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
Leave a Reply

15 Comment threads
18 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
6 Comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Alexander+K

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!’

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.

Richard C (NZ)

>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

Andy

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?

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

Richard C (NZ)

[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… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”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).

Richard C (NZ)

>[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… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

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: https://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… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

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’.

Richard C (NZ)

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… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”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.

Bob+D

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.

Richard C (NZ)

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.

Bob+D

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.

Richard C (NZ)

>”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.… Read more »

Andy

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.

Andy

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

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

Andy

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

Ah, no link—but I’ve seen it anyway!

Richard C (NZ)

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.
https://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:
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/11/hot-topic-of-hatred/#comment-1249391

Richard C (NZ)

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..

Richard C (NZ)

>“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.

Richard C (NZ)

>”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.

Andy

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

Andy

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.

Richard C (NZ)

>”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.

Andy

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.

Andy

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

Andy

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.

Mike Jowsey

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

Andy

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

Post Navigation