Sceptics close NIWA lawsuit

September 8th, 2012 at 12:29 pm by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

A group of global warming sceptics has lost a bid to have temperatures collected by the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (), declared invalid.

A High Court ruling released today by Justice Geoffrey Venning said the New Zealand Climate Science Education Trust had not succeeded in any of its challenges against Niwa.

Justice Venning also ruled the trust had to pay Niwa costs and if they could not agree on the amount, he would make a ruling later.

In July the trust, a branch of the NZ , challenged national temperature records in the High Court in Auckland, saying the method used was unscientific.

Records from Niwa showed a national warming trend of almost 1 degree Celsius in the last century.

The figure, which was almost 50 per cent above the global average for the period, was unreliable, the trust says.

The judgement clearly states that NIWA applied “credible scientific methodology”. The court did not decide which methodology was superior, merely that the methodology used by NIWA was reasonable and tenable.

My view is that the mean temperature is increasing, and that human activity is primarily the cause. However The rate of future warming is unknown.

Tags: , ,

89 Responses to “Sceptics close NIWA lawsuit”

  1. Andrei (2,528 comments) says:

    Vested interests 1 Science 0

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. flipper (3,754 comments) says:

    You and the Flat Earth Society, David.

    Just a little, teeniest bit, of evidence, please, David.

    So when we look back in a few years time, and say “It was just a remake of the Club of Rome, you will say?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. tvb (4,229 comments) says:

    I accept there is global warming as evidenced by the melting of the arctic and other factors. But I am unsure what contribution human activity is. I think there are long and short term cycles in play which we do not really understand. I do not think this issue should be a trojan horse for wide ranging state control of every day life.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. rg (197 comments) says:

    “My view is that the mean temperature is increasing, and that human activity is primarily the cause.”
    CO2 is such a small part of the atmosphere and anthropogenic CO2 an even tinier part, something like 0.003%. And you think that is the primary cause?
    There has been no recorded temperature increase in NZ over the last 100 years, the only increases are adjusted ones.

    Do you hold your view strongly enough to take food out of the mouths of hungry children and give it to multi national forestry corporations as the National Govt is doing with its loopy and in my view immoral ETS?

    I would love to see John Key’s National come up against the same campaign as has the Democrats. “National promised to lower sea level rise, we promise to raise your incomes so you can feed your family” Could only be the ACT Party that is able to do that, the others are just as dopey as National on this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. my 2 cents (1,091 comments) says:

    Yeah so thats why NZ is increasing double everyone else, which is why they went to court in the first place.

    TVB
    if they had no money grabs from those of us with any to steal from and no redistributing of wealth I’d listen to them as climate is dynamic and does change. How much we affect it I’d want proof not theories or models.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Griff (6,965 comments) says:

    Science does not win when thousands of hours of effort and money are spent arguing with idiots The problem that science has is no matter how many times they prove their arguments true the same old bullshit is repeated endlessly by those with a political borrow to push. as in some of the posts above
    As to we dont know the outcome. How about reading the ipcc reports and excepting that science is saying we have a major problem rather than avoiding admitting the fate we are staring at

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Johnboy (15,390 comments) says:

    “by those with a political borrow to push.”

    A fine explanation of the Carbon Credit scheme if I may say so Griff!!! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Here is one of “climate scientists” that inform Davids view:

    “Within a few years “children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” Snowfall will be “a very rare and exciting event.” Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, interviewed by the UK Independent, March 20, 2000.

    Readers may recall the freezing temperatures and record lows that followed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. hj (6,602 comments) says:

    I think people are allready noticing changes, for example two 15cm snowfalls in Chc last winter and one this winter. Also rhododendron trees have taken off. Ultimately plants and animals get to tell us what is going on.

    Here’s some Roundup for the libertarians

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. thor42 (961 comments) says:

    I agree with rg.
    There *may* be warming, but IMO it is *not* anthropogenic.
    WhaleOil’s blog has, at various times, given a *huge* amount of evidence against so-called “man-made climate change”.
    I have a science degree myself (in chemistry), and a few years ago I *was* prepared to believe in “man-made climate change”. However, the **mountains** of evidence to the contrary that have come forward since then has completely changed my mind. The fiddling of data and the Climategate emails have not helped the cause of the warmists.
    The “wattsupwiththat” site is very good as far as the fisking of “warming alarmists” goes –
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. axeman (251 comments) says:

    Geez thor42. Don’t mention wattsupwiththat! or else that uber CAGW nut job Gwiff will be over here spitting and snarling about him not being a “SCIENTIST”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Big Tim (20 comments) says:

    I am slightly surprised by some of the climate change sceptics calling for more evidence for climate change
    The whole point of the ruling was that the evidence was good and measurements were accurate.

    If you read the ruling it says NIWA used scientific and reasonable methods.
    The court challenge was based on expert witnesses who turned out to be be experts in nothing

    In short
    NIWA = scientists doing the best they could
    Climate science education trust = group formed as political stunt which ironically has no science or education on its side

    For the climate sceptics in the audience , I am willing to listen to real evidence; but when you are arguing against 99% of people with training in the field you need real evidence not this type of attention seeking stunt.

    .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. hj (6,602 comments) says:

    Do we know who funded them. Someone with a private yacht perhaps? Reason Foundation? Cock Brothers? The Property Council? Infrastructure NZ?Some James Bond type badie?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. wat dabney (3,714 comments) says:

    I accept there is global warming as evidenced by the melting of the arctic and other factors.

    That’s regional warming, not global warming.

    Why do you think the alarmists bang on about the Arctic and not the Antarctic?

    It’s because they are cherry-picking their data.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    This entire show has tainted my view of scientists and the intelligence of my fellow man. What we are being told is self evidently false and people will not remain fooled forever. I wonder how people will regard science, and scientists, when this hoax is over. It is driven by politics and not by concern for the environment.

    “Arctic warming has become so dramatic that the North Pole may melt this summer (2008), report scientists studying the effects of climate change in the field. “We’re actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history],” David Barber, of the University of Manitoba

    After a week of discussions on the causes of climate change, an assembly of specialists from several continents seems to have reached unanimous agreement on only one point: it is getting colder. – New York Times – January 30, 1961

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    Andrei is right. A judge who had/has forestery interests (ETS credits anyone?) claims to not be establishing the validity of the science, then dismisses skeptic testimony on the basis of it not coming from an expert witness…. while accepting NIWA claims of veracity of process, without scrutiny.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Don the Kiwi (1,633 comments) says:

    Kea.
    1.26m

    We’re actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history],” David Barber, of the University of Manitoba.

    I remember back in the 50′s when American submarines surfaced at the North Pole – there was water all around – not a sign of ice anywhere.
    More quasi scientific obfuscation.

    As for CO 2 causing warming, even kids in intermedaite school know that when you heat water, it releases gas. Gas does not cause the heating of the water. False scientific pronouncements on the most basic physics.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    Good analysis of the verdict here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Big Tim (20 comments) says:

    “Don the Kiwi (881) Says:
    September 8th, 2012 at 1:40 pm
    As for CO 2 causing warming, even kids in intermedaite school know that when you heat water, it releases gas. Gas does not cause the heating of the water. False scientific pronouncements on the most basic physics.”

    Don, that is a straw man argument
    No one is claiming that gas directly heat water . No one has ever claimed that.

    The claim is that the composition of the earth’s atmosphere effects home much heat is retained by the atmosphere and how much is radiated/ reflected into space. Change the composition of the earth’s atmosphere by adding CO2 and you will change the heat retention capability.
    I suggest you read the theory behind climate change before trying to disprove it with your primary school physics

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. john.bt (170 comments) says:

    “Long range forecasts were far from certain” … James Renwick, principal climate scientist at NIWA (Dompost 4 Feb). This followed the NIWA forecast for the weather last summer which was totally wrong. If these clowns with their computer projections can’t tell us what the weather is going to be months ahead (or even days ahead) how can we believe long range forecasts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Griff (6,965 comments) says:

    KK
    Joe Nova
    bwaaahahahahhahhahhahahhahahhahhahhahhahha ha ha ha
    Take the scientist to court if the nutters had won why thats cause the science was wrong if the nutters lose why that is cause the court was wrong

    Its a win win in the nutters reality sadly for them the real world just keeps on getting warmer and warmer and warmer

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. dime (9,607 comments) says:

    I thought we solved global warming with that tax increase?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. TM (98 comments) says:

    With the lack of scientific understanding shown here, no wonder New Zealand has has to rely on low-skilled services to prop up the economy. I guess I should be thankful that science can actually get a foothold in places like agriculture and help increase efficiency there. The rest of the time scientific results are used as a political football by all sides with people picking and choosing what fits their ideology.

    Somehow when concensus of scientific opinion supports fracking that is proof, yet when the same concensus says there is climate change that is a conspiracy. And reverse that for the Green’s way of thinking.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. wat dabney (3,714 comments) says:

    Griff,

    The judgement means that, sadly, the way NIWA has applied a completely false warming trend to historical temperature data will continue to go completely unexamined and unexplained.

    That is not just a loss for sceptics but a loss for everyone interested in sound science.

    By the way, did it ever occur to you that when people reply to your childish and ignorant posts here, they are not actually trying to convince you (because that would clearly be impossible for someone with your mentality. Rather, it is a chance to publically rehearse the debate and the evidence for anyone else who might be browsing and might not have stumbled across the scandals.

    So please, keep up with the childishness. It’s win-win. You get to feel good about yourself, and other people get to publically discuss the science.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. wat dabney (3,714 comments) says:

    TM,

    yet when the same concensus says there is climate change that is a conspiracy

    What consensus are you talking about?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    TM (47) The global warming debate is not driven by science, but science will suffer when the truth is more widely known. Every prediction made has been wrong. No other field of science gets away with this sort of failure rate, so why do “climate scientists”?

    I base my views on evidence. You can base yours on other criteria, but do not call it science.

    (I might add that I see evidence for climate change. Its the cause and extent that is debated.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. LabourDoesntWork (286 comments) says:

    My view is that the mean temperature is increasing,

    All these years of propaganda and no one can state this as a fact. It’s still… just…a “view” LOL

    Encouraging.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    Who would have thought climate change sceptics still exist in 2012?

    First Obama was born in Kenya, then Maori were not the first people to inhabit Aotearoa, now climate change is not real!!!

    You Neolibs are a real pieces of work.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. wat dabney (3,714 comments) says:

    Who would have thought climate change sceptics still exist in 2012?

    What particular evidence do you find so compelling for AGW?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. davidp (3,550 comments) says:

    dime>I thought we solved global warming with that tax increase?

    I thought Americans solved global warming when they elected Obama, the rise of the oceans began to slow, and our planet began to heal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Griff (6,965 comments) says:

    “The judgement means that, sadly, the way NIWA has applied a completely false warming trend to historical temperature data will continue to go completely unexamined and unexplained.”

    So even though Niwa compiled another set of temperature records that use independent stations from the questioned series that parallels the original series in amount of rise even after a independent review several revisits and a court case “the record is still incorrect” “unexamined and unexplained” and you wonder why I call you lot nutters
    Same thing with Watts strenuous denial and insistence that the the American series are incorrect Another set of independent records is carefully compiled that actually come to a higher amount of warming the than previous series again the record is disputed and denied The denial of the temperature records is getting a little strained dont you think
    Can you see a pattern the denial industry will not accept any proof and continues both its claims that the temperature rise is not there and the scientist are corrupt. fuck the climate gate emails have had nine independent enquires and they are still being posted as a conspiracy
    We have the ongoing collapse of the ice in the Arctic still its not warming Massive drought in both the American and Russian grain belts and still its not a problem. When will it become a problem when the whole planet is fucked for human habitation?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Goon (13 comments) says:

    Justifying the unjustifiable. Don’t believe me…. then here is where the raw data lives.

    http://cliflo.niwa.co.nz/

    Register and have a look for yourself. Nothing even remotely approaching a 1 degree/century trend in the raw data from longer term climate sites. The only way NIWA can come up with this is by applying an extremely dodgy ‘adjustment’ to make all pre-1950′s temperatures colder and everything after warmer and hey presto, woe is me, there’s a trend. The arguement being tested in the court wasn’t anything to do with AGW, rather it was just that the methodology applied by NIWA to calculate the ‘sky is falling faster than the rest of the world’ trend is a complete crock. A trend which is then used by the same scientists to justify ever more research and lapped up by politicians keen to get their hands into your wallet.

    In terms of climate change, I’m agnostic about the whole thing…..climate changes naturallly all the time and human activities no doubt contribute as well but what pisses me off is the dodgyness put up by NIWA as science. It wouldn’t stand up in any other discipline but spin disguised as science seems to be de riguer for climate science.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. hj (6,602 comments) says:

    I don’t think any of those septics will win no Nobel Prize. Thems Isaac Newton wannabees or somethin; head ‘n shoulders above the rest.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Ross12 (1,222 comments) says:

    Goon
    You are correct in my view. This case was nothing to with AGW as such. It was to do with how the temperature data was collected and how it was analysed. The judge was very wrong not to allow Bob Dedekind’s evidence ( because he was supposed not an expert) — the statistical analysis for the data would be using methods similar to a number of different fields. So Dedekinds stats expertise should have been allowed.

    Here is a summary of his position :

    “… In fact, NIWA had to do some pretty nifty footwork to avoid some difficult questions.

    For instance, where was the evidence that RS93 had ever been used on the 7SS from 1853-2009? Absent. We were asked to believe Dr Wratt’s assertion that it had (in 1992), but ALL evidence had apparently disappeared. Not only that, but the adjustments coincidentally all matched the thesis adjustments, which all ended in 1975. And no new adjustments were made between 1975 and 1992. Hmm.

    Another question: Why, when NIWA performed their Review at taxpayers’ expense in 2010, did they NOT use RS93? They kept referring to it whenever the 7SS adjustment method was discussed, and it was a prime opportunity to re-do their missing work, yet instead they used an unpublished, untested method from a student’s thesis written in 1981.

    Please understand this: the method used in the NIWA Review in 2010 has no international peer-reviewed scientific standing. None. It is mentioned nowhere, outside of Salinger’s thesis. NIWA have never yet provided a journal or text-book reference to their technique.

    Yet a few people were able to do (at zero cost to the taxpayer) what NIWA should have done in the first place – produce a sensible 7SS using the same peer-reviewed technique NIWA kept referencing repeatedly, viz: RS93. In fact, one of NIWA’s complaints during the court case was that we applied the RS93 method “too rigorously”! In other words, when we did the job properly using an internationally-accepted method, we got a different result to NIWA’s, and they didn’t like it. In fact, the actual trend over the last 100 years is only a third of NIWA’s trend.

    Their only response to date has been a desperate effort to try to show that the RS93 method as published is “unstable”. Why then did they trumpet it all this time? And why did they never challenge it in the literature between 1993 and 2010?

    NIWA got away with it in the end, but only because the judge decided that he shouldn’t intervene in a scientific dispute, and our credentials (not the work we did) were not impressive enough. ”

    For the AGW supporters to suggest ( as Prof Renwick from Victoria said) this a vindication of the science is utter nonsense. The judge says he is not going to make decisions about the science.
    Some how I don’t think we have heard the end of this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. RF (1,318 comments) says:

    Lets all chip in and buy Hamnida some real glasses so she can see the truth. Her brown tinted ones are stuffed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. wat dabney (3,714 comments) says:

    Griff,

    So even though Niwa compiled another set of temperature records that use independent stations from the questioned series that parallels the original series in amount of rise even after a independent review several revisits and a court case “the record is still incorrect” “unexamined and unexplained” and you wonder why I call you lot nutters

    You evidently don’t have a clue what the court case was about.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Anthony (784 comments) says:

    New Zealand Judges are pretty useless when it comes to understanding technical arguments.

    The Greenhouse analogy is so misleading – but the gullible swallow it so easily!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Griff (6,965 comments) says:

    I don’t well I never I was under the mistaken belief that the court case was an attempt to have the seven station series struck of the official record because it was wrong
    If the nutters as above have a better take on the seven station series publish it in a reputable journal :lol: is not going to happen as their series has already been discredited. You have to adjust the temperature to stay relevant if the station is moved the techniques to do so are well documented and understood
    Same with Watts resent attempt to subvert the usa one fail ops Watts forgot to account for the change of the time the measurement was taken

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Johnboy (15,390 comments) says:

    As Griff says above:

    If the hockey stick has to bent slightly to score the appropriate goal who are we peasants to argue with the process involved in bending things? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Griff (6,965 comments) says:

    http://www.voxy.co.nz/national/doctors-welcome-decision-treacherous-temperature-case/5/134161

    climate sceptics have pretended there is scientific doubt where it does not exist. “They are no different from tobacco company executives, who as recently as 1994 testified that “nicotine is not addictive”.

    Ironically, NZCSET is part of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, which links with Big Tobacco. Tobacco giant Philip Morris funds the Heartland Institute in the United States, which funds climate deniers worldwide – including the NZ Climate Science Coalition. “Having tried to confuse and deny the evidence with tobacco, they are now doing the same for our destabilising climate, through people like the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition. Still peddling lies that kill, they are delaying action essential to protect human health”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Johnboy (15,390 comments) says:

    Bending wooden things, like hockey sticks, is of course a skill and a technique not a science! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Johnboy (15,390 comments) says:

    Bending scientific budgets to enhance the cashflow to those folks that produce the desired bends in whatever objects are under investigation is of course not a science more of an art!! :) :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    RF- I’m not the climate change denier.

    I thought that even the 2008 – 2011 ACT caucus believed in climate change.

    I had no idea climate change deniers still existed outside of the U.S.A until reading this blog today.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Griff (6,965 comments) says:

    Unfortunately for the future of humanity Hamnida the denial industry is as busy here as in the USA
    I find it fun to keep winding the nutters up as you know I have a strange sense of humour however, The conservative USA warriors in the so called culture wars have won over the right in New Zealand and few dare stand against the tide of denial on here or any other right leaning blog.
    To put it bluntly we are fucked and those that profit from co2 don’t care and will continue to fund denial until its past any doubt

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Johnboy (15,390 comments) says:

    Griff meet Hamnida.

    Hamnida meet Griff! :) :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Griff (6,965 comments) says:

    Johnny I have already got a horrible, irrational, leftist, Christian partner with lots of fancy letters after her name and I don’t believe in polygamy. its all in the paper I linked to weeks ago/ I am a monogamous liberal non socialist person befitting of the scores I get in the brain wiring tests. To far to the right of the bell curve to be any thing else even with 35 years of smokin da herb,

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Johnboy (15,390 comments) says:

    Phew Griff so it’s true that the herb before 18 fucks your brain?

    Who’d a guessed eh. A horrible, irrational, leftist, Christian partner with lots of fancy letters after her name!

    You poor bastard. Have another toke! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Griff (6,965 comments) says:

    thanks for that johny I tried a sheep but she wouldn’t have a baaaa of it

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    Folks please.

    This is the modern world we are discussing, if it’s true for you it’s true for you!! There is no reason to value reason! there is no point in basing opinions on facts and actual trends!, it’s how you feel that really makes the difference.

    If you feel your rights are being denied you, then fight for those feelings! If you feel the globe is warming, use those feelings to drive what ever agenda you like.

    It’s all good folks!

    It’s all f@ckin good.

    :(

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. wat dabney (3,714 comments) says:

    What Griff lacks in basic knowledge about climate change he makes up for with a readiness to insult people he disagrees with, labelling them “deniers” and comparing them to tobacco execs.

    If he had evidence and facts to support his position I suspect he’d use them. That smears are his stock in trade is revealing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. kowtow (7,859 comments) says:

    Of course there’s warming, it’s called the interglacial. Nothing to panic about (or be taxed for). It’s been going on on for 20 000 years and our civilisation is based on it.

    The thing to worry about is the next ice age.And it is coming.And what will politicians feel they should do about that? Taxes no doubt will play a part in their “solution.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Johnboy (15,390 comments) says:

    I usually wear 15 denier my self but will upgrade to 30 denier when the ice age hits! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. my 2 cents (1,091 comments) says:

    At the cash register of the store, the young cashier suggested to the older woman that she should bring her own shopping bags because plastic bags weren’t good for the environment.
    The woman apologized and explained, “We didn’t have this green thing back in my earlier days.”

    The cashier responded, “That’s our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations. You didn’t have the green thing.”

    She was right — our generation didn’t have the green thing in its day.

    Back then, we returned milk bottles, soft drink bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycling. We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull.

    But we didn’t have the green thing back in our day.

    We walked up stairs, because we didn’t have an escalator in every shop and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn’t climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks.

    But she was right. We didn’t have the green thing in our day.

    Back then, we washed the baby’s nappies because we didn’t have the throw-away kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy gobbling machine burning up 220 volts — wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back in our early days. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing.

    But that young lady is right. We didn’t have the green thing back in our day.

    Back then, we had one TV, or radio, in the house — not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief, not a screen the size of the Melbourne Cricket Ground. In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn’t have electric machines to do everything for us. When we packaged a fragile item to send in the post, we used wrapped up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap. Back then, we didn’t fire up an engine and burn petrol just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working so we didn’t need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity.

    But she’s right. We didn’t have the green thing back then.

    We drank water from a tap when we were thirsty instead of demanding a plastic bottle flown in from another country. We accepted that a lot of food was seasonal and didn’t expect that to be trucked in or flown thousands of air miles. We actually cooked food that didn’t come out of a packet, tin or plastic wrap and we could even wash our own vegetables and chop our own salad.

    But we didn’t have the green thing back then.

    Back then, city people took the tram or a bus, and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their mothers into a 24-hour taxi service. We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn’t need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 2,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest pizza joint.

    But isn’t it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn’t have the green thing back then?

    Please forward this on to another selfish old person who needs a lesson in conservation from a smart-ass young person.
    Remember:

    Don’t make old people mad. We don’t like being old in the first place, so it doesn’t take much to p… us off.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. axeman (251 comments) says:

    wat dabney (1,889) Says:
    September 8th, 2012 at 7:36 pm

    “What Griff lacks in basic knowledge about climate change he makes up for with a readiness to insult people he disagrees with, labelling them “deniers” and comparing them to tobacco execs.

    If he had evidence and facts to support his position I suspect he’d use them. That smears are his stock in trade is revealing”

    Never mind wat. I am sure scientists around the world like Dr Richard A. Muller, Professor of Physics, University of California, Berkeley; Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm of netherland: Dr Larry Vardiman (Atmospheric Scientist) Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri; Dr Tom Segalstad (Geologist & Geochemist) UN-PCC Expert Reviewer , a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo; Dr. Fred Michel, (Paleoclimatologist) director of the Institute of Environmental Science and Associate Professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Canada and many others who have put their names and reviews against the CAGW scam, will lose any sleep if they find out an anonymous fuckwit alarmist from the north of Kiwiland, is calling them “nutters”.

    Honestly Gwiff, are you sure you are not a Labour party member? Given that you subscribe to the left wing totalitarian socialist world view that is CAGW.

    You probably know that Josef Goebbels once observed that any lie, no matter how preposterous, will be widely believed provided it is told often enough and to as many people as possible. The promotion of CAGW is a propaganda campaign that he would certainly have been proud of. The public has repeatedly been told that there is a scientific “consensus” in favour of CAGW. That is absurd.

    It has been well documented that science is not done by consensus. Science is based on repeatable experiments and verifiable facts, both of which are absent in any “consensus”. In any case, one does not need any scientific knowledge at all to see CAGW for the scam that it is. One only has to look at the proposed solution to this “problem” to determine that it is nothing more than a political power grab. Those with the most to gain from the widespread public acceptance of CAGW are the big spending, big borrowing, vote buying left wing politicians, and the crony-capitalists who benefit from their taxpayer funded subsidies and corporate welfare handouts (Solyndra anyone?).

    It is therefore obvious that this great fraud has nothing to do with science. It is 100% political. The line that divides believers and unbelievers is no different from the demarcation line that separates those who want more freedom, less government and lower taxes, and those who want the opposite.

    The proposed solution to CAGW is of course more government, more regulations and more taxes. If only the peons would just give up more of their money and submit more of their rights and freedoms to the whims of the politicians, they would then be able to save everyone from the grotesque hell that has been predicted and promoted by villains and fools alike, from the brutal despots and disreputable crooks who populate the UN and the IPCC, all the way down to the smelly unwashed losers who represent the bulk of the “occupy” movement. These naive dupes will quite possibly be looking to the DPRK for inspiration because they would arguably have the smallest carbon footprint of any country on Earth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Johnboy (15,390 comments) says:

    There will most likely be a fair bit of carbon there if their nuclear weapons failsafes are as reliable as their economic plans have been so far. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Griff (6,965 comments) says:

    The science is separate from and pre dates the solutions proposed. That you fail to septate the two and make up that its a big socialist conspiracy fine
    Science peer reviewed and published science says we have a problem with co2 and the temperature.
    The thread is after all a group takes the scientist to court and loses. The consensus from those in the denial camp is the court is wrong the science is wrong denial how surprising nutters :lol:
    How many times must you all be proven wrong before you wake up fuck knows its already past the point that we could have made a difference so the question is pointless. Welcome to the brave new world brace your self it may get a little uncomfortable

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Johnboy (15,390 comments) says:

    I see nothing uncomfortable in being able to grow Wartymelons in Wainui all year round Griff! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Australis (99 comments) says:

    Griff says “Niwa compiled another set of temperature records that use independent stations from the questioned series that parallels the original series in amount of rise”

    This must be the ill-fated 11SS from stations without site changes. The one that ignored Tauranga moving from town to Te Puna and then across to the airport at Mt Maunganui. The series which had over 80% of its annual data missing during the 1930s.

    ….. and “even after a independent review”. Ah, that must be the review by NIWA’s sister agency, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, which disagreed with NIWA’s techniques to such an extent that NIWA refused to produce it. Nobody’s ever seen the review, not even the Ombudsman.

    Of course climate changes. But that doesn’t mean there has been any warming in New Zealand during the past 150 years. According to official records, the 8-year NZ average in 1868 was half a degree warmer than the 21st century.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Griff (6,965 comments) says:

    That would be those piny aplles and maybe mangos and and sugar cane as well but not yassava tastes kack
    best thing is the herb will grow wild with out those helecoppers spreading it for us rustyfareyes lots of wild weed yay for agw

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Griff (6,965 comments) says:

    fuck now the bloody ockas are chiping in
    lets see a review that no one has seen says ………bloody hell esp I tell you
    an eleven station series that uses data raw with no adjustments fails to account for station movement and does not have data for how many years over ? off we go to court again I just hope the fuckers front up with the costs

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Griff (6,965 comments) says:

    Tauranga Airport was acquired by the NZ Government from the traditional Maori land owners during World War 2 for defensive purposes. .And according to some random poster on kiwi blog, who can see things that no one has seen. The land was mysteriously moved from Tauranga harbour to te puna and then over to the mount with out changing its present position.
    The mystery surrounding this poster increases when they can divine that the temperature of New Zealand was warmer on an 8-year average with the use of only the year 1868
    :lol: explain weirdo how you know the contents of something you have not seen How they managed to physically move the land of an airport without startling the whole world. And I am sure that there is not a complete record for the entire county for 8 years around 1868 red herring if there ever was one or is that more ESP
    :lol: nutters made my day you have

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Anthony (784 comments) says:

    No one is disputing there is some warming but where’s the evidence that it is caused by CO2 and the solution is a carbon trading? Why isn’t the warming increasing at an exponential rate? The correlation between CO2 and warming is pretty minimal!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Australis (99 comments) says:

    Griff, you posted about a NIWA series of stations which experienced no site changes. NIWA included Tauranga, which moved to three widely-separated sites, and should therefore have been excluded from the series. NIWA also included Queenstown (as the sole South Island representative) which had been rejected from other work because its unhomogenised records were unreliable. The Campbell Is station moved from one bay to another, and Invercargill moved from one street to another.

    8 of the 11 stations experienced major moves, but NIWA decided not to make adjustments for any of them. Why? Because the 11SS was already showing the figures they wanted.

    And then they tacked on a 20-year period, during which the 11 stations didn’t even exist! Blatant confirmation bias, which could never survive a peer review – from anyone!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Australis (99 comments) says:

    Giff the New Zealand temperature record for the 8 years prior to 1868 may be found at at the Turnbull library. The figures were compiled for official purposes by the Dominion Meteorologist of the time. The average temperature was 13.1°c.

    As this was the end of the Little Ice Age, temperatures rose slowly from then to about 1960. The warming between 1930-60 was the greatest ever recorded, and makes the warming of the 1990s look tame. Then it all stopped. No NZ warming this century (despite large increases in cCO2 emissions.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. peterwn (3,192 comments) says:

    Personal comments about the judge are not useful. His forestry investment is well known and there was no objection from the Trinity parties when he disclosed this at the start of the Trinity trial. Similarly the skeptics could have raised this for their case and asked for another judge.

    It is not for courts, inquisitions (think Gallileo), etc to decide science. The British Appeal Court confirmed this in the Chiropractors v Simon Singh case. The court’s limit here was a judicial review to ascertain whether NIWA followed appropriate processes such as peer review. The other possible review was whether the conclusions were outrageously unreasonable (what lawyers call ‘Wednesbury’ unreasonableness). Apart from defamation (only available if an invidual or group eg chiropractors have been allegedly defamed), there ts no other legal ‘remedy’ available that I can think of. If hypothetically a court were to delve into scientific matters the judge would need the assistence of scientific assessors on the bench.

    Chiropractors – see:
    http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/350.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BCA_v._Singh

    Wednesbury – see:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_Provincial_Picture_Houses_v_Wednesbury_Corporation
    Presumably the council thought that kids should be at sunday school / bible class, not at the pictures on Sunday. A quite reasonable stance in 1947, but outrageous today.

    If the sceptics consider that the NIWA conclusions were incorrect, they could produce their own interpretation of the results, get it peer reviewed, seek punlication in some learnrd journal then lobby politicians accordingly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Griff (6,965 comments) says:

    Australis
    You posted comment on a review that by you own admission you have not seem magic or ESP is the only conclusion for such a startling fact.

    As it is evident from the tone and content of your post you have more than a bystanders understanding of the New Zealand record. Would you like to share with us the reason why the prior 1868 temperatures are not included in NIWAs series hint the adoption of something in 1867.

    The link I have read gives Tauranga aero as the location of the Tauranga readings would you like to give your details in full without misrepresentations as to the location and timing of these changes you claim.

    After all the denial platform has used the figures for the 7 without the the site movements adjustments as the basis for the claim “the temperature change is way less than NIWA represents” and you are now arguing that an alternate series is incorrect because of site movement Seems the methods the network of nutters use are inconsistently applied to spin tales rather then actually promote science.

    As you and the network have the information and “experts” required why was this taken to court? the correct way to do science is by peer reviewed paper in reputable journals Answer no reputable journal will publish spin as science

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Scott Chris (5,946 comments) says:

    What particular evidence do you find so compelling for AGW?

    Only the fact that AGW was fortold by science and that the global surface heat content has risen accordingly.

    Simple really.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Bogusnews (450 comments) says:

    Scott Chris

    Really? Professor Bob Carter appeared on National TV in Australia (Several AGW climate scientists were also invited but for some reason did not wish to appear). He showed the evidence that demonstrates temps have not increased for 10 years and in fact has decreased by .05 degrees over the last 8 years.

    CO2 has been rising steadily. This is not the result the warmists (and enormously expensive computer models) have been predicting.

    Re the NIWA thing however, I think we should take heart that at least it isn’t as bad as what has happened in the US. I read a scathing report on the appalling state of the American temperature records where their accuracy is hopelessly compromised due to their positioning. It’s also intriguing to see the the number of stations being recorded has dropped to about a third of what they were before. People are still reading them,but they are no longer included in the temperature set.

    This of course begs many questions such as: how come Bolivia is shown on the temp charts as being a bright cherry red with all the heating going on when there are no temp stations being read within 200 kms?

    So chin up guys. At least we’re not as bad as the US.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. wat dabney (3,714 comments) says:

    Only the fact that AGW was fortold by science and that the global surface heat content has risen accordingly.

    Equally, science that looks at natural cycles also predicts warming, and temperatures rose accordingly.

    The latest peer-reviewed such science is here:
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/6/global-warming-fanatics-take-note/

    Note the very high correlation between solar activity and temperature.

    In fact, the correlation is infinitely better for the natural cycles argument than it is for the man-made argument. As the article says when referring to its chart “Pictures like these cannot be drawn for temperature and CO2 concentration. There just is no such close match between the steady rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration and the often dramatic ups and downs of surface temperatures in and around the Arctic, China and the United States.

    So the facts and evidence are that A) there is no anomalous warming which needs a non-natural explanation and B) there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Griff (6,965 comments) says:

    Really? Professor Bob Carter the one that gets $1667 a month from the heartland institute to dispute climate science is disputing climate science well I never.
    You read a site that says blah blah blah That would be A Watts from WUWT who has made these claims for years and early this year actually pre released a scientific paper that backed his theory.It took around four hours for someone to notice his paper had made such a basic error that it made it worthless for any purpose other than shite paper.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. my 2 cents (1,091 comments) says:

    Griff
    What don’t you understand about corrupted?
    Those getting their hands on all the dosh from us taxpayers are producing just what is needed to get more dosh.
    That coupled with the wealth distribution aspect of AGW by the pollies and the “models” are what is driving the distrust.

    When you couple that with the emails about controlling the data or even destroying it and the general attacks on anyone who questions the models, collection and dissemination of data, even sacking people and denying them tenure.
    Do you think the journals will allow it to be published?

    I don’t understand why all the data isn’t freely available then that would go some way to eleviating the distrust wouldn’t it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. wat dabney (3,714 comments) says:

    Ahh Griff,

    We were talking about the hockeystick, and you were claiming it is still valid.

    We saw how it was created using a cherry-picked sub-set of available data (remember the “Censored” folder on Mann’s computer, containing additional, equally valid data), which was processed using a home-made computer progam that generates a hockeystick shape nearly every time, even when using completely random data.

    Do you still maintain that the hockeystick is valid, in spite of those astonishing facts?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. wat dabney (3,714 comments) says:

    m2c,

    Yes, a major revelation of the Climategate leaks was how these “scientists” at the centre of the global warming scam had conspired to pervert the peer-review process and get opposing evidence rejected.

    Again, why are the people not in prison?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Griff (6,965 comments) says:

    wat dabney
    where is a link to peer reviewed science I see only a opinion piece in the The Washington Times?
    Again you represent opinion as peer reviewed science
    willys papers can be found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Soon also who pays him and why his science considered junk

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. orewa1 (428 comments) says:

    My 2 Cents 1004 – BRILLIANT – one of the most telling and amusing posts I have seen on here!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Griff (6,965 comments) says:

    1 you are repeating the myths from the blogs and opinions of the denialists The hockey stick graph with 10 reconstructions using millions of data points as published in scientific journals has undergone many peer reviews to not believe them steps out side of science and enters realms were only faith and conspiracy can go see reid not me
    2 The reputations of the scientist involved in the research into climate science have not been sullied despite many attempts by the denial lobby
    your post consists of unfounded allegations that have failed to be upheld by repeated reviews and inquiries so again I am left with see reid for conspiracy and faith

    If you do not accept the peer review process the result of reviews and inquiries or the findings published in scientific journals how can you debate science? You can only discuss faith and opinion. As that is all you have to work with in your crusade against science I really don’t find much point in playing science vs faith and opinion with you endlessly Sooner or later I give up and go back to fuck of nutters :lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Griff (6,965 comments) says:

    “I don’t understand why all the data isn’t freely available then that would go some way to eleviating the distrust wouldn’t it?”

    BEST data set
    http://berkeleyearth.org/dataset/
    NIWA data set
    http://cliflo.niwa.co.nz/
    Nassa data set
    data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
    University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit data set
    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

    And many more freely available data set to do with climate change and AGW can be linked to here
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    I gotta give you kudos, Griff, for your persistence in the face of the most extreme intransigence I have seen since the tobacco lobby was in full flight!

    Funny thing is, the stations that were adjusted after being moved were adjusted downwards, via entirely valid and routine scientific formulae, and without the adjustment our temperature record would show even more heat.

    I’ve mentioned before that NZ’s warming as determined by NIWA is NOT 50% above the global average. If I wrong, I would be grateful to the poster who submitted the actual records that purport to support this view. I suspect it’s a conflation of land vs SST temperatures. Global average land surface warming is a touch over .8C and NIWA’s a touch under 1C. Trying as hard as I can, I can’t see any justification for the 50% claim.

    And an average is just that, an average. Necessarily, some areas are warming faster than others, some are even cooling! An average is a broad church.

    For some other ignoramus above, the Arctic amplification effect is well known, and is why the the NH warms faster than the SH, on average.

    Keep up the good work, Griff. I’m sure there is the odd sane person who visits Kiwiblog and who can separate science from conspiracy theorist fluff.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Australis (99 comments) says:

    Griff

    The Court record has the following information regarding Tauranga station:

    The station was established during January 1913 at Otumoetai and moved to Judea in 1924. From July 1940 to January 1941 the instruments were moved to Te Puna, 18km from Tauranga. The aerodrome site, on a small peninsula across the harbour from Tauranga, was in use from 1 February 1941.

    NIWA says the station’s data commenced in 1931, and never experienced any significant change during the following 70 years.

    Could I suggest you undertake some fact-checking?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. wat dabney (3,714 comments) says:

    Griff,

    Really? Professor Bob Carter the one that gets $1667 a month from the heartland institute to dispute climate science is disputing climate science well I never.

    Yes, you read that right. Griff attempts to smear someone, rather than address the content of their work, because he says they accept a stipend of a measly $1667 a month.

    In the face of well documented fraud from the alarmist “scientists” who fabricated hockeystick charts using cherry-picked data that completely misrepresents the wider data-set, whose incompetent computer program generates hockeysticks out of random data, who concealed their work and fought tooth and nail for years to prevent it being scrutinised, who conspired to corrupt and pervert the peer-review process so that their own work was accepted on the nod whilst other scientists had their work blocked, who illegally conspired to block legitimate Freedom of Information requests by deleting incriminating emails and who boasted how that managed to “hide the decline” in a published chart: after all that, Griff’s response is not shock and outrage at such practises but rather to attempt possibly the most pathetic smear in all history by saying that someone fighting such disgusting malpractise accepts a pathetic sum of money each money to help continue his work.

    And by the way, if a meagre $1667 per month is a sign of corruption, what can we say about the vast sums of money that arch warmist James Hansen’s alarmism has netted him (which he was legally supposed to declare)?

    Dr. James E. Hansen, an astronomer, received approximately $1.6 million in outside, direct cash income in the past five years …For example, consider these failures to report often elegant air and hotel/resort accommodations received on his SF278 as required by law (the amount of direct cash income received from the party providing him travel, as well, is in parentheses):

    Blue Planet Prize ($500,000), travel for Hansen and his wife to Tokyo, Japan, 2010
    Dan David Prize ($500,000), travel to Paris, 2007
    Sophie Prize ($100,000), Oslo Norway, travel for Hansen and his wife, 2010
    WWF Duke of Edinburgh Award, Travel for Hansen and his wife, London, 2006
    Alpbach, Austria (alpine resort)(“business class”, with wife), 2007
    Shell Oil UK ($10,000), London, 2009
    FORO Cluster de Energia, travel for Hansen and wife (“business class”), Bilbao, Spain, 2008
    ACT Coalition, travel for Hansen and wife to London, 2007
    Progressive Forum ($10,000)(“first class”), to Houston, 2006
    Progressive Forum ($10,000), to Houston, 2009
    UCSB ($10,000), to Santa Barbara, CA
    Nierenberg Prize ($25,000), to San Diego, 2008
    Nevada Medal ($20,000), to Las Vegas, Reno, 2008
    EarthWorks Expos, to Denver, 2006
    California Academy of Science ($1,500), to San Francisco, 2009
    CalTech ($2,000), travel to Pasadena, CA for Hansen and his wife, 2007

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/18/dr-james-hansens-growing-financial-scandal-now-over-a-million-dollars-of-outside-income/

    It is truly said that global warming is a religion. There is no difference between talking to an alarmist like Griff or Luc and talking to a Christian or a Muslim about their beliefs. There is no evidence or logic they will accept.

    where is a link to peer reviewed science I see only a opinion piece in the The Washington Times?

    It’s a newspaper article. Why should it contain a link to the papers it cites? But what it does say is that “These peer-reviewed results, appearing in several science journals, make it difficult to maintain that changes in solar activity play no or an insignificant role in climate change.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. wat dabney (3,714 comments) says:

    Griff,

    you are repeating the myths from the blogs and opinions of the denialists The hockey stick graph with 10 reconstructions using millions of data points as published in scientific journals has undergone many peer reviews to not believe them steps out side of science and enters realms were only faith and conspiracy can go see reid not me

    What do you think a peer-review is, Griff?

    Do you think the reviewers request the original data, check that it was properly collected, hasn’t been cherry-picked and perform the statistics to recreate the results? Because they don’t.

    The original hockeystick was peer-reviewed, yet we now know it is a fabricated piece of rubbish. We know that Mann’s program produces hockeystick shapes nearly every time even from completely random data. And we know that, even so, Mann cherry-picked data to produce the required result, and concealed confounding data in his notorious “Censored” folder.

    And as you learned yesterday, those me-to hockeystick charts are utterly corrupted with equally cherry-picked data (the Yamal scandal).
    They were all peer-reviewed, but no one checked the data or analysis. When you use all the available data rather than just a particular sub-set the hockeystick shape disappears and those well documented historical phenomena the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period re-emerge (because they are of course wiped from history when the dishonest sub-set is used.)

    Then there’s the issue of who is conducting these peer-reviews. It turns out to be the same clique “reviewing” each others work. So not only do they share the same wilfully corrupted data-sets, they approve each others work.

    An as Climategate revealed, these same crooks conspired to pervert the peer-review process so that work challenging their corrupted efforts could never be published.

    It is interesting that, even though you are now aware of all these undeniable and well-documented catastrophic problems with these charts, you choose to ignore them and cling to the “peer-reviewed” mantra. You don’t deny the issues (as I say, they are documented and well proven), so in some corner of your brain you know these charts are worthless. Yet you choose to deny evidence and reality and simply murmer “peer-reviewed.” Pathetic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. wat dabney (3,714 comments) says:

    For some other ignoramus above, the Arctic amplification effect is well known, and is why the the NH warms faster than the SH, on average.

    The interesting fact about the Arctic and Antarctic is this: enhanced warming at both poles is a necessary fingerprint of AGW.

    The reason for this is that the direct effects of CO2 are generally minimal, because the effects of these trace levels of CO2 are largely masked by the major greenhouse gas, water vapour.

    But in the much drier air around the poles the effect of CO2 is relatively more pronounced and the impact of increasing CO2 levels will be all the more apparent. Hence the finerprint.

    Of course, the reverse is also true: if we don’t see enhanced warming at both poles then that shows the AGW theory is rubbish.

    And of course we don’t see such warming. The Antarctic in particular shows no signs of warming.

    This is a very effective real-world demonstration that the AGW theory is rubbish.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Griff (6,965 comments) says:

    Wat =denioal nutter

    Climate gate has been reviewed nine times by different body’s including both the royal science academy and usa government departments due to the claims you make so that is denial denial denial denial denial denial denial denial denial and denial

    After being found not guilty NINE times don’t you think that the accusations of wrong doing should stop

    conspiracy peer review is controlled by blah blah blah
    oh dear who if not the peers review it ? if the denial lobby has genuine science to dispute the peer reviewed studies the studies would be withdrawn or corrected. Ie peer review that this does not happen often is not a conspiracy its because the science is sound and the nutters claims are not

    All the data makes the hockey stick disappear
    gee wat nut I gave you a link that had 10 different reconstructions created since 1998 in a nice pretty graph which include all the known data and still you repeat the same myth based on the stories you read on the denial websites.The only one you have linked to was blathering on about some tree rings in fucken siberia irreverent werdos dribble at best. 17 data points out of millions does not make a difference that is statistically significant so with tree rings hockey stick without tree rings hockey stick.

    Poler region warming both the Arctic and the Antarctic show warming with the artic in particular showing unprecedented warming in the last thrity years This is a very effective real-world demonstration that the denial of AGW theory is rubbish. and weoirdos like wat are stupid sheep
    Oh watnut the Arctic warming is well known the Antarctic less so here are the peer reviewed papers supporting the Antarctic warming#

    Or and a list of air fares and accommodation is not income ask the guys on KB their opinion of travelling around the world to work they will tell you it sucks. The important thing about the payments received by the likes of bob and lord Muckeyton is the money comes directly from organisations that used the same methods to hide the truth around tobacco as the co2 industry funded denial lobby is using around ACG This is well known and well documented.

    # Antarctic region warming is documented in the following papers
    J. Gergis, R. Neukom, S.J. Phipps, A.J.E. Gallant, and D.J. Karoly, “Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium”, Journal of Climate, pp. 120518103842003, 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00649.1
    A.J. Orsi, B.D. Cornuelle, and J.P. Severinghaus, “Little Ice Age cold interval in West Antarctica: Evidence from borehole temperature at the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) Divide”, Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 39, 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2012GL051260
    E.J. Steig, D.P. Schneider, S.D. Rutherford, M.E. Mann, J.C. Comiso, and D.T. Shindell, “Warming of the Antarctic ice-sheet surface since the 1957 International Geophysical Year”, Nature, vol. 457, pp. 459-462, 2009. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature07669
    D.P. Schneider, C. Deser, and Y. Okumura, “An assessment and interpretation of the observed warming of West Antarctica in the austral spring”, Climate Dynamics, vol. 38, pp. 323-347, 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00382-010-0985-x
    Q. Ding, E.J. Steig, D.S. Battisti, and M. Küttel, “Winter warming in West Antarctica caused by central tropical Pacific warming”, Nature Geoscience, vol. 4, pp. 398-403, 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1129
    V. Zagorodnov, O. Nagornov, T.A. Scambos, A. Muto, E. Mosley-Thompson, E.C. Pettit, and S. Tyuflin, “Borehole temperatures reveal details of 20th century warming at Bruce Plateau, Antarctic Peninsula”, The Cryosphere Discussions, vol. 5, pp. 3053-3084, 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/tcd-5-3053-2011
    N. Zazulie, M. Rusticucci, and S. Solomon, “Changes in Climate at High Southern Latitudes: A Unique Daily Record at Orcadas Spanning 1903–2008″, Journal of Climate, vol. 23, pp. 189-196, 2010. http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/2009JCLI3074.1

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Anthony (784 comments) says:

    What are the vested interests that stand to loose a lot in the climate change argument? It’s not like we can suddenly stop using oil? It’s not like we can do much of anything to significantly lower CO2 emissions without huge, huge costs.

    True science is based on facts, not peer review of theory!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Griff (6,965 comments) says:

    True science is based on facts, not peer review of theory!
    scientific method
    Ask a Question
    Do Background Research
    Construct a Hypothesis
    Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
    Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
    Communicate Your Results

    scientific peer review, a quality-control system that requires all new scientific discoveries, ideas and implications to be scrutinized and critiqued by expert scientists before they become widely accepted.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. wat dabney (3,714 comments) says:

    After being found not guilty NINE times don’t you think that the accusations of wrong doing should stop

    What does “not guilty” mean? The Climategate emails are in the public domain, with their talk of perverting the peer-review process and “hiding the decline” etc. Any investigation may fail to turn up any additional incriminating facts (actually they didn’t bother to look), but it certainly can’t make the existing stuff just vanish.

    Trying to laugh-off legitimate concerns about such proven gross malpractise and other fraudulent and incompetent work as a “conspiracy theory” is just another of your pathetic attempts to smear. It’s liked watching an 8 year old have a tantrum.

    The Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age are well-documented and well proven phenomena. You are ignoring the overwhelming evidence from numerous disciplines if you try to pretend otherwise; so good luck trying to sell your fraudulent hockeysticks. By all means stick to your blinkered assertions. Nobody cares. Most people are entirely honest and reasonable and when they see the evidence rather than the spin – and when they see the way you fanatics lie and turn a blind-eye to gross malpractise as you do here – then they show the same legitimate scepticism that I do.

    The more hysterical you get – such as your claims that there is unprecendented warming occuring, when temperatures have in fact been flat for more than a decade – the more stupid, ill-informed and dishonest you make yourself look.

    When was the last time you actually said something honest, informed and accurate in this debate? You know you are lying. We know you are lying. And you know that we know. So there is some psychological need you are exhibiting with your continued blatant lying which fools no one.

    Poler region warming both the Arctic and the Antarctic show warming with the artic in particular showing unprecedented warming in the last thrity years

    This is simply another of your lies.

    So let’s look at the treasures you have dug up which you claim support your claim about “unprecedented” Antarctic warming but

    1) J. Gergis, R. Neukom, S.J. Phipps, A.J.E. Gallant, and D.J. Karoly, “Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium”

    What happens when we click the link you provide?

    Due to errors discovered in this paper during the publication process, it was withdrawn by the authors prior to being published in final form

    2) A.J. Orsi, B.D. Cornuelle, and J.P. Severinghaus, “Little Ice Age cold interval in West Antarctica: Evidence from borehole temperature at the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) Divide”

    You didn’t even bother to glance at this before citing it, did you, because this paper does not suggest there has been any anomalous recent warming but instead discuess the evidence for the Little Ice Age and specifically says that it was a global event.

    The importance of this, of course, is that this evidence completely contradicts your fake hockeysticks. If there was a Little ice Age then by definition there can be no hockeystick-shaped chart.

    You are actually quoting scientific papers which completely contradict yourself.

    3) E.J. Steig, D.P. Schneider, S.D. Rutherford, M.E. Mann, J.C. Comiso, and D.T. Shindell, “Warming of the Antarctic ice-sheet surface since the 1957 International Geophysical Year”

    Now this is an interesting one, because the alarmists had long had a problem with the complete lack of warming in the Antarctic and this paper claimed to have discovered such warming, at least in a certain peninsula.
    In fact it was so significant it made the front page of Nature magazine.

    The only problem was, it was complete rubbish. And Steig himself was later humiliated when it was revealed that he tried to mislead the peer-review process which exposed the fatal problems in the paper. Something of the sordid story and Steig’s duplicity can be read here:

    http://climateaudit.org/2011/02/07/eric-steigs-trick/

    Here are some diagrams which easily show how Steig’s incompentent data processing magicked Antartic warming out of nothing:

    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/2/8/steigs-method-massacred.html

    4) Q. Ding, E.J. Steig, D.S. Battisti, and M. Küttel, “Winter warming in West Antarctica caused by central tropical Pacific warming”,

    If you open this paper and read its conclusions you will find this statement:

    Our assessment underscores that temperatures across East Antarctica have not changed significantly, and have even cooled slightly in austral summer and autumn (though no significantly so) since 1979.

    So again you are citing a paper which completely contradicts you.

    5) V. Zagorodnov, O. Nagornov, T.A. Scambos, A. Muto, E. Mosley-Thompson, E.C. Pettit, and S. Tyuflin, “Borehole temperatures reveal details of 20th century warming at Bruce Plateau, Antarctic Peninsula”

    And what does this paper conclude? “we find that cold temperatures (minimum Ts=−16.2 °C) prevailed from ~1920 to ~1940, followed by a gradual rise of temperature to −14.2 °C around 1995, then cooling over the following decade and warming in the last few years. The coldest period was preceded by a relatively warm 19th century at T15 ≥ −15 °C.

    So temperatures fluctuated. And specifically note the reference to the “relatively warm 19th century.” This is not evidence of “unprecedented warming” as you claim. It is evidence that the 19th C was warmer.

    6) N. Zazulie, M. Rusticucci, and S. Solomon, “Changes in Climate at High Southern Latitudes: A Unique Daily Record at Orcadas Spanning 1903–2008″

    Finally something of slight interest. “No statistically significant climate trends are observed at Orcadas from 1903 to 1950. However, statistically significant warming is evident at Orcadas throughout all four seasons of the year since 1950.

    So this one station detects some warming since 1950. It doesn’t say how much. However, if you look at its Wikepedia page there is a chart. Note that the chart shows flat/cooling for the last few years. Where is the “unprecedented warming” you claim, Griff?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orcadas_Base

    So what have we learned?

    We have learned that, again, Griff has posted a list of papers which he claims support his position but actually don’t. In general they all provide evidence which flatly contradicts him and actually provide firm support the sceptical position.

    The once exception is the Steig paper, which has long been exposed as the work of flawed methodology. This isn’t a matter of opinion, it is demonstrable fact (see the above links I provide, and note Steig’s duplicity when he found himself in the position of peer-reviewing the work which exposed his own paper.)

    Of course, Griff is not going to change his position based on the evidence in these papers which he himself cites. He will ignore the evidence he provides for the Little Ice Age and instead dishonestly attempt to keep pushing his fraudulent hockeysticks. And he will ignore the evidence he cites which finds that the Antarctic was warmer in the 19th century, and his other evidence which concludes that “temperatures across East Antarctica have not changed significantly, and have even cooled slightly in austral summer and autumn (though no significantly so) since 1979″; preferring instead to push his obvious alarmist lie about some supposed unprecedented warming.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Griff (6,965 comments) says:

    You really are a fuckwit Wat Nine reviews to look into the stolen climate emails the claims of your denialsist are unproven to keep maintaining that Mann or any one else were at fault is just blind refusal to accept the truth. You posted the lack of warming in the poles disproved global warming.
    Sea ice extent in the arctic is at record lows due to a 2c rise that again you ignore the Antarctic is warmer know than in the record again you refuse to accept you post a link to a graph from a weather station that shows around a 2 degree warming trend over the record and say that there is no warming. You are a denier of climate change who frequents the alt science blogs I have caught your crap out many times and look forward to doing it many more. Hows the more than normal ice extent or the mouder minimum going from early this year?

    The average combined global land and ocean surface temperature for June 2012 was 0.63°C (1.13°F) above the 20th century average of 15.5°C (59.9°F). This is the fourth warmest June since records began in 1880.

    The Northern Hemisphere land surface temperature for June 2012 was the all-time warmest June on record, at 1.30°C (2.34°F) above average.

    The globally-averaged land surface temperature for June 2012 was also the all-time warmest June on record, at 1.07°C (1.93°F) above average.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Australis (99 comments) says:

    I think you’re in trouble, Griff. Why not stop digging?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Say Goodbye to Hollywood (556 comments) says:

    After reading Griff’s rant I’m proud to be a denier.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.