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.

13
Leave a Reply

avatar
11 Comment threads
2 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
4 Comment authors
Sorry seems to be the hardest word — Hot TopicRichardKenKenBarry Brill Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Ken
Guest

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.

Richard
Guest

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.

Ken
Guest

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.

Barry Brill
Guest
Barry Brill

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?

Ken
Guest

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?

Barry Brill
Guest
Barry Brill

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… Read more »

Ken
Guest

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?

Richard
Guest

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.

Ken
Guest

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.

Richard
Guest

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.

Richard
Guest

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.… Read more »

Ken
Guest

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

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

trackback

[…] a post titled Apologise? Why? back in February, Treadgold appeared to have forgotten my earlier remarks, and asserted that […]

Post Navigation