Apologise? Why?

A cracked egg

It’s hard to know what Mr Renowden is trying to say in his post attacking me/us. Entitled Egg/face interface for Hide and the climate cranks, it asks for an apology from us/me but fails to mention what for.

I’ll have a closer look soon and comment on it. But it looks like the same tiresome stuff, I fear, as we’ve dealt with already. NIWA have told us that they don’t have all the records to give us a full answer but they will reconstruct them and show us why the adjustments are justified. To demonstrate that, they’ve just released the adjustment schedule for Hokitika.

There’s no reason for us to apologise, but we have thanked them.

We (our scientists) are looking at the Hokitika adjustments. We’re also examining Salinger’s thesis. Finally. Hurrah. It’s catastrophically long so any opinion will be a while in coming.

Gareth’s rant has attracted a great many comments, a lot of them rambling off the topic, but too few of any value and, regrettably common at Hot Topic, too many of none.

Views: 401

13 Thoughts on “Apologise? Why?

  1. It is obvious, isn’t it.

    You should apologise for your discredited report.

    Even you now acknowledge that there were site effects and that adjustments were required for them. Your report claimed otherwise.

    Ethically you should aplogise.

    Be a man.

  2. Our report, as you know, showed a significant difference between NIWA’s official graph and the data they provide. Neither matched the other. We care about that, so we asked.

    NIWA are, finally, answering us. It’s a good result, for which I’m sure you will join us in thanking NIWA.

    There’s no call to apologise.

  3. The “significant difference” obviously resulted from your fundamental error. The refusal to incorporate site effects. You even claimed adjustments were unnecessary. That was the basic lie. And that is why the report has been discredited.

    And it was this discredited report that the idiot waved in the air at the EU parliament while he claimed NZs climate data base was fraudulent!

    Hot Topic thinks you should apologise. I think you should ap0ologise. The rest of NZ ignore you.

    • Ken,

      The “significant difference” obviously resulted from your fundamental error.

      NIWA post the data on their web site, not us. We made no error. You claim to have looked at their data. Can you see the difference between them and their official graph? It’s a simple question.

      The refusal to incorporate site effects.

      You mean, NIWA’s refusal to quantify, describe, justify or even mention them.

      You even claimed adjustments were unnecessary. That was the basic lie. And that is why the report has been discredited.

      Stop accusing us of lying. Once again, it was NIWA’s lack of adjustments that we observed. As we are asking for the adjustments, it makes no sense for you to say we think they’re unnecessary.

      And it was this discredited report that the idiot waved in the air at the EU parliament while he claimed NZs climate data base was fraudulent!

      Nobody in the world can claim it is either fraudulent or true, since it lacks basic scientific justification or evidence. If you say it is true, you cannot prove it; if Mr Bloom says it is fraudulent, you cannot disprove it.

      Hot Topic thinks you should apologise. I think you should apologise. The rest of NZ ignore you.

      Except NIWA do not ignore us, they toil on, reconstructing the schedule of adjustments that we asked for.

  4. Barry Brill on 18/02/2010 at 4:21 pm said:

    Ken –
    NIWA sent the raw data from the NZ temperature stations to CRU, NASA and NOAA for the three global temperature series.

    The histories of the stations were available from the NZ Met Service, but none of the three international agencies seemed to think it was necessary to make the post-1980 adjustments that NIWA made.

    Why is that, do you think?

  5. Barry – you will have to provide me with links. I have found one cannot rely on simple assertions made here, no matter how confidently. Always pays to check – and I am happy to do so.

    But this does raise the question.

    What is you stance on adjustments.

    Do you agree with the assertions made in the coalitions paper that there were no sites effects and no adjustments were necessary?

    Do you think there are site effects – yes or no?

    Do you think adjustments are necessary? yes or no?

  6. Barry Brill on 21/02/2010 at 2:06 pm said:

    Ken – Here is something worthwhile for you to chew on: Mark Landsbaun’s list of topics for climate change dinner party discussions:

    ClimateGate – This scandal began the latest round of revelations when thousands of leaked documents from Britain’s East Anglia Climate Research Unit showed systematic suppression and discrediting of climate skeptics’ views and discarding of temperature data, suggesting a bias for making the case for warming. Why do such a thing if, as global warming defenders contend, the “science is settled?”

    FOIGate – The British government has since determined someone at East Anglia committed a crime by refusing to release global warming documents sought in 95 Freedom of Information Act requests. The CRU is one of three international agencies compiling global temperature data. If their stuff’s so solid, why the secrecy?

    ChinaGate – An investigation by the U.K.’s left-leaning Guardian newspaper found evidence that Chinese weather station measurements not only were seriously flawed, but couldn’t be located. “Where exactly are 42 weather monitoring stations in remote parts of rural China?” the paper asked. The paper’s investigation also couldn’t find corroboration of what Chinese scientists turned over to American scientists, leaving unanswered, “how much of the warming seen in recent decades is due to the local effects of spreading cities, rather than global warming?” The Guardian contends that researchers covered up the missing data for years.

    HimalayaGate – An Indian climate official admitted in January that, as lead author of the IPCC’s Asian report, he intentionally exaggerated when claiming Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035 in order to prod governments into action. This fraudulent claim was not based on scientific research or peer-reviewed. Instead it was originally advanced by a researcher, since hired by a global warming research organization, who later admitted it was “speculation” lifted from a popular magazine. This political, not scientific, motivation at least got some researcher funded.

    PachauriGate – Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman who accepted with Al Gore the Nobel Prize for scaring people witless, at first defended the Himalaya melting scenario. Critics, he said, practiced “voodoo science.” After the melting-scam perpetrator ‘fessed up, Pachauri admitted to making a mistake. But, he insisted, we still should trust him.

    PachauriGate II – Pachauri also claimed he didn’t know before the 192-nation climate summit meeting in Copenhagen in December that the bogus Himalayan glacier claim was sheer speculation. But the London Times reported that a prominent science journalist said he had pointed out those errors in several e-mails and discussions to Pachauri, who “decided to overlook it.” Stonewalling? Cover up? Pachauri says he was “preoccupied.” Well, no sense spoiling the Copenhagen party, where countries like Pachauri’s India hoped to wrench billions from countries like the United States to combat global warming’s melting glaciers. Now there are calls for Pachauri’s resignation.

    SternGate – One excuse for imposing worldwide climate crackdown has been the U.K.’s 2006 Stern Report, an economic doomsday prediction commissioned by the government. Now the U.K. Telegraph reports that quietly after publication “some of these predictions had been watered down because the scientific evidence on which they were based could not be verified.” Among original claims now deleted were that northwest Australia has had stronger typhoons in recent decades, and that southern Australia lost rainfall because of rising ocean temperatures. Exaggerated claims get headlines. Later, news reporters disclose the truth. Why is that?

    SternGate II – A researcher now claims the Stern Report misquoted his work to suggest a firm link between global warming and more-frequent and severe floods and hurricanes. Robert Muir-Wood said his original research showed no such link. He accused Stern of “going far beyond what was an acceptable extrapolation of the evidence.” We’re shocked.

    AmazonGate – The London Times exposed another shocker: the IPCC claim that global warming will wipe out rain forests was fraudulent, yet advanced as “peer-reveiwed” science. The Times said the assertion actually “was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise,” “authored by two green activists” and lifted from a report from the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental pressure group. The “research” was based on a popular science magazine report that didn’t bother to assess rainfall. Instead, it looked at the impact of logging and burning. The original report suggested “up to 40 percent” of Brazilian rain forest was extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall, but the IPCC expanded that to cover the entire Amazon, the Times reported.

    PeerReviewGate – The U.K. Sunday Telegraph has documented at least 16 nonpeer-reviewed reports (so far) from the advocacy group World Wildlife Fund that were used in the IPCC’s climate change bible, which calls for capping manmade greenhouse gases.

    RussiaGate – Even when global warming alarmists base claims on scientific measurements, they’ve often had their finger on the scale. Russian think tank investigators evaluated thousands of documents and e-mails leaked from the East Anglia research center and concluded readings from the coldest regions of their nation had been omitted, driving average temperatures up about half a degree.

    Russia-Gate II – Speaking of Russia, a presentation last October to the Geological Society of America showed how tree-ring data from Russia indicated cooling after 1961, but was deceptively truncated and only artfully discussed in IPCC publications. Well, at least the tree-ring data made it into the IPCC report, albeit disguised and misrepresented.

    U.S.Gate – If Brits can’t be trusted, are Yanks more reliable? The U.S. National Climate Data Center has been manipulating weather data too, say computer expert E. Michael Smith and meteorologist Joesph D’Aleo. Forty years ago there were 6,000 surface-temperature measuring stations, but only 1,500 by 1990, which coincides with what global warming alarmists say was a record temperature increase. Most of the deleted stations were in colder regions, just as in the Russian case, resulting in misleading higher average temperatures.

    IceGate – Hardly a continent has escaped global warming skewing. The IPCC based its findings of reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and in Africa on a feature story of climbers’ anecdotes in a popular mountaineering magazine, and a dissertation by a Switzerland university student, quoting mountain guides. Peer-reviewed? Hype? Worse?

    ResearchGate – The global warming camp is reeling so much lately it must have seemed like a major victory when a Penn State University inquiry into climate scientist Michael Mann found no misconduct regarding three accusations of climate research impropriety. But the university did find “further investigation is warranted” to determine whether Mann engaged in actions that “seriously deviated from accepted practices for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities.” Being investigated for only one fraud is a global warming victory these days.

    ReefGate – Let’s not forget the alleged link between climate change and coral reef degradation. The IPCC cited not peer-reviewed literature, but advocacy articles by Greenpeace, the publicity-hungry advocacy group, as its sole source for this claim.

    AfricaGate – The IPCC claim that rising temperatures could cut in half agricultural yields in African countries turns out to have come from a 2003 paper published by a Canadian environmental think tank – not a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

    DutchGate – The IPCC also claimed rising sea levels endanger the 55 percent of the Netherlands it says is below sea level. The portion of the Netherlands below sea level actually is 20 percent. The Dutch environment minister said she will no longer tolerate climate researchers’ errors.

    AlaskaGate – Geologists for Space Studies in Geophysics and Oceanography and their U.S. and Canadian colleagues say previous studies largely overestimated by 40 percent Alaskan glacier loss for 40 years. This flawed data are fed into those computers to predict future warming.

  7. Barry – diverting attention, eh?
    I repeat:
    But this does raise the question.

    What is you stance on adjustments.

    Do you agree with the assertions made in the coalitions paper that there were no sites effects and no adjustments were necessary?

    Do you think there are site effects – yes or no?

    Do you think adjustments are necessary? yes or no?

    Why avoid answering these?

  8. Ken,

    Do you think there are site effects – yes or no?

    For the umpteenth time, our study did not deny the presence of site effects. We did observe, however, that at that time NIWA themselves did not acknowledge any site effects. Show me where they mention site effects! They failed to mention the adjustments they made and why they made them. Your question is meaningless; it asks us to confirm not what we have denied, but what NIWA have denied.

    Do you think adjustments are necessary? yes or no?

    We are asking NIWA for the adjustments they made and the reasons they made them. Clearly, we believe they are necessary, so your question is meaningless; we have already stated the answer. Note that you’re asking us to confirm what NIWA themselves refused to disclose until we persisted in asking.

    They are now reconstructing the schedule of adjustments for all seven stations.

  9. Richard, my questions are directed at Barry. He is trying to avoid them with all his gates.

    You have already provided your answers.

    By the way- it is silly for you to continue denying the text of your report. You did claim there were no site effects and no need for adjustments. It’s there in black and white. However, I can appreciate your desire to hide that since it has been discredited.

    • Ken,

      Kindly quote the statements you claim occur in our study. Then re-read my last answer. I will not repeat it. More repetition of your questions will be ignored.

  10. Richard, we have been through this several times. Don’t be so silly.

    My questions are for Barry. You have already answered them.

  11. Pingback: Sorry seems to be the hardest word — Hot Topic

Leave a Reply

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

Post Navigation