Posted by: Grant | June 18, 2012

A Trigger For A Royal Commission.

So whatta you do when when you are trying to save the planet and it stops warming and starts cooling on you?
I mean your whole career and a multi-billion dollar industry is at stake.
Simple, you push, and you fix, and you “correct” the data until it screams, then you publish and duck for cover.
Two Aussie newspapers carried the story and now, here following, the peer review failure and the debunking and the withdrawal.
The AUS ABC of course only carried the story, not the debunking. The AUS ABC are an absolute disgrace.
Just as well the science was “settled” and “all scientists agree” because “The Science” is drying up very rapidly!!
The AUS Labor Party will neutralise the Liberal Party’s attack on the Carbon Tax and the soaring energy costs by pointing out their hypocrisy on “Climate” and their own plans for a 5% reduction, as driven by the Greenies in their own party room.
Surely it is time for that “shock horror” Royal Commission into “The Science” and this latest fake-gate is the perfect trigger.  
Climate beatup: “scientifically invalid but a box office success”
Miranda Devine Blog   
Miranda Devine
Friday, June, 15, 2012, (10:58am)
“DAVID Karoly’s paper – which claimed the past 50 years in Australasia was the warmest on record – had been peer-reviewed and published online by the Journal of Climate last month to widespread acclaim.
Now it’s been quietly removed and “put on hold” after Canadian skeptic Steve McIntyre – of hockey stick debunking fame – pointed out it contained a whopping big error. Or what Karoly and his young co-author Joelle Gergis, call a ‘’data processing issue’’.
As Jo Nova puts it, “300,000 dollars and three years to produce a paper that lasted three weeks”. But while it might have been “scientifically invalid, it was a box-office success”.
The Australian’s Bernard Lane takes up the story:… “
Bloggers, scientists claim high moral ground on climate data error
by: Bernard Lane
June 15, 201212:00AM
” …A fresh analysis of the data will be done, using the intended method, and the effect on the study conclusions is uncertain. The paper will have to go through peer review again and it may miss the deadline for the IPCC report.
It is a blow, especially in the highly charged field of climate research, where polemic can be brutal and any stumble can be exaggerated. “We would have preferred that this did not happen but it did,” says David Karoly, the co-author who has taken the lead in explaining what happened. “It is better that we admit our mistakes — and it’s not even clear that it is a mistake.”
Professor of meteorology at Melbourne and an IPCC player, Karoly is very much senior to Gergis, who did not return calls from The Australian.
To a climate outsider, much of the content on McIntyre’s Climate Audit site appears bafflingly technical but the theme is clear: they want to lay hands on the data used by climate scientists. They want to see if the unglamorous data and trumpeted results are singing from the same song sheet…. “
” …Karoly was well aware of who McIntyre was when he requested data that had been “screened out” as part of the statistical analysis for the Gergis study. (The data actually used to reconstruct temperatures had already been placed in a public archive.)
McIntyre reproduces an emailed reply from Gergis which he interprets as dismissive.
“We risk damaging our work relationships by releasing other people’s records against their wishes,” she wrote, suggesting he contact those with rights in these other data sets. “We will not be entertaining any further correspondence on the matter.”
Then Karoly stepped in. In an email to McIntyre he suggests it is the research team that first identified the mix-up but gives kudos to the bloggers “for your scrutiny . . . which also identified this data processing issue”…. “

POSTSCRIPT – Update from the whistleblower – More on Screening in Gergis et al 2012
Steve McIntyre  Jun 10, 2012 at 6:12 PM 
“First, let’s give Gergis, Karoly and coauthors some props for conceding that there was a problem with their article and trying to fix it. Think of the things that they didn’t do. They didn’t arrange for a realclimate hit piece, sneering at the critics and saying Nyah, nyah… “


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: