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

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


Ian Wishart

Elmar, point taken, but unless they release the basic data we are all speculating. This appears to be the central problem: climate research units around the world are manipulating raw data and presenting only the finished product, not the details of how they got there.

Chris Polis

Just out of curiosity, if their process has been to 'publish stuff through the literature' then surely a simple reference to the appropriate literature would suffice to give people something to read and assess their methodology?


David Wratt is arrogant in my view [snipped for unnecessary personalisation]. Is he not aware that he is a public servant? Yes Dr. Wratt, you and your staff are obligated to make ALL of your data available to the people who pay your salaries (AKA NZ taxpayers).


"Yes Dr. Wratt, you and your staff are obligated to make ALL of your data available to the people who pay your salaries (AKA NZ taxpayers)."

Like the $12.7 million spent on a new IBM Super computer for Climate Research.

Bamm Bamm


These people aren't scientists - please adjust your reality to spot that they are faking data please ...

My question is how many physics are working at NIWA?
Very few! None actually on this non-science nonsense!

If you are not a physicist or a statistician - don't touch the bloody data!


R2D2 beat me to it. Come ON, Mr Wratt, what are the statistical chances of ALL your "bona fide" "adjustments" needing to have been made in the ONE direction? (Except the single Dunedin one - presumably that was the result of human error on the part of your fellow stooges?)



As the raw temperature data shows no long-term increase, it follows that the rising trend in the NIWA adjusted temperature data is wholly due to the adjustments. Regardless of what adjustment methodology or guesstimates were used, there must be a huge statistical uncertainty in the rising temperature trend line. That NIWA did not reveal this is junk science in my book, regardless of how they might attempt to justify or (it appears) conceal their adjustment methodology.

Not a satisfactory return for the massive expenditure by NZ taxpayers!



Statistical uncertainty can move numbers either direction!

Blinkers off!

Michel Cejnar

This is completely insane - billion dollar spending based on undisclosed manipulation of temperature data. These are not trivial adjustments - the NZ warming in fact appears almost entirely a function of these manipulations - these manipulations are thus equal part of the "temperature data". Wratt gives and has absolutely no reason for not disclosing it. Don't wait for MSM - it is time for action.
1. Does NZ have FOI?
2. The Estimates committee or similar must ask for this data
3. Every honest scientist and their associations must write to the Government and state that non-disclosure of this critical data is totally unacceptable.
4. In the absence of documented justified adjustments, NZ temperature is obviously the RAW data what else could it be? NZ policies should be based on no change on NZ temperature since 1860.
5. Write, write
6. Organize demonstrations - we have - see
Its time to also ACT.

Michel Cejnar

Dear NZ Tax Office

For the Year ended 2010, I have earned $185,000 dollars. According to internationally accepted standards I have made adjustments to this figure and report a taxable income of $1210.46. I enclose a Cheque for $50 dollars, the payable tax on my adjusted income.

No, I will not give you details of my adjustments or a justification for them. I am a scientist and I deeply resent any suggestion I should provide this data as a slight on my reputation.

Yours sincerely
David Wratt, IPCC vice-chair on the 2007 AR4 report[this is a parody]

Michel Cejnar

If the Government does not require adequately documented data justifying the spending our billions of our tax dollars, maybe we should apply the same to our paying our tax and on mass decline to provide details of our income...


Of Interest:

UEA Climate Scientist: “possible that…I.P.C.C. has run its course”

This is a surprise. Professor Mike Hulme of the University of East Anglia suggests that the “I.P.C.C. has run its course”. I agree with him. We really need to remove a wholly political organization, the United Nations, from science.


More fallout.

Why I think that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process
Eduardo Zorita, November 2009


Typo: "historial".

Jim Untershine

The overwhelming importance of the global warming fraud is that it is being used as the basis for global treaties (in Copenhagen) to require countries to pay huge amounts of money to the UN. The cause of global warming is being blamed on human production of CO2, which is the real fraud. Solar activity inhibits cloud formation and is completely out of human control.

Brian Kirkman

As scientists go, these people are sham!. Any scientist worth his salt would supply the data requested, instead of taking the defensive position he has taken. They only prove by attitude there is a cover up


Halldór Björnsson of the Icelandic Met. Service:

"Re: CRU data accessibility.

National Meteorological Services (NMSs) have different rules on data exchange. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) organizes the exchange of “basic data”, i.e. data that are needed for weather forecasts. For details on these see WMO resolution number 40 (see

This document acknowledges that WMO member states can place restrictions on the dissemination of data to third parties “for reasons such as national laws or costs of production”. These restrictions are only supposed to apply to commercial use, the research and education community is supposed to have free access to all the data.

Now, for researchers this sounds open and fine. In practice it hasn’t proved to be so.

Most NMSs also can distribute all sorts of data that are classified as “additional data and products”. Restrictions can be placed on these. These special data and products (which can range from regular weather data from a specific station to maps of rain intensity based on satellite and radar data). Many nations do place restrictions on such data (see link for additional data on above WMO-40 webpage for details).

The reasons for restricting access is often commercial, NMSs are often required by law to have substantial income from commercial sources, in other cases it can be for national security reasons, but in many cases (in my experience) the reasons simply seem to be “because we can”.

What has this got to do with CRU? The data that CRU needs for their data base comes from entities that restrict access to much of their data. And even better, since the UK has submitted an exception for additional data, some nations that otherwise would provide data without question will not provide data to the UK. I know this from experience, since my nation (Iceland) did send in such conditions and for years I had problem getting certain data from the US.

The ideal, that all data should be free and open is unfortunately not adhered to by a large portion of the meteorological community. Probably only a small portion of the CRU data is “locked” but the end effect is that all their data becomes closed. It is not their fault, and I am sure that they dislike them as much as any other researcher who has tried to get access to all data from stations in region X in country Y.

These restrictions end up by wasting resources and hurting everyone. The research community (CRU included) and the public are the victims. If you don’t like it, write to you NMSs and urge them to open all their data."


Of interest:

Shocker – CRU’s Jones: GISS is inferior


Now we need some more hackers to release the data all these climate organizations are hiding. Anyone interested?


Joffre - which data? This stuff?

The comments to this entry are closed.