The IUSB Vision Weblog

The way to crush the middle class is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. – Vladimir Lenin

Climategate II: Uh, oh – raw data in New Zealand tells a different story than the “official” one.

Posted by iusbvision on November 29, 2009

UPDATE – The UK Daily Telegraph now reporting the story HERE. Newsbusters covers the American news media blackout HERE.

Busted. New Zealand’s climate center also caught fudging the data to make it look like there was global warming. So it is not just the whose who of European and American “climate science” who have, what the evidence now shows, was a clear act of conspiracy to push this fraud upon the world. See our “Alarmism” category for more details.

The famed WUWT blog has the details. So does Investigate Magazine who did much of the original reporting.

Mini UPDATE – The Coverup Begins: Investigate Magazine at the link above is spelling out the beginning sof the attempted cover up:

NIWA chief scientist David Wratt says he has no plans to release data backing up claims of different temperature adjustments between historial weather station sites.

Wratt told Investigate tonight that some studies existed which contained “overlapping” periods which allowed NIWA to compare the temperatures at both locations.

He said NIWA intendeds to release data regarding the Kelburn weather station tonight, but will not release other data.

“There are various other sites that will be affected by a change in location”

“Have you done a 12 or 24 month study comparing both locations simultaneously?”

“There’s been a whole lot of work behind this in terms of things like having overlaps between particular stations when they’ve moved. There’s a whole methodology, internationally accepted, where you actually work out how to correct for these sorts of site changes and so on.”

“But you’ll be providing all that shortly?”

“Well, we’re not going to run around in circles just because somebody has put out a press release. We will continue to put out what is reasonable to provide.”

“Wouldn’t it be important –“

“No!”

Yes you do pal, you darn near conned the world into spending trillions of dollars and giving up freedom to a cabal of power mad politicians frothing at the mouth with anticipation of taking central control of the economy for your scam. The New zealand government now wants answers, but will they break the law to hide more evidence just as the creeps at the CRU in England conspired to do?

More data fudging from the New Zealand Climate Center HERE.

New Zealand’s NIWA accused of CRU-style temperature faking

The New Zealand Government’s chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn’t there.

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

In New Zealand’s case, the figures published on NIWA’s [the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric research] website suggest a strong warming trend in New Zealand over the past century:

NIWAtemps

The caption to the photo on the NiWA site reads:

From NIWA’s web site — Figure 7: Mean annual temperature over New Zealand, from 1853 to 2008 inclusive, based on between 2 (from 1853) and 7 (from 1908) long-term station records. The blue and red bars show annual differences from the 1971 – 2000 average, the solid black line is a smoothed time series, and the dotted [straight] line is the linear trend over 1909 to 2008 (0.92°C/100 years).

But analysis of the raw climate data from the same temperature stations has just turned up a very different result:

NIWAraw

Gone is the relentless rising temperature trend, and instead there appears to have been a much smaller growth in warming, consistent with the warming up of the planet after the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850.

The revelations are published today in a news alert from The Climate Science Coalition of NZ:

Straight away you can see there’s no slope—either up or down. The temperatures are remarkably constant way back to the 1850s. Of course, the temperature still varies from year to year, but the trend stays level—statistically insignificant at 0.06°C per century since 1850.

Putting these two graphs side by side, you can see huge differences. What is going on?

Why does NIWA’s graph show strong warming, but graphing their own raw data looks completely different? Their graph shows warming, but the actual temperature readings show none whatsoever!

Have the readings in the official NIWA graph been adjusted?

It is relatively easy to find out. We compared raw data for each station (from NIWA’s web site) with the adjusted official data, which we obtained from one of Dr Salinger’s colleagues.

Requests for this information from Dr Salinger himself over the years, by different scientists, have long gone unanswered, but now we might discover the truth.

Proof of man-made warming

What did we find? First, the station histories are unremarkable. There are no reasons for any large corrections. But we were astonished to find that strong adjustments have indeed been made.

About half the adjustments actually created a warming trend where none existed; the other half greatly exaggerated existing warming. All the adjustments increased or even created a warming trend, with only one (Dunedin) going the other way and slightly reducing the original trend.

The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have been cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming, as documented below. There is nothing in the station histories to warrant these adjustments and to date Dr Salinger and NIWA have not revealed why they did this.

One station, Hokitika, had its early temperatures reduced by a huge 1.3°C, creating strong warming from a mild cooling, yet there’s no apparent reason for it.

We have discovered that the warming in New Zealand over the past 156 years was indeed man-made, but it had nothing to do with emissions of CO2—it was created by man-made adjustments of the temperature. It’s a disgrace.

NIWA claim their official graph reveals a rising trend of 0.92ºC per century, which means (they claim) we warmed more than the rest of the globe, for according to the IPCC, global warming over the 20th century was only about 0.6°C.

NIWA’s David Wratt has told Investigate magazine this afternoon his organization denies faking temperature data and he claims NIWA has a good explanation for adjusting the temperature data upward. Wratt says NIWA is drafting a media response for release later this afternoon which will explain why they altered the raw data.

“Do you agree it might look bad in the wake of the CRU scandal?”

“No, no,” replied Wratt before hitting out at the Climate Science Coalition and accusing them of “misleading” people about the temperature adjustments.

Manipulation of raw data is at the heart of recent claims of corrupt scientific practice in climate science, with CRU’s Phil Jones recently claiming old temperature records collected by his organization were “destroyed” or “lost”, meaning researchers can now only access manipulated data.

..

3 Responses to “Climategate II: Uh, oh – raw data in New Zealand tells a different story than the “official” one.”

  1. Observations show that warming of the climate is unequivocal. The global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come mainly from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), with important contributions from the clearing of forests, agricultural practices, and other activities.

    [Except for the massive cooling trend that happened between 1940 and 1975 and then the cooling trend that started in 1998. And except for many of the IPCC people who are now retracting and backpeddaling fast. Now Jim Hansen over at NOAA is openly manipulating data to make it seem like the two last record setting cold winters were some of the warmest when real data sets show the opposite.

    And I have news for you , there is more forest in the USA now than when Washington was President because we put out forest fires. Of course we had even more before Clinton stopped allowing the management of the forests and we did have some massive forest fires during that time. CO2 is a trace gas and has never been a major climate driver on Earth. – Editor]

  2. Fire suppression, in combination with other human-caused environmental changes, has resulted in unforeseen consequences for natural ecosystems. Some uncharacteristically large wildfires in the United States have been caused as a consequence of years of fire suppression and the continuing expansion of people into fire-adapted ecosystems. Land managers are faced with tough questions regarding where to restore a natural fire regime.

  3. Restoration ecology is the name given to an attempt to reverse or mitigate some of the changes that humans have caused to an ecosystem. Controlled burning is one tool that is currently receiving considerable attention as a means of restoration and management. Applying fire to an ecosystem may create habitats for species that have been negatively impacted by fire suppression, or fire may be used as a way of controlling invasive species without resorting to herbicides or pesticides. But what should managers aim to restore their ecosystems to? Does “natural” mean pre-human? Pre-European? Native American use of fire, not natural fires, historically maintained the diversity of the savannas of North America.[26][27] When, how, and where managers should use fire as a management tool is a subject of debate.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: