Yet more on Gergis

Steve McIntyre’s investigation into Gergis et al continues apace. His latest post investigates the “Law Dome” ice core series, and why it has never been published officially, despite being the highest resolution available for the last 2000 years. It was “screened out” of the Gergis paper.

Josh has been on good form once again, with a trio of Gergis based cartoons (click to enlarge each):


Stick sifting

McIntyre at work


  1. Baldrick says:

    It would seem ‘public’ review has more credibility than ‘peer’ review.
    Major embarrassment for Gergis, Karoly and co.

  2. Garry Nosworthy says:

    Getting away from the serious side of the climate debate onto the lighter side, love the toon/images depicting Gergis but it would be great to see some caricatures of her and you won’t have to look to hard in those actual images of her featured on this website to find unusual features to accentuate. I am a great fan of Larry Pickerings caricatures of Julia Gillard and Bob Brown if anyone has seen them
    I am a great fan of this blogsite Simon.

  3. LuisaDownUnder says:

    Love the cartoons, Josh.
    You are indeed in fine form.
    Truth is stranger than fiction as the malaise that afflicts all connected to this AGW bandwagon spawn new and wondrous deceit by omission… or should that be ‘inclusion’.

  4. Kevin R. Lohse says:

    “On-line” review is rapidly emerging as a serious alternative to “Pal” review, formerly known as Peer review. It’s also become readily apparent that the new process destroys the ability of vested interests to speak from authority as the science behind their dicta can be robustly challenged,and in so many cases found wanting. On-line review is actually bringing into play a far greater number of scientific peers whose opinions have previously been avoided as, “unhelpful”, by the true believers. While in the longer term, the openness brought to the promulgation of scientific research can only be good for Science and the public interest, one wonders what self-serving casuistry the Warmists will come up with in an attempt to close (to them) the pandora’s box of open debate.

  5. The likes of Gergis, Gleick, Mann, and even Tim Flannery get it so wrong by trying desperately to prop up the catastrophic man-made global warming.

    Perhaps they should just try and be honest and objective for once. They might just finally understand truth… that the IPCC’s mantra is a discredited invalid supposition, which is not supported by science.

  6. It is pal reviewed, not peer reviewed.. there is no credibility to peer today. It is meaningless.. Thanks to “climate scientists”.

  7. Bob in Castlemaine says:

    Brings a new understanding of the warmists’ claim that they accept the data as it falls?

  8. Streetcred says:

    So where is that [snip] Gergis ? Let me give you some advice [snip] if this paper is an example of your scientific research and comprehension at work, then you’d better stick to making U-tube music videos … and we all know how awful that attempt was !

  9. The Australian finally saw fit to publish the story today on page 7.

    [REPLY – Link here. There was an earlier article as well, referenced above]

  10. Tony Thomas says:

    Re peer review, dr cath foley president of science and technology Australia had this to say last July…her confidence in peer review needs review…:

    This week Lord Monckton begins his tour of Australia to share his views on climate science. His views must be treated as just that — his views. They are unsubstantiated and untested opinions. They are views that have never been subjected to the rigorous process of being reviewed by other scientists. Therefore, they are views that be must given a different weight to the base of scientific evidence that he is contesting.
    Unlike thousands of scientists across the globe, Lord Monckton has never published a single peer-reviewed paper on any scientific topic in his life. It is, therefore, time for him to go beyond simply disputing the science underpinning climate change. The challenge for him is to test his ideas by submitting them to the robust peer-review process. It’s a method that has operated for hundreds of years providing the community with information that it can trust. He must subject his views to the same level of scrutiny as the climate scientists he so regularly discounts. In doing so – if they pass the test — Lord Monckton’s views will gain legitimacy and credibility and his work can be counted, compared and contrasted with existing climate science. And if he is right, we can all rejoice.


%d bloggers like this: