You may by now have heard here or here that “Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium” by Joelle Gergis, Raphael Neukom, Stephen Phipps, Ailie Gallant and David Karoly, has been put “on-hold” by the Journal, due to “an issue” in the processing of the data used in the study.
It is illuminating to review the crowing commentary by Australian science intelligencia and the press reaction to the paper.
ABC’s AM show, “Australia’s most informative (government funded) morning current affairs program. AM sets the agenda for the nation’s daily news and current affairs coverage.”
TONY EASTLEY: For the first time scientists have provided the most complete climate record of the last millennium and they’ve found that the last five decades years in Australia have been the warmest.
He then speaks for the IPCC:
The Australian researchers used 27 different natural indicators like tree rings and ice cores to come to their conclusion which will be a part of the next report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The Gergis paper was proof enough for the ABC Science Show, which gives “fascinating insights into all manner of things from the physics of cricket”.
Robyn Williams: Did you catch that research published last week analysing the last 1,000 years of climate indicators in Australia? It confirmed much of what climate scientists have been warning us about.
Here is another via ABC Statewide Drive tweet.
Dr Joelle Gergis from
@unimelb: We are as confident that the warming in the post 1950 period is unprecedent in the past 1000 years.
Such shallow and gullible commentary is no better than blogs such as Gerry’s blogistic digression gerry’s blogistic digression “I’ve got a blog and I’m gonna use it.”
It’s offical: Australia is warming and it is your fault.
The tone of the Real Scientists from realclimate is no better, jubilant that the “hockey-stick” has now been seen in Australia.
First, a study by Gergis et al., in the Journal of Climate uses a proxy network from the Australasian region to reconstruct temperature over the last millennium, and finds what can only be described as an Australian hockey stick.
As Steve Mosher said, such papers cannot be trusted. Putting aside questions of the methodology (that I will get to later), the reviewers in climate science don’t check the data, don’t check the numbers produce the graphs and tables published, or check that the numbers actually do what the text describes.
Yet they approve the paper for publication.
He is stunned this has to be explained to anyone. Apparently it does.