Australian 'scientists' refuse access to data

UPDATE: The quote marks around “scientists” in the title have been added because, as a commenter pointed out, real scientists wouldn’t refuse access to data.

A short time ago, ACM wrote of the recent paper by climate activist, sorry, scientist, Joelle Gergis (see here: Hockey Stick lives! In Australia, apparently…) which allegedly showed the last 50 years in Australia were hotter than any other period in the past 1000 years, just like Michael Mann’s hockey stick.

Gergis used to have a WordPress blog which revealed her true activist side, but guess what? It’s been deleted! Image at end of post. Unfortunately, some really annoying blogger at ACM decided to preserve it in Webcite, so you can see it here, and her bio here.

Bishop Hill reports that Steve McIntyre’s requests for data have been met with snotty and offhand refusals:

Steve McIntyre’s latest post seems to me to be of huge importance. The refusal by Joelle Gergis and colleagues to release data behind their paper follows on behind similar refusals from authors in the same clique – principally Raphael Neukom. This stonewalling of reasonable requests represents yet another blow at the credibility of paleoclimate. To make things worse, the credibility of the Gergis paper is shattered by the revelation that it is based on circular reasoning – a fallacy that has been repeatedly noted in paleoclimate papers, yet one which is constantly given the seal of approval by peer reviewers in the field.

Despite the refusal of authors in the Gergis-Neukom clique to release data, as thing stand the IPCC will allow their work to be cited in the Fifth Assessment Report. This seems to me to be a ringing endorsement of pseudoscience. (source)

Gergis’ charming final words to McIntyre:

We will not be entertaining any further correspondence on the matter.

That’s the spirit. Trust us, we’re scientists. If you want the data, it’s available somewhere else – maybe.

You can never delete anything from the Interwebs, Joelle.


  1. If you want to access her old wordpress site you can do it here:

    • I wonder how outraged Gergis would have been (just two years later in 2011) when the drought had well and truly broken, as well as broken many lives for the magnitude of the broken drought.

  2. I assume because it’s Australia they don’t have a hockey stick graph….they probably have a boomerang one tho….since they keep trying to throw the same bs out there.

  3. Ray Anderson via Facebook says:

    Like the UN needs to try to be irrelevant.. They are well practiced at passing gas…

  4. all I can say they must somthing big to hide we can all guess what it is

  5. “She is an avid world traveller has who has visited 24 countries.”
    to ensure a carbon neutral footprint by swimming to them all and then neither travelling in car or using anything other than a genuine animal track nor entering into a house with or without electricity, nor purchasing any food that might have been preserved either by drying or freezing nor using any shelter…..and the toothbrush has to go as well
    sublime hyrocisy

  6. Science needs to be transparent.

  7. science? there is no such thing at the ipcc and in climatology…

  8. ClimateSkeptik says:

    From her bio:

    “She is working part time on a Diploma of Professional Writing and Editing at RMIT University to improve her science communication skills.”

    And the result was?

    “We will not be entertaining any further correspondence on the matter”


  9. Bob in Castlemaine says:

    Simon I think you’re too charitable with “trust us were scientists”. Surely it’s more a case of “who are you to question the chosen keepers of the faith, be silent peasant, pay respect to those who know”.

  10. Thanks to the link Chris. Looking at the articles in her blog leaves you with a strong impression that this is a political point of view rather than a scientific one.

  11. Baldrick says:

    Joelle Gergis … the unaccountable scientific climate activist!

  12. If Gergis won’t release the data, in accord with the scientific method, its trash data … only suitable for the bin!

  13. Simon,
    It’s starting to mount up into an unpronounceable word, although I’m sure the climate scientists will allow room to add some more letters before they are finished with this saga:

    The word so far, additional letters welcome:


  14. climatology is fine, this was the field the much of the work and unstanding went into our environment prior to the 1970s and even up until now. ‘Climate science’ is the false ‘god’, a political device created and used by those who do not want to understand the real physical world out there…. and not leave their university/government offices either.

  15. The old story all over again. Reveal the data and their scam is exposed. Why else would they hide it ?

  16. This needs to be retitled. She’s not a “scientist” by anyone’s measure. Science requires full disclosure and that is not negotiable. Activists are activists and posing as scientists is unacceptable

    [REPLY – yes, I agree – I have added ironic quote marks around it]

  17. James P says:

    The critical words in her blogpost re the grant:

    “It will give me a job for three years … “.

    Says it all I think.

%d bloggers like this: