Bite the third

toast-with-bite-660

… and another bite…

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.

5 Thoughts on “Bite the third

  1. stan+stendera on November 2, 2014 at 11:19 pm said:

    What a complete fool Mr. Renowden must be. How does his wife stand him. Apologies, I’m being snippy.

  2. Richard C (NZ) on November 3, 2014 at 1:12 pm said:

    Gone very quiet at HT. Stuck on 11 comments, the last 3 went off-topic after Gareth’s repetition, and extension, of his rather odd claim.

    Gareth November 1, 2014 at 11:11 am

    The CSET seemed to want to make it about the methodology of series construction, and submitted their “audit” as evidence. NIWA had no choice but to prepare and submit a detailed rebuttal to that, and a considerable amount of scientist time was spent doing it – time that wasn’t included in the costs judgement against the CSET. But as you say, the judge refused to rule on matters of science – a long-standing legal convention.

    http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-cranks-finally-publish-an-nz-temperature-series-but-their-papers-stuffed-with-errors/#comment-45029

    Off-blog might be more advisable.

    [Gareth] – “But as you say, the judge refused to rule on matters of science”

    He’s right about this for once, “you” being Andy who corrected Nick originally. But the question of science was never the issue. I’ve posted twice on this at WUWT linking back to here:

    richardcfromnz
    November 2, 2014 at 4:04 pm

    Peter Grace [who cites JUDGMENT OF VENNING J ]

    >”Particularly when Justice Venning deals with Bob Carter’s evidence”

    Actually he didn’t. See [54], he dismissed the evidence without cognizance that it was reviewed by 3 independent professional statisticians. Discussed here:

    https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/10/renowden-on-the-reanalysis/#comment-1217463

    And here:

    https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/11/analysis-of-renowdens-analysis-of-our-reanalysis/#comment-1222143

    [78] was a question of fact, not a question of science. The latter being out of the Judge’s domain but the former his duty. See ‘Question of Fact in the top link.

    The “fact finder” was the judge” in NZCSET v NIWA but J Venning didn’t establish fact wrt the evidence (‘Statistical Audit’), NIWA’s methodology, and RS93 (the established scientific opinion). There is no scientific judgement in this, just fact.

    de Freitas et al (2014) resolves the question of fact and the question of science.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/01/new-zealnds-temperature-record-challenged-by-new-skeptical-paper/#comment-1777694

    richardcfromnz
    November 2, 2014 at 4:16 pm

    average joe quoting JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

    >“Again, in large part the evidence on this issue identifies a scientific debate which this Court is not in a position to determine one way or the other.”

    Yes, the question of science was out of the Judge’s domain but the question of fact was his duty in which he failed. This has been addressed upthread here: [link above]

    de Freitas et al (2014) resolves the question of fact and the question of science.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/01/new-zealnds-temperature-record-challenged-by-new-skeptical-paper/#comment-1777694

    # # #

    Gareth Renowden has painted himself into a corner just with this claim alone, let alone the rest.

  3. HT has gone very quiet. Gareth even invited me back in unmoderated.
    I am trying to be polite and constructive….

  4. Ken has been pretty quiet on this topic too.

  5. Alexander+K on November 3, 2014 at 5:16 pm said:

    I am not at all surprised about Renowden painting himself into a corner in reaction to the new paper as it counters his earlier diatribes on the judment of Justice Venning.
    Renowden’s biggest mistake is his view of himself as a towering intellect when he is nothing more than an acolyte in the church of Warmism.
    I wouldn’t bother visiting Renowden’s silly blog, which is little more than a vent for spite and ignorance. But that’s just my view.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation