There’s a third bite to be had from Gareth Renowden’s inept rebuttal of the new paper A Reanalysis of Long-Term Surface Air Temperature Trends in New Zealand by de Freitas, Dedekind and Brill (2014), just published in Environmental Modeling & Assessment. Recall that he said:
The paper as published contains no workings or supplemental material that would allow reproduction of their results,
This was easily refuted yesterday by Bob Dedekind pointing to a section of the paper that does indeed contain workings and another that does indeed contain a fully worked example. Then Gareth makes an incorrect assessment:
it appears to be essentially identical to an “audit’ of NIWA’s Seven Station Series conducted by the NZCSC
He’s wrong. It’s not identical to the Statistical Audit of the NIWA 7-Station Review (pdf, 2.8 MB)—although it’s his problem to prove that it is. But then it gets strange:
which was offered as evidence in their trust’s attempt to sue NIWA. As such it contains mistakes that were pointed out in NIWA’s evidence to the High Court — evidence which was extensive, thorough and damning, but is not (yet) available in the public domain.
What an extraordinary claim. If the ‘mistakes’ were included in submissions to the High Court, then they’re in the public domain. If the mistakes are not in the public domain, they were not included in submissions to the Court—no matter how ‘extensive, thorough and damning’ they might be. What are they?
There’s no secrecy in the High Court unless it’s ordered by the judge—tell us what you’re talking about, Gareth.