My Photo
Mobilise this Blog





New Zealand Conservative


AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« SCANDAL: So what exactly did they peer review? | Main | Blog stats »



As I see you are mentioning statistical research: I have put one of the most comprehensive link lists for hundreds of thousands of statistical sources and indicators on my blog: Statistics Reference List. And what I find most fascinating is how data can be visualised nowadays with the graphical computing power of modern PCs, as in many of the dozens of examples in these Data Visualisation References. If you miss anything that I might be able to find for you or if you yourself want to share a resource, please leave a comment.


Readers whop wish to read the orignal "deniergate" emails can download them here emails.

That will give you a flavour for how these deniers manouvered, lied and diverted to avoid exposing the shoddy work in this discredited "paper."

Linda Reid

Ken, NIWA needs to reveal exactly why and how adjustments to raw temperature data were made.

I am happy to reveal I have absolutely no science qualifications at all.

I am simply a New Zealand taxpayer who is being asked to pay more for power and petrol (and all the other flow-on effects) because scientists say the world is warming up, this is a bad thing for us, and we're to blame.

So I think it's reasonable that the data and adjustments that you believe shows NZ is warming up is revealed in full.

That's all.

Anything else you say is simply unimportant to me.

Philip Rickerby

Slightly off topic but interesting - “It is reportedly the worst Baltic freeze for 15 years.”



You just got your butt handed to you Ken, but you cannot help yourself. "deniergate" you sad person. Sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la,la,la,la" Does not make the fact that you were dishonest go away.

If no one else will say it Ken I will. you are a liar and a fraud. Niwa released the report. The onus is on them to provide the workings and the reasons for the adjustments. You are fraudulently trying to shift the focus from them.


Well said Linda, we all have a vested interest in ensuring the veracity of this science. In this instance Kiwis are paying twice - first by funding NIWA and secondly from the increases to our living costs as a result of their claims. It is reasonable to demand transparency and in particular for NIWA to justify their adjustments.
Ken's behavour is unprofessional. It is like trying to explain to a child that you know he's lying, yet the child's defense is to create more lies.


Ken, I've read through the 'deniergate' emails. They clearly show that there was no 'mistake' as you say. The obvious issue is that NIWA have not explained the reasons for adjustments. The statement " There are no reasons for any large correction" clearly means NIWA have not provided any reasons for their adjustments.
The onus is on NIWA to justify their adjustments. Without that how can their results be verified as per the scientific method?


No Peter - Richard Treadgold released the report. He is the only one admitting connections - he's the fall guy.

No-one else will put their hands up. He claims a huge "science team" behind him but they "wish to remain anonymous."

Ian, of course lovingly distributed it because he loves to discredit our scientists. But even he admits their basic claim was wrong.

Despite their refusal to provide information on methodology and data I have managed to scan and extract data from their figures. This indicates that some of their data was not the same as on the NIWA database. Or that they have applied adjustments which varied with time. No explanation. Refusing to answer my questions. Crooks.

I will be reporting further results of my analysis of this discredited "paper" in due course.

I have absolutely no interest, one way or the other in taking sides on climate change. I don't "believe" in warming or cooling. I just accept the science as best I can appreciate it.

My concern is not about climate, it's about honesty, the defense of science and reason.

People like Ian are attacking these important principles. If it wasn't climate change denial, it would be creationism, HIV denial, etc., etc.

If people like Richard Treadgold and Ian wish to use and comment on public funded research and data I demand the same level of integrity from them as I demand from our scientists. If they produce rubbish, like Treadgold's discredited "paper" I will criticise it.

And you people should too. You can't demand transparency from science and then allow our critics to be non-transparent.

(not so) Silent

Below is an example of Ken's "integrity" as he discusses Dr Vincent Grey.
Feb 4 2010
"I was aware that Vincent Gray had retired but didn’t realise his age. The local deniers promote him as their expert which shows some poverty of imagination.
He appeared to forget that he had acknowledged to me that they made a mistake on claiming no site effects. He had also forgotten that NIWA had sent him information on this several years ago while his organizations were accusing NIWA of lying.

Perhaps it’s just senility.

Sent from my iPod"
I've never seen such a smearing twisting nutter as Ken in my entire life. Just amazing. And he still cant see the point that NIWA hasnt produced the methodology.

Bob Hall

Ken doesn't "believe" in warming or cooling but believes in "deniers"....... presumerably of the 'holocaust' variety.
I suppose that must make me one, because I would like some more 'due diligence' done on NIWA's data.
Shame on you Ken, for pretending to be a champion of the scientific method.

Bob Hall

Ian Wishart

I'm going to call you out on this Ken:

If people like Richard Treadgold and Ian wish to use and comment on public funded research and data I demand the same level of integrity from them as I demand from our scientists. If they produce rubbish, like Treadgold's discredited "paper" I will criticise it.

And you people should too. You can't demand transparency from science and then allow our critics to be non-transparent

Please provide for everyone here copies of your emails demanding from NIWA the full schedule of adjustments with details of when, where and why on all weather stations in NZ.

We know you've done this because you boasted of holding NIWA to account in this extract.

Please also provide the answers that NIWA gave you.


Ken, this is what Vincent said:

Vincent Gray, however, appears to have been sufficiently spooked by Perrott's twisting of the facts to write a further email to Perrott:

"Please understand that all of us are thrashing around in the dark, picking up clues about what might be going on and making mistakes in the process. Those running the show have superb facilities in terms of money, staff, institutions and public approbation and they sit on most of most of their knowledge and only release what they choose.

"I have had a long career in science and have published well over 100 papers in respectable scientific journals, I have been working on the greenhouse thing for 20 years for no fee, dependent only on what they are prepared to release to the public. The internet has been a godsend, but I have only recently realised that much of the data and of its interpretation has been slanted or even cooked"

What Vincent is saying that all, repeat all, of us (i.e. scientists) make mistakes at times. There's no surpirse in that. He does not concede that a specific mistake was made, or even identify a particular mistake was made. However, you then go onto say that a specific mistake was made, which is not what Vincent said. It seems then you pick one of the mistakes that you allege happened as being the reason that the paper is discredited. You, not Vincent stated that. When you start to re-assign meaning to what one person says it has to be called simply that.

To which Perrott responds:

"I hear what you are saying about how easy it is to make mistakes.

Fine up to this point, as you simply agree that it is easy to make mistakes.

However, in this case the mistake

Wait one moment, what one specific mistake? Where is that in Vincent's e-mail? This is where the reassignment of meaning to Vincent's e-mail occurs and thereby is ineligible for any further conclusions, like what follows:

has caused a lot of confusion, misunderstanding – and dishonest propaganda for some. I have been shocked art the way NZ has been portrayed by conspiracy theorists like Wishart – and the resulting headlines in overseas publications."


Ian - I am satisfied with the information that NIWA has provided. I understand the complexities of handling raw data, speculative calculations, filter paper and backs of envelopes. I went through the era of transferring data from work sheets to electronic databases.

We have got a lot of information from NIWA and are still getting it. I have been able to duplicate their figures from the available data.

On the other hand Richard Treadgold has denied all his information and claims to have a huge "science team" behind him but one that wishes to remain anonymous!

Now I have never met a scientist that shy!

Vincent Gray didn't refuse contact but clearly was unable to say much as he admitted missing that huge mistake in the "paper". He, in fact, passed me back to the "authors of the paper" You know, the people Richard is hiding! Vincent also acknowledged (check the "deniergate" emails) that as a group they were making mistake, fumbling around.

There are clearly some problems with Treadgold's analysis (as well as the major one of claiming site adjustments were unnecessary). I can't duplicate parts of his figures and I would like to know why.

He is refusing to cooperate.

I can only conclude he has something to hide.

Ian Wishart

No Ken, please answer the specific question.

Please disclose the demands you made to NIWA for information, and their responses, so that everyone here can judge whether you have been holding NIWA to the same standards as you attempt to impose on others.

Nothing less will do, particularly given your demand for "transparency".

Walk the talk, disclose your email traffic on this point.

Louie D

Ken you are being odd.
If your right whats the big deal in showing Ian the stuff you claim you have and he wants to see.
Are you to proud, or just a
another lying pachuri parrot.


Ken as I said you are simply a liar. No real surprise there but you go on to prove it in your very next post. You are not on any side. Man! are you not even a little embarrassed by your lies? You call skeptics "deniers" and you still do not get it that the ones having to provide the evidence is the one making the original statement, in this case NIWA.

Your problem is the fact that you now have lied on a blog that is read by a very large group of people.

You have been sprung.
Oh dear...
Just who can now believe any "scientific" analysis you make?

Oh I know.... CM


"Your problem is the fact that you now have lied on a blog that is read by a very large group of people."

It's official. You heard it here first. Hirst blog...I mean the briefing room.


Including James...


Ken, you call yourself a scientist! Your angry, one eyed, semi hysterical rants are the antithesis of of scientific thought. Your posts are extremely partisan, your methods of engagement are basically dishonest and you appear to misrepresent yourself and your position to try and entrap people.
I conclude your are angry, sad and full of crap.


While sideshows such as this one proceed..

the Climate Sceptics have just been delivered a stunning blow!

Humans to blame for climate change - scientists
12:45 PM Friday Mar 5, 2010
A scientist claims water vapour is evaporating into the atmosphere because of warmer oceans, causing wet areas to get wetter and dry areas to get drier. Photo / Brett PhibbsClimate scientists have delivered a powerful riposte to their sceptical critics with a study that strengthens the case for saying global warming is largely the result of man-made emissions of greenhouse gases.

The researchers found that no other possible natural phenomenon, such as volcanic eruptions or variations in the activity of the sun, could explain the significant warming of the planet over the past half century as recorded on every continent including Antarctica.

It is only when the warming effect of emitting millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from human activity is considered that it is possible to explain why global average temperatures have risen so significantly since the middle of the 20th century.

The study updates a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and has discovered several new elements of the global climate which have been influenced by humans, such as an increasing amount of water vapour evaporating from the warmer oceans into the atmosphere and a corresponding increase in the saltiness of the sea.

"There is an increasingly remote possibility that climate change is dominated by natural rather than anthropogenic [man-made] factors," the scientists concluded in their study, published in the journal Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews of Climate Change.

Scientific observations based on temperature recordings on every continent, as well as thermometer readings on, in and above the oceans, leave "little room for doubt" that the earth is warming, but trying to attribute a cause for this global warming is not possible unless man-made activity in the form of carbon dioxide emissions is taken into account, the scientists said.

The review, led by Peter Stott of the Met Office Hadley Centre in Exeter, found the "fingerprints" of human activity on many different aspects of climate change, including the overall warming of the Antarctic recently documented for the first time by other researchers.

"The observations cannot be explained by natural factors," Dr Stott said. Since 1980, the Earth has warmed by about 0.5C and is now warming at a rate of about 0.16C per decade, with even higher rates at higher latitudes such as in the Arctic.

"The fingerprint of human influence has been detected in many different aspects of observed climate change. We've seen it in temperature, and increases in atmospheric humidity, we've seen it in salinity changes. We've seen it in reductions in Arctic sea ice and changing rainfall patterns," Dr Stott said.

"What we see here are observations consistent with a warming world. This wealth of evidence we have now shows there is an increasingly remote possibility of climate change being dominated by natural factors rather than human factors."

He dismissed suggestions that variations in solar activity - the intensity of the sun - could explain warming patterns over the past few decades. If the sun was responsible then both the upper and lower atmosphere would be getting warmer, instead of just the lower atmosphere as predicted by computer models of greenhouse gas warming.

He also said more water vapour is evaporating into the atmosphere as a result of warmer oceans and this is driving the water cycle harder, causing wetter areas in northern latitudes such as Britain to get wetter and drier areas in tropical regions such as East Africa to get drier.

Asked whether climate sceptics would agree with the findings, Dr Stott said: "I just hope people look at the evidence of how the climate is changing in such a systematic way. I hope they make up their minds on the scientific evidence."


The comments to this entry are closed.