NIWA’s data proves NZ warming halt

It’s getting worse than they thought (for them!)

NZ monthly temperature anomalies 2001-2012 from NIWA reports

This insight into the NZ temperature record is from the resourceful Bob D. I’ve promoted it because it’s priceless. Bob says:

NIWA’s Climate Updates

I thought I’d share the local New Zealand temperatures over the last decade. I downloaded all NIWA’s Climate Updates from their website (the first one I could find was Oct 2001) and plotted the temperature anomalies that were published for each month.

Of course, what with Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming and all, I expected to see temperatures rising (accelerating, even) in a wild, out-of-control fashion, as the water vapour feedbacks kicked in, tripling the initial warming that came from the gigatons of poisonous carbon dioxide pollution that we’ve spewed (spewed, I tell you) into the atmosphere over the past decade.

I was a little surprised at what I saw. [See graph at top of this post. HINT: look for the straight dashed line to rise towards the right-hand end.]

If this trend continues, well then, I just don’t know what will happen…

NIWA told the High Court that the temperature graph assembled by NIWA and published on the NIWA web site is not the “official” New Zealand temperature record (in fact, they argue, there IS no official national record), but not even David Wratt (chief climate scientist) would argue that the data in their monthly press release don’t belong to them and are not published in their name. So I can confidently declare that this graph is drawn with what are, without a shadow of doubt, official NIWA data. Even if NIWA denies they are official national data.

Make of that what you will, but this graph proves beyond doubt that there has been no New Zealand warming over the last 10 years.

Open Parachute

I see Ken Perrott has a go at refuting my statement about no global warming for about 15 years.


1. You fail to refute data showing temperature fluctuations during a specific 15-year period by referring vaguely to 20 years earlier, even with those cute little short-term trend lines. You must provide data for that very period. I didn’t realise you’re prepared to use short-term trends when it suits you.

2. You allege that I’ve committed fraud. What piffle — I draw no conclusion about global warming over a longer period than the approximately 15 years that I specified. To demonstrate fraud, you have to provide proof. Actually, if you mention the word again you’d better prove it.

3. You claim, strangely, that I “cherry-picked” the period 1996 to 2012 because I was “in danger” of finding a statistically significant trend if I had “stuck to” 10 or 12 years. How extraordinary that you thought I chose 10 or 12 years but chose not to “stick” to that. But you didn’t prove that, either. You’re just making stuff up.

4. That “Committing” in your title should have two m’s.

172 Thoughts on “NIWA’s data proves NZ warming halt

  1. Richard – I posted at my own blog about your mistake. You chose to reply to me here. I took you up on it. You seem to be unhappy about honest discussion.

    And my comment above was in response to a query which I took as a serious request for clarification. it was a reply to Jim, not you.

    I have refuted your attempt to use such poor data to argue against the measured global warming reported in the literature. As for your claim that it was posted “for a bit of fun” – that is silly. It is basically a repeat of you dishonest argument in your post “Well, where’s your evidence, Renowden?” This sort of plot abounds in the climate denial echo chamber. It would be childish to do that just for fun. Its done for political reasons, as you well know.

    I can appreciate you are unhappy about being pulled up for your attempt to slide such a naive argument through – but you brought it on yourself. its quite normal for honest scientists to point out mistakes others make – and the honest ones usually thank the person who has clarified things for them.

    I guess the closest thing I will get to thanks from you is your “insistence” that I not continue replying to others comments seeing you seem to have conceded yourself!

    What about telling your other commenters to stop asking me questions of clarification?

    I am always happy to clarify for anyone who is honestly interested. Just go to my own blog if Richard prevents discussion here.

    I am off for the night. You can have a rest now, Richard.

  2. You still haven’t replied to the points I addressed to you in the post except for thanking me for the spelling correction. It gets complicated when you conflate two posts into one; here we’re only talking about this post. Talk to Jim all you want, don’t mind me.

    To say “a bit of fun” is either not silly or it’s perfectly justified, and I stand by that! There are no plots, I don’t know what you’re talking about there, sunshine. Unhappy? Me? Naive perhaps, but never unhappy. I don’t insist you not talk to others, just talk reasonably.

    Why are you finding my gentle rebukes so hurtful? It’s not as though you’re given to offering personal abuse and offensive remarks.

  3. Richard C (NZ) on April 23, 2012 at 5:45 pm said:

    Ken – from your vaunted scientific position, what’s your reaction to scientist’s (the astrophysical kind) predicting cooling?

  4. Jim McK on April 23, 2012 at 6:59 pm said:


    Well I think “trend confidence” is exactly about extrapolation.

    So now you tell us that using 10 years of data gives certainty to +0.5% to -0.5% over a ten year projection/extrapolation.

    Lets face it – if the extrapolation was over 6 months it would be virtuallly zero based on ten years of data.

    Point is Richard was not extrapolating anything

  5. Jim McK on April 23, 2012 at 7:41 pm said:


    On your second to last point I accept that Richard’ s data lacks the ability to predict a 100 year trend. But then I don’t remember him ever claiming that it did.

    Your last comment says alot more about you than Richard.

  6. Jim – you are confusing the units used with extrapolation.

    Treadgod implies measurement over a ten year period. The resulting trend (and its level of confidence) can be expressed in whatever units are convenient. He expressed his trend (he refused to reveal his confidence limuts) in degrees warming (or cooling) per century. I also presented the confidence limits in degrees per decade for you – to make this very point. (By the way you were wrong to refer to 0.5% etc – these are units of degree per decade not %).

    No extrapolation was implied by Treadgold or by me. We are both talking about the ten year period – its just that I have revealed the actual meaning of “no statistically significant change” in terms of confidence limits.

    To reveal that statistical confidence, the 95% confidence limits of a value says nothing about extrapolation at all. It is just a matter of precision, and honesty.

    I don’t know why this concept is so difficult for the people who comment here.

  7. Richard Treadgold – you are the one flogging a dead horse – or more realistically a dead, defunct and dishonest report.

    It has been thoroughly discredited. I will leave further comment on its malicious nature to the High Court Judge when she makes her ruling.

  8. Jim McK on April 24, 2012 at 12:58 pm said:

    My mistake I meant C not %

    So taking off the statistic cloak I for one accept that:

    1) The trend over the last ten years was zero – with 100 % certainty
    2) That 10 year data on its own says not very much about what the temperature will be in 100 years
    3) If you believe that long term historic trends are a good predictor of future trends then 100 years of data is a better guide to the next 100 years than the last 10 years of data.

    However adding a new data set of 10 to 15 years to the end of a 100 year series ought to be useful enough for the purpose of testing one set of historical predictions against another.

  9. Jim – your conclusion 1 is completely incorrect. You are not warranted to claim that.

    In fact what the data tells us the there is a 95% chance that the trend in the ten years of the data was between -4.4 and +4.5 degrees/century (or about +/-0.5 degree per decade) There is a 5% probability that it is outside that range.

    So clearly you cannot say that the trend of warming reported in the literature has stopped – because it lies inside that range of probability.

    And your point 3 is wrong for exactly the same reasons. there is just not enough statistical power to draw conclusions from that time period.

    Now you might want to “take off the statistic cloak” – because you want to believe that global warming has stopped so the value close to zero fits your prejudice. But then you have a problem.

    Consider, for example the Auckland site – the measured trend for 10 years data is 1.1 degree/ century. Are you going to interpret that as showing there has been warming at that site at a rate slightly faster than for the national data? That’s what your current logic says.

    I don’t – because its not significantly different from zero. The 95% range is actually -3.4 to 5.6 degree/century.

    If you “take off the statistic cloak” you are unable to draw any sensible conclusions from the data.

  10. Richard C (NZ) on April 24, 2012 at 4:22 pm said:

    “Are you going to interpret that as showing there has been warming at that site at a rate slightly faster than for the national data?”

    Not in isolation but in the context of the entire NZT7 dataset – is consistent.

    UHI is an inherent flaw in NIWA’s Auckland series.

  11. Jim McK on April 24, 2012 at 4:47 pm said:

    I deliberately did not use the units degrees/century because I don’t like extrapolation, implied of otherwise. Just accept that the temperature over the last 10 to 15 years years has not changed significantly.

    The signicance (statistical or otherwise) of that information is for each of us to interprete.

    Lets leave it there.

  12. Jim – I repeat – the units do not imply extrapolation. You can convert the figure to degrees/decade if you like. Extrapolation is just not justified.

    When you say “Just accept that the temperature over the last 10 to 15 years years has not changed significantly. “ this means to me and other scientists that any trend is within the range -0.5 to +0.5 degree/decade. That’s what the term “not changed significantly” means scientifically with this data and adopting the conventional 95% confidence limit.

    (As they say – you are welcome to your own beliefs but you are not welcome to your own facts. They exist objectively).

    Consequently it is dishonest to use the data to claim that the global warming reported in the literature has halted, as Treadgold does.

  13. Ken, you say:

    Consequently it is dishonest to use the data to claim that the global warming reported in the literature has halted, as Treadgold does.

    This post makes no assertion about global warming, but it is undeniable that, for ten years, no warming occurred in NZ. I rest my case. When you say warming “has halted” you imply it will not resume. That is not my assertion.

  14. Rather than argue over whether warming has stopped or stalled, shouldn’t we be looking at how the temperature record is tracking against the model predictions?

  15. Jim McK on April 24, 2012 at 7:42 pm said:

    Agree. But it would be nice to have it done by a a statistian who is not a pedant?

  16. Richard C (NZ) on April 24, 2012 at 9:07 pm said:

    Doing that at Renowden’s Cuckoo Cocoon with OHC Andy, they’re a bit shy when it comes to models vs observations.

    When it comes to ocean heat they are floundering in a sea of contradictions e.g. a key tenet of AGW is that increased DLR (not proven yet in observations) will increase evaporation (the start of the positive feedback from water vapour). Increased evaporation has the effect of INCREASED heat loss from the ocean surface.

    I managed to tie Rob Painting (Dappledwater) down to his position that the anthro OHC forcing is an insulation effect (despite the IPCC not offering any mechanism). Thomas after initially favouring an insulation effect weaseled out and now seems to be advancing some sort of AO teleconnection.

    Problem for Rob is that his insulation effect only applies to conduction at the surface whereby heat loss is DECREASED (contradiction #1).

    Worse, contradiction #2 is that conduction (sensible heat, Hs) is a minor heat flow, the major heat flow being evaporation (latent heat, Hl).

    The squirming is palpable when the subject of model simulations vs observations is broached along with the deficiencies in the current configurations e.g. the absence of ocean oscillations. I highly recommend skimming through this paper from a modeling group that has appeared on a couple of blogs notably Judith Curry’s:-

    ‘A Signi cant Component of Unforced Multidecadal Variability in the Recent Acceleration of Global Warming’

    DelSole et al 2011

    BTW have you tried unzipping the zip on the Google homepage

  17. And what would that mean for the 30 year trends, Richard? And for the 15 year trends, for that matter? Good God, even that most-beloved meme – ‘no warming for ten years’ – might be in danger!

    You can, of course, keep rotating the graphs a few degrees clockwise and announcing ‘look, natural variation, nothing to see here’ but the magic really has to wear off at some point.

    It’s really only the super-El-Nino of ’98 that has allowed you guys to last as long as you have. There will, indeed be others. Why will the temps be just that bit warmer, though, do you suppose?

  18. Bill,

    The temperature stasis over the last 15 years or so owes nothing to the El Nino of 1998, no graphs are being rotated and there’s no magic, only hard facts. You’re predicting future dangerous warming, we’re just asking why. Are you predicting future dangerous warming? Why?

  19. Richard C (NZ) on April 25, 2012 at 7:58 am said:

    Bet you’re REALLY hoping for a super-El-Nino this year to get the warming back on track Bill……or just an ordinary El-Nino…….or something……

  20. Richard C (NZ) on April 25, 2012 at 8:52 am said:

    Andy, there’s a reply to you here (above) that hasn’t come up in Google Reader for some reason.

  21. Richard – you have been at the sherry again! You are now criticising your own heading that you used for this post.

    When you say “it is undeniable that, for ten years, no warming occurred in NZ.” – the fact that you use that data means you can put some precision on the claim.

    To be correct you should say there has been no trend in New Zealand’s temperature greater than +/- 0.5 degree per decade. (And you could add at the 95% confidence level)

    Now that is undeniable.

  22. Richard – again lay of the sherry. There has been no “stasis” – look at your data – the temperature varies over a 5 degree range. That is not stasis. The lie you are promoting is that the data show son trend of the order reported in the scientific literature. The variability of your data and the short time period make it impossible for you to empirically support that claim.

    It is therefore a lie.

  23. Pingback: Science denial is a diversion from the real problems | Open Parachute

  24. Mike Jowsey on April 27, 2012 at 5:43 pm said:

    Oh, a diversion, re-heally….

    it raised questions about whether vulnerable people should be made to make the choice between heating and eating.

  25. Richard C (NZ) on April 29, 2012 at 8:50 am said:

    It shows a blunt instrument (linear regression, the only tool in the warmist toolkit) that misses a change of climate regime (climate shift) when it occurs WITHIN the 30 year period as it did from the 90s -00s.

    Other methods e.g. moving average, polynomials, are already showing that the 00s regime (identified by the last decades data and trend) is shifting back again.

  26. Anthropogenic Global Cooling on April 29, 2012 at 9:12 am said:

    I wouldn’t go anywhere near Ken’s site. His modus operandi is to stir controversy so as to expand his readership beyond the 3 remaining visitors that frequent it. He can’t attract his own readers so he tries to syphon them from other peoples blogs. When he & his disciples lose the argument, and they always do, he’ll turn nasty and try to leak your personal details in an attempt to blackmail you into silence. I find the irony of Ken’s anti religious stance hilarious when he clings onto AGW with such a fervent faith that is totally detached from reality. Avoid that cesspool of imbecility called openparachute like the plague is my advice to all bloggers – he’d leak your bank account details if he could.

  27. rob taylor on April 29, 2012 at 11:10 am said:

    RC2, your content-free word salad only demonstrates the depths of your delusion. in another context, it would be called bigotry, plain and simple.

  28. Richard C (NZ) on April 29, 2012 at 12:20 pm said:

    This “RC2, your content-free word salad only demonstrates the depths of your delusion. in another context, it would be called bigotry, plain and simple” is content-rich?

    Given that your comment does not Reply to anything nor does it address any points, no-one has the slightest idea what you are referring to.

    I’ll assume that the “depths of my delusion” is that I’m able to identify inflexions in cyclic data. How long do you think stock or commodities futures traders would last if all they used to analyze trading data was long-term linear trends? Back in the Dot Com bubble of the 90s, the “long-term” trend of the NASDAQ Composite Index was projected to hit 20,000 after closing above 1000 for the first time on July 17, 1995,. On March 10, 2000, the index peaked at an intra-day high of 5,132.52, and closed at an all-time high of 5,048.62 after which it declined. As of today, the composite is at 3,069.

    How long do you think Hansen, Jones. NCDC, NIWA et al would stay out of prison if they were custodians of trading data monitored by the SEC and they “adjusted” it the same way they do climate data?

    The climate boom is about to bust Rob. Don’t get caught in the Climate Crash of 20xx.

  29. Richard C (NZ) on April 29, 2012 at 9:07 pm said:

    You just see trees with your blunt instrument Rob, I prefer sharper tools to get at the wood.

  30. Richard C (NZ) on April 29, 2012 at 9:40 pm said:

    BTW Rob, why can’t CO2-forced climate models reproduce The Sixty-Year Climate Cycle?

    The IPCC says they can reproduce pre 1950 (obviously they can’t). But then they’ve got 2 different explanations for 2 identical cycles: natural forcings for 1890 – 1950; CO2 forcing for 1950 – 2010.

    Wrong on both counts is REALLY wrong, wouldn’t you say Rob?

  31. rob taylor on April 30, 2012 at 8:29 pm said:

    When you spout gibberish like this, Richard, I see why no-one but your fellow ignoramuses take you seriously.

    Look carefully at the plots again – what do you SEE?

    Or are you as ideologically blind as you are scientifically illiterate?

  32. rob,

    This is a conversation. The point of a conversation is that you describe precisely why a thing is gibberish or otherwise wrong, otherwise we call it a harangue, diatribe or rant. I insist you speak politely and to the topic. So, for the final time, please stop being an oaf, stop insulting everyone you address and stop ignoring questions addressed politely to you.

    For the record, I thought the graphs you produced are interesting, though I don’t know their scientific value.


  33. Richard C (NZ) on May 1, 2012 at 7:58 am said:

    Rob your stance on trend method and scope is uncompromising and you appear to be laying down principles for the rest of us to follow as incontrovertibly true. Given the definition of idealogue:-

    An adherent of an ideology, esp. one who is uncompromising and dogmatic

    And dogmatic:-

    Inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true:

    Your principles being that the world is warming and man is responsible. This would make you the idealogue, would it mot?

  34. Richard C (NZ) on May 1, 2012 at 8:36 am said:

    While we’re on the topic of ideology Rob, at whose behest originally was the following policy – man made climate change believers or sceptics?

    UK Climate Policy Helps Fund Forced Sterilisation Of India’s Poor

    And out of curiosity, are you actually of a mind that forced sterilisation of third world poor is a morally justifiable climate policy i.e. planet is supreme, poor people are expendable for the cause of the planet?

  35. rob taylor on May 1, 2012 at 9:40 am said:

    Richard(s), I do not waste my time arguing with Flat Earthers, numerologists, astrologers, or creationists, so why should I engage with you, when your thinking is as magical and divorced from reality as any of those?

    If you want to gain some credibility, take some basic physics / math courses and read some of the good books available on the subject of AGW.

    One you might benefit from is Michael Mann, “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars”, as it speaks directly to the fossil-fuel-funded campaign of ignorance and bigotry that you have been sucked in by.

  36. Rob,

    You do a lot of talking, and you brandish a clever turn of phrase, but you are not listening. The questions I and others here raise arise from my and our own independent, open-minded research and study and owe nothing to any campaign by anyone. They are serious questions which you have not even tried to answer.

    There is no magic in observing what is patently true, such as that there’s no scientific consensus on global warming, the Antarctic has been cooling for 30 years, recent sea level rise is nothing unusual or threatening, Arctic temperatures are cyclical, polar bear populations are not threatened, hurricanes are on the decline and there was a Little Ice Age.

    But there is nothing but magic in claiming that a minor atmospheric gas (measured in parts per million) dangerously warms the ocean, because there is no evidence of it.


  37. Richard C (NZ) on May 1, 2012 at 11:12 am said:

    Rob why would Micheal Mann refer to anthropogenic attribution as “the cause” if not for ideological reasons?

    “Cause” in that context having the meaning:-

    Make (something) happen:

  38. Richard C (NZ) on May 1, 2012 at 12:04 pm said:

    I should add the now well known and obligatory, that Mann’s hockey stick is mere illusion and thoroughly debunked.

    BTW Rob, what are your maths and physics quals? I notice you couldn’t foot it at Hot Topic when discussion was AO interface thermodynamics.

  39. rob taylor on May 4, 2012 at 5:50 pm said:

    Richard, your statement that “Mann’s hockey stick is mere illusion and thoroughly debunked.” is what we, in the reality-based community, commonly refer to as a “lie”.

    Not only has Mann’s research methods and results been upheld by the US National Academy of Sciences, the National Science Foundation,and Pennslyvania State University, his work has been independently verified by over a dozen other studies, all of which found that the current decades are the warmest in the last 2,000 years.

    Mann is one of the world’s leading climate scientists and shared in a Nobel Prize; you, on the other hand are a crank blogger on the internet who obsesses over mutually contradictory magical memes.

    The other Richard appears little better, desperately cheery-picking old papers to try to debunk research findings that he cannot understand.

    As for my quals, I have two honours degrees from a good university – one in Physics, the other in Mathematics – but I don’t pretend to be a climate scientist.

    I can, however, recognise PR flack BS when I see it, and I see a lot of it on this site…

    Again, Richards, if you really want to contribute something to the conversation about climate, you could actually learn something from Mann’s book (yeah, right!)

  40. Andy on May 4, 2012 at 6:45 pm said:

    I’d be interested in your views on “The Hockey Stick Illusion” by Andrew Montford.

  41. Bob D on May 4, 2012 at 7:25 pm said:

    Mann’s reconstruction failed the R-squared verification test in the vital verification period. The R-squared values were calculated, but not shown in the paper. The complete reconstruction was invalid. Later, Mann denied he had calculated the R-squared value, even though it clearly states in the paper that he had. He then tried to argue that the obscure CE RE statistic was better, something that no other statistician would support him on.

    On top of that there was the well-documented baseline problem, and the use of bristlecones, which the NAS panel said should not be used in any reconstructions. Removing these problems also removed the hockey-stick shape.

    Wegman report finding:

    “In general, we found MBH98 and MBH99 to be somewhat obscure and the criticisms of McIntyre and McKitrick to be valid and compelling.”

    On how the obvious errors in Mann’s papers had been overlooked:

    Our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.”

    House Energy Committee hearings (Barton to Dr North of NAS panel):

    CHAIRMAN BARTON: Dr North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr Wegman’s report?
    DR NORTH: No we don’t. We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact pretty much the same thing is said in our report.

  42. Rob,

    The other Richard appears little better, desperately cheery-picking old papers to try to debunk research findings that he cannot understand.

    You adopt a distasteful hostility in, apparently, all your statements — has the milk of human kindness renounced you now? I should tell you that the only thing that changes our minds here are facts; your surly ad hominems don’t do it for me, for sure. Tell me: when a compiler falls over with an error message, do you respond with epithets or the cool, logical thinking that resolves errors?

    I don’t know what research findings you refer to, although you’re right that I didn’t understand. (You don’t pretend to be a climate scientist — so that means there are features of the climate you don’t understand? Same here.) I was simply researching the “thin skin” claim because I couldn’t understand how all the oceanic heat energy flux into the air might be significantly slowed down by a minute radiation from GHGs. Can you understand it? Anyway, Renowden mocked me for not believing it, but when I asked him for a reference he went quiet. Do you have a reference?

    It’s just that I can’t accept that claim without evidence. Can you?

    You can be justly proud of those degrees you have.

  43. rob taylor on May 4, 2012 at 8:50 pm said:

    Bob, you seem blithely unaware that the upward “blade” of the hockey stick is, in fact, the modern INSTRUMENTAL record ( thermometers), as distinct from the historical PROXY record which was Mann et als work (i.e the “handle” of the hockey stick)!

    The instrumental record is undisputed by all actual scientists who have studied it, including erstwhile climate sceptic Richard Muller of BEST fame.

    The study addressed scientific concerns raised by skeptics including urban heat island effect, poor station quality, and the risk of data selection bias. The Berkeley Earth group concluded that the warming trend is real, that over the past 50 years the land surface warmed by 0.911 °C, and their results mirrors those obtained from earlier studies carried out by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Hadley Centre, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) Surface Temperature Analysis, and the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. The study also found that The urban heat island effect and poor station quality did not bias the results obtained from these earlier studies.

  44. rob taylor on May 4, 2012 at 8:54 pm said:

    Can I borrow your copy of Mountford, Andy, or is it a health risk?

  45. Andy on May 4, 2012 at 9:17 pm said:

    It might be a health risk given that it has been in my hands. Otherwise you can get it on Kindle.

  46. Bob D on May 4, 2012 at 11:20 pm said:

    Bob, you seem blithely unaware that the upward “blade” of the hockey stick is, in fact, the modern INSTRUMENTAL record ( thermometers), as distinct from the historical PROXY record which was Mann et als work (i.e the “handle” of the hockey stick)!

    Wow. If you’re only at that level of your understanding of MBH98 and MBH99 I suggest you do some research.
    Start with Andy’s excellent suggestion, then come back. It’s pointless discussing something with someone who doesn’t even understand the issues.

  47. rob taylor on May 5, 2012 at 2:36 am said:

    Wow, Bob D, I quail before your “infinite wisdom” ploy: “….It’s pointless discussing something with someone who doesn’t even understand the issues.”

    But wait, here’s a review of Mountford’s diatribe by an actual climate researcher who understands the issues far better than Mountford, McIntyre and McKitrick:

    Tamino concludes:

    Montford certainly spins a tale of suspense, conflict, and lively action, intertwining conspiracy and covert skullduggery, politics and big money, into a narrative worthy of the best spy thrillers. I’m not qualified to compare Montford’s writing skill to that of such a widely-read author as, say, Michael Crichton, but I do know they share this in common: they’re both skilled fiction writers.

    The only corruption of science in the “hockey stick” is in the minds of McIntyre and Montford. They were looking for corruption, and they found it. Someone looking for actual science would have found it as well.

  48. Richard C (NZ) on May 5, 2012 at 7:15 am said:

    This is quite a rant from Tamino Rob. I see:-

    Blah blah conspiracy blah blah blah politics, big money blah de blah spy thrillers blah blah blah.

    Blah corruption blah blah corruption (again) blaaaahhhh.

    Top shelf rant, possibly a “review”, but doesn’t qualify as scientific critique.

  49. Bob D on May 5, 2012 at 12:03 pm said:

    Grant Foster is not a climate scientist as far as I’m aware. What institute does he work for?
    Even if he was, simply going off and block-copying a conclusion statement from someone else is hardly the same as researching a topic yourself so you can talk intelligently, no?

    Also, it helps if you can actually spell the guy’s name. It’s Montford, not Mountford. And declaring it “Mountford’s diatribe” when you haven’t even read it hardly increases your credibility level.

    Read the book, or read all of Climate Audit’s posts. Until you understand the criticisms of Mann, how can you possibly declare him vindicated of those same criticisms?

Comment navigation


Leave a Reply

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

Post Navigation