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

« BREAKING NEWS: Germany abandons world climate treaty | Main | NZ Prime Minister under pressure from coalition partner to dump ETS »


Richard Treadgold


Our report was not so slanderous as to interfere with its efficiency. As a direct result of our pressure, NIWA are now engaged in "reconstructing" the national temperature record. That's a fairly useful scientific result, methinks, from, among others, a "crook", as you describe me, wouldn't you agree? Better than you or Renowden have so far managed?

Remember that the truth escapes the charge of slander. And when the "slandered" agree to our requests you cannot imagine there's been much damage, can you?

Now answer this: why did Mullan, in his recreation of Hokitika's SOA, ignore Salinger's so-called adjustment methods, described in his PhD thesis? Why have NIWA not kept Salinger's temperature history but decided to start again? Why do they claim to be about to demonstrate the "robustness" of Salinger's results but abandon his methods while doing so? Why can nobody in the entire world describe Salinger's methods of adjusting temperature records? Why has nobody in the entire world adopted Salinger's methods?

Finally, and tellingly, why has Salinger never published his methods in a scientific journal? That's right, believe it. Peer-reviewed they are not.

Why have our leading NIWA climate scientists hitched their wagon to the non-published, non-peer-reviewed, unconfirmed, ignored 30-year-old work of a mere student?

Answer that, then. That would be useful, rather than the usual time-wasting you're so fond of.

You mention NIWA and the FOI Act. Please explain how NIWA have no records of Salinger's temperature dataset. They never discussed it, authorised it, received it, updated it or published it. Because they gave us nothing when we asked for everything they have concerning it.

Do you think that's true? Or do you think they withheld information? Either way, don't you think that demonstrates incompetence?



OK, Richard, NIWA agreed to your requests.

Why don't you agree to mine?

To provide the data and methodology you used in the discredited report?

(Readers can download the emails of our exchange to see how dishonest Treadgold has been on this matter - emails)

My analysis indicates that either not all the data is the same as on the NIWA database, or there were faults in your methodology. Either way the work in this report is shonky, as well as the claims made about adjustments outright wrong and dishonest.

It may all be quite innocent (a cock up with the data for instance) - but if so why do you refuse to provide the data and methodology?

Then again it could all be quite malicious. That wouldn't surprise me as you have admitted that you are scientifically illiterate and interested only in the politics.

My beef (I couldn't give a stuff about beliefs for or against global warming) is in responsible use of data. (And concern about slandering of innocent and honest scientists).

One of the positive things they looks like will come out of this "climategate" beat up is methods of ensuring responsible use of publicly available data - such as a requirement to keep the data and methodology open source, and/or to submit any work done or publication to normal scientific review. This has been raised in the UK and by our own Royal Society which is developing protocols on this.

I know you guys don't want that (it will interfere with your mischief making) and that is one reason you have all been very quiet on the UK parliamentary and UEA findings.


I have to agree with you Ken, on the Open Source thing.

Clear Climate Code

seem to be heading in the right direction

Richard Treadgold


Have you asked NIWA yet for their adjustments and methods? I think you threatened to at one stage. We have. At first they cited the wrong documents — imagine that! Then they revealed some of the data, which showed their first, complicated answers were lies. Nobody in the world, including NIWA, can describe the "methods" they claim to have used. Finally they agreed to reconstruct the series.

You say: "[we look forward to seeing] … methods of ensuring responsible use of publicly available data - such as a requirement to keep the data and methodology open source, and/or to submit any work done or publication to normal scientific review."

Good idea, because that's simply what we've been asking of NIWA. Do you notice that, Ken? Remember that they wouldn't have done any of this without our challenging of them.

You have not acknowledged our achievement for the good of the country, and I believe you have not answered my questions.



Richard - are you prepared to provide me with the data and methodology used in your discredited report?

That is currently the only thing I am lacking.

You are in no position to criticise others - you have been discredited by your statements and actions.

Richard Treadgold


I already told you. The data is from NIWA's web site, the methodology consists in graphing it. Go do it yourself, like you said you would.

I didn't criticise you, I asked questions of you; you still have not answered.



And, Richard, I already told you there are discrepancies. Either some of the data, at least, was not the same as the NIWA data or your methodology was faulty.

You plotted anonomolies, not the raw data. Therefore it is impossible to repeat your work without the methodolgy and your adjusted data (you had to adjust it to get the anomolies).

So Richard, why not front up to the request. Provide the data and methodologies.

Your continual refusal just indicates you have something to hide.

Richard Treadgold


Because you called me a crook without cause.



Putting aside all the data and graphs etc. any layperson is finally only reduced to assessing the professional conduct of both our arguing scientists. Ken Perrott comes up severly lacking with terms like "crook","denier". Richard Treadgold however is able to refrain from choosing the words I would describe Ken Perrott as..."bent","alarmist". In my opinion a scientist behaving like this loses any credibility.

Falafulu Fisi

I would advice Ken to stay clear about science that he has no clue about. He should stick to his own chemistry & soil science. I don't make comment about on other areas of science, since it is not my domain, unless it is numerical modeling that is applicable to a specific branch of science as in soil science, then definitely I have an opinion (regarding the modeling part only).


Richard - confused about cause and effect? Don't know whether you are coming or going?


1: Your discredited report claiming no adjustments necessary and slandering honest NZ scientists.

2: Heavy promotion of your report by you and Wishart overseas leading to scurrilous attacks on NZ scientists again. You rubbed your hands in glee over that, didn't you?

3: This report was discredited by several science NZ bloggers.

4: My analysis of report showed that either the data you used was not all the same as on the NIWA database or your used a shonky method of calculating anomalies.

5: You ignored, avoided my request for the data and methodology to enable me to check. Eventually you refused my request. (see emails for record of your duplicity).

During this time you labeled honest and respected scientists like Jones and Mann as "crooks." (Their science has been supported by several intensive reviews - you don't allow any review of your "science.")


I criticise you for you slander, improper use of data and science and refusing to provide data and methodology.

Richard you have admitted to not having an adequate scientific knowledge in this area. You admit your intentions are political not scientific.

I see that as crooked. I think any objective person would.

Richard Treadgold


This is the last time I'll say it: You still haven't answered my questions.



Richard - you still refuse to allow access to your data or methods.

You desperately quote any excuse for this.

The real reason is you know it wouldn't stand up to proper scientific scrutiny.

The comments to this entry are closed.