Comments on: An impressive level of scintillating repartee

By: Clarence

Clarence — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 00:44:59 +0000

“The report was revised “following review” by the BoM.”

The published support letter dated 14 December does not suggest any revisions, corrections, adjustments, re-wording, editing, polishing, omissions or clarifications. It assumes the existing wording is superb and cannot think of anything that would effect any improvement.

So what caused NIWA to revise its report. It had been sitting fallow since 29 October, and then something big must have arrived from BoM to require the whole report to be revised on 13 December. It certainly wasn’t an early copy of the support letter. It must have been a report on the outcome of BoM’s peer review. An important document, we can assume.

So why is this document locked in a well-guarded safe in the bowels of the NIWA building? What mischief would be caused if it was allowed to escape into the wild? What reputations depend on it being forever shielded from the rude gaze of the public who paid for it?

By: Richard C (NZ)

Richard C (NZ) — Mon, 01 Aug 2011 07:54:51 +0000

Never did get any takers on that challenge. Was the prospect of viewing a recent trend that doesn’t fit the “warming” narrative just too unsettling to face?

I’m the first to concede that my algebra and spread-sheeting leaves a lot to be desired but so what? The objective was for people to plot the NZT7 data for themselves and do a bit of analysis. If you don’t the linear approach (neither do I on that data), why not apply a 3rd order polynomial?

Result: New Zealand is in a cooling phase and has been all this century.

By: Mike Palin

Mike Palin — Sun, 31 Jul 2011 21:16:53 +0000

I just caught up with this gem of a comment. Would you not agree that the spreadsheet equation was, hmm, a bit more complex than need be? This from a person who at the time was professing mathematical expertise. By their fruits, you shall know them.

BTW, it turned out James’s moronic comments were because he had never read the NIWA report in detail, not because he was a moron.

By: Climate Conversation Group » Will Keith Hunter destroy us?

Climate Conversation Group » Will Keith Hunter destroy us? — Mon, 02 May 2011 08:48:33 +0000

[...] Keith Hunter didn’t continue his conversation with us here (which we all felt was proceeding very well). He based that decision on unspecified comments from [...]

By: Bob D

Bob D — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 22:21:45 +0000

“Doug Mackie has not worked for the University of Otago since 2009 and I now have no more ability to censure his remarks than you do.”
My apologies, I take back what I said. I should have checked first that he still worked there.

By: Keith Hunter

Keith Hunter — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 18:59:18 +0000

I realize on reflection I was not clear enough. Sorry for that. There is nothing wrong with posting anonymously and I understand your reasons why. What is cowardly is making insulting personal remarks and hiding behind anonymity. I have had plenty of rude and insulting comments directed at me by such cowards.

By: Keith Hunter

Keith Hunter — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 18:53:52 +0000

Bob D: I agree completely with respect to the example you cite. Academic freedom does not extend to gross personal insults and I would have words with any of my staff who behaved in that way (and indeed have on several occasions) but I would not do it on a public blog. In any case, the example you cite is not relevant in this context since Doug Mackie has not worked for the University of Otago since 2009 and I now have no more ability to censure his remarks than you do.

I am sorry to hear that you base the reputation of our Science Division on such a misunderstanding. I can assure you that your kids would get a quality experience.

By: Andy

Andy — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 23:59:30 +0000

I just found this 2007 article by our learned gentlemen.

Climate Change Mythconceptions: Some Incorrect, Irrelevant and Misleading Arguments Made by Climate Change Denialists

Doug S. Mackie and Keith A. Hunter

Chemistry in New Zealand October 2007

http://www.nzic.org.nz/CiNZ/articles/Mackie_71_3.pdf

By: (not so) Silent

(not so) Silent — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 23:10:57 +0000

Hi Keith,
Thanks for the response. Nice to see your tolerence towards your staff about speaking out. I note many many organisations require their staff to behave in a professional manner and doubt they would permit such public outbursts your staff behave in.
I guess NIWA is amongst those as they certainly sacked poor old Jim Salinger for speaking out! There are other examples amongst many Govt departments as well.

As for being anonymous, maybe I have to protect my job too…I dont see the guy who leaked the Climategate files coming forward. And yes, it was a leak not a hack.

As for being a coward, I think the mother whose 9yo son I saved last Summer at Piha doesnt think I’m a coward….

By: Bob D

Bob D — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 19:26:28 +0000

As a last point, and then I’m over this point, I agree entirely with James’ last comment at HT:

“Doug – What I wrote could hardly be described as slagging off Mike Palin, except perhaps to someone with no objectivity. Also, what I wrote about Singer would hardly be described as veneration – I am just suggesting some balance. If we went back into any scientists history to discover if they were ever wrong and then dismissed anything they ever had to say in the future if they were, you would have ZERO scientists you could rely on, including those you idolise. Grow up!

I think I will leave you to your comfortable, back slapping, none investigative little blog site, there is nothing for the open minded here. You can thank the likes of Doug for creating such an isolationist site.”

Well said James! HT (backed up by Otaga University) is a perfect example of why so many people are turning away from AGW.