Hot Topic of hatred

First foray against Renowden’s latest polemic. There’ll be more.

Hot Topic keeps its hands grubby with another poisonous piece of writing. In Danger Dedekind! Heartbreak Ahead (still wrong, still digging, NZ still warming fast) Gareth Renowden first attacks Chris de Freitas:

Given de Freitas’ track record, it is unsurprising that I queried the peer review process at Environmental Modelling and Assessment.

No, it IS surprising, since it’s a completely different journal and Chris is not the editor.

Renowden is referring to the new paper A Reanalysis of Long-Term Surface Air Temperature Trends in New Zealand, which he is trying by fair means and foul to criticise, demean and destroy.

But, in the ‘track record’ Renowden fabricates, Chris was an editor, while in publishing this seminal paper, he was an author. The author requests publication, while the editor allows it.

The author cannot demand publication. That would be like a half-back demanding that his coach keep him on the team. How does Renowden think he managed it?

Of course, Prof de Freitas didn’t manage anything of the kind, and now Renowden’s just dug himself an even deeper hole with the editors of the journal.

In Renowden’s other-worldly existence, papers disagreeing with his pet theories could never achieve publication on merit alone, because they’re obviously wrong.

He perhaps genuinely believes that the authors he complains about could not have actually merited publication of their papers, nor that a capable and honest editor might hold opinions that differ from his.

 

33 Thoughts on “Hot Topic of hatred

  1. Alexander+K on November 6, 2014 at 8:40 am said:

    I am mystified as to why so many obviously intelligent individuals waste their time attempting to stem the flow of nonsensical bile from Renowden. I visualise him blanketed with snow and ice while shouting, his voice choked with passion, ‘The heat, The Heat!’

  2. Heh, heh, that’s good.

    I’m sure I’ve said this before, Alexander, but we don’t wade through his tosh and carefully refute his arguments for him alone (he is a hard man to care for). Just as the points he makes come from others, so our rebuttals are aimed at others—our supporters and interested bystanders, such as you and other straight thinkers. I myself feel better every time I learn exactly why there’s no merit in the alarmist arguments. We keep the record straight so we can all contradict the lies and distortions. Keep an eye on the blog over the next few days, Alexander, we’re going through the ‘nonsensical bile’ and extracting the debating points to rebut them. You should enjoy it.

  3. Apparently I am not a serious person because I haven’t read the paper on goats shrinking due to climate change

    Actually I didn’t even read the article. I saw the headline and laughed.

    I’m no shrinking violet but I find shrinking goats a bit hard to swallow, and why should I be so concerned about someone else’s kids?

  4. Hilarious, Andy. But of course goats of any kind are hard to swallow.

  5. Richard C (NZ) on November 6, 2014 at 11:23 am said:

    [Gareth] – “Sadly for Bob and his co-authors, he has only managed to dig himself into an even deeper hole.”

    No Gareth, that would be you, here’s a tip:

    First law of holes: “If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.”

    The meaning behind this proverb is that if you find yourself in an untenable position you should stop and change tack, rather than carry on exacerbating it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_holes

    [Gareth] – “From 1990 to 1996, Climate Research published no papers by any of the following sceptic “pals”:….”
    [Gareth] – “After de Freitas resigned his editorial role in 2003, publications from the pals stopped appearing in Climate Research.”

    Think about that a bit more Gareth.

    [Gareth] – “I shall bow to the views of Steve McIntyre (yes, that Steve) at Bishop Hill2 on dFDB 2014’s lacklustre support for anyone wishing to reproduce their results:”

    Premature bowing Gareth. Much response to Steve M to mull over (it will take a while) and to date and time, Steve M has not got back: http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2014/10/31/new-zealands-temperature-record.html?currentPage=2#comments

    Steve M might be surprised by what he’s reading too, if he bothers to get to grips with the nitty gritty i.e. the issues are far greater then code which is immaterial. But if he really is chasing code then I’ve referred him to BOM, see this:
    http://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/11/last-post-for-niwas-recognised-methods/#comment-1247811

    [Gareth] – “…from 1992 onwards the 7SS was compiled using RS93 methods properly applied.”

    Huh? It’s been arbitrarily applied.

    JUDGMENT OF VENNING J
    [78] As noted, the Trust contends that, rather than apply the best recognised scientific opinion to produce the 7SS, NIWA applied the thesis. NIWA’s position however, is that the methodology relied on to produce the 7SS was in fact derived from the same methodology found in RS93. There is a stark conflict between the parties on this point. It is essentially a factual dispute which does not require the Court to decide which of two tenable scientific opinions should be preferred.

    “Derived from” is not the same as “properly applied” in the first instance Gareth. But in your defense, you’re not the only one struggling to grasp the issue – Venning didn’t either.

    Gareth quotes JUDGMENT OF VENNING J [54] – “I accept Mr Smith’s criticism of Mr Dedekind’s evidence to the extent that Mr Dedekind is not an expert in the application of statistical techniques in the field of climate science…..”

    But professional statisticians deal with data from multiple fields. What does Venning J say about the professional statistical review of the ‘Statistical Audit’ Gareth? And besides Gareth, Mr Dedekind DOES now have “expertise in the application of statistical techniques in the field of climate science”, doesn’t he? A published paper doing just that.

    [Gareth] – “Well, no, since it [M12] is entirely about the proper application of Rhoades and Salinger’s methodology — but it is a direct problem for what dFDB 2014 calls RS93 — a misapplication of that methodology.”

    Again, huh? See above re “derived from” and “properly applied”. Not the same in the case of M12. And de Freitas et do not “derive from”.

    [Gareth] – “At the very least, dFDB 2014 should have addressed the existence of Mullan’s paper, and explained why the application of RS93 in that paper is not preferable to their interpretation of it.”

    Rubbish. dFDB14 is not a comment on M12. Look at the title, it is “A Reanalysis of Long-Term Surface Air Temperature Trends in New Zealand”. And it is a faithful application of RS93. M12 is not, contrary to Gareth’s claim that M12 is “the correct application of the methodology described in Rhoades and Salinger’s 1993 paper” This makes M12 irrelevant to dFDB14. This is the issue Gareth – grasp it. Mullen can comment on dFDB14 if he wishes, nothing stopping him. Or, as Bob D puts it, “By the way, nothing in anything we’ve done precludes NIWA doing their own RS93 analysis. Why have they not done this yet?”

    [Gareth] – “But it doesn’t appear Dedekind has done this for Masterton in dFDB 2014. Table 3 in the paper shows no adjustment made for the 1920 site move, but if you apply RS93 k=2 — their preferred method — this would change to -0.3ºC and have to be applied because it meets their statistical significance test”

    Firstly, Refer NIWA “Creating a Composite Temperature Series for Masterton” http://www.niwa.co.nz/sites/niwa.co.nz/files/import/attachments/Masterton_CompositeTemperatureSeries_13Dec2010_FINAL.pdf

    Adjustment for Site Change in 1920 [NIWA]
    “We conclude that Essex Street (Site 5) was, on average, 0.21 °C cooler than Worksop Road (Site 4).”

    Now the ‘Statistical Audit’ SI page 50 pdf applying RS93:

    The pre-1920 data is poor. NIWA notes this, in footnote 20 on page 11:

    Salinger (1981) noted that by comparison to observations at other stations, the Masterton temperature record prior to 1920 was only ‘fair’ and should be viewed with caution.

    The weighting factors were calculated using k=1, and are: Station ρ w
    Thorndon
    0.73
    0.24
    Albert Park
    0.58
    0.09
    Christchurch Gardens
    0.68
    0.18
    Taihape
    0.88
    0.49
    For the case of the 1920 adjustment, the results are: k Adjustment δ Contains zero? Valid adjustment?
    1
    -0.11 ± 0.39 °C
    Yes
    No
    2
    -0.24 ± 0.25 °C
    Yes
    No
    So the adjustment is not made.
    http://www.climateconversation.org.nz/docs/Statistical%20Audit%20of%20the%20NIWA%207-Station%20Review%20Aug%202011%20SI.pdf

    de Freitas et al (2014) is simply the same application of RS93 with results page 8 pdf. Any statistician should be able to reproduce this given the criteria in the RS93 method.

    [Gareth] – “Dedekind claims that NIWA never considered k=4”

    It would have been helpful to provide a quote to support this assertion but no. Instead I read this in Bob’s initial rebuttal:

    “There is little doubt that RS93 recommends the use of short time periods before and after a site change. They specifically mention one and two year periods either side and in their worked example in section 2.4 they use two years. RS93 do not use four year periods for comparison, except in another part of the paper dealing with isolated stations (not relevant here). Any assertion that makes the claim that RS93 does not use one or two year periods is false. Any assertion that RS93 uses four year periods is false.”

    It’s about the RS93 method Gareth, not your strawman.

    And obviously Gareth has a ghost writer, I wonder who? Whoever he is he still wants to overturn the Mean paradigm in favour of Max/Min as per ACORN-SAT. In other words, the entire 7SS, whether NIWA or NZCSC, is rubbish and should be scrapped. I think the ghost writer might be Mullen (not Salinger after all) because Gareth and his assistant tout M12 as gospel re Max/Min. Curiously, M10 deals with Mean for the Masterton 1920 example above, not Max/Min. And again, as Bob D puts it, “why, in NIWA’s Review of the 7SS, did they not do this? Why did they use the mean, as we did? We followed their lead, after all.”

  6. The hatred should be really reserved for the TVOne Facebook page which sparked a veritable orgy of mouth-foaming vituperation after Bryan Leyland’s TV appearance.

    Very amusing, but slightly disturbing.

  7. It must be hard to maintain the level of invective that one sees in left wing blogs in general. There must be some serious blood pressure levels out there

    The Standard is a particular point in case. HT is a vicar’s tea party in comparison

  8. Richard C (NZ) on November 6, 2014 at 12:08 pm said:

    >”I think the ghost writer might be Mullen (not Salinger after all) because Gareth and his assistant tout M12 as gospel re Max/Min.”

    Mullen (2012): http://www.metsoc.org.nz/publications/journals

    2. Data and Method
    (a) Station temperature data
    The data used in this study are monthly
    temperatures, which are all freely available
    from NIWA’s Climate Database
    (http://cliflo.niwa.co.nz). Both monthly
    minimum and maximum temperatures are
    used on occasion, although most emphasis is placed on the monthly mean temperature
    (derived from the average of the daily
    minimum and daily maximum).

  9. Don’t tell us that! Surely, sir, you exaggerate!

  10. Richard C (NZ) on November 6, 2014 at 12:12 pm said:

    >shouting, his voice choked with passion, ‘The heat, The Heat!’

    Yes, Gareth – “NZ still warming fast”

    de Freitas et al (2014):

    “Extant 1868 archives record the national normal mean surface temperature at 13.1 °C (when converted from degrees Fahrenheit) being the average of 10+years read at six representative weather stations.”

    NIWA NZT7
    2010, 13.1
    2011, 12.8
    2012, 12.5
    2013, 13.4

  11. Martyn Martin Bradbury’s blog The Daily Blog is another crucible of hatred

  12. Ah, no link—but I’ve seen it anyway!

  13. Richard C (NZ) on November 6, 2014 at 3:08 pm said:

    >[Gareth] – “From 1990 to 1996, Climate Research published no papers by any of the following sceptic “pals”:….”
    >[Gareth] – “After de Freitas resigned his editorial role in 2003, publications from the pals stopped appearing in Climate Research.”

    ‘Political bias in peer reviewed science’ – Jo Nova
    http://joannenova.com.au/2014/11/political-bias-in-peer-reviewed-science/#more-39332

    Quotes The New Yorker: Is Social Psychology Biased Against Republicans? By Maria Konnikova

    “One early study had psychologists review abstracts that were identical except for the result, and found that participants “rated those in which the results were in accord with their own beliefs as better.” Another found that reviewers rejected papers with controversial findings because of “poor methodology” while accepting papers with identical methods if they supported more conventional beliefs in the field. Yet a third, involving both graduate students and practicing scientists, showed that research was rated as significantly higher in quality if it agreed with the rater’s prior beliefs. When Armstrong and the Drake University professor Raymond Hubbard followed publication records at sixteen American Psychological Association journals over a two-year period, comparing rejected to published papers—the journals’ editors had agreed to share submitted materials—they found that those about controversial topics were reviewed far more harshly.”

    # # #

    >”…reviewers rejected papers with controversial findings because of “poor methodology while accepting papers with identical methods if they supported more conventional beliefs in the field.”

    >”…comparing rejected to published papers—the journals’ editors had agreed to share submitted materials—they found that those about controversial topics were reviewed far more harshly.”

    For social psychology at work in climate science see Climate Research journal above prior to 1996 and after 2003.

  14. Richard C (NZ) on November 6, 2014 at 6:30 pm said:

    Bob, are you there?

    Re Masterton 1920 upthread – M12 vs M10/NIWA/deF et al/’Statistical Audit’/SI. I’m trying to identify the fundamental difference(s):

    Mullen (2012) – page 5 pdf:
    http://www.metsoc.org.nz/publications/journals

    ‘Statistical Audit’ SI – page 48 pdf:
    http://www.climateconversation.org.nz/docs/Statistical%20Audit%20of%20the%20NIWA%207-Station%20Review%20Aug%202011%20SI.pdf

    M12 “Missing May” is dealt with differently to M10 which was the original work i.e. M10 is the NIWA 7SS series, M12 is not. Essentially M12 is saying M10/NIWA used a “bad” fill value and therefore the M10/NIWA 7SS is invalid. They haven’t stated explicitly but I suppose M12 implies NZCSC do too and thence de F et al is invalid too. What is your assessment of this aspect of the “Missing May” issue Bob?

    Except the M12 Figure 2 graph, along with the posturing at HT, leads one to believe that the fill value is the fundamental difference because the 95% confidence interval does not include zero for the “Missing May 1920” adjustments line (red). But the adjustments as a function of k in Figure 2 are calculated after weightings which seem to me to be the fundamental difference, M12 vs M10/NIWA/NZCSC.

    On the importance of weighting the SI quotes M10 which states:

    “Since we actually want to know how temperatures at the east coast site of Waingawa varied before and after 1920, it is preferable to avoid comparison with non-east coast sites during a period in which they are responding quite differently; a comparison over such a period would only introduce greater uncertainty into the estimated adjustment.”

    The SI says this in response:

    “Strangely, they nevertheless continue to persist with their own method, even though the Rhoades & Salinger method deals with this problem by using only one or two years of comparison before and after, and using correlation-based weightings to exclude sites that vary due to other influences”

    So we don’t consider M12 k = 7 weightings because the RS93 consideration is confined to k = 1 and 2. Now to the SI weighting factors calculated using k=1 which were listed upthread but with the corresponding M12 k = 1 weightings added:

    SI, M12
    Thorndon
    0.24, 0.21
    Albert Park
    0.09, 0.11,
    Christchurch Gardens
    0.18, 0.48,
    Taihape
    0.49, 0.20

    This seems to be to be the fundamental difference in rationale between M12 and NZCSC/de F et al. As we’ve all been saying about NIWA, M12 gives greater weighting to sites remote from Masterton than to neighbouring sites, Conversely NZCSC/de freitas et al gives greater weighting to neighbouring than to remote sites.

    But M12 is a major revision of M10. I find the ‘Statistical Audit’ the easiest to follow on the RS93 method so I’ll quote from that re M10:

    Appendix B
    Comments on NIWA’s method
    Weightings
    NIWA do not weight the individual neighbour station shifts at all. The correct R&S method for weighting is described fully in section 2.3 on page 905 of R&S:

    The weights {wi , i = 1, . . . , n} are based on correlations between the target station and neighbouring
    stations. It is better to use correlations between the differenced series {y(i)} (with k = 1) than between the raw series {x(i)}

    The only time NIWA uses correlations at all is when comparing annual values between neighbouring stations, and then only to justify the use of each station. The correlation period (1972 onwards) also doesn’t coincide with the times of most of the station changes.

    http://www.climateconversation.org.nz/docs/Statistical%20Audit%20of%20the%20NIWA%207-Station%20Review%20Aug%202011.pdf

    Have I got this right Bob?

    # # #

    If Gareth (Mullen? Salinger? Whoever?) is touting M12 then he’s really only just opened a new can of worms for NIWA by highlighting the different weighting issues in M10 and M12 and the major weighting difference between M10 and M12. M12 says M10 is wrong for a “bad” fill value. NZCSC says M10 is wrong for lack of weighting. Then deFDB14/NZCSC say M12 is wrong for bad weighting after M12’s hasty revision of M10 which is a completely different rationale for NIWA’s 7SS as it stands (M10).

    Can it get any worse for NIWA?

  15. Richard C (NZ) on November 6, 2014 at 7:33 pm said:

    Forgot the correlation comparison. For k =1:

    SI, M12
    Thorndon
    0.73, 0.79
    Albert Park
    0.58, 0.67
    Christchurch Gardens
    0.68, 0.97
    Taihape
    0.88. 0.78

    The weights are computed using the 4th power of the correlations, both SI and M12 use the same weighting expression so why the difference, SI vs M12? Those M12 correlations look highly suspect.

    The SI specifically states the RS93 correlation expression in Appendix A

    M12 does not state any correlation expression used, let alone that of RS93 i.e. there is no way of knowing how M12 arrived at the correlation values stated in M12. Peer review at Weather and Climate missed that.

    I note from the respective dates, SI (2011) vs Mullen (2012) that M12 is merely catchup to the ‘Statistical Audit’.

  16. Richard C (NZ) on November 6, 2014 at 9:39 pm said:

    de Freitas et al (2014) also explicitly state the RS93 correlation expression (M12 doesn’t), de Freitas et al also de-trend:

    5 Method
    5.1 Description
    Our method follows the RS93 neighbour comparison techniques
    for estimating the effect of known site changes but
    extends that approach to comparisons between well-correlated
    distant stations. We de-trend the inhomogeneous section
    where necessary by using the slope calculated from a reference
    time series.

    M12 says nothing about de-trending, we could assume de-trending but who knows?

    But it’s correlation and weighting where the big M12 omissions are. M12 states:

    2. Data and Method
    Rhoades and Salinger (1993) suggest different
    possibilities for the weighting of separate
    adjustments from the multiple comparison
    sites. In their worked example, they specify
    weights that depend on the fourth power of
    the inter-station correlations.

    Except the “inter-station correlations” are of the Y-series, not simply inter-station. Looking at the SI Y-series for Masterton 1920 Christchurch Gardens vs Waingawa, no way is there a 0.97 correlation as M12 calculates. And M12 don’t show a Y-series graph.

    Upthread I said:

    >”The weights are computed using the 4th power of the correlations, both SI and M12 use the same weighting expression”

    This is only partially correct. Yes both SI and M12 state identical “weighted difference between the y(i) series and the base series y(0)” expressions but M12 leaves out 2 entire steps in “2. Data and Method (b) Rhoades and Salinger methodology”:

    1) The correlation calculation “between each differenced series y(i) (i=1,2,…,n) and y(0” – Pi

    2) The “weights … computed using the 4th power of the correlations” – Wi

    Leads me to think M12 may have calculated correlations from inter-station rather than Y-series – Bob?

  17. Richard C (NZ) on November 6, 2014 at 10:03 pm said:

    >”Yes both SI and M12 state identical “weighted difference between the y(i) series and the base series y(0)” expressions”

    Just to be clear for any lurkers, this is Z (step 3)

    W12 neglect/omit Pi (step 1) and Wi (step 2) details.

  18. Richard C (NZ) on November 6, 2014 at 10:29 pm said:

    Nick November 5, 2014 at 10:16 pm [Hot Topic]

    NIWA’s page of references on 7SS clearly cites Rhoades and Salinger 93 as the source of the methodology, as well as Fouhy et al 92 on site details.

    It’s hard to understand Dedekind missing that….

    http://hot-topic.co.nz/danger-dedekind-heartbreak-ahead-still-wrong-still-digging-nz-still-warming-fast/#comment-45244

    He didn’t:

    Statistical Audit of the NIWA 7-Station Review
    July 2011
    In 2010, NIWA published their review of their 7-station temperature series for New Zealand. The review was based upon the statistically-based adjustment method of Rhoades & Salinger (1993) for neighbouring stations. In this report, we examine the adjustments in detail, and show that NIWA did not follow the Rhoades & Salinger method correctly. We also show that had NIWA followed Rhoades & Salinger correctly, the resultant trend for the 7-station temperature series for New Zealand would have been significantly lower than the trend they obtained.
    http://www.climateconversation.org.nz/docs/Statistical%20Audit%20of%20the%20NIWA%207-Station%20Review%20Aug%202011.pdf

    That review is M10. Nick might consider the major differences between M10 and M12 that Gareth cites. See upthread starting here:
    http://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/11/hot-topic-of-hatred/#comment-1249391

  19. Richard C,

    The May 1920 issue at Masterton has little to do with RS93, except that the go-no go result at k=2 (k=1 fails regardless) is on a knife-edge of statistical significance, based on what method you use to in-fill missing data. That is why Mullan is harping on about it so much – it’s pretty much all he’s got. RS93 makes no judgement on how to in-fill, in fact it implicitly assumes the data is good enough not to have to.

    I’ll be covering this further soon.

  20. Richard C (NZ) on November 7, 2014 at 8:27 am said:

    Thanks Bob, I’ll look forward to your post.

    >”is on a knife-edge of statistical significance, based on what method you use to in-fill missing data”

    Yes, and based on what correlations and weightings you calculate from what I can see from the respective differences, M12 vs SI, upthread.

    Seems to me that if M12 has indeed got this wrong with respect to RS93 then a retraction by Weather and Climate is in order.

  21. Richard,

    No, I wouldn’t say M12 has got anything ‘wrong’ in that sense, rather M12 is looking at other issues – it’s discussing modifications and extensions to RS93. Which of course it’s free to do.

  22. Richard C (NZ) on November 7, 2014 at 9:16 am said:

    >”No, I wouldn’t say M12 has got anything ‘wrong’ in that sense,”

    Yes understand with respect to the “Missing May” but my comment, viz, “if M12 has indeed got this wrong with respect to RS93” was in respect to 2 different possibilities I think I’ve identified. Take a look at the correlation and weighting comparisons, M12 vs Audit SI, from upthread:

    SI, M12 correlation comparison
    Thorndon
    0.73, 0.79
    Albert Park
    0.58, 0.67
    Christchurch Gardens
    0.68, 0.97
    Taihape
    0.88. 0.78

    SI, M12 weighting comparison
    Thorndon
    0.24, 0.21
    Albert Park
    0.09, 0.11,
    Christchurch Gardens
    0.18, 0.48,
    Taihape
    0.49, 0.20

    Repeating from upthread:

    Both SI and M12 state identical “weighted difference between the y(i) series and the base series y(0)” expressions but M12 leaves out 2 entire steps in “2. Data and Method (b) Rhoades and Salinger methodology”:

    1) The correlation calculation “between each differenced series y(i) (i=1,2,…,n) and y(0″ – Pi

    2) The “weights … computed using the 4th power of the correlations” – Wi

    M12 does not state any correlation expression used, let alone that of RS93 i.e. there is no way of knowing how M12 arrived at the correlation values stated in M12. Peer review at Weather and Climate missed that.

    Looking at the SI Y-series for Masterton 1920 Christchurch Gardens vs Waingawa, no way is there a 0.97 correlation as M12 calculates. And M12 don’t show a Y-series graph.

    Leads me to think M12 may have calculated correlations from inter-station rather than Y-series – Bob?

    If I’m right and M12 is wrong then the paper should be retracted.

    [Reply by starting a new thread if you wish Bob – might be easier]

  23. Richard C (NZ) on November 7, 2014 at 11:03 am said:

    Mullen (2012) was published in Weather and Climate, a journal of The Meteorological Society of New Zealand.

    Notable names occurring recently in PRESIDENTS, VICE PRESIDENTS, SECRETARY, EDITOR, CIRCULATION MANAGER, COMMITTEE MEMBERS:

    Mr G Renowden;
    Dr A B Mullan
    Dr M J Salinger
    Dr J Renwick
    Dr A Tait

    http://www.metsoc.org.nz/about/committee-members

    [M12] – “The author [Brett Mullen] thanks Stephen Stuart (NIWA) for a careful review of the manuscript”

    No details of the submission and acceptance dates at Weather and Climate..

  24. Richard C (NZ) on November 7, 2014 at 11:32 am said:

    >“The author [Brett Mullen] thanks Stephen Stuart (NIWA) for a careful review of the manuscript [Mullen (2012)]”

    This, if I understand correctly, is what is known as “pal review”.

    [Gareth Renowden] – “PAL REVIEW ……. Given de Freitas’ track record, it is unsurprising that I queried the peer review process at Environmental Modelling and Assessment. Dedekind may choose to live in a parallel universe where white is in fact black, but the rest of us will accept the colours we see at face value.”
    http://hot-topic.co.nz/danger-dedekind-heartbreak-ahead-still-wrong-still-digging-nz-still-warming-fast/#more-13851

    The colour black does spring to mind though Gareth – as in pots and kettles.

  25. Richard C (NZ) on November 7, 2014 at 12:57 pm said:

    >”No details of the submission and acceptance dates at Weather and Climate.”

    Right at the bottom:

    “Submitted to Weather and Climate May 2012, revised June 2012.”

    Of course Gareth will be baying for M12 code and SI:

    [Gareth] – “Workings or SI ….I shall bow to the views of Steve McIntyre (yes, that Steve) at Bishop Hill2 on dFDB 2014’s lacklustre support for anyone wishing to reproduce their results: ” I strongly recommend that the authors provide turnkey code showing their results. […]”
    Quite so. Extraordinary claims — and lets be clear, dFDB 2014’s assertion that warming in NZ is one third of that previously calculated by experts is an extraordinary claim — require extraordinary proof.”
    http://hot-topic.co.nz/danger-dedekind-heartbreak-ahead-still-wrong-still-digging-nz-still-warming-fast/

    Does that apply to M12 Gareth?

    I see C.R. de Freitas in W & C publications too.

  26. Andy on March 3, 2015 at 4:00 pm said:

    I recently spent quite a bit of time defending myself at HT against a certain Ian Forrester who accuses all and sundry of being despicable liars

    He accused me of being a liar because I quoted the Wikipedia entry for Arhennius which claimed that he had revised his estimates of CS downwards. Forrester said I was “lying” because the quote was not backed up by fact

    Taking aside the curious notion that quoting Wikipedia is “lying”, Forrester himself found the original paper which has the quote in it (which I translated from German) that completely supported the original quote I made.

    All the other commenters were congratulating Ian Forrester on outing the “denier” for “lying”

    Bizarre

  27. Andy on May 13, 2016 at 10:59 am said:

    Meanwhile, I am now accused of having mental health issues for not seeing the Alberta forest files as being evidence of climate change, despite the evidence that it was arson, in a tinder dry El Nino year, at a time that the NDP government scaled back the firefighting dept by 80%, and cancelled the water bombing aircraft.

    Oh no, nothing to do with that, it is “climate change’s” fault, and Evil Deniers like me are going to have to “face the music” soon, presumably in one of those camps that Thomas keeps telling us about.

  28. Richard C (NZ) on May 13, 2016 at 2:38 pm said:

    >”Alberta forest files as being evidence of climate change”

    Or not:

    Wildfires aren’t abnormal, but are a normal part of the life, death and regeneration of the boreal forest. As Canada’s national wildfire plan from 2006 puts it: “Although often portrayed as a menace to society, wildland fire is, in fact, a natural process that is essential to maintaining the health, productivity, and diversity of most of Canada’s forest ecosystems.”

    http://edmontonjournal.com/news/insight/alberta-battles-the-beast-a-fire-that-creates-its-own-weather-and-causes-green-trees-to-explode

    # # #

    It’s a truly “green” process. But then, this the perspective of the mentally deficient requiring “re-education”, including de-greening if necessary.

  29. Andy on May 13, 2016 at 3:32 pm said:

    Eltoro writes

    So seek therapy, do what it takes to get with the program to reverse the consumption of fossil fuels and give mine and your kids a chance of a future.
    At the moment you are part of the problem, defiantly not the solution and I don`t respect or thank you for it.

    Pompous idiot.

  30. Andy on May 13, 2016 at 5:05 pm said:

    By the way, these protesters in Dunedin were “doing something” about climate change by blockading ANZ bank and causing much distress for pensioners

    Always a good look guys, go for the kids and old uns

    http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/383067/anger-over-protesters-blockade-banks

  31. Andy on May 13, 2016 at 8:37 pm said:

    Herr Thomas of Hot Topic “rebuts” my claims that the budget cuts in the Alberta fires had anything to do with the fires by linking to an article that says the budget cuts in the fire service had nothing to do with the fires.

    Apparently I am mentally ill. If so, it is trying to understand the pretzel logic offered up here.

  32. Mike Jowsey on May 15, 2016 at 8:39 pm said:

    remember my friend that their’s is ‘through the looking glass’

  33. Thomas is now claiming that I am “living proof” that I am a racist, woman beating extremist
    http://hot-topic.co.nz/hiatus-to-end-soon/#comment-48592

    This mentally unstable lunatic is going to regret this

Leave a Reply

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

Post Navigation