“Leading climate scientists” make false allegation

We never said it was fraud

Professor James Renwick’s press release yesterday celebrating NIWA’s court “victory” was wrong. The opening paragraph said:

A group of leading New Zealand climate scientists (listed below) welcomed Justice Geoffrey Venning’s ruling to throw out the claim by the New Zealand Climate Science Education Trust (CSET, a small group of climate change “sceptics”) that NIWA had acted fraudulently in putting together its ‘7-station’ temperature series.

But the Trust did not claim fraud in its Statement of Claim to the High Court, which nowhere uses any derivative of the word fraud. The Coalition never accused NIWA of fraud and these scientists cannot justify their claim that it did.

This fictitious accusation against members of the NZ Climate Science Coalition and its Trust might have added to the excitement of the press release, but the stimulus came at the expense of the truth.

To people accustomed to hearing ad hominem remarks of the worst kind, accusing climate sceptics of alleging fraud is perhaps of no great concern, but to those devoted to the even-handed, practical pursuit of truth this accusation is deeply distressing.

It must be withdrawn and Dr Renwick must apologise. They need to man up and admit their mistake, apologise and withdraw the press statement.

Would proper scientists expect anything less of others?

20
Leave a Reply

avatar
16 Comment threads
4 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
10 Comment authors
Climate change denier’s false “deep distress” fools no-one | Secular News DailyRob TaylorClimate change denier’s false “deep distress” fools no-one | Open ParachuteUpdates From NZ Climate Realists Neil & Esther Henderson | NORTHLAND NEW ZEALAND CHEMTRAILS WATCHHigh Court ruled on integrity – not science | Open Parachute Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Andy
Guest
Andy

The last link I posted also has suggestions of links between the Tobacco Industry and NZ

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.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1209/S00012/doctors-welcome-decision-on-treacherous-temperature-case.htm

It must be a smear-a-thon.

val majkus
Guest
val majkus

indeed, a careless use of the word ‘fraudulent’ which is usually associated with intentional deception but it was a soft test applied by the Judge and peer review (other than in the Salinger matter) was not relevant in this case quite topically an article on peer review appeared in one of Aust’s national newspapers today, which I’ll copy in full as the paper is subscription only What do we want? Peer review. When do we want it? Never! • by: BRENDAN O’NEILL • From:The Australian • September 08, 201212:00AM WARNING: This column has not been peer-reviewed. In recent years, the words “peer review” have taken on an extraordinary meaning. Once upon a time, being peer-reviewed simply meant you had written something, usually a journal article, and some other people in your profession had read it and considered it fit for publication. Not any more. Now, being peer-reviewed apparently means being wise. It means you have access to some greater truth which the rest of us, the mere mortals who make up the mass of society, are unaware of and probably incapable of understanding. The stamp “peer-reviewed” is being turned into a mark of… Read more »

Alexander K
Guest
Alexander K

In any battle for publicity, the first rule is to promote one’s view, regardless of veracity, on the basis that ‘ a lie can be halfway around the world before the truth has it’s boots on’.
Sadly, it will now be doubly difficult to demonstrate that ‘the statement from leading climate scientists’ was untrue as the untruth will become the accepted wisdom.
Professor Renwick seems quite unshy of taking an advocate’s stance rather than being accurate in his press statements.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

“It must be withdrawn and Dr Renwick must apologise. They need to man up and admit their mistake, apologise and withdraw the press statement”

What are the odds?

Skinny at Ladbrokes I’m thinkin.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Or,

[NIWA] seems quite unshy of taking an advocate’s stance rather than being accurate in [their 7SS series].

Andy
Guest
Andy
Justin
Guest
Justin

Splitting hairs much?

https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2011/08/fraud-or-fumble-from-niwa/

“The red line reveals NIWA’s outrageous fraud”

It’s all about context, right?

Justin
Guest
Justin

Also…

https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/08/our-statement-of-claim-against-niwa/

“NIWA’s 1999 decision was influenced by the expectation that major NZTR warming would encourage funding for additional climate change research.”

Moderation-ho!

Ross
Guest
Ross

Renwick seems to think this decision had somehow vindicated the scientific process. He must be reading a different judgement to the one I read.
The problem with Renwick and co is they live in their sheltered little world and don’t realise that the climate “science” they are pushing is being used in major and expensive policy decisions by Governments all over the world. That means discussing scientific differences in Journals is a waste of time –taking it to court was the only way. It was not really a scientific difference anyway –it was a dispute over how data was collected and analysed. It could be better likened to a dispute over taxes with the IRD –how it was calculated and applied.

Richard Treadgold
Guest

No, it’s about the claim we made in the High Court, because that’s what the judge declined.

Richard Treadgold
Guest

That decision was so influenced. What does “moderation-ho” mean?

Angee
Guest
Angee

My view on this entire case is that NIWA have been discredited by the publicity highlighting this case and noone believes their tainted lies. They are revolting just as ACC establishment is they are rotten to the core! [Too extreme, Angee – capital punishment has ended. – RT]

trackback

[…] Of course, those in denial are now trying to claim victory because no ruling was made on the temperature record itself (it wasn’t considered so couldn’t be ruled on) and getting all falsely indignant because others have pointed out that in effect they were charging that NIWA had acted fraudulently and this had been rejected (see “Leading climate scientists” make false allegation). […]

Does anyone want to go and tell this clown that we’re not claiming victory?

Andy
Guest
Andy

Spokesperson for the group, Associate Professor James Renwick of Victoria University said he was pleased that the court had respected and reaffirmed the credibility of the scientific process. It was a strong message to those wanting to challenge widely-agreed scientific findings to do so honestly and openly in scientific forums.

There is a slightly Orwellian feel to this statement.
What is the scientific process?
How do we challenge the scientific findings?
Where was the peer-review?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

The scientific process will blow away Renwick’s view and the NIWA 7SS eventually. He hasn’t addressed the relative merits of the NZCSET and NIWA series yet in a clinical scientific way but he will have to eventually.

And Dr Mullen will have to inform us all on why he should be considered a statistician with expertise of more repute than 3 professionals – can’t wait to see that.

Andy
Guest
Andy
trackback

[…] a balance to the discussion, Richard Treadgold’s Climate Conversation Group has been busy: https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2012/09/leading-climate-scientists-make-false-allegat… An opinion piece by Chris de Freitas is here: […]

trackback

[…] Recently I commented on the High Court rejection of the climate change [ad homs removed] sceptics arguments against NIWA’s New Zealand temperature record. I said that those attacking NIWA were “getting all falsely indignant because others have pointed out that in effect they were charging that NIWA had acted fraudulently and this had been rejected (see “Leading climate scientists” make false allegation).” […]

Rob Taylor
Guest
Rob Taylor
trackback

[…] var mydate=new Date() var year=mydate.getYear() if (year < 1000) year+=1900 var day=mydate.getDay() var month=mydate.getMonth() var daym=mydate.getDate() if (daym Recently I commented on the High Court rejection of the climate change deniers/contrarians/sceptics arguments against NIWA’s New Zealand temperature record. I said that those attacking NIWA were “getting all falsely indignant because others have pointed out that in effect they were charging that NIWA had acted fraudulently and this had been rejected (see “Leading climate scientists” make false allegation).” […]

Post Navigation