A long series on climate change

[ONE TWO THREE FOUR FIVE]

More climate science fraud.

http://sppiblog.org/news/legal-defea...ndal#more-3032

The article linked to here claims that the New Zealand National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) has been forced to make a stament to the effect that it does not keep an official record of temperature by the New Zealand High Court.

There is no statment to that effect on their webiste:
http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications

There is no record of the alleged court victory on the High Cuurt database that I can find:
http://jdo.justice.govt.nz/jdo/Search.jsp

Three refferences in the article Cullion posted are to climate change denia, blogs, one is to an academic paper that they claim has been disproven by this ruling and one that claims to go too the ruling actually goes to a broken link on a climat change denial blog.

[Cullion]

There is no mention of a court ruling, it simply references the statement of defence NIWA submitted to the court. Nobody claimed they were forced to publish it on their website.

Here is their statement of defence to the court:-

http://nzclimatescience.net/images/P...of_defence.pdf

The statement of defence NIWA made to the court says what the skeptics said it says.

[ONE TWO THREE FOUR FIVE]

There is no mention of a court ruling, it simply references the statement of defence NIWA submitted to the court. Nobody claimed they were forced to publish it on their website.

The title of the article is "Legal Defeat for Global Warming in Kiwigate Scandal" - that would imply to me that there has been a courst case, not meerely some opening statements. It goes on to say:

"In the climate controversy dubbed Kiwigate New Zealand skeptics inflict shock courtroom defeat on climatologists implicated in temperature data fraud."

Here is their statement of defence to the court:-

http://nzclimatescience.net/images/P...of_defence.pdf

The statement of defence NIWA made to the court says what the skeptics said it says.

They claim "NIWA’s statement claims they were never responsible for the national temperature record (NZTR)."
And
"NIWA now denies there was any such thing as an “official” NZ Temperature Record, although there was an official acronym for it (NZTR). "

The NZTR is the skeptics data set. The NIWA aren't admiting anything they are correcting an error in the claimants statement.

Really this is ridiuclous, if you look at the claims in the document in includes this:

Whilst conceding that the 7SS-based NZTR requires review, NIWA has refused in
2010 to suspend it, or stop using it. It relies on an “Eleven-station series” (11SS) of
unadjusted data produced in December 2009.
The 2010 refusal involved a breach of ethical standards in:
delegating to Salinger the authority to select the stations and time periods of the
11SS, when it knew that he was likely to be biased in favour of corroborating the 7SS
allowing the 1931-55 period to masquerade as part of the 11SS

What this is saying is, that when they decided to review some data, they were negligent because they had the same person compile the review that time as they did the time before.

To put it another way, when they had the expert on a dataset review it to add new evidence to it, they were being "negligent".

This is the level of frivilous **** that climate research scientists have to put up with.

[Cullion]

The title of the article is "Legal Defeat for Global Warming in Kiwigate Scandal" - that would imply to me that there has been a courst case, not meerely some opening statements.

Only if you don't read the rest of the article.

They claim "NIWA’s statement claims they were never responsible for the national temperature record (NZTR)."
And
"NIWA now denies there was any such thing as an “official” NZ Temperature Record, although there was an official acronym for it (NZTR). "

The NZTR is the skeptics data set. The NIWA aren't admiting anything they are correcting an error in the claimants statement.

What they're doing is claiming that they have no responsibilty to ensure the accuracy of the dataset and that it shouldn't be considered a public record despite being compiled with public funds. The NZTR isn't a dataset collected by skeptics, it's a dataset the skeptics claim has been processed in a misleading manner.

What this is saying is, that when they decided to review some data, they were negligent because they had the same person compile the review that time as they did the time before.

To put it another way, when they had the expert on a dataset review it to add new evidence to it, they were being "negligent".

This is the level of frivilous **** that climate research scientists have to put up with.

What they're complaining about is that Salinger is being asked/allowed to police himself whilst his work is challenged. Salinger may be innocent, but I don't think that's a frivolous concern.

[Phrost]

Cullion vs. Rivington... I hear O Fortuna playing in the background.

[Cullion]

Rivington left in a hissyfit after producing two papers which he claimed were falsifiable predictions of the AGW hypothesis, despite the AGW hypothesis not depending on either of them being true or visa versa and then declaring me too right-wing to be allowed to live.

This argument has been done to death with more intelligent people on sociocide. I appreciate the real depth of Johnny's troll job though.

[JohnnyCache]

Jesus cullion ... do you understand what a falsifiable hypothesis IS? You asked for falsifiable hypothesis, he gave you two, showed how data supported them, and it seems to have sailed over your head. You are getting flogged her, but watching you drown in your conspiratorial sewage wasn't actually my point here.

I was interested in the points made later in the 5 part series, not the cover letter.

One bone I have to pick with many agw deniers lies in the subtle religious overtones of their movement - it can't be happening because the Divine world is huge and big and we're all just tiny parts of his plan that can't change the world on that scale. I thought the topics brought up later - how we are, actually, one of the prime shaping factors on the earth - were interesting, and seemingly in refutation of that particular thrust.

I also found it refreshing to see someone putting in print pointers to other pillars of the climate debate besides historical data - the problems with historical data are obvious, and many, and it's always struck me that "well, it's not significant data on a geological scale" is actually a very poor refutation - it's essentially saying, "the jury is still out, it could be natural warming.

But AGW, if real, isn't a simple principle of the universe waiting to be discovered, it's an ongoing event that may need to be stopped or derailed. All the debate over relativity did was slow progress of the charting of a natural phenomena, but a conservative view point on climate change carries some risk outside the realms of academia, should the warming be a man made phenomena.

It's interesting, though, that in the minds of deniers like cullion, simply saying, "I will never be convinced ... because of X scientist who was a minority opinion holder at one point" ignores the fact that those iconclasts did real research. They didn't simply stand in the sidelines sneering at their fellows, they challenged the status quo experimentally.

It's only fair to note, btw, that cullion did an excellent job of cherry-picking the signees of that open letter - yes, some of them are out of discipline, but the very fact that cullion finds this significant and attempts to use it dis-positively should bind him somewhat to the opinion of the many, many, many signers in relevant fields of endeavor. If posters would be good enough to actually view the entire list, they'll note that cullion managed to find a small scattering of people who signed from a less relevant platform - <10 percent by my estimation.

Of course, cullion is relying on a conspirator's paradox here - believers aren't qualified to believe, unless they are, in which case they're part of the agw conspiracy to bilk the public.

[The Juggernoob]

Does anyone posting in this thread have any grounding/background in Environmental Sciences, Climatology, Physical Geography?

Just wondering.

[Cullion]

Jesus cullion ... do you understand what a falsifiable hypothesis IS? You asked for falsifiable hypothesis, he gave you two, showed how data supported them, and it seems to have sailed over your head.

He gave two which couldn't be used to falsify AGW, or be falsified by AGW. I can only assume you're pretending not to understand why this is a stupid thing for him to do, for the sake of trolling.

You are getting flogged her, but watching you drown in your conspiratorial sewage wasn't actually my point here.

This is a troll job.

One bone I have to pick with many agw deniers lies in the subtle religious overtones of their movement - it can't be happening because the Divine world is huge and big and we're all just tiny parts of his plan that can't change the world on that scale. I thought the topics brought up later - how we are, actually, one of the prime shaping factors on the earth - were interesting, and seemingly in refutation of that particular thrust.

That accusation of religious overtone can work both ways, and it's not a reasonable accusation to level at all proponents of either side of the argument. It's akin to Rivington's Daffy-Duck like bluster about how everybody who disagrees with him is politically biased. Whilst we're abusing religious metaphor, "Remove the plank in thine own eye.."

I also found it refreshing to see someone putting in print pointers to other pillars of the climate debate besides historical data - the problems with historical data are obvious, and many, and it's always struck me that "well, it's not significant data on a geological scale" is actually a very poor refutation - it's essentially saying, "the jury is still out, it could be natural warming.

Which is a perfectly reasonable position to take whilst still being skeptical about the necessity of the economic burdens being justified by the AGW hypothesis. That's actually my own position. See below re: Pascal's wager.

But AGW, if real, isn't a simple principle of the universe waiting to be discovered, it's an ongoing event that may need to be stopped or derailed. All the debate over relativity did was slow progress of the charting of a natural phenomena, but a conservative view point on climate change carries some risk outside the realms of academia, should the warming be a man made phenomena.

I assume you're unfamiliar with Pascal's wager, and it's refutation? You're treading in the same mistaken direction.

It's interesting, though, that in the minds of deniers like cullion, simply saying, "I will never be convinced ... because of X scientist who was a minority opinion holder at one point" ignores the fact that those iconclasts did real research. They didn't simply stand in the sidelines sneering at their fellows, they challenged the status quo experimentally.

It's only fair to note, btw, that cullion did an excellent job of cherry-picking the signees of that open letter - yes, some of them are out of discipline, but the very fact that cullion finds this significant and attempts to use it dis-positively should bind him somewhat to the opinion of the many, many, many signers in relevant fields of endeavor. If posters would be good enough to actually view the entire list, they'll note that cullion managed to find a small scattering of people who signed from a less relevant platform - <10 percent by my estimation.

Of course, cullion is relying on a conspirator's paradox here - believers aren't qualified to believe, unless they are, in which case they're part of the agw conspiracy to bilk the public.

I've already demonstrated scientific fraud which is even acknowledged by people who still broadly support the AGW hypothesis. Go and yell 'Conspiracy Theory!' at somebody else.

Beautiful troll. Sorry, your logic fell apart too early on in your post for me to take this seriously. Go back and try again.

[Sang]

After reading this thread I'm leaning more towards Cullion's side, he's the only one making logical sense. Before reading this I was a mild GW believer, but now thanks to Rivington's logical fallacies and W.Rabbit's stupidity I'm again skeptical. Maybe we just need some "for" global warming people on here who actually know something about the topic.