PDA

View Full Version : NIWA Unable To Justify Official Temperature Record



Sonnabend
02-03-2010, 05:38 AM
Link (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1002/S00004.htm)

One nail after another...bang...bang..bang..into the coffin of the AGW alarmists


The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) has been urged by the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC) to abandon all of its in-house adjustments to temperature records. This follows an admission by NIWA that it no longer holds the records that would support its in-house manipulation of official temperature readings.In other words they cant prove their theories and they have destroyed the data that could have been used to check their conclusions

In December, NZCSC issued a formal request for the schedule of adjustments under the Official Information Act 1982, specifically seeking copies of “the original worksheets and/or computer records used for the calculations”. On 29 January, NIWA responded that they no longer held any internal records, and merely referred to the scientific literature.

You will just have to take our word for it..now about those million dollar grants...


“The only inference that can be drawn from this is that NIWA has casually altered its temperature series from time to time, without ever taking the trouble to maintain a continuous record. The result is that the official temperature record has been adjusted on unknown dates for unknown reasons, so that its probative value is little above that of guesswork. In such a case, the only appropriate action would be reversion to the raw data record, perhaps accompanied by a statement of any known issues,” said Terry Dunleavy, secretary of NZCSC.

Translation: you lied and you've been caught.


“NIWA’s website carries the raw data collected from representative temperature stations, which disclose no measurable change in average temperature over a period of 150 years. But elsewhere on the same website, NIWA displays a graph of the same 150-year period showing a sharp warming trend. The difference between these two official records is a series of undisclosed NIWA-created ‘adjustments’.

That's called "cooking the books"...otherwise known as FRAUD


“Late last year our coalition published a paper entitled ‘Are We Feeling Warmer Yet?’ and asked NIWA to disclose the schedule detailing the dates and reasons for the adjustments. The expressed purpose of NZCSC was to replicate the calculations, in the best traditions of peer-reviewed science.

“When NIWA did not respond, Hon Rodney Hide asked Oral and Written Questions in Parliament, and attended a meeting with NIWA scientists. All to no avail, and the schedule of adjustments remained a secret. We now know why NIWA was being so evasive - the requested schedule did not exist.

Oh WILBURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR...................


“Well qualified climate scientist members of our coalition believe that NIWA has forfeited confidence in the credibility of its temperature recording procedures, and that it cannot be trusted to try to cover up its own ineptitude by in-house adjustments. What is needed is open access in the public domain to all of the known reasons for post-reading adjustments to enable independent climate analysts to make their own comparative assessments of temperature variations throughout New Zealand since the middle of the 19th century,” said Mr Dunleavy

*sound of coffin lid creaking shut*

wilbur
02-04-2010, 10:42 AM
*sound of coffin lid creaking shut*

Or not.

While I have resolved not to go spend any more of my time actively researching and debunking all the crank articles that are posted here (there are far too many), when I run across something, I'll post it. Sorry Sonna - once again, not the whole story. Perhaps you should be a little skeptical of this NZ Climate Science Collation (which interestingly, has not a single climate scientists among them). But if you want to see what real fudged data looks like, look no further than the NZ CSC.

http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-sceptics-lie-about-temp-records-try-to-smear-top-scientist/



Nothing in the station histories? It’s all there for anyone who can be bothered to look, or to ask politely. But Treadgold and the NZ CSC have no excuse, because the NZ CSC were told about this information at least three years ago, the last time they tried to make a fuss about “adjusted data”. In other words, Treadgold and whoever in the NZ CSC helped him with the data are being more than economical with the truth, they are lying through their teeth. But they keep on digging.

FlaGator
02-04-2010, 11:02 AM
Or not.

While I have resolved not to go spend any more of my time actively researching and debunking all the crank articles that are posted here (there are far too many), when I run across something, I'll post it. Sorry Sonna - once again, not the whole story. Perhaps you should be a little skeptical of this NZ Climate Science Collation (which interestingly, has not a single climate scientists among them). But if you want to see what real fudged data looks like, look no further than the NZ CSC.

http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-sceptics-lie-about-temp-records-try-to-smear-top-scientist/

You have debunked nothing... get over it.

wilbur
02-04-2010, 04:38 PM
You have debunked nothing... get over it.

Want the links?

Sonnabend
02-05-2010, 03:09 AM
Sure Wilbur

We can start with the links to the original CRU raw data.

Oh wait....

wilbur
02-05-2010, 06:38 AM
Sure Wilbur

We can start with the links to the original CRU raw data.

Oh wait....

I posted them for you at least twice now.

FlaGator
02-05-2010, 08:14 AM
You mean the links where the con men who originated the false data defend their actions in order to continue the AWG hoax? Maybe you are referring to the links where those who have a finanical or political interest in the scam are showing support for the con artists and their false calcuations and models. Or maybe still you are referring to the links where those who are just as guilible as you seem to be are posting links to the above mentioned links?

wilbur
02-05-2010, 09:53 AM
You mean the links where the con men who originated the false data defend their actions in order to continue the AWG hoax? Maybe you are referring to the links where those who have a finanical or political interest in the scam are showing support for the con artists and their false calcuations and models. Or maybe still you are referring to the links where those who are just as guilible as you seem to be are posting links to the above mentioned links?

No, I mean links like this one, where you and others cheer about the latest hopeful 'smoking gun' you read about in the internet tabloids, but in the process simply demonstrate misunderstanding, gullibility and bias:

http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=23376

Or this:

http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=23773

Rockntractor
02-05-2010, 10:02 AM
No, I mean links like this one, where you and others cheer about the latest hopeful 'smoking gun' you read about in the internet tabloids, but in the process simply demonstrate misunderstanding, gullibility and bias:

http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=23376

Or this:

http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=23773

Wilbur get in one of the lifeboats and go to shore, she's going down!

FlaGator
02-05-2010, 11:00 AM
wilbur you should read some stuff about atmospheric gas density then you might realize how far CO2 molecules are separated when CO2 is less than .04% of the total volume of gases. It's like the dispersal of a single drop of nile river water in a olympic pool. there is more argon gas in the atmosphere than CO2.

But nice try...

Sonnabend
02-05-2010, 05:05 PM
Wilbur

Maybe I wasnt clear.

I want links to the original raw data that led to the conclusions drawn by the IPCC. You said it can be downloaded.

I want links to the original CRU raw data that led to their findings. Dont go on with this" I posted it before" bwcause I think you are lying.

If you posted them before, you have them on hand.

Post them HERE.

NOW.

Where?

Bongo55
02-05-2010, 05:25 PM
Wilbur I hate to crap in anybodies cornflakes, but don't you see that your fucking a dead horse?

djones520
02-05-2010, 05:34 PM
wilbur you should read some stuff about atmospheric gas density then you might realize how far CO2 molecules are separated when CO2 is less than .04% of the total volume of gases. It's like the dispersal of a single drop of nile river water in a olympic pool. there is more argon gas in the atmosphere than CO2.

But nice try...

Gas Name Chemical Formula Percent Volume
Nitrogen N2 78.08%
Oxygen O2 20.95%
*Water H2O 0 to 4%
Argon Ar 0.93%
*Carbon Dioxide CO2 0.0360%
Neon Ne 0.0018%
Helium He 0.0005%
*Methane CH4 0.00017%
Hydrogen H2 0.00005%
*Nitrous Oxide N2O 0.00003%
*Ozone O3 0.000004%

* variable gases

Nearly 3 times Argon in the air then CO2.