Question: Where Is Real Peer Review Conducted? Answer: The Blogosphere

Do we need anymore proof that the lunatics are simply rubberstamping the studies?  Do we need anymore proof that the alarmists operate under delusion?  Or, that supposed “science journalists” are simply mouth pieces for the lunatics?

We all know that the Gergis paper showed us yet another “hockey stick”.  The world proclaimed it as more proof that world is hotting up, out of control!!!  I haven’t said much about it, because temperature hockey sticks have been so debunked that its simply vapid to consider any other them to be true. 

Think about this for a second.  The lunatics have brought us many works of “science” which show a hockey stick.  Every time one comes under scrutiny, it is destroyed.  You would have thought that the teams would be embarrassed by now.  And, after nearly 15 years, now they are.  Smile 

In the discussion about the latest HS at Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit, a commenter/reviewer (one Jean S) asked,

Steve, Roman, or somebody ;) , what am I doing wrong here? I tried to check the screening correlations of Gergis et al, and I’m
getting such low values for a few proxies that there is no way that those can pass any test. I understood from the text that they used
correlation on period 1921-1990 after detrending (both the instrumental and proxies), and that the instrumental was the actual target series (and not the against individual grid series). Simple R-code and data here.

Lol, that’s all it took! It’s fun to read the thread after that!  Warning!!!!  The thread contains language (statistic geek-speak) which is nearly indiscernible. 

So, what happened after that frenzy?  (Cue Queen’s “Another one bites the dust“)  Well, this is what happened…. Gergis et al “Put on Hold” .  Well, heck. 

It was like this….image  And, now, it’s like this…. image

I can’t express the nostalgia this brings to me.  Or, likely, many of the readers, here.  I was concerned.  Earlier, Steve Mac had stated that he wasn’t going to blog much anymore.  And it’s probably true….. until they bring another hockey-stick for him and his team to smack down.  Climate Audit was my first “skeptical” blog which I encountered.  Sure, there were other blogs which stated skepticism, but Steve Mac’s was the first one I read which delved into the details.

A note, Steve Mac had requested the data from Joelle Gergis to replicate their findings.  Joelle’s last paragraph in response was this…..

This list allows any researcher who wants to access non publically available records to follow the appropriate protocol of contacting the original authors to obtain the necessary permission to use the record, take the time needed to process the data into a format suitable for data analysis etc, just as we have done. This is commonly referred to as ‘research’.

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



The implications are obvious.  “We can have our data, you cannot.  If you ask the originators of the data, they’ll tell you to go piss off.  You should accept our “science” because we say it is so.”  In the meantime, we’re suppose to acquiesce our autonomy, and fortune on their say so and simply trust their ethics in this matter….. which, as we’ve seen lately, is lacking.  Trust is difficult to gain, it is even more difficult to regain.

As I’ve stated in the past, and I’ll continue to state, if you want honest peer review of climate science, you have to go to the blogosphere.  You won’t find it anywhere else.

I’d like to personally thank Joelle Gergis for demonstrating this all so well.  You can’t find this study at the  image, I’d like to thank them even more.  While 3 weeks is an impressive time to get a paper on hold, especially with the stonewalling, it doesn’t break the record set by Dessler’s inanity….. about 30 minutes.  (All done by the blogs) 

One may as well skip the rubber stamp process and bring out to the world.  Our world.

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Question: Where Is Real Peer Review Conducted? Answer: The Blogosphere

  1. HankH says:

    Holy cats! I was following Jean’s comments on proxy selection where the authors claimed to have screened for p<.05. She calculated p<.7267 on the Oroko series. I almost fell off my chair when I read it.

    That had to be a WOW moment when she realized the proxy selections were so bad there was no way screening was even done as claimed. If proper screening wasn't done then the study is a case of GIGO.

  2. DirkH says:

    “This is commonly referred to as ‘research’.
    We will not be entertaining any further correspondence on the matter.

    And she got taxpayer money for it, and now she should make it available. This is commonly referred to as “serving the public”.

    She should be dismissed and excluded from further public funding, as she is refusing to work for her employer, the public.

  3. kim says:

    I Smell Climate Science Spirit.

  4. Latitude says:

    …and the main point is
    They claimed they could get temps from tree rings down to 0.09C…..that’s all the warming that made their hockey stick

    You can’t get temps from tree rings in the first place

  5. Pingback: Dr Karoly, Welcome To The Big Leagues, Where Real Science Is Conducted —– The Blogs | suyts space

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s