Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Latest Hockey Stick

Here is McIntyre being 'pleasant'

However,  there’s a trick in Gergis’ Figure S1.3.  On the left is Gergis’ original Figure S1.3. It gives a strong rhetorical impression of coherence between the four illustrated reconstructions. (“AR1 detrending fieldmean” corresponds to the reconstruction using the stated method of Gergis et al 2012).  On the right is a blowup showing that one of the four reconstructions (“AR1 detrending fieldmean”) has been truncated prior to AD1600 when it is well outside the supposed confidence interval.

And here is Brandon S pointing out in the comments that McIntyre is once again, talking out of an alternative orifice …

 If you look at the blue line in their figure, you’ll see it extends to a point before 1600. My interpretation of this is that line extends back to ~1577, when the Kauri proxy enters the network.

Behind the superficial civility, the usual unpleasantness and inaccuracy. He's learned nowt, I wouldn't trust him to 'audit' my Nectar points statement

Jul 25, 2016 at 10:53 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

PhilC. If you believe McIntyre and McKitrick 2005 did wrong and Gergis and others used the same technique, does that not mean that you cannot believe the new hockeystick? But here you are implying it's the best thing since sliced bread.

I thought that "data torturer" was a technical term for incorrect procedures that Gergis is accused of using. So blame the originator of the term, not McIntyre for using the term appropriately.

Good to hear of your conversion to hockey stick busting.

Jul 25, 2016 at 11:04 AM | Unregistered CommenterAK

Phil Clarke, interesting that you have given up trying to defend and/or promote Gergis and wish to attack McIntyre instead, for pointing out her mistakes. Over at Climate Audit, aTTP has also adopted the 'shoot the whistleblower' approach.

Lawyers in the long awaited Mann v Steyn legal case, will note the lack of change in climate science behaviour, as the lack of supporting evidence for climate science becomes increasingly obvious.

Jul 25, 2016 at 11:46 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

PhilC. You use a book review, a BOOK REVIEW, by an opponent of the author as evidence!! Are we supposed to believe that the review is a balanced opinion of the book's merits, especially when the troll word is banded about? Is there anywhere lower for you to stoop? If Steyn's case is so weak, why is Mann procrastinating so much? Riddle me that.

Jul 25, 2016 at 3:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterAK

Phil Clarke 2:37 Okay, you have given up trying to promote Gergis as a means of defending Mann.

Lawyers acting for Mann and Steyn will note that Gergis has not helped Mann at all, and as McIntyre notes, parts of IPCC AR5 rely on Gergis 2012 which was withdrawn, on the assumption that Gergis 2016 would save the day.

The number of 'own goals' that are still being scored due to the 'Hockey Stick' is amazing. The longer this goes on, the worse it gets for Mann, the Hockey Stick and the IPCC itself. Whether Gergis has achieved 'Value For Money' by bringing all of this into the open, depends on who pays for the mistakes made.

Jul 25, 2016 at 4:16 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Heh, Phil, pounding tables sometimes breaks them. You need a carpenter, STAT.

Jul 27, 2016 at 3:36 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

And here is Brandon's full quote

To clarify a matter raised in this post, I don’t think the authors truncated anything at 1600. If you look at the blue line in their figure, you’ll see it extends to a point before 1600. My interpretation of this is that line extends back to ~1577, when the Kauri proxy enters the network. Prior to that point, there is only one proxy in the network (Mount Read), and it is presumably impossible to create a reconstruction via the given method with only one proxy.

This still shows the importance of screening for the paper as if the authors had used a different approach to it, one which they claim creates only minor differences,* they lose nearly 600 years of their reconstruction. That’s a significant problem. It shows if the authors had used the methodology described in their 2012 paper, they wouldn’t have been able to create useful results. It was only by making post-hoc decisions about how to screen their proxies that they managed to get this paper published.

*I believe the authors intentionally used a semantic trick to give the impression all screening approaches give equitable results while not technically saying such. Pea, thimble and all that jazz. I doubt anyone will use this technicality as a defense though.

"I doubt anyone will use this technicality as a defense though."

Phil will.

Jul 28, 2016 at 2:06 AM | Unregistered Commenterclipe

Yes, it is only a matter of time on here before someone puts words in my mouth.

One looks forward to Brandon's and McIntyre's reconstructions, though I am not holding my breath. Let the excuses begin.

Jul 28, 2016 at 6:30 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

We look forward to reconstructions done without an agenda.

Jul 28, 2016 at 8:31 AM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Phil Clarke 6:30, these are your words, and a quote from Gergis, at the top of the thread.

"Actually, it is the Gergis Australia study, Joelle and her team have corrected the various issue and resubmitted the study and it has been reviewed and accepted, in the face of the usual denier unpleasantness."

Conclusion:"Overall, we are confident that observed temperatures in Australasia have been warmer in the past 30 years than every other 30-year period over the entire millennium (90% confidence based on 12,000 reconstructions, developed using four independent statistical methods and three different data subsets). Importantly, the climate modelling component of our study also shows that only human-caused greenhouse emissions can explain the recent warming recorded in our region."

Add it to the list.

Jul 11, 2016 at 10:46 PM | Phil Clarke

Three weeks is a long time in Climate Science. Which particular "list" should Gergis 2016 be added to?

Nobody is holding their breath waiting for a retraction.

Jul 28, 2016 at 9:22 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

This List

A retraction would require convincing and supported evidence that the conclusions or the methods of the study are not robust.

Which would require a lot more work than the Auditor has done.

Jul 28, 2016 at 9:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Would you like milk or lemon with your T-Stat?

Jul 28, 2016 at 10:22 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Phil Clarke 9:07, as you believe everything that Gergis has written, why did it take 4 years of funding to correct a few typos?

Is that a list of climate scientists that needed Gergis 2012 to survive even if withdrawn and reissued with a few typos created?

Jul 29, 2016 at 1:26 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Ken's going down for the second time over @ Steve's, Phil; won't you go throw the poor boy a buoy?

Jul 31, 2016 at 9:04 AM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Gergis (TM) is the new and improved, Fact-Free Trypists Creation and Correction Fluid. Applied liberally, with a tint of Green, 100% of expert Climate Science Peer Reviewers won't spot anything has been changed at all.

97% of Climate Scientists know for a fact, that if there is something wrong, it is far better to attack anyone who says so, whilst playing with their Climateballs, rather than work out anything for themselves.

3% of Climate Scientists view Gergis as a rehash of all the worst aspects of Mann, and his Hockey Stick, thus proving that not all Climate Scientists are wrong.

Jul 31, 2016 at 3:39 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

golfCharlie, Does anyone here know where to obtain the rules of Climateball? Is it a variant of British Bulldog, where everyone jumps on everyone else until the argument collapses and we all go home bloody and weary? I'm sure we could beat the Aussis, they've just got rid of 250 of their players.

Jul 31, 2016 at 4:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterAK


Jul 31, 2016 at 9:18 PM | ...and Then There's Physics

If you want to see a Real Climate Science ballsup of a debate about the rights and wrongs of Gergis 2016, go to aTTP's website. We still don't know how Gergis was funded to make mistakes, and how so many expert Climate Science Peer Reviewers could have missed them.

Climate Scientists really ought to be paying Steve McIntyre, not criticising his motives, and denying him credit.

Jul 31, 2016 at 11:31 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

aTTP. So the rules of Climateball are that there are no rules, you "make them up as you go along". Anything goes, so long as you win. Fantastic, so as a practitioner and promoter of Climateball, you can lie, procrastinate, prevaricate, ignore or trash an opponent's view, overhype your own and so on. The alarmist creed in print.

Aug 1, 2016 at 4:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterAK

Yes, Gergis demonstrate clearly that while money can't buy love, it can, like big tobacco, buy science.

Aug 1, 2016 at 4:39 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

Onigiri is the Japanese skill of making Rice Balls

Aug 1, 2016 at 5:05 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Oh so sorry, but O-nigiri are usually square or triangular golfCharlie-san

Aug 1, 2016 at 7:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterAK

AK, traditional Rice Balls or Onigiri, (I didn't know Japanese spelling involved hyphens) were Balls made up of Rice. Mechanisation allowed more fanciful and stylised shapes, that have now become fashionable for trade and marketing purposes. Similarities with Climate Science are:

Aug 1, 2016 at 10:01 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

From Climate Audit post on Gergis 2016

Craig Loehle

Posted Aug 1, 2016 at 1:20 PM | Permalink | Reply

Why all this matters (attention ATTP):

Aug 1, 2016 at 10:10 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie