touch of the Mann Thing.
Mann-Thing.jpg -1st issue!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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/)”
Quick question: This is the first comment. Why is Joelle thanking Mike at Theresa’s article? And not thanking Theresa?
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.
Gergis wrote a crappy paper and commiserates with the master of the crappy paper, Michael Mann, you have to love the irony!
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.
“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.
More on UCS funding.
http://activistcash.com/organization_financials.cfm/o/145-union-of-concerned-scientists
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 .
That’s it Kenji. Keep their feet to the fire.
and Happy Thanksgiving to all.
cn
Roger Dewhurst says:
November 21, 2012 at 6:27 pm
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
If Harper in Canada can do it, he can too. Why not bring Harper down to flank him too?
[“unproven hypothesis”? Mod]
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.
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.
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.
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?
The last refuge of a disgraced, post-normal scientist: name-calling.
“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.
Aldous Tenpenney &Roger Dewhurst super summaries.