However one of the worst events to happen was the alarmist gang getting an editor of a peer review journal sacked.
|Chris de Freitas. Image The University of Auckland.|
The emails will track how annoyance at the publication of a ‘contrary’ article in a journal develops into an attack on the editor, Chris de Freitas, an accomplished scientist. The attack includes a plot to see if they can get him sacked from his job at University of Auckland. Within the story, it is evident exactly what kind of ‘scientists’ the key authors are. The word scientist applied to these people has denigrated the meaning of the word.Chris de Freitas is an Associate Professor at the Auckland University School of Environment (link). Chris de Freitas received his early education in Trinidad in the West Indies. He completed Bachelors and Masters degrees at the University of Toronto in Canada and a PhD at the University of Queensland in Australia as a Commonwealth Doctoral Scholar. Chris was an expert reviewer of the 1995 and the 2001 Scientific Assessment Reports of United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Amongst those involved are Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Jim Salinger, Tom Wigley, Barrie Pittock, Mike Hulme + others. In addition Pachauri, the head of the IPCC is copied into many of the emails, meaning that he was fully aware that some of the key scientists in the IPCC were effectively out of control.
Well qualified in climatology. He has commented on the non- competent NZ High Court's decision in the NZ Herald (link):
Climate services of various countries provide clients with statistical information on climatic variables that is based on long-term observations at a collection of different weather stations. The importance of this statistical material stems from their widespread use as a major input for a large number of societal design and planning purposes, including setting greenhouse gas emissions policy and the economic consequences that follow. For these reasons it is important that climate services deliver the best estimates possible.
The NZCSET's lawyer summed it up when he told the court the trust was not asserting climate warming did not exist, "we're saying let's at least make sure that evidence of this for New Zealanders is accurate".
Despite the research work undertaken so far, there have been few attempts globally to reassess quantitatively the nature and reliability of homogeneity adjustments to complete national data sets. The High Court case highlights the situation in New Zealand where there have been no peer-reviewed science-based efforts to do this. A court ruling is no substitute.
Argument from authority has no place in science. This was the basis of NZCSET's case. Argument on the scientific facts and methods used in analyses must now take place. The question is: will it?