Just thought I'd share the good news.

http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m11d25-New-Zealand-climate-agency-accused-of-data-manipulation

Climate scientists in New Zealand today accused the foremost climate-research institution in New Zealand of data manipulation of the same type as the East Anglia Climatic Research Institute (CRU) is alleged to have done.

The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition today issued this paper saying that a graph published by the New Zealand National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) is not only wrong but is the result of painstaking and unjustified adjustment of raw temperature data covering the period from 1853 through 2008, Ian Wishart of The Briefing Room announced today.

At issue is a claim by NIWA that the average temperature over New Zealand declined from 1853 to 1909 and then began to rise, and has been rising ever since, at an average rate of +0.92 degree (Celsius) per century.

However, unlike the case with the CRU, NIWA's raw data remain readily available, at least to climate scientists. Richard Treadgold, of the Climate Conversation Group, and his colleagues requested and obtained the data used to produce the NIWA graph. Using these data, they produced a graph of their own. Their graph, shown here, displays no such decline from 1853 to 1909 and consequently no such steep increase from 1909 through 2008 as that shown on the NIWA graph. Instead, according to the CSC, the linear trend is a negligibly gentle +0.06 degree per century since 1853.

Treadgold's group alleges that the NIWA graph was produced, not from the raw data that NIWA supplied, but rather from temperature readings that had been adjusted. The CSC scientists were able to obtain the adjusted dataset from an un-named associate of Dr. M. James Salinger, formerly of NIWA and, before that, of CRU. Comparison of the two datasets shows significant upward adjustments of the post-1909 data and equally significant downward adjustments of the pre-1909 data, thus producing a downtrend and then an uptrend, instead of the nearly flat trend that Treadgold's group found.

Ian Wishart of The Briefing Room, and also of Investigate magazine, asked Dr. David Wratt, the chief climatologist at NIWA, for comment. Wratt said only that NIWA would issue a press release later that day; none has been forthcoming at the time of this writing.

The CSC scientists, in their paper, conclude that the New Zealand government is relying on an untenable conclusion from the data at hand, and now openly question the need for any cap-and-trade system such as that which Treadgold and his colleagues presume will be under consideration in Copenhagen beginning next Tuesday.

UPDATE: The Climate Change Examiner reports today that NIWA has now issued this press release in answer to their critics, and also supplied this link to further information as to the placement of their weather stations and why, they said, the numbers required adjustment.

NIWA climate scientists have previously explained to members of the Coalition why such corrections must be made. NIWA’s Chief Climate Scientist, Dr David Wratt, says he’s very disappointed that the Coalition continue to ignore such advice and therefore to present misleading analyses.

Exactly how the CSC has "misled" the public or their colleagues is far from clear from the NIWA statement. NIWA are now claiming that some of the weather stations were moved, and thus the adjustments become necessary to account for such movement. This begs the question of why the stations had to be moved to begin with, why they were moved to different elevations, and why NIWA did not simply reconfigure their indices to make sure that tney always based their average on the same mix of weather stations at various elevations as existed before the movement of any given site or sites.

Because Standard Temperature and Pressure (STP) is the basis of all wide ranging weather measurements but it doesn't seem to make sense to someone who who doesn't understand the science behind it. The adjustment of the temperatures when the location changes altitude is universal.

The other thread you posted, saying almost the same thing, was about emails that complained about non-professionals being excluded because they were non-professionals. I read the emails that were picked out as the "worst" and they meant almost nothing.

Perhaps you should read about STP and see what it means before you start quoting some reporter who doesn't understand it either.

BTW, when I was in New Zealand there was a big hubbub about the ski slopes closing in prime time because global warming had given them no snow.

Ah, yes.

The Global Warming Religion has it's believers.

Evidence to the contrary, they will ALWAYS believe that we are all gonna die if we don't have someone controlling our lives.

Those 'hacked' emails are but the tip of the iceberg.

The earth is going to do its own thing... in its own time... and as it approaches its next cycle that 'thing' will speed up to the point where no man made scam will be able to hide the truth...

I personally would be buying things to survive winter not bikinys and sunblock.

In a closed cycle system water does not vanish. If snow is not where you expect it...

It will show up somewhere else.

Al Gore should be charged with perpetrating the largest fraud in world history and sent to the gulag in Siberia.

A very typical, liberal, fraud..

Climate change is not a hoax.

The climate on this planet will always change, it does cycles, cool, hot etc...

The only question is do we affect it in any way.

How can we not affect our environment when we are so prevalent on this planet?

All life affects it's environment.

Plus, why is this a bad thing anyway?

Stop fricken polluting the damn planet!!!!

This is a repeat post and we already determined it was debunked last time.

Yes, I guess the ice sheets are melting from the cold.

Hey, it's should be a warm place by now..according to him.

no, but if you can tell me how us not changing anything caused the global warming thing we were all warned about to pull a 180 into the cooling we're now facing, i'm all ears.

I think the recent documents and facts coming to light are going to turn the educational world on it's side. I'm sure we're looking at trillions worldwide that have been invested into the research of this f'n topic and everyone jumped on the bandwagon because it's free money.

Climate cycles are normal. Man-made, I'm completely doubtful that we can do that and I believe it is completely arrogant to think we have that much control.

it's sad people are playing politics with science. Yeah let's point and call people names at the ones that want cleaner energy and stiff penalties to companies that blatantly pollute the water

The same could be said for playing games with people's emotions with faulty science. If the info is all wrong, then we have been lied to and manipulated. That is no better.

I don't think of it as political (though politicians on both sides have made it that way). I just understand the economics that green energies are far more costly to implement than standard energy. If the market determines we should make the move, then I'm for it, but I do not believe forcing technology on American businesses that will put them at a stark disadvantage in the world. Our regulation is already stifling jobs, we don't need more.

When I was in jr. high school, we were heading for another ice age.

When I was in high school, killer bees from South America were going to wipe out a majority of the population of the US.

In the 80's, the ozone layer was disappearing and that was going to cook most of us.

Liberals aren't happy unless they have something to panic over.

That, right there, is the key to the whole deal.

The government wants us to live in fear so that they can gain more and more control of our lives.

It's not only the Dems/Liberals who are guilty of it.

Look at the Patriot Act.

The main gist since 9-11 has been " They could attack us at ANY TIME!!! We NEED to be able to tap your phones without court orders to make sure that you aren't a hidden terrorist. We HAVE to take some of your freedom so that you can be safe. OMG we could be attacked ANY MINUTE NOW!!! "

The sad part is.
If an attack is mounted it will take a form they are not ready for.
Or so history shows.

As far as imbellished science.

If we spend years (and 'money' that don't exist) building our world economy to fit a scenario that will not happen...

We will be unprepared for the senario that does happen.

Actually I have already posted the exact answers to your question and have specifically pointed you to the correct source of information. If you don't have time to read it, you are just taking a position from a position of ignorance. The science is clear how a global warming trend can cause localized cooling while the average temperature of the Earth goes up. It can (and has) caused localized short ice ages over much of North America and Europe. This effect is caused by redistribution of the Earth's heat by the oceans.

On a much quicker and localized basis, the warmer oceans create warm moist air which rises creating large low pressure areas. Cold (high pressure) air spills in from the poles to fill the void i.e., low pressure. The more low pressure the more movement of arctic and antarctic air which results in localized cooling ... for awhile. There are no straight lines in weather records. The temps spike up and down with trends that go up or down.

The problems with global climate change are not the crap that get sensationalized. The problems have to do with "tipping points" which are events caused by global warming that increase global warming. These tipping points cause rapid changes that the animals on the planet can't cope with because the change is happening too quickly, people included. There is a good chance much of the grain growing areas of North America and Europe are going to be drastically reduced in productivity for several years, at least. The economics of world hunger are going to come into play.

Animals cannot migrate anymore because the wild ones only exist in preserves surrounded by man. When areas of grassland turn to desert (as they are doing now), but more rapidly, the animals are going to die. We are killing the rainforests.

Global warming is not about freezing to death or needing more air conditioning. It is about geopolitics of hunger and mass extinction of most of the animal and plant species on Earth.

Almost EVERYONE who is scientifically qualified to understand the actual data on global warming agrees that most of the warming is due to CO2 produced by man. Most are now realizing that the warming is occurring faster than predicted and most are realizing that new tipping points are being found that are making matters worse.

New Zealand has been experiencing some of the most dramatic warming of any area. The nearby icecaps are melting. Any news report of the data stating that New Zealand actually has no warming trend and the data was falsified doesn't have a clue. I've been there.

based on all this 'knowledge' our weather people can't even accurately predict the path of a single hurricane as other than a widening probability curve...

How than can they have the cheek to
1. Call it a science.
and
2. Claim such a false claim as to predict what the earths patterns will be like in 50 years let alone 200 or more years.

If you switch a large part of your energy production to something like solar... and a large volcano goes off the week after you get r' done... How many people will die cause of your INACURATE application of false data.

If I lived in Australia I would quietly start building water storage facilities in the outback. Might not need them for a few years but deserts growing in one place eventually means a balance of deserts shrinking or changing state somewhere else.

It was more a sarcastic answer on my part.

To me, the facts coming to light lately just confirm what I felt all along: we're being duped. Sure, there are many scientists all over the planet that are in agreement the climate is changing. There are many rallied against it. However, when the government is handing out large checks to research something, and if that something turned out to be nothing the checks would stop, I see a severe conflict of interest.


ne of my favorite comedy bits that I feel sums up the issue nicely:

"everybody's convinced that the earth has a problem because it's getting so hot. But how come I don't hear a single, intellignet individual suggest the seemingly obvious possibility that the earth is just fine; but there's something wrong with the sun? I'm not a scientist, but I'm pretty sure that's where all the heat's coming from. All I'm saying is, when my living room gets hot, I don't blame the living room."


We are too fixated on one issue because it is a cash cow of epic proportions. If it was more impartial, I may be more inclined to believe it, but it's not. It's just another way that they are trying to control us.

So what you are saying is that climate change is a natural phenomenon, and that we should all pay more in taxes because of that.. That's just great. Why don't we pay more more taxes for days the sun shines or the moon is full?

As the climate changes so do the ocean currents. With the changing ocean currents, so goes the jet stream. Making warm areas cooler and cold areas warmer.
Here where I live the avg temps have noticeably increased in my lifetime.
We now consider snow fall rare and we don't get near as much rain and fog.