AK, you're the one tag-teaming with Golf Charlie ....

AR5 did not quote Gergis et al 2012 but, in quoting PAGES2K, it was for all intents and purposes using its data and flawed methodology?

and still spouting bollocks.

If that is 'winning', I guess I can stomach 'losing'.

AK, I have just read Phil Clarkes latest delusional twaddle.

I can only presume that the same logic deficiency is programmed into all advocates of climate science, and this is why Peer Review in Climate Science has allowed so many fabrications and falsificattions to get the seal of approval.

Phil Clarke still believes everything claimed by Gergis. Gergis lied, but Phil Clarke can't see that. Phil Clarke has now drawn attention to Neukom and Gergis. As Gergis has lied about her 2016 paper, and not been entirely honest about her 2012 fiasco, which would appear to have run in parallel with Neukom's paper with Gergis, the credibility of Neukom is now in doubt.

Pages2K relies on, and references Neukom and also Gergis, aswell as Neukom and Gergis. Meanwhile, Pages2K has some form of update in the offing and Mann was relying on Pages2K, which includes Neukom, and also Gergis.

The credibilty of Pages2K is further damaged by Phil Clarke, because he can't accept he is wrong, and McIntyre is right, again.

It must be very dangerous for a Climate Scientist to be close to Phil Clarke when he is playing ClimateBall and shooting himself in the foot with an Uzi. Gergis 2016 was more about rescuing Pages2K, so that Pages2K could survive without Mann. Phil Clarke has stuck his oar in, ruptured his Rowlocks, and damaged Pages2K. Oh dear.

Which just seems to confirm that 97% of Climate Science cannot be trusted. I have rather forgotten why Phil Clarke was celebrating Gergis 2016, but it does seem to be a bit of a defining paper for the Green Party and it's failure with Climate Science.

It seems that over at Climate Audit aTTP is playing the same game of Climate Balls as Phil Clarke, and trying to divert attention away from the Gergis 2016 failure.

Climate Science and the Green Party are obviously very worried about climate science funding suffering major damage due to Gergis and the knock-on effect on Pages2K.

A bonfire of the hockey sticks should extinguish a few more high flying careers.

Heh, the Black Might.
===============

golfCharlie. I have read the University of Melbourne's news release about the Gergis et al 2012 paper. In it, there are categorical statements that the paper represents a contribution intended for AR5 and is the Australasian part of the PAGES 2K network.
The initially accepted version of the PAGES 2K Consortium 2013 paper identifies Gergis et al. 2012 as the source of proxy data (27). Just over a month later, the published version lists Neukom & Gergis 2012 as the source of the proxy data sets (substantially more than 27 sets) but still maintains the analysis is based on 27 sets. Phil Clarke suggests that the PAGES 27 sets are not the same as the 27 used by Gergis et al. 2012 paper. Unfortunately for this claim, the Table 1 in both versions of the PAGES paper have exactly the same statistical metrics. Huge coincidence - using different 27 data sets (according to PC) produces exactly the same statistical metrics (PAGES). Strains belief in everyone involved doesn't it?

AK, the self destruction of Climate Science rests safely in the hands of Phil Clarke, aTTP et al. The reaction of Climate Science to Gergis 2016 is a wonderful demonstration that no one representing 97% of Climate Scientists can be relied on or trusted.

It seems that Climate Scientists are on some form of weird bonus scheme, whereby the bigger the lie, the more they earn. The Green Party are gambling everything on Gergis, and Neukom, and Pages2K.

Climate Balls. Rice Balls. Onigiri/O-Nigiri

AK 8:31 forgot to add....

You have found it easy to cross check "facts" used to support Gergis, and have a background in private industry and academia. Whatever first triggered your unease about the claims of climate science, the more you look, the more uneasy you have become.

My background is not the same, but a similar process of spotting inconsistencies with the "Science" and my knowledge of history geograhy science etc has led me to roughly the same place.

The onslaught of Climate Balls to back up the faked 97% Consensus is about all that is left. I wish the other 3% of Climate Scientists would speak up, so that it is easier to determine what/if anything is worth saving.

Phil Clarke suggests that the PAGES 27 sets are not the same as the 27 used by Gergis et al. 2012 paper. 

The  Gergis reconstruction in PAGES2K uses an almost identical network to the retracted article: of the 27 proxies in the original network, 20 are used in the P2K network: out are 1 tree ring, 2 ice core and 4 coral.

Only on Planet McIntye is a 25% change 'nearly identical'! I agree McIntyre nearly always strains credulity but he normally gets facts like these right.

From https://climateaudit.org/2014/11/07/gergis-and-the-pages2k-regional-average/

Phil Clarke suggests that the PAGES 27 sets are not the same as the 27 used by Gergis et al. 2012 paper. 

The  Gergis reconstruction in PAGES2K uses an almost identical network to the retracted article: of the 27 proxies in the original network, 20 are used in the P2K network: out are 1 tree ring, 2 ice core and 4 coral.

Only on Planet McIntye is a 25% change 'nearly identical'! I agree McIntyre nearly always strains credulity but he normally gets facts like these right.

From https://climateaudit.org/2014/11/07/gergis-and-the-pages2k-regional-average/

Phil Clarke. Do please consult Table in PAGES 2K paper where it clearly states the Australasian reconstruction is based upon 14 tree ring sets, 12 coral sets and one speleothem. That's 14+12+1 which in this universe equals 27 data sets, not 20 in your world. Or should Table 1 have been changed from March to April 2013 to match the new reality that Gergis et al. 2012 was dead meat?
So which is it Phil a) 20 data sets, b) 27 data sets from Gergis et al 2012, or c) 27 sets some of which are different from Gergis et al. 2012, but which coincidently give the same statistical metrics as (b)? The world awaits.

Does anyone know where I can access a copy of the withdrawn Gergis et al 2012 paper? Those links I have tried no longer work.

Of the 27 proxies in the Gergis 2012 reconstruction, only 20 were in PAGES 2K which had 28, leaving 7 that were not. The Gergis reconstruction has a pronounced spike around 1300, missing from PAGES 2K.

If Gergis or anyone else were to describe the PAGES 2K as for 'all intents and purposes using its [Gergis] data and flawed methodology' you'd quite rightly laugh your socks off.

Which is what I am doing now.

Martin A, in climate science, particularly in relation to Pages2K, it is only important that the Expert Climate Science Peer Reviewers believe in the proxies and reconstructions.

Climate Science seems to rely on making mistakes in favour of Climate Science, and then playing Climate Balls with anyone who dares to question Climate Science.

As Climate Science has proved incapable of self regulation, and thrives on over generous taxpayer funded subsidies, and still has not provided any proof or justification for all the money, it is time for drastic austerity.

Quite how integrity works if someone with a vested interest in Pages2K preservation is asked to Peer Review a paper written by someone else with a vested interest in Pages2K, is not clear. Perhaps Pages2K have a policy on this.

Phil clarke. Oh dear, the PAGES paper states the Australasian reconstruction is based on 27 proxy records*, and here you go again. One of your posts says 27 proxies (but different ones), another post 20, now its 28. Is it any wonder that here you are not believed, and/or treated with derision.

When it comes to laughter, it's the incompetence at hiding the truth that the Australasian branch of the PAGES 2K gang that elicits mirth. Now exceeded by your attempts to defend the indefensible.

* How do you account for the data in Table 1?

Martin A. Strictly speaking science is all belief and disbelief. Nothing can be proven, so that someone accepting a conclusion, hypothesis, theory or even a law, believes it is true. Other people who disbelieve have a better chance of success because it is possible to falsify, but only with evidence. Even then, a proponent of the "falsified" interpretation may disbelieve the effectiveness of the falsification. Just look at the dispute happening now between Phil Clarke and myself. We are even interpreting the same evidence differently. It's all a matter of different evaluations of the evidence, and the selection of which evidence will be used and believed.

Those who believe science should be devoid of beliefs, haven't practiced doing it.

Martin A, unfortunately, at a Climate Science conference on a tropical island beach, unthreatened by sealevel rise, Climate Scientists may contemplate their navels, and possibly those of their fellows, and believe that a proxy might consist of comparisons of belly button fluff.

A consensus can be agreed on, along with report content and conclusions, and independent Peer Reviewers proposed and Seconded, all before the next round of drinks is due.

Under Phil Clarke's and aTTP's preferred Climate Balls rules, that is all true, unless/until countered by a peer reviewed report., accepted in a Professional Journal approved of by me. Not wishing to appear unreasonable, I can proffer two, Viz Comic and Private Eye.

The worrying possibility is that some Climate Scientists may have an indexed collection of belly button fluff tucked away somewhere already, from before the days of computer fabrication, but it would probably be more reliable than anything produced since.

Phil clarke. Oh dear, the PAGES paper states the Australasian reconstruction is based on 27 proxy records.

I am using the PDF here:

https://www.blogs.uni-mainz.de/fb09climatology/files/2012/03/Pages_2013_NatureGeo.pdf

In Table 1 for Australasia it lists these proxies

Coral (13) Tree rings (14) Speleothem (1)

28 proxies.

And it gives Neukom & Gergis as the major reference.

Phil Clarke. Yes it's incredibly interesting isn't it. In March 2013 Table 1 shows the following proxies Coral (12), Tree ring (14) Speleothem (1) 27 proxies and the reference cited is Gergis et al 2012. Yet by April Table 1 Table 1 had changed to using the following proxies Coral (13), Tree ring (14) Speleothem (1) 28 proxies and the reference cited is Neukom & Gergis 2012 (which has considerably more than 28 proxy sets).

How is it in just over a month Table 1 changed after Nature had accepted the paper?

How is it that with the addition of one coral proxy, the statistical measures in Table 1 did not change?

How is it that with a change in proxies the summary diagram did not change at all?

All very, very interesting.

ACK,

Parkinson's Law, work expands to fill the time available

Climate Balls Law, the history of Climate Science is infinitely variable, to keep funding available

So what?

PC. Not interested in the truth then? Or can't you recognize an incompetent cover up?

A paper was amended in a relatively inconsequential way after acceptance. Woop-de-do.

Like I said, so what?

Says it all. Phil Clarke's Inconsequential = changing proxies. + no change in statistical measures or summary conclusion diagram purportedly based on those proxies. At the same time problems with 2012 paper apparently rectified by 2013, but it takes additional couple of years to get original 2012 paper (which uses many of the same proxies) published (and still apparently crap).

All this without mentioning the major flaw in the 2012 papers, and the 2013 paper. The fact that the 20th century uptick is dependent on coral d18O proxies (when the better proxies are Sr data).

A paper was amended in a relatively inconsequential way after acceptance. Woop-de-do.

Like I said, so what?

Aug 6, 2016 at 10:18 AM | Phil Clarke

Global temperatures have risen in a relatively inconsequential way. Woop-de-do. So what? Nothing bad as happened.

If it wasn't for all the fear and panic mongering, everyone could enjoy the benefits of an inconsequentially warmer climate.The consequences of a cooler climate are rather more serious, as Mann, Pagess2K, Neukom, Gergis the Green Party etc don't want anyone to know.

Why do Global Warmists have to keep lying, cheating and falsifying? And then lying cheating and falsifying, about the previous lies cheats and falsifications.

The End of Climate Science is Nigh! Climate Scientists need to repent of their sins or face eternal damnation. (They are not starting from a position on the moral high ground)