I have always refused the notion of not signing my own opinion, but being censored over there forced my hand; unfortunately, being a neophyte forger unveiled it.
Nonetheless, I said nothing I haven’t said elsewhere or wouldn’t be prepared to say openly. But Renowden’s comments reveal a continued avoidance of every topic I raise, so I’ll go another round.
GR: “What a pity he doesn’t have the courage to post under his own name.”
A cheap shot, this; entirely personal and nothing to do with the matter. It’s also illogical, for every time I post a comment, Renowden refuses to publish it. To have the temerity then to criticise me provides the very definition of framing someone.
GR: “Earlier today he … all but called me a liar.”
Since he made three false statements, one could be justified in doing so. The more interesting comment was that, if Renowden still disagrees the [adjustment] methodology is unavailable, he is a truffle short of a lunch. He doesn’t respond to that, but good on him for ignoring the ad hominem bits, even when they’re amusing.
So then he argues again, and I once more explain, about the “no reasons” statement in our paper. It is really so unfortunate that I omitted to say “NIWA give no reasons for any large corrections” and instead relied on the context to impart the full meaning. There is, contrary to what Renowden says, no sophistry in saying this, it is the simple truth.
I had no idea when I wrote it that the paper would be subject to such venomous comment allied with a lack of objective analysis.
After deliberately mistaking our meaning, for the umpteenth time, he falls again to the temptation to scratch my eyes out.
GR: You be the judge. Who’s rewriting history? Treadgold, you are a disgrace, beneath contempt. You don’t even have the balls to put your name to the law suit.
GR [in a later comment]: You attempt to defend the indefensible, and sophistry will get you nowhere. It’s quite clear what you meant. Had you examined the station histories, you would have found ample justification for the corrections that were made — but that didn’t play to the narrative you wanted to establish, which was that warming was an artefact of the adjustments rather than a physical reality.
Gareth should show which of the station histories then available from NIWA showed “ample justification” for the substantial changes that Salinger made.
Perhaps they were those altitude changes NIWA and its minister went to such trouble to explain in Parliament and the press?
Oh, that’s right – no altitude changes were made at any of the seven stations. In describing them, NIWA were just pulling the wool over everybody’s eyes.
We don’t care whether we’re cooling or warming but we do insist on a scientifically-defensible record.
For the record, we don’t say that the temperature record is wrong, but that it very well could be wrong. When NIWA simply justifies its adjustments we will go away.