Post by fretslider on Jul 7, 2012 7:23:31 GMT -5
Joelle Gergis was a lead author on a recent paper, 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.
It says:
[The average reconstructed temperature anomaly in Australasia during A.D. 1238–1267, the warmest 30-year pre-instrumental period, is 0.09°C (±0.19°C) below 1961–1990 levels.
Basically, it's another “ah-ha, man is at fault” pitch and, as it turns out, it's another hockey stick broken. Gergis et al. preselected (cherry picked) data, ignoring the whole set in many cases, just like Jones and Mann have done. They too tried to use the incredibly inaccurate method of dendroclimatology - our old friend, tree rings. And the most fatal flaw: an inability to replicate given the data and methods used. Three weeks after the paper was published a team at Climate Audit run by Steve McIntyre, uncovered a problem so significant that the authors announced that the paper was “on hold”. The problem was significant enough to result in the paper being withdrawn altogether by the American Meteorological Society.
When Steve McIntyre asked for the full data, Gergis 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. “
The Australian taxpayer stumped up 300,000 dollars, and it took three years to produce a paper that lasted three weeks. Kerrching; headlines were everywhere. It was picked up by The Guardian: “Australasia has hottest 60 years in a millennium, scientists find.” Gergis proclaimed:” there are no other warm periods in the last 1000 years that match the warming experienced in Australasia since 1950.” It was the latest research in more than a decade of work producing a climate “hockey stick” — graphs of global or regional temperatures showing relatively little variation over a millennium or more and then a sharp uptick since the middle of the twentieth century (the blade at the end of the stick). And it made false claims.
Funding that is “policy relevant” perverts the progress of research and understanding because it applies not just to the top 20% of investigations, but, if possible, ALL investigations. Who hasn’t seen silly studies that are not climate/global warming related that drag the AGW concept into at least the title? That desperation is not just about vanity for the authors, but getting funding for the department. The recent no-reason termination of an Oregon State University professor who had the temerity to question a subject (AGW) that, according to his comments, brought in $90 million per year, and was the liberal platform of the Governor, demonstrates the dominance of policy relevance to survival, not just comfort, of research these days.
Gergis has taken to praising the ludicrous Chris Mooney. It's interesting to note the language and the tone being employed by a 'scientist' in what was a conference aimed at communicating climate change.
Conference Report // Communicating climate change: advice from Science meets Parliament 2010
Joëlle Gergis and Ailie Gallant
School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne
Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Vol. 23 page 26
“….On day 2 we were treated to a fantastic guest speaker, American science writer Chris Mooney, at the National Press Club. He gave an incisive overview of the nature of the ‘guerrilla war’ being waged on climate science in the untamed jungles of the online world. He said it was naïve for scientist to feel that the ‘truth will prevail’ in the global warming debate as the mountain of peer-reviewed evidence grows. Instead he suggested that as a community we need to equip ourselves with the professional communication skills needed to combat the very targeted tactics of our opponents. In a recent interview Professor Michael Mann (co-creator of the ‘hockey stick’ temperature reconstruction) referred to the ‘asymmetric warfare’ between trained global warming contrarians and climate scientists as ‘literally like a battle between a Marine and a Cub Scout’. In the 11 March 2010 issue of Nature, the editor warned that ‘scientists must acknowledge that they are in a street fight, and that their relationship with the media really matters’….”
“guerrilla war”, “war’ being waged on climate science in the untamed jungles of the online world”, “equip ourselves with the professional communication skills needed to combat the very targeted tactics of our opponents”, “‘asymmetric warfare’ between trained global warming contrarians and climate scientists”
Not much in the way of scientific discussion and debate there. How climate scientists work was revealed in Climategate in 2009. Has anything changed? Er no, not really, if anything they’ve become more desperate. The politics of funding has poisoned the well of knowledge. It's no accident that the standard term they use to describe a sceptic is "denier", it carries deliberate connotations of the holocaust with it, in many ways it's practically religious. But consider what science is really about.
To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. All climate science is based on flawed methods, such as tree rings, and flawed models that make wild assumptions and a refusal to admit how the climate works is poorly understood. They lack empirical evidence completely.
The chief characteristic which distinguishes a scientific method of inquiry from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false. We can now start to put observation - empirical evidence - against some predictions. Like Hansen's predictions in 1988....
Temperature forecast Hansen’s group from the year 1988. Scenario A assumed continued exponential greenhouse gas growth. Scenario B assumed a reduced linear rate of growth, and Scenario C assumed a rapid decline in greenhouse gas emissions around the year 2000. In reality, CO 2 emissions have increased by as much as 2.5%. The black curve is the ultimate real-measured temperature (rolling 5-year average). Hansen’s model overestimates the temperature by 1.9 ° C, which is a whopping 150% wrong.
Observation trumps the model every time. Scientific knowledge will always be closely tied to empirical findings, and always remains subject to falsification if new experimental observation incompatible with it is found. So-called climate scientists do not believe in falsifying a hypothesis, nor in the spirit of science itself, they are firmly engaged in their asymmetric war with trained global warming contrarians.
A. N. Independent Mind.
It says:
[The average reconstructed temperature anomaly in Australasia during A.D. 1238–1267, the warmest 30-year pre-instrumental period, is 0.09°C (±0.19°C) below 1961–1990 levels.
Basically, it's another “ah-ha, man is at fault” pitch and, as it turns out, it's another hockey stick broken. Gergis et al. preselected (cherry picked) data, ignoring the whole set in many cases, just like Jones and Mann have done. They too tried to use the incredibly inaccurate method of dendroclimatology - our old friend, tree rings. And the most fatal flaw: an inability to replicate given the data and methods used. Three weeks after the paper was published a team at Climate Audit run by Steve McIntyre, uncovered a problem so significant that the authors announced that the paper was “on hold”. The problem was significant enough to result in the paper being withdrawn altogether by the American Meteorological Society.
When Steve McIntyre asked for the full data, Gergis 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. “
The Australian taxpayer stumped up 300,000 dollars, and it took three years to produce a paper that lasted three weeks. Kerrching; headlines were everywhere. It was picked up by The Guardian: “Australasia has hottest 60 years in a millennium, scientists find.” Gergis proclaimed:” there are no other warm periods in the last 1000 years that match the warming experienced in Australasia since 1950.” It was the latest research in more than a decade of work producing a climate “hockey stick” — graphs of global or regional temperatures showing relatively little variation over a millennium or more and then a sharp uptick since the middle of the twentieth century (the blade at the end of the stick). And it made false claims.
Funding that is “policy relevant” perverts the progress of research and understanding because it applies not just to the top 20% of investigations, but, if possible, ALL investigations. Who hasn’t seen silly studies that are not climate/global warming related that drag the AGW concept into at least the title? That desperation is not just about vanity for the authors, but getting funding for the department. The recent no-reason termination of an Oregon State University professor who had the temerity to question a subject (AGW) that, according to his comments, brought in $90 million per year, and was the liberal platform of the Governor, demonstrates the dominance of policy relevance to survival, not just comfort, of research these days.
Gergis has taken to praising the ludicrous Chris Mooney. It's interesting to note the language and the tone being employed by a 'scientist' in what was a conference aimed at communicating climate change.
Conference Report // Communicating climate change: advice from Science meets Parliament 2010
Joëlle Gergis and Ailie Gallant
School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne
Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Vol. 23 page 26
“….On day 2 we were treated to a fantastic guest speaker, American science writer Chris Mooney, at the National Press Club. He gave an incisive overview of the nature of the ‘guerrilla war’ being waged on climate science in the untamed jungles of the online world. He said it was naïve for scientist to feel that the ‘truth will prevail’ in the global warming debate as the mountain of peer-reviewed evidence grows. Instead he suggested that as a community we need to equip ourselves with the professional communication skills needed to combat the very targeted tactics of our opponents. In a recent interview Professor Michael Mann (co-creator of the ‘hockey stick’ temperature reconstruction) referred to the ‘asymmetric warfare’ between trained global warming contrarians and climate scientists as ‘literally like a battle between a Marine and a Cub Scout’. In the 11 March 2010 issue of Nature, the editor warned that ‘scientists must acknowledge that they are in a street fight, and that their relationship with the media really matters’….”
“guerrilla war”, “war’ being waged on climate science in the untamed jungles of the online world”, “equip ourselves with the professional communication skills needed to combat the very targeted tactics of our opponents”, “‘asymmetric warfare’ between trained global warming contrarians and climate scientists”
Not much in the way of scientific discussion and debate there. How climate scientists work was revealed in Climategate in 2009. Has anything changed? Er no, not really, if anything they’ve become more desperate. The politics of funding has poisoned the well of knowledge. It's no accident that the standard term they use to describe a sceptic is "denier", it carries deliberate connotations of the holocaust with it, in many ways it's practically religious. But consider what science is really about.
To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. All climate science is based on flawed methods, such as tree rings, and flawed models that make wild assumptions and a refusal to admit how the climate works is poorly understood. They lack empirical evidence completely.
The chief characteristic which distinguishes a scientific method of inquiry from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false. We can now start to put observation - empirical evidence - against some predictions. Like Hansen's predictions in 1988....
Temperature forecast Hansen’s group from the year 1988. Scenario A assumed continued exponential greenhouse gas growth. Scenario B assumed a reduced linear rate of growth, and Scenario C assumed a rapid decline in greenhouse gas emissions around the year 2000. In reality, CO 2 emissions have increased by as much as 2.5%. The black curve is the ultimate real-measured temperature (rolling 5-year average). Hansen’s model overestimates the temperature by 1.9 ° C, which is a whopping 150% wrong.
Observation trumps the model every time. Scientific knowledge will always be closely tied to empirical findings, and always remains subject to falsification if new experimental observation incompatible with it is found. So-called climate scientists do not believe in falsifying a hypothesis, nor in the spirit of science itself, they are firmly engaged in their asymmetric war with trained global warming contrarians.
A. N. Independent Mind.
