Banned again at Hot Topic

Hot Topic logo

Yes, it was I, twice masquerading under another name, trying to inject some reason into the comments at Hot Topic.

I have always refused the notion of not signing my own opinion, but being censored over there forced my hand; unfortunately, being a neophyte forger unveiled it.

Nonetheless, I said nothing I haven’t said elsewhere or wouldn’t be prepared to say openly. But Renowden’s comments reveal a continued avoidance of every topic I raise, so I’ll go another round.

GR: “What a pity he doesn’t have the courage to post under his own name.”

A cheap shot, this; entirely personal and nothing to do with the matter. It’s also illogical, for every time I post a comment, Renowden refuses to publish it. To have the temerity then to criticise me provides the very definition of framing someone.

GR: “Earlier today he … all but called me a liar.”

Since he made three false statements, one could be justified in doing so. The more interesting comment was that, if Renowden still disagrees the [adjustment] methodology is unavailable, he is a truffle short of a lunch. He doesn’t respond to that, but good on him for ignoring the ad hominem bits, even when they’re amusing.

So then he argues again, and I once more explain, about the “no reasons” statement in our paper. It is really so unfortunate that I omitted to say “NIWA give no reasons for any large corrections” and instead relied on the context to impart the full meaning. There is, contrary to what Renowden says, no sophistry in saying this, it is the simple truth.

I had no idea when I wrote it that the paper would be subject to such venomous comment allied with a lack of objective analysis.

After deliberately mistaking our meaning, for the umpteenth time, he falls again to the temptation to scratch my eyes out.

GR: You be the judge. Who’s rewriting history? Treadgold, you are a disgrace, beneath contempt. You don’t even have the balls to put your name to the law suit.


GR [in a later comment]: You attempt to defend the indefensible, and sophistry will get you nowhere. It’s quite clear what you meant. Had you examined the station histories, you would have found ample justification for the corrections that were made — but that didn’t play to the narrative you wanted to establish, which was that warming was an artefact of the adjustments rather than a physical reality.

Gareth should show which of the station histories then available from NIWA showed “ample justification” for the substantial changes that Salinger made.

Perhaps they were those altitude changes NIWA and its minister went to such trouble to explain in Parliament and the press?

Oh, that’s right – no altitude changes were made at any of the seven stations. In describing them, NIWA were just pulling the wool over everybody’s eyes.

We don’t care whether we’re cooling or warming but we do insist on a scientifically-defensible record.

For the record, we don’t say that the temperature record is wrong, but that it very well could be wrong. When NIWA simply justifies its adjustments we will go away.

Visits: 407

25 Thoughts on “Banned again at Hot Topic

  1. Andy on 19/08/2010 at 9:36 am said:

    It’s quite hard to follow any of the threads on HT, because of the voting system that hides comments. It’s like listening to a one-sided phone conversation.

  2. Quentin F on 19/08/2010 at 12:38 pm said:

    Is it worth going there anyway. AGW is incorrect QED! 😀

  3. Quentin F on 19/08/2010 at 12:43 pm said:

    I just downloaded from SPPI the definitive paper from John McLean on the IPCC con game.
    The game’s over for the AGW alarmists.

    • So far I’ve only skimmed the summary, but oh, how promising it looks! I’ll read a bit more as time allows then start a thread for discussion. Or start a thread THEN read the paper…

  4. Flipper on 19/08/2010 at 1:55 pm said:


    Please do NOT take Renowden (Mr no longer applies) so seriously. Everyone should ignore him.

    But if he, Hunter, Wratt, Salinger (well, the ghost of) et al must be acknowledged, I believe a comment (suitably adapted) I posted on another blog in respect of an entirely different matter, is now appropriate here –

    “So, Renowden , there is always a problem with “left wing” (AGW) bloggers, is there not?

    It is its invariable association with a pernicious corollary, namely the self-preening and delusional conceit that adherents are the inheritors of a uniquely sensitive ethical, written and spoken sensibility, which confers upon them the right, nay the duty, to dictate to their fellows. That manifestation of narcissism is one which I and many others reject. For such contributors of this stamp, Queen Street, Cathedral Square or Evans Bay are more suitable locations “.

    ’nuff said!

    • …should ignore him. You’re right. I will now.

      I like your analysis of the AGW believers. They DO attempt to change other people’s behaviour. In stark contrast to that, [most of] the climate realists are looking honestly for the facts.

  5. Flipper on 19/08/2010 at 2:05 pm said:

    Oopps…. Should have mentioned it before…..

    OSH please take note

    Narcissism, otherwise known as “weatherstone’s disease”, is an occupational hazard for Dunedin academics.

    One hopes that the Royal Society is aware of this problem.

  6. Flipper on 19/08/2010 at 3:31 pm said:

    Thanks Andy. Was not aware of Henry Miller’s diagnosis of “Gore’s disease” , but it seems that it could be applied to many “NIWA’s”.

  7. Bob D on 19/08/2010 at 3:57 pm said:

    I’m sure Gareth will be happy about this:
    Global Warming Side-Effect: More Truffles

    Every cloud has a silver lining it seems…

  8. (not so) Silent on 19/08/2010 at 4:03 pm said:

    The thing which gets me about them is that they refuse to even look at information which might cause them to re examine their view.
    Over on Dim Post someone was bleating on about Arctic sea ice disappearing and when I referred them to Steve Goddards post on WUWT which contained a huge amount of independent data showing the ice was recovering, they refused to even look at it because WUWT was a “denier” site.
    For them THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED full stop!
    Talk about having your hands over your ears, eyes closed and singing “la la la la !”

    • Yes, that’s a notable feature. All we can do is to continue to adopt a rational point of view. Because more people are listening to us than are visible or audible on the warmist blogs, and we ought to remain credible to the invisible ones.

  9. Quentin F on 19/08/2010 at 4:08 pm said:

    Dont loose sleep over it they’ve LOST! the Earth has already told them they’re wrong..just the public are mushrooms…..fed bs and kept in the dark…

    • Yes, Quentin, but a massive wheel has begun to turn that will take lots of energy to stop. We are the brakes. Have you seen the size of the bureaucracy committed to the ETS and IPCC reporting obligations just in NZ? Anybody got some figures?

  10. Andy on 19/08/2010 at 4:23 pm said:

    Even establishment academics like Drs Judith Curry and Roger Pielke Jr are routinely referred to as “deniers” (even on our own HT) because they dare to criticise the IPCC process.

    We live in strange times.

  11. You might find this interesting, even SATELLITES are wrong (sometimes? often?):

    oh, and about lefty insanity on blogs (you are daring to disprove their religion doncha know), be of good cheer:

    “I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”
    Margaret Thatcher

    • That’s an astonishing story; I guess it’s been corroborated? I haven’t taken the time to pursue it.

      What a wonderful piece of wisdom from Thatcher. It will be posted on my wall. Not on Facebook; on my office wall! Thanks for passing it on, Lisa.

    • Andy on 19/08/2010 at 6:08 pm said:

      The “satellite-gate” story has been doing the rounds, but I don’t think Anthony Watts has picked up on it for some reason.

      The above article also mentions that Piers Corbyn correctly predicted the Russian heatwave and Pakistan floods, due to movements in the jetstream. Interestingly (and refreshingly) TVOne news also offered the same explanation, with no mention of human induced causes anywhere.

      I’ve almost finished reading Peter Taylor’s “Chill”. This is a great read (though quite long and technical) and offers a lot of insight into not only the natural variability of our climate, but also the shortcomings of the IPCC and the process that drives all this hysteria.
      Given that Taylor has done environmental consultancy for governments, the UN and Greenpeace, we should probably listen to him.

    • Quentin F on 20/08/2010 at 3:18 pm said:

      I think NOAA has some explaining to do I read that a few days ago. The instruments on these sats are often damaged they’ve been in orbit quite a while. See instrument status on I monitor the APT from from the orbiter quite often.

  12. Andy on 20/08/2010 at 7:38 am said:

    Hot Topic had a brief cameo from the estimable Bishop Hill this morning

    It will be interesting to see how long it takes before his simple statement of fact gets voted out of view.

    BH (Andrew Montford, author of “The Hockey Stick Illusion”) is currently working on a review of climategate on behalf of GWPF.

    He gets the treatment from senior propagandist Bob Ward in the Guardian today:

    By the way, HSI is a MUST read.

  13. Pingback: Kiwi science fiction with a message | Open Parachute

Leave a Reply

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

Post Navigation