My Photo
Mobilise this Blog

Google

InvestigateDaily

INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.TV

Kiwiblog

New Zealand Conservative

InvestigatePodcast

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] investigatemagazine.com and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« New ‘catastrophe’ climate report authored by discredited scientists | Main | Marc my words... »

Comments

NikFromNYC

What has happened to many areas is astonishing. The "adjustments for urban heating have been just that: adjustments that ADD urban upswings!!!

They just figured this out for NYC. Wait for this news to break. They reverse engineered this adjustment using an equation for urban heating that uses population. And it spit out a graph that said that NYC had suddenly been wiped out of almost all its people over the last 7 years. Great way to "hide the decline"!

Gary Hladik

"Wratt says NIWA is drafting a media response for release later this afternoon which will explain why they altered the raw data."

Will they also provide the database(s) and computer code used to "alter" the data? Transparency is the best defense against accusations of impropriety.

Nick

And more and more of this will come out of the wood work.

Drip Drip Drip and the political consensus will go.

Just like Expenses fraud with Politicians in the UK, the same will happen with global warming.

Since all the models have been replicating the fake inputs, the models are also fake

AcidComments

"The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain's CRU climate research centre. "

Yep,

They're all a pack of deceitful crooks.

Anyone whose been able to do partial audits of some of NOAA data finds the same.


NASA was caught out deliberately faking its Ocean temperature data by ignoring the cold Ocean anomolies and replacing the data with a nearby landbased temperature readings to 'artificially' pump the data up.

Kevin

Love to hear from Nick Smith, who told Larry Williams, the other day, that he relied on NIWA for his information regarding ETS and AGW and other such "CARBOLLOCKS"!

Bob Tisdale

Just posted the following on the WUWT version:

If we look at the SST anomalies (HADISST) for the Southwest Pacific Surrounding New Zealand (50S-30S, 160E-170W), there is much less of a long-term rise.
http://i46.tinypic.com/1174mtg.png

In fact, for comparison, the linear trend for that dataset from 1909 to 2008 is 0.076 deg C/decade. Looks like the folks at the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric research slipped a decimal place.
http://i48.tinypic.com/nx2tk.png

Ayrdale

Someone with access to all our daily papers may like to let us know when the MSM start to report on this objectively. At the moment it's "hold your nose, it's a leak" material. How long before the scandal really breaks ?

John Blake

Massive fraud, of course; but more than that, a concerted decades-long disinformation campaign similar to that conducted by the Soviet KGB from 1945 - 1991, as revealed by the so-called Venona Transcripts throughout the 1990s.

Climate Cultists, Warmists, are first-and-foremost propagandists with a collectivist Statist agenda at war with entrepreneurial, free-market innovation and prosperity. Without exception they are nihilistic Luddite sociopaths, homicidal "death-eaters" bent on reducing humanity's global population by willful destruction of post-Enlightenment industiral civilization.

Paul Ehrlich, John Holdren, Peter Singer et al. will stop at nothing to promote their literally murderous ends. Delusive post-War Baby Boomers mouthing "Save the Planet" for decades are about to fall victim en masse to a species of Commissars, Gauleiters never seen before in history: Self-loathing, suicidal narcissists who in facing their personal mortality seek only to drag everyone and all else with them to Abyss.


George

"We work through the scientific process, we publish stuff through the literature, that’s the way that we deal with this stuff"

That's wonderful! Now, which journal will be publishing the information that is being asked for (and apparently has been asked for repeatedly over time)?

How do they claim "peer review" on one hand while preventing any review whatsoever of the core of their "science"?

Imagine if the scientists who claimed "cold fusion" could have simply denied anyone having access to their data and methods yet tried to use that data to enact policy decisions affecting billions in spending?

If "climate" is not really a crisis, what impact will that have on the research grants for climate scientists? And if it turns out to be false, how will that impact the reputations of the institutions and journals that have hosted much of the work?

I believe there is a strong incentive to "deny, deny, deny" and maybe toss out an occasional "peer-review" and "we are SCIENTISTS" just to keep people off balance.

Ross Nixon

They definitely *did* have to adjust the Wellington temperature record, following the move of the station. I remember this being discussed at climateaudit.org about 2 years ago.

Here we are, I still had it bookmarked. www.climateaudit.org/?p=2107

I have no idea about the validity of any adjustments at the other 6(?) stations.

steve

They did make an adjustment of 0.8 in 1928. But why the adjustments between 1900-1920 and post 1970. Coincidently the trend line selected by NIWA starts and ends in these periods and the difference (about 0.7 degrees) is wholly due to adjustments during these periods.

David White

Challenge to NIWA:

1. Since you are a taxpayer-funded organisation, we have already paid for the data, and the adjustments, and the analysis, and the papers.

2. You hypothesize that the planet is warming, and that NZ businesses and taxpayers should spend billions of $ in "penance", on the basis of your measurements and analysis.

On the basis of these facts, the onus is on NIWA to make available ALL
- raw data
- adjusted data (with justifications for adjustments)
- analysis (with code for transforming data)
- papers.

Anything less than full disclosure will be interpreted as collusion and secrecy, and treated with the disdain it deserves.

Your unprofessionalism is debasing the science profession as a whole!

George

In my opinion, the moved station explanation doesn't explain the differences between the two curves. If a station were moved in 1928 to a location that is 0.8C cooler, I would expect the adjustment to step up the raw data at 1928. Instead, they have some unexplained adjustment that adds a huge slope to the raw data. His explanation is inadequate.

Alexa

If you bother to go to the NIWA data yourself, you'll see that there are temperature readings from many stations. If Dunleavy wants to compare readings from multiple stations at the same time, THE DATA IS THERE.

Go on, look it up. If you take the longer strings of data from the same station, they CLEARLY show warming. This is not voodoo science or fraud.

What's fraudulent is for someone to take raw data, analyse it incorrectly, and then claim it's all a scam. Denialists demand raw data, and when they get it, they pull this sh*t... and you wonder why the guy's angry?

anonymous

The next obvious question is how much do we, the taxpayer, give NIWA in funding?

Christopher Byrne

Alexa, I really don't care whether he's angry or not. His whole profession is losing credibility by the minute and whether or not it's justified, it's happening. Now is really not the time to be closing ranks. And as for the data, we're actually more interested in the justification for the station corrections and the methodologies used to perform those corrections. I'll ignore your use of the term denialist, as I am sure you have no idea what you are talking about.

Alec Rawls

For sites that have not moved, it is well known that they tend to show INCREASING temperatures due to increasing urban heat island effects that have nothing to do with global warming. The correct adjustment in these cases is downward. Further, if the U.S. is any guide, most station moves are to MORE urbanized environments (for convenience). Given that NZ's raw temperature record shows so little increase, it is almost certain that the properly adjusted record would show cooling, not warming, since 1850.

maksimovich

Wellington Airport Met station reported data series is here

http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh133/mataraka/wgtntemeraturetrend.jpg

1960 to sept 2009 annual means,there does not seem to be a great deal to worry about.

Invercargill Airport is a worry with negative trend of -0.022c per year since 1980.

http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh133/mataraka/Invercargilltemperature.jpg

R2D2

Strange that only 1 of the adjustments was down David....

I will wait to make judgement, not all the information seems to be out on this yet, but it doesn't look good for NIWA at this stage.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment