Now New Zealand forge climate data!

Teki187

Teki187

Teki187

Permabanned
Joined
15 Sep 2006
Posts
4,642
Location
Somewhere in York
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
Click to expand...

Sources:

http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Ess...d-climate-agency-accused-of-data-manipulation

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/...ells-a-different-story-than-the-official-one/

http://toryardvaark.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/climategate-new-zealand-fakes-climate-change-data/

http://www.ubervu.com/conversations...tegate-new-zealand-fakes-climate-change-data/


How can people seriously still believe climate change is in anyway effected by us?

Climategate, forging data from East Anglia and now New Zealand......

I think its head in the sand here.
 
Adjustment of raw data is necessary because the methods and means of these measurements change.

It does I admit seem convenient though.
 
Teki187 said:
How can people seriously still believe climate change is in anyway effected by us?
Click to expand...

Because it is arrogant to think that we don't have an affect on the planet?

It may not be as extreme as it is made out to be, but to think that our presence has no affect on the climate?

Ridiculous, short-sighted and arrogant.
 
[TW]Fox;15984457 said:
Is it not also arrogant to assume it must be us?
Click to expand...

Indeed. A more balanced approach is necessary.

Edit: The danger is, by completely disavowing any responsibility, it could end up being mis-interpreted that we have free reign to continue to **** up the world without consequence.
 
Gackt said:
Because it is arrogant to think that we don't have an affect on the planet?

It may not be as extreme as it is made out to be, but to think that our presence has no affect on the climate?

Ridiculous, short-sighted and arrogant.
Click to expand...

I'd have said it was arrogant to think we are so powerful as to change the climate.

Even more arrogant to think we can control the climate by any means, least of all windmills.
 
TBH can we all agree that being more environmentally friendly is a good thing? Less use of the earths limited natural resources, nicer countrysides (due to the reduction in landfill and mines etc) and nice air in cities due to less nasty gases coming out?
 
Climate change has occurred since the earth was formed, it's a natural thing.

Man may have made it worse. Man has not started climate change!

I went to UEA and graduated from Env Sciences a few years ago now so I'm not up to-date, but from what I recall it's hard to judge basen on the data infront of us, politicians have latched onto climate models that have modelled pretty scary stuff for our planet in the next 100 years.

I personally think we do make some impact, probably exaggerating the issues.


Personally I'm more worried out deforestation, desertification, future energy needs, sea-level rise and a change in direction of the gulf-stream. All the issues are interlinked :D
 
I think anybody who states that climate change is not affected by mankind is very foolish, though to what extent we have changed it, it is still open to debate.

I have no doubt that the Earth would be getting warmer regardless of whether we were here or not, but we cannot ignore the fact that we are massacring our natural resources.

Oil, natural gas and our trees will not last forever.
 
Although I don't disagree with the OP (for once) I just wanted to point out that this has not made the news here, as far as I can tell. May be on the news later today though. I hope so, I'd be keen to hear about the reasoning behind moving some of the weather stations.
 
It is always a can of worms when it comes to climate change. But as said before, the world climate does change, that is fact, its been changing over the last few millions years and will carry on changing. The issue is if we are speeding this up or not.

In my view (if that matters to anyone) we don't have nearly enough data to even begin to understand the world climate and how it works. We have been collecting data globaly for the last 30 old year (with satilites). In the world scale, 30 years is not even a heart beat. Every year loads of sciencetific reports come out about climate change, and a lot of them contridict each other. And the media like doom and gloom as it sells.

In my view people under estimate the human race. They see climate change as the end of the world (what the media believe). But over the last 100 hundred years, mankind has advance quicker then it has in any other time in history. Life may change as we know it, but not the end of the world.
 
[FnG]magnolia;15984559 said:
Although I don't disagree with the OP (for once) I just wanted to point out that this has not made the news here, as far as I can tell. May be on the news later today though. I hope so, I'd be keen to hear about the reasoning behind moving some of the weather stations.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the MSM brain washing ;)
 
Amp34 said:
TBH can we all agree that being more environmentally friendly is a good thing? Less use of the earths limited natural resources, nicer countrysides (due to the reduction in landfill and mines etc) and nice air in cities due to less nasty gases coming out?
Click to expand...

Not if we nuke our economy in the process whilst nobody else bothers.

We moderate our usage of fossil fuels through crippling taxation whilst the Americans cruise around paying a third of the price for petrol, for example.
 
[FnG]magnolia;15984559 said:
Although I don't disagree with the OP (for once) I just wanted to point out that this has not made the news here, as far as I can tell. May be on the news later today though. I hope so, I'd be keen to hear about the reasoning behind moving some of the weather stations.
Click to expand...

I was wondering about that, as someone from NZ do you recognise any of those websites? I certainly don't, in which case they are probably "conspiracy" websites...

[TW]Fox;15984622 said:
Not if we nuke our economy in the process whilst nobody else bothers.

We moderate our usage of fossil fuels through crippling taxation whilst the Americans cruise around paying a third of the price for petrol, for example.
Click to expand...

But we're not, and others are bothering.

The effort we have made really hasn't affected our economy, it should also benefit us in the long run with less need for ever more expensive natural resources (oil, gas, metals etc).

As for your example how has that affected out economy? We have similar growth (and fall) rates as them so it's obviously not affecting us... It does however mean we need less oil to make our country run and as the price of oil increase (and it will carry on increasing, no i'm not one of those peak oil nuts, just demand will increase) we will see the benefit there too. Yes we pay more tax on our fuel but that goes back to our government, not a country in the middle east...

It's just a shame in this country (and the world as a whole really) that the only way you can promote change is to hit people in their pocket. :(
 
Telescopi said:
I'd have said it was arrogant to think we are so powerful as to change the climate.

Even more arrogant to think we can control the climate by any means, least of all windmills.
Click to expand...

No, its arrogant for us to think we can do what we like without having an effect on the climate.
 
Amp34 said:
It's just a shame in this country (and the world as a whole really) that the only way you can promote change is to hit people in their pocket. :(
Click to expand...

Change is a good thing when its needed, but why fix something that isnt broken?

Granted deforestation, dumping and other things that are dangerous to the environment are really important issues, but with this pointless crusade on climate change, these issues are being overlooked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom