Saturday, June 9, 2012

Blog review beats peer review

A few weeks ago ABC breathlessly reported on a new paper...
AM 1000 years of climate data points to a warming Australia
Radio Australia Climate study shows Australia hotter

Seems the authors of that study are now wearing some egg on their faces as the paper is withdrawn from publication following the identification of errors by Steve McInyre and others.  See Climate Audit for more details.
Bloggers: 1 Peer reviewers: NIL

An issue has been identified in the processing of the data used in the study, “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, accepted for publication in the Journal of Climate.
We are currently reviewing the data and results.

We have requested ABC update their news.

UPDATE: ABC reply: Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:17 AM
Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

Clearly, given that we have reported on the study, we would want to be across any material changes to it. I have brought this to the attention of the reporters who filed the original pieces, so that we can track the process and take account of any updated or changed information.

Alan Sunderland

1 comment:

  1. This is another example of climate scientists, copping an attitude that people like McIntyre are beneath them and unworthy of access to their data. Historical records indicate that Einstein sent his paper with every scrap of data to every scientist in the field including his detractors inviting them all to rip it to shreds.

    The peer review process is shell of its former self especially in climate science which has been tarnished and corrupted by money and politics. Peer review needs to be reformed and made far more transparent. A good start would be to make authors of submitted papers anonamous to reviewers in order to ensure the end of pal review, make the reviewers names public to ensue integrity and reject any paper that doesn't make all data and code available to the public. We need to do this for the good of science and to prevent the growing abuse of the peer review process. It' broken let's fix it.


Please keep to the topic. Abusive comments and bad language are simply not tolerated. Note that your comment may take a little while to appear.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.