An insider’s story of the global attack on climate science
23 January 2014, 6.40am AEST
Jim Salinger

A recent headline – Failed doubters trust leaves taxpayers six-figure loss – marked the end of a four-year epic saga of secretly-funded climate denial, harassment of scientists and tying-up of valuable government resources in New Zealand.

It’s likely to be a familiar story to my scientist colleagues in Australia, the UK, USA and elsewhere around the world.

But if you’re not a scientist, and are genuinely trying to work out who to believe when it comes to climate change, then it’s a story you need to hear too. Because while the New Zealand fight over climate data appears finally to be over, it’s part of a much larger, ongoing war against evidence-based science.

From number crunching to controversy

In 1981 as part of my PhD work, I produced a seven-station New Zealand temperature series, known as 7SS, to monitor historic temperature trends and variations from Auckland to as far south as Dunedin in southern New Zealand.

A decade later, in 1991-92 while at the NZ Meteorological Service, I revised the 7SS using a new homogenisation approach to make New Zealand’s temperature records more accurate, such as adjusting for when temperature gauges were moved to new sites.

For example, in 1928 Wellington’s temperature gauge was relocated from an inner suburb near sea level up into the hills at Kelburn, where - due to its higher, cooler location - it recorded much cooler temperatures for the city than before.

With statistical analysis, we could work out how much Wellington’s temperature has really gone up or down since the city’s temperature records began back in 1862, and how much of that change was simply due to the gauge being moved uphill. (You can read more about re-examining NZ temperatures here.)

So far, so uncontroversial.

But then in 2008, while working for a NZ government-owned research organisation, the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), we updated the 7SS. And we found that at those seven stations across the country, from Auckland down to Dunedin, between 1909 and 2008 there was a warming trend of 0.91°C.

Soon after that, things started to get heated.

The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, linked to a global climate change denial group, the International Climate Science Coalition, began to question the adjustments I had made to the 7SS.

And rather than ever contacting me to ask for an explanation of the science, as I’ve tried to briefly cover above, the Coalition appeared determined to find a conspiracy.

“Shonky” claims

The attack on the science was led by then MP for the free market ACT New Zealand party, Rodney Hide, who claimed in the NZ Parliament in February 2010 that:


Quote:

NIWA’s raw data for their official temperature graph shows no warming. But NIWA shifted the bulk of the temperature record pre-1950 downwards and the bulk of the data post-1950 upwards to produce a sharply rising trend… NIWA’s entire argument for warming was a result of adjustments to data which can’t be justified or checked. It’s shonky.

Mr Hide’s attack continued for 18 months, with more than 80 parliamentary questions being put to NIWA between February 2010 and July 2011, all of which required NIWA input for the answers.

The science minister asked NIWA to re-examine the temperature records, which required several months of science time. In December 2010, the results were in. After the methodology was reviewed and endorsed by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, it was found that at the seven stations from Auckland to Dunedin, between 1909 and 2008 there was a warming trend of 0.91°C.

That is, the same result as before.

But in the meantime, before NIWA even had had time to produce that report, a new line of attack had been launched.

Off to court

In July 2010, a statement of claim against NIWA was filed in the High Court of New Zealand, under the guise of a new charitable trust: the New Zealand Climate Science Education Trust (NZCSET). Its trustees were all members of the NZ Climate Science Coalition.

[continued ...]

[... continued]

The NZCSET challenged the decision of NIWA to publish the adjusted 7SS, claiming that the “unscientific” methods used created an unrealistic indication of climate warming.

The Trust ignored the evidence in the Meteorological Service report I first authored, which stated a particular adjustment methodology had been used. The Trust incorrectly claimed this methodology should have been used but wasn’t.

In July 2011 the Trust produced a document that attempted to reproduce the Meteorological Service adjustments, but failed to, instead making lots of errors.

On September 7 2012, High Court Justice Geoffrey Venning delivered a 49-page ruling, finding that the NZCSET had not succeeded in any of its challenges against NIWA.

The judge was particularly critical about retired journalist and NZCSET Trustee Terry Dunleavy’s lack of scientific expertise.

Justice Venning described some of the Trust’s evidence as tediously lengthy and said “it is particularly unsuited to a satisfactory resolution of a difference of opinion on scientific matters".

Taxpayers left to foot the bill

After an appeal that was withdrawn at the last minute, late last year the NZCSET was ordered to pay NIWA NZ$89,000 in costs from the original case, plus further costs from the appeal.

But just this month, we have learned that the people behind the NZCSET have sent it into liquidation as they cannot afford the fees, leaving the New Zealand taxpayer at a substantial, six-figure loss.

Commenting on the lost time and money involved with the case, NIWA’s chief executive John Morgan has said that:


Quote:

On the surface it looks like the trust was purely for the purpose of taking action, which is not what one would consider the normal use of a charitable trust.

This has been an insidious saga. The Trust aggressively attacked the scientists, instead of engaging with them to understand the technical issues; they ignored evidence that didn’t suit their case; and they regularly misrepresented NIWA statements by taking them out of context.

Yet their attack has now been repeatedly rejected in Parliament, by scientists, and by the courts.

The end result of the antics by a few individuals and this Trust is probably going to be a six-figure bill for New Zealanders to pay.

My former colleagues have had valuable weeks tied up with wasted time in defending these manufactured allegations. That’s time that could have profitably been used investigating further what is happening with our climate.

But there is a bigger picture here too.

Merchants of doubt

Doubt-mongering is an old strategy. It is a strategy that has been pursued before to combat the ideas that cigarette smoking is harmful to your health, and it has been assiduously followed by climate deniers for the past 20 years.

One of the best known international proponents of such strategies is US think tank, the Heartland Institute.

https://c479107.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/39200/width668/4d6rwhyz-1389858850.jpg
The first in a planned series of anti-global warming billboards in the US, comparing “climate alarmists” with terrorists and mass murderers. The campaign was canned after a backlash. The Heartland Institute

Just to be clear: there is no evidence that the Heartland Institute helped fund the NZ court challenge. In 2012, one of the Trustees who brought the action against NIWA said Heartland had not donated anything to the case.

However, Heartland is known to have been active in NZ in the past, providing funding to the NZ Climate Science Coalition and a related International Coalition, as well as financially backing prominent climate “sceptic” campaigns inAustralia.

The Heartland Institute also has a long record of working with tobacco companies, ... (You can read ... industry documents in full here. Meanwhile, Heartland’s reply to critics of its tobacco and fossil fuel campaigns is here.)

[continued ...]

[... continued]

Earlier this month, the news broke that major tobacco companies will finally admit they “deliberately deceived the American public”, in “corrective statements” that would run on prime-time TV, in newspapers and even on cigarette packs.

It’s taken a 15-year court battle with the US government to reach this point, and it shows that evidence can trump doubt-mongering in the long run.

A similar day may come for those who actively work to cast doubt on climate science.

# wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2014 at 11:04am:

One of the best known international proponents of such strategies is US think tank, the Heartland Institute. ... The first in a planned series of anti-global warming billboards in the US, comparing “climate alarmists” with terrorists and mass murderers. The campaign was canned after a backlash. The Heartland Institute Just to be clear: there is no evidence that the Heartland Institute helped fund the NZ court challenge. In 2012, one of the Trustees who brought the action against NIWA said Heartland had not donated anything to the case. However, Heartland is known to have been active in NZ in the past, providing funding to the NZ Climate Science Coalition and a related International Coalition, as well as financially backing prominent climate “sceptic” campaigns inAustralia.

Yep, 'there is no evidence that the Heartland Institute helped fund the NZ court challenge', ' said Heartland had not donated anything to the case.'

But just to muddy the waters we'll throw them in anyway. Did we include ole Uncle Tom Cobley and all?

lee wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2014 at 5:35pm:

# wrote on Jan 23rd, 2014 at 11:04am: One of the best known international proponents of such strategies is US think tank, the Heartland Institute. ... The first in a planned series of anti-global warming billboards in the US, comparing “climate alarmists” with terrorists and mass murderers. The campaign was canned after a backlash. The Heartland Institute Just to be clear: there is no evidence that the Heartland Institute helped fund the NZ court challenge. In 2012, one of the Trustees who brought the action against NIWA said Heartland had not donated anything to the case. However, Heartland is known to have been active in NZ in the past, providing funding to the NZ Climate Science Coalition and a related International Coalition, as well as financially backing prominent climate “sceptic” campaigns inAustralia. Yep, 'there is no evidence that the Heartland Institute helped fund the NZ court challenge', ' said Heartland had not donated anything to the case.' But just to muddy the waters we'll throw them in anyway. Did we include ole Uncle Tom Cobley and all?

So about that billboard...where exactly is/was it in New Zealand?...

_____Content deleted in protest at move of this post. Talk to someone first before moving a post, eh?____

This belongs in environment or fairy tales, where it already is in one. But you knew that.

Good result in that NZ is on the other side and others can see the tactics used by the denialists.

My post belongs in Politicians suck, NOT Environment—it is about the war on science, not AGW!

George is right.  You should warn people before moving a thread or their posts and give a reason. Shhhheeeeeesss

St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2014 at 7:04pm:

_____Content deleted in protest at move of this post. Talk to someone first before moving a post, eh?____

Forget who you were posting under?

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 24^th, 2014 at 8:10am:

George is right.  You should warn people before moving a thread or their posts and give a reason. Shhhheeeeeesss

Especially where some idiot Mod moves it to the wrong board!

Attack on science continues:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/el-nino-tracking-system-in-pacific-ocean-faces-collapse-20140127-31iy3.html

It isn’t even to do with AGW, just the La Nina/El Nino cycles.

But anything to do with “climate” or “science” gets attacked these days.

St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 28^th, 2014 at 6:34am:

Attack on science continues: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/el-nino-tracking-system-in-pacific-ocean-faces-collapse-20140127-31iy3.html It isn’t even to do with AGW, just the La Nina/El Nino cycles. But anything to do with “climate” or “science” gets attacked these days.

Even good science starts to get splash back when you start dressing up self interest in dodgey lab coats for hire and start passing of sleight of hand as the result of scientific methodology. What did you really think was going to happen?

namnugenot wrote on Jan 28^th, 2014 at 8:11am:

St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 6:34am: Attack on science continues: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/el-nino-tracking-system-in-pacific-ocean-faces-collapse-20140127-31iy3.html It isn’t even to do with AGW, just the La Nina/El Nino cycles. But anything to do with “climate” or “science” gets attacked these days. Even good science starts to get splash back when you start dressing up self interest in dodgey lab coats for hire and start passing of sleight of hand as the result of scientific methodology. What did you really think was going to happen?

nam has never heard of following the money and his children weep: but still nam laughs at his paper profit if any lol not but still lol somehow but not  8-) :-? :P :-[ 8-)  wow, so confusing  :D :D

namnugenot wrote on Jan 28^th, 2014 at 8:11am:

St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 6:34am: Attack on science continues: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/el-nino-tracking-system-in-pacific-ocean-faces-collapse-20140127-31iy3.html It isn’t even to do with AGW, just the La Nina/El Nino cycles. But anything to do with “climate” or “science” gets attacked these days. Even good science starts to get splash back when you start dressing up self interest in dodgey lab coats for hire and start passing of sleight of hand as the result of scientific methodology. What did you really think was going to happen?

Here we go again. It's all a conspiracy. Of course it is. Must be.  ::)

# wrote on Jan 28^th, 2014 at 2:12pm:

namnugenot wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 8:11am: St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 6:34am: Attack on science continues: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/el-nino-tracking-system-in-pacific-ocean-faces-collapse-20140127-31iy3.html It isn’t even to do with AGW, just the La Nina/El Nino cycles. But anything to do with “climate” or “science” gets attacked these days. Even good science starts to get splash back when you start dressing up self interest in dodgey lab coats for hire and start passing of sleight of hand as the result of scientific methodology. What did you really think was going to happen? Here we go again. It's all a conspiracy. Of course it is. Must be.  ::)

No you're thinking about the global conspiracy against "science".

namnugenot wrote on Jan 28^th, 2014 at 3:58pm:

# wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 2:12pm: namnugenot wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 8:11am: St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 6:34am: Attack on science continues: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/el-nino-tracking-system-in-pacific-ocean-faces-collapse-20140127-31iy3.html It isn’t even to do with AGW, just the La Nina/El Nino cycles. But anything to do with “climate” or “science” gets attacked these days. Even good science starts to get splash back when you start dressing up self interest in dodgey lab coats for hire and start passing of sleight of hand as the result of scientific methodology. What did you really think was going to happen? Here we go again. It's all a conspiracy. Of course it is. Must be.  ::) No you're thinking about the global conspiracy against "science".

I presume you're talking about your: "dressing up self interest in dodgey lab coats for hire" and "passing of sleight of hand as the result of scientific methodology", which are opinions, none of which you can substantiate. Can you?

# wrote on Jan 29^th, 2014 at 10:47am:

namnugenot wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 3:58pm: # wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 2:12pm: namnugenot wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 8:11am: St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 6:34am: Attack on science continues: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/el-nino-tracking-system-in-pacific-ocean-faces-collapse-20140127-31iy3.html It isn’t even to do with AGW, just the La Nina/El Nino cycles. But anything to do with “climate” or “science” gets attacked these days. Even good science starts to get splash back when you start dressing up self interest in dodgey lab coats for hire and start passing of sleight of hand as the result of scientific methodology. What did you really think was going to happen? Here we go again. It's all a conspiracy. Of course it is. Must be.  ::) No you're thinking about the global conspiracy against "science". I presume you're talking about your: "dressing up self interest in dodgey lab coats for hire" and "passing of sleight of hand as the result of scientific methodology", which are opinions, none of which you can substantiate. Can you?

That's just for AG Warmists dishonest enough to classify the hodgepoge of faith, conjecture, supposition, ranting and wild speculation as to causation or effects passed off as "facts" as "science". To which my comment applies in full. You want everyone to accept your position while offering zero substantiation and in the same breath as requiring proof to negating something you yourself can't prove. But you see conspirators and blasphemers against your faith everywhere.  ::)

# wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2014 at 10:59am:

A decade later, in 1991-92 while at the NZ Meteorological Service, I revised the 7SS using a new homogenisation approach to make New Zealand’s temperature records more accurate, such as adjusting for when temperature gauges were moved to new sites.

A new paper on homogenisation

'Effect of data homogenization on estimate of temperature
trend: a case of Huairou station in Beijing Municipality

Abstract
Daily minimum temperature (Tmin) and maximum
temperature (Tmax) data of Huairou station in Beijing from
1960 to 2008 are examined and adjusted for inhomogeneities
by applying the data of two nearby reference stations. Urban
effects on the linear trends of the original and adjusted tem-
perature series are estimated and compared. Results show that
relocations of station cause obvious discontinuities in the data
series, and one of the discontinuities for Tmin are highly
significant when the station was moved from downtown to
suburb in 1996. The daily Tmin and Tmax data are adjusted
for the inhomogeneities. The mean annual Tmin and Tmax at
Huairou station drop by 1.377°C and 0.271°C respectively
after homogenization. The adjustments for Tmin are larger
than those for Tmax, especially in winter, and the seasonal
differences of the adjustments are generally more obvious for
Tmin than for Tmax. Urban effects on annual mean Tmin and
Tmax trends are
−
0.004°C/10 year and
−
0.035°C/10 year
respectively for the original data, but they increase to
0.388°C/10 year and 0.096°C/10 year respectively for the
adjusted data. The increase is more significant for the annual
mean Tmin series. Urban contributions to the overall trends of
annual mean Tmin and Tmax reach 100% and 28.8% respec-
tively for the adjusted data. Our analysis shows that data
homogenization for the stations moved from downtowns to
suburbs can lead to a significant overestimate of rising trends
of surface air temperature, and this necessitates a careful
evaluation and adjustment for urban biases before the data
are applied in analyses of local and regional climate change.'

http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/243/art%253A10.1007%252Fs00704-013-0894-0.pdf?auth66=1391225217_c6be0cc01021791410171649fd4fa9ad&ext=.pdf
my bold

So homogenisation of data is not necessarily a good thing.

namnugenot wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 1:13pm:

# wrote on Jan 29th, 2014 at 10:47am: namnugenot wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 3:58pm: # wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 2:12pm: namnugenot wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 8:11am: St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 6:34am: Attack on science continues: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/el-nino-tracking-system-in-pacific-ocean-faces-collapse-20140127-31iy3.html It isn’t even to do with AGW, just the La Nina/El Nino cycles. But anything to do with “climate” or “science” gets attacked these days. Even good science starts to get splash back when you start dressing up self interest in dodgey lab coats for hire and start passing of sleight of hand as the result of scientific methodology. What did you really think was going to happen? Here we go again. It's all a conspiracy. Of course it is. Must be.  ::) No you're thinking about the global conspiracy against "science". I presume you're talking about your: "dressing up self interest in dodgey lab coats for hire" and "passing of sleight of hand as the result of scientific methodology", which are opinions, none of which you can substantiate. Can you? That's just for AG Warmists dishonest enough to classify the hodgepoge of faith, conjecture, supposition, ranting and wild speculation as to causation or effects passed off as "facts" as "science". To which my comment applies in full. You want everyone to accept your position while offering zero substantiation and in the same breath as requiring proof to negating something you yourself can't prove. But you see conspirators and blasphemers against your faith everywhere.  ::)

Acknowledging my own limitations, I accept the judgement of the best qualified. You, on the other hand, seem convinced that the best qualified are all involved in something nasty.

You've never revealed your qualifications, that you have such insight.

lee wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 1:29pm:

# wrote on Jan 23rd, 2014 at 10:59am: A decade later, in 1991-92 while at the NZ Meteorological Service, I revised the 7SS using a new homogenisation approach to make New Zealand’s temperature records more accurate, such as adjusting for when temperature gauges were moved to new sites. [snip heaps of stuff that neither of us truly understands] So homogenisation of data is not necessarily a good thing.

Good, bad, necessary; what do you think?

# wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 1:57pm:

snip heaps of stuff that neither of us truly understands]

'
lee wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 1:29pm:

Our analysis shows that data homogenization for the stations moved from downtowns to suburbs can lead to a significant overestimate of rising trends of surface air temperature

I am sorry you didn't understand this. I can't make it simpler.

lee wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 2:07pm:

# wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 1:57pm: snip heaps of stuff that neither of us truly understands] ' lee wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 1:29pm: Our analysis shows that data homogenization for the stations moved from downtowns to suburbs can lead to a significant overestimate of rising trends of surface air temperature I am sorry you didn't understand this. I can't make it simpler.

Do you understand the difference between possibility and probability?

Care to answer the question?
# wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 1:57pm:

lee wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 1:29pm: ... So homogenisation of data is not necessarily a good thing. Good, bad, necessary; what do you think?

# wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 2:14pm:

lee wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 2:07pm: # wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 1:57pm: snip heaps of stuff that neither of us truly understands] ' lee wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 1:29pm: Our analysis shows that data homogenization for the stations moved from downtowns to suburbs can lead to a significant overestimate of rising trends of surface air temperature I am sorry you didn't understand this. I can't make it simpler. Do you understand the difference between possibility and probability? Care to answer the question? # wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 1:57pm: lee wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 1:29pm: ... So homogenisation of data is not necessarily a good thing. Good, bad, necessary; what do you think?

So Climate Science can only use can, could, should in terms of proving AGW bur not in terms of questioning the data? Rather odd.

Homogenisation can be a good or bad thing - neither makes it necessary.

lee wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 3:35pm:

# wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 2:14pm: lee wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 2:07pm: # wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 1:57pm: snip heaps of stuff that neither of us truly understands] ' lee wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 1:29pm: Our analysis shows that data homogenization for the stations moved from downtowns to suburbs can lead to a significant overestimate of rising trends of surface air temperature I am sorry you didn't understand this. I can't make it simpler. Do you understand the difference between possibility and probability? Care to answer the question? # wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 1:57pm: lee wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 1:29pm: ... So homogenisation of data is not necessarily a good thing. Good, bad, necessary; what do you think? So Climate Science can only use could, should in terms of proving AGW bur not in terms of questioning the data? Rather odd. Homogenisation can be a good or bad thing - neither makes it necessary.

You seem to be saying that homogenisation is unnecessary. Can you substantiate that?

# wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 3:39pm:

You seem to be saying that homogenisation is unnecessary. Can you substantiate that?

My opinion. Can you validate yours, whatever it is?

lee wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 3:50pm:

# wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 3:39pm: You seem to be saying that homogenisation is unnecessary. Can you substantiate that? My opinion. Can you validate yours, whatever it is?

The OP does that pretty well. You even quoted part of the reason. What exactly is your objection?

# wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 7:41pm:

The OP does that pretty well. You even quoted part of the reason. What exactly is your objection?

So you believe an OP over a peer reviewed paper? That explains it.

lee wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 8:12pm:

# wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 7:41pm: The OP does that pretty well. You even quoted part of the reason. What exactly is your objection? So you believe an OP over a peer reviewed paper? That explains it.

What peer reviewed paper say that homogenisation is unnecessary?

lee wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2014 at 5:35pm:

# wrote on Jan 23rd, 2014 at 11:04am: One of the best known international proponents of such strategies is US think tank, the Heartland Institute. ... The first in a planned series of anti-global warming billboards in the US, comparing “climate alarmists” with terrorists and mass murderers. The campaign was canned after a backlash. The Heartland Institute Just to be clear: there is no evidence that the Heartland Institute helped fund the NZ court challenge. In 2012, one of the Trustees who brought the action against NIWA said Heartland had not donated anything to the case. However, Heartland is known to have been active in NZ in the past, providing funding to the NZ Climate Science Coalition and a related International Coalition, as well as financially backing prominent climate “sceptic” campaigns inAustralia. Yep, 'there is no evidence that the Heartland Institute helped fund the NZ court challenge', ' said Heartland had not donated anything to the case.' But just to muddy the waters we'll throw them in anyway. Did we include ole Uncle Tom Cobley and all?

The Heartland Institute is a front for the US Koch Brothers, who are into big Oil.
They own one of the largest businesses in the world, they are anti climate change & they are big supporters of the US Tea Party.  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_family
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute

war is conducted in the economic sphere: or can andrei ban me on this board??  :-?

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 31^st, 2014 at 12:21am:

lee wrote on Jan 23rd, 2014 at 5:35pm: # wrote on Jan 23rd, 2014 at 11:04am: One of the best known international proponents of such strategies is US think tank, the Heartland Institute. ... The first in a planned series of anti-global warming billboards in the US, comparing “climate alarmists” with terrorists and mass murderers. The campaign was canned after a backlash. The Heartland Institute Just to be clear: there is no evidence that the Heartland Institute helped fund the NZ court challenge. In 2012, one of the Trustees who brought the action against NIWA said Heartland had not donated anything to the case. However, Heartland is known to have been active in NZ in the past, providing funding to the NZ Climate Science Coalition and a related International Coalition, as well as financially backing prominent climate “sceptic” campaigns inAustralia. Yep, 'there is no evidence that the Heartland Institute helped fund the NZ court challenge', ' said Heartland had not donated anything to the case.' But just to muddy the waters we'll throw them in anyway. Did we include ole Uncle Tom Cobley and all? The Heartland Institute is a front for the US Koch Brothers, who are into big Oil. They own one of the largest businesses in the world, they are anti climate change & they are big supporters of the US Tea Party.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_family http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute

As with # "Can you substantiate that?"...I was not aware that wikipedia was subject to peer review?

...and still irrelevant and nothing to do with the NZ case.
......

In an earlier piece I quoted from an Australian Government website on ACORN-SAT, which made reference to estimations and adjustments.

It is anomalous to use "data" that has been "estimated", "adjusted" and "homogenised", to state with absolute certainty this is the "hottest month/year on record".

It would be nowhere near as authoritative if it was stated "in the history of adjusted records, this is the hottest month.year".

In the headline article, the first work was 1981, the second 1991 and the last 2008. Surely new work on homogenisation is allowed after a five year period?

For heaven's sake lee! We have data from various sources. Researchers need to work with what they have and homogenisation is just one of the tools that they have to make use of that diversity of sources. Nothing nefarious, nothing dodgy.

Just link to the denialist crap that's got you on this time-wasting crusade and be done with it.

The need for the science/mathematics of statistics is always something that can be called into question because of the powerful propaganda that can be spread via misuse of 'statistics'.

Look at economics and the destruction of countless hopes and dreams.

Governments exist to make decisions and in the vacuum of non-decision panicked discussion has to fill the gap, thus-one would think- forcing decision.

# wrote on Jan 31^st, 2014 at 3:33pm:

For heaven's sake lee! We have data from various sources. Researchers need to work with what they have and homogenisation is just one of the tools that they have to make use of that diversity of sources. Nothing nefarious, nothing dodgy.

The question remains should the work by BOM be revisited in the light of this new paper?

lee wrote on Jan 31^st, 2014 at 4:40pm:

# wrote on Jan 31st, 2014 at 3:33pm: For heaven's sake lee! We have data from various sources. Researchers need to work with what they have and homogenisation is just one of the tools that they have to make use of that diversity of sources. Nothing nefarious, nothing dodgy. The question remains should the work by BOM be revisited in the light of this new paper?

My totally unqualified answer would be: why would it?

lee wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 1:29pm:

... A new paper on homogenisation ...

Courtesy of progressiveslol: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/29/important-study-on-temperature-adjustments-homogenization-can-lead-to-a-significant-overestimate-of-rising-trends-of-surface-air-temperature/.

Still scraping the bottom of the loony bin for your sources I see, lee. Why can't you just be honest about these things?

As I have said to you many times- it doesn't matter the search you use it's the underlying source that is important. Watts is an aggregator.

Perhaps you would rather the Guardian-

'EU 2030 climate action: a big step that is not enough
The planet's atmosphere is half-full of carbon, but the EU's recession-hit citizens have half-empty pockets: the result was a difficult compromise on emissions cuts and clean energy targets'

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2014/jan/22/eu-2030-climate-change-energy-emissions-targets

lee wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2014 at 8:25pm:

As I have said to you many times- it doesn't matter the search you use it's the underlying source that is important. Watts is an aggregator. Perhaps you would rather the Guardian- 'EU 2030 climate action: a big step that is not enough The planet's atmosphere is half-full of carbon, but the EU's recession-hit citizens have half-empty pockets: the result was a difficult compromise on emissions cuts and clean energy targets' http://www.theguardian.com/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2014/jan/22/eu-2030-climate-change-energy-emissions-targets

O divine art of subtlety  :D :D Yer, right, you go over everyones head ay brother  ;) ;)

lee wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2014 at 8:25pm:

As I have said to you many times- it doesn't matter the search you use it's the underlying source that is important. Watts is an aggregator.

Watts is a distorting lens.


lee wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2014 at 8:25pm:

Perhaps you would rather the Guardian- 'EU 2030 climate action: a big step that is not enough The planet's atmosphere is half-full of carbon, but the EU's recession-hit citizens have half-empty pockets: the result was a difficult compromise on emissions cuts and clean energy targets' http://www.theguardian.com/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2014/jan/22/eu-2030-climate-change-energy-emissions-targets

So?

It's the age-old problem. We see issues ahead. We can begin action to mitigate the effects either now or later. Beginning now will be cheaper, but we'll have to start paying now.

I fear humanity is going to get a whole lot poorer.

# wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2014 at 2:07pm:

Perhaps you would rather the Guardian- 'EU 2030 climate action: a big step that is not enough The planet's atmosphere is half-full of carbon, but the EU's recession-hit citizens have half-empty pockets: the result was a difficult compromise on emissions cuts and clean energy targets' http://www.theguardian.com/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2014/jan/22/eu-203...[quote author=davidb link=1390438792/41#41 date=1391400424]

So?/quote]

Further into his article-

'For those focusing on climate change – the atmosphere right now is half full of carbon dioxide '

Just so we're sure what he's talking about.

Damian Carrington is the head of environment at the Guardian.

http://www.theguardian.com/profile/damiancarrington

So, the atmosphere is approximately 0.04% full of carbon dioxide.

'December 2013:     396.81 ppm '

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
If the journal of truth and light can be this wrong, why should we believe anything it prints? John Cook's mate Dana Nuccitelli and all.

lee wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2014 at 4:38pm:

# wrote on Feb 3rd, 2014 at 2:07pm: Perhaps you would rather the Guardian- 'EU 2030 climate action: a big step that is not enough The planet's atmosphere is half-full of carbon, but the EU's recession-hit citizens have half-empty pockets: the result was a difficult compromise on emissions cuts and clean energy targets' http://www.theguardian.com/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2014/jan/22/eu-203...[quote author=davidb link=1390438792/41#41 date=1391400424] So?/quote] Further into his article- 'For those focusing on climate change – the atmosphere right now is half full of carbon dioxide ' Just so we're sure what he's talking about. Damian Carrington is the head of environment at the Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/profile/damiancarrington So, the atmosphere is approximately 0.04% full of carbon dioxide. 'December 2013:     396.81 ppm ' http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ If the journal of truth and light can be this wrong, why should we believe anything it prints? John Cook's mate Dana Nuccitelli and all.

Consider the definition of "full". Does it relate to capacity? Is it absolute? Is it relative?

# wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2014 at 7:28pm:

Consider the definition of "full". Does it relate to capacity? Is it absolute? Is it relative?

Perhaps you should ask the writer of the article what he meant.
Dissembling doesn't suit you.

lee wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2014 at 7:38pm:

# wrote on Feb 3rd, 2014 at 7:28pm: Consider the definition of "full". Does it relate to capacity? Is it absolute? Is it relative? Perhaps you should ask the writer of the article what he meant. Dissembling doesn't suit you.

Not dissembling, just trying to lead you out of your confusion. You listen to voices that distort your perceptions. I can only point out the distortions. What you do next is up to you.

# wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2014 at 7:48pm:

lee wrote on Feb 3rd, 2014 at 7:38pm: # wrote on Feb 3rd, 2014 at 7:28pm: Consider the definition of "full". Does it relate to capacity? Is it absolute? Is it relative? Perhaps you should ask the writer of the article what he meant. Dissembling doesn't suit you. Not dissembling, just trying to lead you out of your confusion. You listen to voices that distort your perceptions. I can only point out the distortions. What you do next is up to you.

Lee wants another circle party... you have been warned  8-)

# wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2014 at 7:48pm:

lee wrote on Feb 3rd, 2014 at 7:38pm: # wrote on Feb 3rd, 2014 at 7:28pm: Consider the definition of "full". Does it relate to capacity? Is it absolute? Is it relative? Perhaps you should ask the writer of the article what he meant. Dissembling doesn't suit you. Not dissembling, just trying to lead you out of your confusion. You listen to voices that distort your perceptions. I can only point out the distortions. What you do next is up to you.

Ah, A column claiming that a special relationship exists, but coyly refusing to divulge it. Sounds more like a gossip column than an an environmental column. ;)