Tag Archives: gergis

Karoly and Gergis vs Journal of Climate

On June 10, a few days after the Gergis-Karoly-Neukom error had been identified, I speculated that they would try to re-submit the same results, glossing over the fact that they had changed the methodology from that described in the accepted article. My cynical prediction was that a community unoffended by Gleick or upside-down Mann would […]

Gergis et al Correspondence

Michael Kottek writes in the comment section: The results of my FOI request to the University of Melbourne can be seen here: http://tinyurl.com/96ey5dt I requested all correspondence between the authors and the journal regarding the paper. The referees reports were exempted as were documents relating to the resubmitted paper. I also requested correspondence between the […]

IPCC Check Kites Gergis

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pointed out that the American Meteorological Society webpage showed that the Gergis et al paper had been officially “withdrawn”.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 have any effect on IPCC use of the reconstruction. The withdrawal of the Gergis article hasn’t had the slightest impact […]

Gergis and Watts Delayed

According to information from the University of Melbourne, Gergis et al was not re-submitted by the end of July, but has been delayed until the end of September. The university stated: Please see latest information below Print publication of scientific study on hold An issue has been identified in the processing of the data used […]

Was Gergis et al “Withdrawn”?

On June 12, David Karoly stated of the then recently disappeared Gergis et al: The paper has been put on hold, while an issue with the data processing and methods that we have identified is checked. The paper has not been withdrawn nor has it been retracted. In a June 13 email to Gergis et […]

More on Screening in Gergis et al 2012

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, what about the hockey stick that Oerlemans […]

Gergis et al “Put on Hold”

A few days ago, Joelle Gergis closed her letter refusing data stating: We will not be entertaining any further correspondence on the matter. Gergis’ statement seems to have been premature.  David Karoly, the senior author, who had been copied on Gergis’ surly email and who is also known as one of the originators of the […]

Gergis “Significance”

Jean S observed in comments to another thread that he was unable to replicate the claimed “significant” correlation for many, if not, most of the 27 Gergis “significant” proxies. See his comments here  here Jean S had observed: Steve, Roman, or somebody😉 , what am I doing wrong here? I tried to check the screening […]

Gergis’ Two Medieval Proxies

IPCC AR5 (First Draft) cited Gergis et al as follows: New paleo records from Australasia provide evidence of MCA warming around 1250–1330 CE, [my bold] somewhat later than maximum medieval warmth described from many Northern Hemisphere regions (Gergis et al., submitted). Following peak medieval warmth in the early 1300s, a cooling trend reaching a temperature […]

Myles Allen Calls For “Name and Shame”

Myles Allen, a declared supporter of open data archives, has, in blog comments here, proposed “name and shame” as a first tactic against data obstructionists (as opposed to FOI). Journal editors can and should enforce a simple “disclose or retract” policy if a result is challenged, and almost all of them do: if any don’t, […]