However, here I am referring specifically to Matt’s position – not yours (I don’t know you from Adam and have no idea of your political position of attitude towards the science of climate change. So I don’t know what your interest is.

If you have specific questions don’t hesitate to ask.

After all they were pushing a political agenda and its not unknown for politicians to tell porkies, or even defame honest people, in pursuance of their agenda.

And they did provide a rallying argument for people like Matt who have, as far as I can tell, the same conservative political agenda.

It’s also obvious that even the most basic tests on their own ‘flat’ data should have made it clear that some sort of adjustments were needed. To try and draw conclusions from the unadjusted data, as they suggested people do in their press releases, would be pointless

I just wish other communities could do the same.

Now, you say I have evaded some questions – but conveniently don’t say which.

You have attempted to portray NIWA (you won’t answer how many representatives from NIWA you refer to) “pretty much conceeded the skeptics claims.”

Now, not being there I can’t deal with the specifics of the seminar. But we do know what the “skeptics” claims were. I repeat:

that scientists:

“created a warming effect where none existed.” That “the shocking truth is that the oldest readings were cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming.” And “we have discovered that the warming in New Zealand over the past 156 years was indeed man-made, but it had nothing to do with emission of CO2 – it was created by man-made adjustments of the temperature. It’s a disgrace.”

Now these are serious claims. If not true they are slanderous, libel. If true then the scientific community should take steps to seriously discipline the scientists involved (usually by sacking them) and correcting the literature.

Your blog supported these people (the deniers) – even advertising and supporting am ACT meeting where Richard Treadgold promoted this slander. You are hardly objective in this little scam.

Now, various denierslike Richard Treadgold, Vincent Gray, and Ian Wishgart now admit that site adjustments were necessary (Brill refuses to reply yes or no to my question on this). So already these “skeptics” (actually deniers) have backed down. (They made a “concession”).

So next step they say – yes we accept the necessity of adjustments but we want to see how they were calculated.

There is actually material in the literature describing the methodology used. Various techniques were used ranging from quite objective to fairly subjective.) But the material is published. Anyone can judge for themselves, and apply their own adjustments to the data.

So the deniers back off again (another “concession”) and say “Yes, but, we want to see the specific calculations used.” You may not understand why that demand is stupid not appreciating how science is done. But it is equivalent to asking for the scraps of filter paper used to “tot things up.”

Now to “concede” that those scraps and notes are no longer available is not significant. Its perfectly natural. Ask any scientist. I myself would not be able to find such scraps used in manipulating raw data for any of my scientific papers.

(Computers do enable more things to be kept but consider these were only available to most scientists from about the mid 90s and most sensible people wouldn’t bother trying to retrieve such things from untidy files. They would simple repeat the calculations – no big deal.)

So, Matt, you are inventing this “concession.”

Any idiot will surely be aware that the basic data is available. The methodologies are described. It is up to any serious contender in this science to do their own calculations, come up with their own adjustments.

I am sure that if they did this they would not get exactly the same answer – but it would be similar.

What is not permissible is to tell lies, claim that adjustments were not necessary, that the methodology is not described. That is seriously, and morally, wrong.

Of course, the deniers like Treadgold, Wishart, Brill, etc., do this for political reasons. They have no scientific bones in their bodies – not at all interested in the scientific truth. They have a political agenda and they are advancing this using the immoral tactic of slandering the science and honest scientists.

And, you Matt, have supported these scoundrels with their slander.

So Matt, perhaps I can repeat my questions that you have again evaded:

1: “Having heard the scientific presentations at this forum what is your feeling about the science of climate change? Is our government wrong to accept the basic conclusions of the IPCC that:

1: Evidence of global warming is now unequivocal, and
2: The major cause of this in the last 50 years has been caused most probably (>90% confidence) by humans.”

2: “Who were the “NIWA representatives” you refer to as taking part in this discussion? You indicate more than one whereas there was only one NIWA speaker.”

And:

3: Seeing the point of your post was to give advice to people attempting to find the truth through conflicting claims made by the climate scientists on the one hand and people like Wishart and Brill (the deniers) on the other:

“what specific epistemological principle has enabled you to take up this stance against honest scientists.? Was it “revelation?” “Basic belief” perhaps?”

You however, like Ken, evaded this and brought up other issues I never said anything about.

I note however both you and Ken seem strangely silent on the point I did make to Ken which is how the very same “conspiracy” theorising and slander of competent scholars is quite frequently used by Ken and other scientists in response to criticisms of scientific orthodoxy. Goose gander

You’d said that the criticisms of NIWA had been substantiated. Apart from the fact the C’S'C lied in their initial press releases (” There is nothing in the station histories to warrant these adjustments” etc) the demands that they made were unreasonable and not needed for their stated goal of reconstructing the temperature record.