Climate Conversation Group

The book Hot Topic is as mistaken in its theme as in its angst-ridden depiction of a melting New Zealand. It’s author defends NIWA, no matter what, yet NIWA’s own graph demonstrates no New Zealand warming since about 1950. Why doesn’t he believe what they’re telling us? His book is entirely superfluous.

I see now that two days ago Ken Perrott made a short but incorrect comment at Hot Topic which should be rebutted:

My comments at Treadgold’s blog are now deleted.

Ken, whose repetitive comments here, with their artificial argumentation, became quite vexing, risks misleading Hot Topic’s readers into believing I deleted all his comments. For that is not true.

Actually, only Ken’s latest comment was deleted, for being derogatory, personal and in bad taste. I deleted a comment only after repeated warnings not to indulge in ad hominem remarks, which he ignored. It’s easy to verify that all his previous comments are still sitting here, ready to illuminate us.

Just stand around shouting insults

No doubt pluralising his “comment” was indeliberate and I look forward to his apology when he hears of my rebuttal.

Looking at some of the other comments, I’m surprised to see that scarcely a sentence mentions the national temperature record, which is what I’m talking about. Or perhaps not surprised, having noticed before that most contributors there (but not all) seem happy just to stand around muttering insults.

I might say that some of the remarks are in the most dreadfully poor taste. It’s a wonder that Mr Renowden lets them stand.

However, I should congratulate him on his writing this time. For a post that basically tells me to naff off from his blog, it is remarkably well-researched. I suppose I should feel flattered he went to such trouble over someone unimportant, without influence, not threatening or notable.

I’m almost of a mind to post a riposte — just to return the flattery, you understand.

But then, one notices he spends no time at all actually answering the charges against NIWA’s behaviour, or joining me in asking why they don’t publish the adjustments or why their citations were empty of content, why neither Salinger’s thesis nor Rhoades and Salinger contain a description of the methodology they’ve just used to produce the Hokitika Schedule of Adjustments, why they accepted a mere student’s thesis over the peer-reviewed paper from the experienced contemporary climate scientist Hessell, why they have never reviewed their methods in thirty years or why the higher-altitude station in Hokitika is warmer, when they made a huge song-and-dance about the fact that it should (by “standard scientific principles”) be colder.

Still, we won’t let the facts get in the way of a good diatribe, will we? Renowden is looking weaker by the weak… er, by the week.

More research is required, Gareth!

PS: Has he seen the Parliamentary Questions lately? Lovely juicy things, all about NIWA.