Comments on: IPCC Check Kites Gergis

By: UC

UC — Thu, 08 Nov 2012 08:05:52 +0000

Kind of divisional patent application?

By: Jean S

Jean S — Wed, 07 Nov 2012 21:27:26 +0000

JoC has updated the original manuscript page by adding a sentence:

A new version of this manuscript has been submitted and is under review.

I find it strange that a page for a withdrawn manuscript is informing about a re-submission under review. I wonder if this is an indication that there is some type of technical loophole which allows them to keep the original submission date for the re-submission in order to meet the 5AR requirements.

By: IPCC Check Kites Gergis « Climate Audit « Kites MAX

IPCC Check Kites Gergis « Climate Audit « Kites MAX — Sat, 03 Nov 2012 15:50:07 +0000

[...] IPCC Check Kites Gergis « Climate Audit A few days ago, WUWT pointed out that the American Meteorological Society webpage showed that the Gergis et al paper had been officially “withdrawn”. However, readers should know better than to presume that this would … IPCC Check Kites Gergis « Climate Audit [...]

By: Geoff Sherrington

Geoff Sherrington — Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:35:10 +0000

Here is another example of a problem that could be caused by the urgency of meeting a cut-oo date for inclusion in AR5. The paper was peer reviewed before this storm broke on 5 June 2012, so it is strange to read here that -

http://www.geoffstuff.com/WIP.JPG

How can a person conducting a peer review do so when the material is incomplete, including to the stage where a conclusion cannot be reached?

This is another severe blow against the sanctity of peer review.

By: Ripper

Ripper — Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:05:33 +0000

“Update October 2012: The manuscript “Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium” by Joelle Gergis, Raphael Neukom, Ailie Gallant, Steven Phipps and David Karoly has been re-submitted to the Journal of Climate and is being reviewed again.”

http://theconversation.edu.au/post-1950s-warming-in-region-unmatched-in-1-000-years-7081

By: IPCC fortsätter med sitt fiffel | The Climate Scam

IPCC fortsätter med sitt fiffel | The Climate Scam — Sun, 28 Oct 2012 18:31:35 +0000

[...] Steve McIntyre: Återdragandet av Gergils artikel har inte haft den minsta betydelse för IPCCs användning av Gergis rekonstruktion, vilken fortfarande används i den nyligen publicerade Second Order Draft av AR5 … Tim Osborn från CRU är huvudförfattare av kapitlet i AR5 (liksom han var i AR4) och torde vara bekant med den teknik som användes i AR4. [...]

By: geo

geo — Sat, 27 Oct 2012 07:53:38 +0000

Have a heart, fellas. I love Steve’s work, but Bishop Hill has a role to fulfill in the community too, and how is he going to do that without another “Jesus Paper” to explain lucidly to the average thickie like myself?

“IPCC –Keeping Sceptics Gleefully Busy Since 1988″

By: Geoff Sherrington

Geoff Sherrington — Sat, 27 Oct 2012 04:34:23 +0000

It is also of concern that some studies were still at the work-in-progress stage when the paper was peer reviewed. One might speculate that the objective had been settled before review and the belated insertion of certain numbers might be an inducement to junior authors to reinforce what was already submitted. It’s work done the wrong way; it’s not classical science.

By: simon abingdon

simon abingdon — Sat, 27 Oct 2012 04:16:04 +0000

“And there to stupid” means what?

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 23:43:53 +0000

Did you register as an IPCC SOD reviewer? If you’re a SOD reviewer, you’re entitled to see the article.