In 2012, the then much ballyhoo-ed Australian temperature reconstruction of Gergis et al 2012 mysteriously disappeared from Journal of Climate after being criticized at Climate Audit. Now, more than four years later, a successor article has finally been published. Gergis says that the only problem with the original article was a “typo” in a single […]
Nature’s policies on plagiarism state: Duplicate publication, sometimes called self-plagiarism, occurs when an author reuses substantial parts of his or her own published work without providing the appropriate references. The description of the Australasian network of PAGES2K (coauthors Gergis, Neukom, Phipps and Lorrey) is almost entirely lifted in verbatim or near-verbatim chunks from Gergis et […]
Only two Gergis proxies (both tree ring) go back to the medieval period: Oroko Swamp, New Zealand and Mt Read, Tasmania, both from Ed Cook. Although claims of novelty have been made for the Gergis reconstruction, neither of these proxies is “new”, with both illustrated in AR4 and Mt Read being used as early as Mann et […]
In today’s post, I will look at a new Naturemag climate reconstruction claiming unprecedentedness (h/t Bishop Hill): “Evolution of the Southern Annular Mode during the past millennium” (Abram et al Nature 2014, pdf). Unfortunately, it is marred by precisely the same sort of data mining and spurious multivariate methodology that has been repeatedly identified in […]
Neukom, Gergis and Karoly, accompanied by a phalanx of protective specialists, have served up a plate of cold screened spaghetti in today’s Nature (announced by Gergis here). Gergis et al 2012 (presently in a sort of zombie withdrawal) had foundered on ex post screening. Neukom, Gergis and Karoly + 2014 take ex post screening to […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
In a figure that took considerable work, IPCC AR5 (First Draft) compared 5 regional proxy reconstructions to model output. In Australia, they used the Gergis (Neukom) et al 2012 reconstruction, In South America, they used a Neukom et al 2011 (Clim Dyn) reconstruction. In 2011, Neukom refused to provide me with the data versions used […]
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, […]
Climate Audit 