No they didnt. They called no witnesses to discuss the science and that was outside the brief of the inquiry.

The surprising thing is that NIWA doesn’t deny any of these shenanigans. They routinely use statistical tricks which would translate into prison sentences if used in the financial sector. I’m not sure whether we should be pleased they are so naively transparent, or upset that they treat us all as idiots.

Just a quick note to let others know you misrepresented what I have done. You said:

Treadgold tends to delete my comments (so much for openness).

I deleted only a single comment of yours, on the grounds of abusiveness. I understand that you disagree with having a comment deleted, even though you were warned it could happen, but a single deletion does not constitute a tendency to delete your comments. In fact, you are as welcome as ever to contribute as much as you wish to a discussion here.

Gary, I understand your frustration, but please let’s not descend to personal insults. The “Conversation” in the title of this site is intended seriously. To the full extent of your skill, excoriate another’s argument or actions, but never insult their person, please. Anyway, using a play on their (unfortunate) name, for which they are not responsible, to insult them is very low. (I know you’re frustrated.) – Richard.

However when I requested the data and methodology he used he refused to supply it. What about criticising him for not being open?

And don’t take his words of explanation – read the emails involved (emails) involved.

The inquiries into the “climategate” affair have I think produced useful results. They have endorsed the science (surely no objective person thought there was any question of that) but they have raised issues with openness to data. And one of those issues is the responsible use of data. The responsibilities of both scientists and any sceptical public in using public data is currently being discussed. In NZ we expect to see a code of practice developed to deal with these.

Treadgold has shown by his dishonesty that he is irresponsible with public data. He would not allow any scientific review of his report. He would not provide the data. He would not provide the methodology.

He can’t be trusted as he is in cohorts with the ACT Party and the extreme right wing think tank the NZ Centre for Policy Research. This itself is linked to the Heritage Foundation and other right wing think tanks in the US. Their anti-science record is obvious.

There is currently an extreme attack occurring on scientific integrity (see Climate change and the integrity of science). As a scientist, who I respect, I would think you should line up with science – not those McCarthyites who are attempting to silence us.

I am sure you don’t really believe that the current understanding of the science of climate change, in NZ or elsewhere, is a result of “dangers of commercialising and politicising science” We are both capable of recognising the truth here. However. the current attacks on science are obviously an attempt by commercial interests to politicise science.

By the way – I can’t really contribute much to a discussion here as Treadgold tends to delete my comments (so much for openness). But you are welcome to come and have a go at me at Open Parachute.

(And no Richard I am not interested in any response from you here).

Hmmm – by that logic the warmest year was 1982! From the Teara website:

“When first visited by geologist and explorer Julius Haast in 1864, the front edge of the Franz Josef stood near Sentinel Rock, several kilometres further downvalley than today. Franz Josef began a rapid retreat in the mid-1930s. A lake formed in front of the glacier between 1939 and 1949, but rapidly filled with rock debris. Since then, the Franz Josef and the Fox have been retreating, with occasional brief advances. The Franz Josef was at its smallest extent in 1982, but since then its front has once again advanced about a kilometre.”

Thank you for your tireless efforts to document the systematic misrepresentation of NZ climatic data in the cause of global warming alarmism.

Your posting (above) that lists NIWA’s recent misdemeanours is thorough and compelling, but I wish to add the following thought. Which is that the matter goes back many years, and involves not just NIWA but also other government advisory bodies such as the Royal Society of New Zealand.

At the following link you can find a comprehensive rebuttal of some of Dr. Wratt’s earlier advice on the global warming issue – which, having encouraged its production, the RSNZ refused to publish on their website.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/Wratt%20&%20RSNZ%20-%20compiled.rtf

Dr. Wratt’s global warming advice to the Environmental Court hearing on the Hayes windfarm was also roundly criticized and shown to be invalid by other expert witnesses called in the case; see:

http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/2008%2007-29%20RMC%20Hayes%20Evidence%20-%205Z.doc

Over the long haul, the two main misrepresentational global warming issues have remained the same. They are (i) the naive and myopic belief that climate change can be usefully analysed on the basis of historical temperature measurements only (i.e., the persistent refusal to examine change over climatically significant periods of time); and (ii) the assumption that a political body – the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – can give unprejudiced policy advice that should be followed by the NZ government.

The persistent representation of both these issues, and accompanying actions by many self-interested lobby groups and government agencies, have now fanned the fire of global warming alarmism and carbon dioxide demonisation to its impending July 1st climax – when NZ’s unnecessary, ineffectual and swingeingly expensive emissions trading scheme will be activated.

You are absolutely right to point out that future generations of New Zealanders are going to live to regret this decision. There is not, never has been and never will be any possibility that actions taken in NZ will have any direct effect on global climate.

Bob Carter

It’s a mess, all right. FOR NO PURPOSE!

If only more people could repeat this simple message the country could yet be saved.

THERE IS NO PURPOSE TO THE ETS, ONLY GREAT EXPENSE.

(sorry I shouted)