Climate change denier’s false “deep distress” fools no-one

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).”

I argued that, in fact, these groups have for several years have accused NIWA scientists of fraud, even if the specific F word had not been used. It is disingenuous of these people to now claim “We never said it was fraud” and limit themselves to the literal words used in the High Court submissions.

The writer of that blog post, the well-known local climate change denier Richard Treadgold, indignantly claimed:

“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.”

Come on Richard – enough of the porkies. You are just relying on reader’s ignorance of the statement. (While at the same time avoiding the long history of aggressive accusations of scientific fraud your organisations have made against NIWA scientists).

Someone from NIWA who participated in the High Court case, and therefore is familiar with the statements, sent me these comments:

“here are some accusations in the NZCSET’s statements of claim:

Paragraph 20 in NZCSET’s First Statement of Claim (July 2010), repeated in First Amended Statement of Claim (July 2011):

20.  In making the 1999 decision NIWA was influenced by the expectation that significant NZTR warming would encourage funding for additional climate change research.

If this isn’t accusing us of fraud, I don’t know what is.

Also, from NZCSET’s First Amended Statement of Claim (July 2011):

45. Given the differences in data and calculations utilised by NIWA in producing the 7SS and the NZT7 there is no known scientific basis upon which it could have arrived at the coincidence between the results of the two series. The defendant must therefore have been affected by bias or actuated by some ulterior and/or irrelevant purpose, including:

(a) The advantages of finding a warming trend broadly consistent with the advice on climate matters that NIWA has been offering to judicial, administrative and

legislative bodies during the past decade;

(b) The avoidance of political embarrassment, or reduction in public confidence in NIWA’s scientific advice on climate matters, which might arise if the NZT7 failed to align with the warming trend shown in the 7SS.

Again, this is surely accusing us of fraud, by any other name. The explicit use of the ‘F’ word is not necessary.

Treadgold pretends “deep distress” at Dr Renwick’s comment referring to “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.” Treadgold goes as far as to pretend “to those devoted to the even-handed, practical pursuit of truth this accusation is deeply distressing.” (sic). And he calls for Dr Renwick to “man up and admit their mistake, apologise and withdraw the press statement.”

What hypocrisy!

Given the long history of the unfounded attacks by Treadgold and his mates on NIWA’s scientists, that again and again their claims have been exposed as unfounded and NIWA’s position vindicated, and now finally the rejection of these denier claims by the High Court, let me repeat my suggest from 2 years ago in Painted into a corner?

Isn’t it long past the time that Treadgold and his mates “man up”, apologise and withdraw their claims?

Similar articles

About these ads

25 responses to “Climate change denier’s false “deep distress” fools no-one

  1. Richard Christie

    Many, like Gareth at Hot Topic, regard those at NZ Climate Science Coalition and Climate Conversation Group as cranks.
    I think clowns is a more accurate description.

    Like

  2. I was going to go with arseholes but clowns is good too. How do these people sleep at night? Don’t they have any self-respect or integrity at all?
    Have they no decency?
    Enough. You cranks lost. Apologise to your grandchildren and fuck off.

    Army McCarthy Hearings “Have you no decency”

    Like

  3. Richard Christie

    Don’t they have any self-respect or integrity at all?

    After reading Treadgold’s blog over the past two weeks I’ve come to the conclusion that they’re plainly monumentally stupid.

    Take this, most recent, post:

    http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2012/09/affidavit-awfwy-wrong/

    It’s full-on stupidity from the second sentence onward, including a claim that the judge was deceived by an act of “wicked brilliance” on the part of Ken Perrott.

    Like

  4. Yes, that post is an interesting psychological study. Apparently I pulled the wool over Vincent Gray’s eyes by actually quoting a sentence from their “paper” which he admitted he should have picked up on. Gray was one of their great “science team” who reviewed and approved the “paper” but Treadgold thinks he only glanced at it!

    My fault of course.

    I am sure that greater minds than mine (and weaker ones too) easily saw what was wrong with their silly “paper.”

    But the frantic activity on Treagold’s blog, their blinkered discussion and hostility to “outsiders” really demonstrates how such Internet silos can become ideological ghettos.

    Like

  5. There’s not a trace of guilt. No soul searching. They’ve had their collective arses handed to them in a court of law…and it just doesn’t register. They didn’t have anything to begin with and they don’t have anything now. A bunch of senile, white men shaking their walking frames at pigeons in the park. The Dunning-Kruger Effect is on display for all to see.

    illusion of superiority

    Like

  6. Richard Christie

    I am sure that greater minds than mine (and weaker ones too) easily saw what was wrong with their silly “paper.”

    Before the NZCSET took the case to law:

    They were told what was wrong with their paper.
    They were told almost exactly what would happen if they took a scientific dispute to a court of law for settlement.
    They were invited to do the science themselves and publish in the proper context.

    I hope they lose their shirts.

    Like

  7. Oh joy.
    I’ve been banned from Treadgold’s fantasyland blog.
    Badge of honour.

    The reason given was that I had indulged in ad hominem attack (yeah, I know that’s rich coming from the denier heartland), in reality it was because, in effort to remind a user Anthropogenic Global Cooling of his faulty recollection of an earlier discussion, I brought up the public record concerning the behaviour of two of Treadgold’s regulars, Andy Scrase and John Wakelin.

    Specifically their use of the identities of living people as sock puppets and aliases as exposed in the following two threads (amongst several others):

    Alias Anthropogenic Global Cooling or John Wakelin http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2010/12/17/painted-into-a-corner/

    Alias Hank Wangford/ A Galloping Camel /New to Global Warming etc / Andrew Scrase: http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2010/05/21/the-heart-of-opposition-to-climate-science/

    Anything but allow the cleansing light of accountability to shine on your buddies, eh Mr Treadgold?

    Like

  8. Yes, I am getting heavily censored too – with Treadold inserting material into my comments!

    That’s a no-no for me – it lacks all integrity. Usually I bugger off for good from a blog when that happens – and may well have to do that now. There is no way one can carry out a half way intelligent discussion (you know which half lacks the intelligence) with such censorship and intervention.

    Treadgold did delete one of my comments ages ago – perhaps I should never have bothered gracing him with my presence again.

    I guess these guys are so emotionally strung out at the moment (and financially worried) that they can’t help themselves.

    Like

  9. Oh well, Treadgold had his warning and persisted. So I am out of there. It’s not possible to carry out a sensible discussion with such censoring and hostile changes being made to them

    The lesson for me is to make my points on these issues here we he can’t censor me (although his comments are always welcome and never censored).

    Like

  10. Are readers here aware of this announcement:

    Breaking: Courtroom Chaos as New Zealand Skeptics Rout Government Climatists

    http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/08/01/breaking-courtroom-chaos-as-new-zealand-skeptics-rout-government-climatists/

    and its lame followup

    New Courtroom Strategy for Kiwigate Climate Data Skeptics

    http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/09/11/new-courtroom-strategy-for-climate-data-kiwigate-skeptics/

    Like

  11. I can’t think of anything that better illustrates the alternative reality they occupy as O’Sullvan’s breaking news, written before the court case was over.

    Like

  12. O’Sullivan was typical of quite a few overseas denier blogs who took each stage of the case in New Zealand as a victory for them.

    When the Climate denial groups sent out their first submission (2 years ago I think) as a press release it was presented as if the case had already happened and NIWA had lost.

    The same thing happened at at least two other times.

    Then O’Sullivan reported Treadgold’s posting about the case (while it was happening) as another victory – a loss for NIWA. So blatantly that even Treadgold felt obliged to try and correct him!

    Actually, these distorted report started almost 3 years ago when Treadgold and his then anonymous “science team” sent out the “paper” “Are we getting warmer yet?” as a press release. The climate change denier blogs faithfully reported it as truth!

    Most of them haven’t even commented on the final judgement. The few that did are smearing Justice Venning.

    Its certainly an alternative reality.

    Like

  13. Ken, over on RT’s blog both you and I are on Richard C’s ( Cumming?) scary list.
    The Defaulter List to date is now:-

    Martin Lack
    Simon
    Rob Taylor
    Ken Perrott
    andy (Not Andy)
    Richard Christie
    Nick

    Maybe he’s going to give the list to the chief snark under the dungybat tree down in Dingly Dell.

    Beware of the pitter-patter of tiny feet and the glint of drawn knitting needles in the darkness.

    Like

  14. Yes, he is a strange person and can’t have much of a life. I find it’s not worth even attempting to work out what he’s getting at.

    Like

  15. This whole thing has been kept quiet here in this little state controlled country. Nothing in the newspapers (much?) Nothing on TV. Nothing to see here, move along. Niwa covers Salingers ass…Venning covers Niwas ass..the msm covers Vennings ass…the govt. covers and pays for all their asses. Extreme controversy calls for extreme ass-covering.

    Like

  16. And whose arse are you covering Mack?

    Like

  17. Oh joy.
    I’ve been banned from Treadgold’s fantasyland blog.
    Badge of honour.

    Bravo. Well played, sir!
    (applause)

    Like

  18. Yes, personally I think if one isn’t banned one should just leave with one’s self respect intact because you are going to be censored, have comments deleted and amendments made to them by Treadgold who appears to have lost his marbles with the stress if the High Court defeat and them having to find NIWA’s costs..

    After all why should you wrestle with a pig – they just squeal with delight from the attention and you end up getting dirty.

    And it is throwing pearls before swine as you can see from a comment by a loyal denier:

    “See Richard? I reckon you are too soft with these guys. Its your blog but frankly their pomposity deserves pricking big time. And laughing at them is the best way to do it. Lets face it, they are pretty funny the way they behave.”

    They are out of this world.

    Like

  19. One of their favoured tactics, on RT’s blog and elsewhere, seems to be to bludgeon lay-people over the head with some fringe or pseudo-sciencey paper/result/blog-claim (that they can barely comprehend themselves) and then pretend to have scored a victory or some sort of validation for the junk science that they are waving about in the air, when people sensibly decline to engage in areas that they have no training or expertise in. Bob D, Richard C and RT are particularly fond of doing this. What they hope to achieve is incomprehensible.

    Andy Scrase, well, he’s in a class of his own.

    Like

  20. Andy Scrase, well, he’s in a class of his own.

    He and his sock puppets were driven to class all the way on the short bus.

    Like

  21. Somethings defy description:

    Andy says:
    September 17, 2012 at 8:05 pm

    The comments I’ve seen deleted here are what I would describe as either offensive or designed to start a flame war, and I admit I tend to rise to the bait too soon so these kind of comments are generally unhelpful.

    I haven’t seen any comments deleted because they don’t fit with any world view. Correct me if I am wrong.
    This is more than we can say for RC, SkS and various other “consensus” blogs

    http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2012/09/doctoring-climate-change/#comment-117489

    Like

  22. I think Treadgold has hit on an approach he just wished he could have used in the High Court action. Just imagine if every submission from one side had to be vetted, censored and amended by the other side before submission. And a jury primed to say that every censoring, amendment and deletion was fine because they were sexually explicit!

    I think these guys are showing desperation as well as their divorce from reality with this sort of childish behavior. It really only reflects on them.

    I guess it’s the desperation of the death spiral.

    Like

  23. Ken: A cowardly and dishonest aspect of your censoring is that you then will sometimes misrepresent what you deleted.

    RT: Prove it.

    http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2012/09/doctoring-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-117460

    I had to laugh at that. He deletes your comments and requires you to prove whatever it was that he’s deleted. I guess you you have to keep duplicates of everything you post over there, just in case you’re required to prove it later.

    Like

  24. Barry Brill To NIWA on behalf of NZCSC – 26 April 2010

    http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/jj%20ltr%20brill%20to%20mace%2026.4.10.pdf

    My client society does not accept this argument. On the contrary, it believes the ES [eleven station series] is an artificial
    contrivance which was devised by NIWA with intent to mislead. A strong allegation, I know, but one which
    appears fully justified by the evidence.

    Richard Treadgold, CCG -September 8, 2012

    http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2012/09/leading-climate-scientists-make-false-allegation/

    We never said it was fraud

    Like

  25. Don’t they read their own mail?

    Like

Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s