2015, the beginning of ice free arctic?

[Saigon]

Ian -

Accusations do not constitute a case.

NIWA have gone to extraordinary lengths to ensure their research material is available online, and perhaps most compellingly, went back to square one with the 'seven stations' research to ensure the results were verifiable. They were verified, and you can compare the data on the NIWA website.

As I mentioned earlier - New Zealand shows many of the classic signs of climate change seen around the world - substantial glacial melt, warmer and more humid weather, unprecedented storms and raising sea levels.

At some point, it might be worth your while to pay attention to that rather than to trawl the internet for conspiracy theories from kiwi bloggers.

What NIWA's research has to do with Australia I have no idea.

 

[IanC]

Ian -

Accusations do not constitute a case.

NIWA have gone to extraordinary lengths to ensure their research material is available online, and perhaps most compellingly, went back to square one with the 'seven stations' research to ensure the results were verifiable. They were verified, and you can compare the data on the NIWA website.

As I mentioned earlier - New Zealand shows many of the classic signs of climate change seen around the world - substantial glacial melt, warmer and more humid weather, unprecedented storms and raising sea levels.

At some point, it might be worth your while to pay attention to that rather than to trawl the internet for conspiracy theories from kiwi bloggers.

What NIWA's research has to do with Australia I have no idea.

???

I thought you said that you were familiar with NZ's temperature data set fiasco?

ohhhhh.... you googled, and the first hit supported your worldview so you left it at that.

what is your position on Salinger?

 

[Politico]

Are we frozen over yet?

 

[Saigon]

Ian -

I am not seeing a coherent response there.

 

[IanC]

Crisis in New Zealand climatology
by Barry Brill

May 15, 2010

The warming that wasn't

The official archivist of New Zealand’s climate records, the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), offers top billing to its 147-year-old national mean temperature series (the “NIWA Seven-station Series” or NSS). This series shows that New Zealand experienced a twentieth-century warming trend of 0.92°C.

The official temperature record is wrong. The instrumental raw data correctly show that New Zealand average temperatures have remained remarkably steady at 12.6°C +/- 0.5°C for a century and a half. NIWA’s doctoring of that data is indefensible.

The NSS is the outcome of a subjective data series produced by a single Government scientist, whose work has never been peer-reviewed or subjected to proper quality checking. It was smuggled into the official archive without any formal process. It is undocumented and sans metadata, and it could not be defended in any court of law. Yet the full line-up of NIWA climate scientists has gone to extraordinary lengths to support this falsified warming and to fiercely attack its critics.

For nearly 15 years, the 20th-century warming trend of 0.92°C derived from the NSS has been at the centre of NIWA official advice to all tiers of New Zealand Government – Central, Regional and Local. It informs the NIWA climate model. It is used in sworn expert testimony in Environment Court hearings. Its dramatic graph graces the front page of NIWA’s printed brochures and its website.

Internationally, the NSS 0.92°C trend is a foundation stone for the Australia-New Zealand Chapter in the IPCC’s Third and Fourth Assessment Reports. In 1994, it was submitted to HadleyCRUT, so as to influence the vast expanses of the South Pacific in the calculation of globally-averaged temperatures.

The Minister of Research Science and Technology, the Hon Dr Wayne Mapp, has finally become alarmed at the murky provenance of the NSS. The Government has directed and funded a 6-month project to produce a new national temperature record, with published data and transparent processes. The replacement record is to be the subject of a scientific paper, which is to be peer-reviewed by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.
.....
The NSS has not been retained out of respect for Salinger. The only remaining explanation is that NIWA and the Climate Ministers are attempting to save face rather than confess that they have been running their policies on the basis of bogus data for many years.

CONCLUSION

Piecing together the provenance of the New Zealand historical temperature record has been no easy task. Much of the detail is set out in the Climate Conversation blog. It has involved a myriad of investigative methods but the most productive has been the placement of nearly 50 Parliamentary Questions for Written Answer, for which credit must go to John Boscawen MP. The New Zealand mainstream media, all highly partisan on climate change matters, have evinced little interest in the scandal to date.

Science claims a special place in the trust of the public because of its unswerving adherence to certain objective methodologies, involving transparency, peer review, replicability and honest purpose. NIWA has forfeited that trust in so many ways.

Hon Barry Brill OBE is a New Zealand barrister and solicitor. He is a former Minister of Science & Technology, and Minister of Energy, and is currently chairman of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.

Quadrant Online - Crisis in New Zealand climatology


this was the run up to the NIWA collapsing because they wouldnt (and couldnt) answer the questions put forth to them by the govt.

like a phoenix rising from its own ashes, the newly minted private NIWA sent its new methodology to the Australian BOM for peer review. the methodology passed but the aussies pointedly refused to comment on the actual results produced. an independent audit of the NIWA results found large discrepancies, roughly only 1/3 of the warming. when the matter was taken to court, the court decided that they were not capable of deciding what was correct scientifically and sided with the climatologists rather than the statistitians.

notch up another victory for Michael Mann's favourite ploy of 'brazen it out'.

 

[Saigon]

this was the run up to the NIWA collapsing because they wouldnt (and couldnt) answer the questions put forth to them by the govt.

What on EARTH are you talking about?

You do realise this didn't actually happen, right?

And using a discredited right-wing politician as a source? Brill was one of Rob's Mob, wasn't he?!

 

[Saigon]

Really, Ian, it just amazes me that you guys just grab at ANYTHING at all that you find online, spin into some big saga, and present it as proof.

NIWA sprang into existance after the Quango-hunting that took place under the Lange/Prebble administration- along with a dozen other units related to Ag & Fish and DOC. It has existed ever since, and seems to do a fairly good job.

Here you choose a right-wing policitian who is not a qualified scientist as your source. Why? Because he says what you want him to say - there is no other reason.

Ask any kiwi what is going on in NZ climate and the big issues will be the tornadoes that hit Albany; the later, warmer and more humid summers, the reteating glaciers at Fox and Franz Joseph, and the increasing nomber of Antarctic penguins reaching NZ courtesy of warmer waters. Oh, and rising sea levels causing flooding from time to time on the Hauraki Plains.

NIWA have been very open about their data, providing all details just to show that there is no conspiracy.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10623169

 

[ima]

You should definitely worry about the fact that you're an ignorant clueless retard.

Also the fact that you don't care at all about anybody of anything else in the world but yourself indicates that you're a worthless piece of shit, lacking not just intelligence but also heart, compassion and empathy.

People are their own worst enemies. Maybe if humans weren't so busy overpopulating the planet and destroying the ecosystems, this wouldn't be happening. You're here arguing over which scientist is less full of shit them the others.

Another sign of just how clueless and retarded you are is that you imagine that that is what I'm "here arguing about". The climate scientists who are warning mankind about the dangers and consequences of anthropogenic global warming and its associated climate changes are not "full of shit", you anti-science denier cult fool.

Aside from that, which is pitifully pointless with regards to what's happening, you're doing what exactly to help out mankind? I'm a vegetarian, meaning I have respect for the environment and other sentient being. What about you?

You are a liar. You say here that you "have respect for the environment and other sentient beings" but you just got through saying repeatedly that you "don't care" about the environment or all of the people and animals on Earth.
Climate scientists predict that rising sea levels caused by AGW threaten the well being and safety of the literally billions of humans beings who live near the coastlines and also threaten to destroy the trillions of dollars in human investment in all of coastal cities and other coastal infrastructure, and you say you don't care.
Climate scientists predict that shrinking mountain glaciers all around the world threaten the summer water supplies for drinking, washing, agriculture, etc., for hundreds of millions of people and you say you don't care.
Climate scientists say that increasingly severe and numerous heat waves have already killed tens, or perhaps hundreds, of thousands of people and will kill many more in the future, and caused wildfires and billions of dollars in damages and crop losses, and you say you don't care.
Climate scientists predict that extreme storms and floods will cause increasing amounts of damage and loss of life and you say you don't care.
Climate scientists predict an increase in regional droughts, like in the American southwest, ruining crop lands and forcing people to become refugees and you say that you have a spring so you don't care about everybody else on the planet.
Climate scientists predict an increase in tropical diseases as the zones where they can spread pushes farther away from the equator due to AGW and you don't care because you foolishly imagine that it can't affect you.
You don't care about the economic consequences of warming and climate changes on everybody else on Earth because you say you already have enough money. You poor delusional retard.
Pentagon studies warn us that AGW will probably eventually cause wars over water and other resources and you just don't care.
You claim you have "respect for the environment" but you aren't concerned about the "loss of biodiversity" and the "destruction of ecosystems" that climate scientists predict will result from AGW. You are a liar and a fool.

I care about my environment with regards to things that I can effect personally, like not eating meat, which saves forests, ground water, animal welfare... Also, I own over 50 acres of wooden forest in my backyard which means that I take out more pollution from the atmosphere than I put in. As well, I have a natural water spring on my land so I don't use chemically treated water. Plus, I had only 2 children, which would solve the world's eco-problems if everyone stuck to that. Like I said, what are YOU doing?
Things that I can't control I don't care about because they are out of my control. Anyways, everything on that top 10 list is due to OVERPOPULATION, which is mentioned NOWHERE!!!!!! So we can't fix a problem if we're unable to properly identify the source of the problem.

 

[RollingThunder]

People are their own worst enemies. Maybe if humans weren't so busy overpopulating the planet and destroying the ecosystems, this wouldn't be happening. You're here arguing over which scientist is less full of shit them the others.

Another sign of just how clueless and retarded you are is that you imagine that that is what I'm "here arguing about". The climate scientists who are warning mankind about the dangers and consequences of anthropogenic global warming and its associated climate changes are not "full of shit", you anti-science denier cult fool.

Aside from that, which is pitifully pointless with regards to what's happening, you're doing what exactly to help out mankind? I'm a vegetarian, meaning I have respect for the environment and other sentient being. What about you?

You are a liar. You say here that you "have respect for the environment and other sentient beings" but you just got through saying repeatedly that you "don't care" about the environment or all of the people and animals on Earth.
Climate scientists predict that rising sea levels caused by AGW threaten the well being and safety of the literally billions of humans beings who live near the coastlines and also threaten to destroy the trillions of dollars in human investment in all of coastal cities and other coastal infrastructure, and you say you don't care.
Climate scientists predict that shrinking mountain glaciers all around the world threaten the summer water supplies for drinking, washing, agriculture, etc., for hundreds of millions of people and you say you don't care.
Climate scientists say that increasingly severe and numerous heat waves have already killed tens, or perhaps hundreds, of thousands of people and will kill many more in the future, and caused wildfires and billions of dollars in damages and crop losses, and you say you don't care.
Climate scientists predict that extreme storms and floods will cause increasing amounts of damage and loss of life and you say you don't care.
Climate scientists predict an increase in regional droughts, like in the American southwest, ruining crop lands and forcing people to become refugees and you say that you have a spring so you don't care about everybody else on the planet.
Climate scientists predict an increase in tropical diseases as the zones where they can spread pushes farther away from the equator due to AGW and you don't care because you foolishly imagine that it can't affect you.
You don't care about the economic consequences of warming and climate changes on everybody else on Earth because you say you already have enough money. You poor delusional retard.
Pentagon studies warn us that AGW will probably eventually cause wars over water and other resources and you just don't care.
You claim you have "respect for the environment" but you aren't concerned about the "loss of biodiversity" and the "destruction of ecosystems" that climate scientists predict will result from AGW. You are a liar and a fool.

I care about my environment with regards to things that I can effect personally, like not eating meat, which saves forests, ground water, animal welfare... Also, I own over 50 acres of wooden forest in my backyard which means that I take out more pollution from the atmosphere than I put in. As well, I have a natural water spring on my land so I don't use chemically treated water. Plus, I had only 2 children, which would solve the world's eco-problems if everyone stuck to that. Like I said, what are YOU doing?
Things that I can't control I don't care about because they are out of my control. Anyways, everything on that top 10 list is due to OVERPOPULATION, which is mentioned NOWHERE!!!!!! So we can't fix a problem if we're unable to properly identify the source of the problem.

Everything on the top 10 list is actually due to global warming brought on by human caused changes in atmospheric composition (40% increase in CO2 levels). Your claim that all of those things on the list are "due to OVERPOPULATION" is just another sign of how extremely retarded and clueless you are. Actually to say, as you just did, that rising sea levels, shrinking mountain glaciers, killer heat waves, extreme weather events, droughts and floods are all caused by 'overpopulation' is a clear indication of outright insanity. Crawl back in your hole, you poor confused cretin.

 

[SSDD]

10. Rising sea level - research has shown that sea level was at least 8 meters higher during the last interglacial period. What exactly makes you think it should be any lower during this one?

It's hard to imagine she sheer, utter infantile stupidity of this statement.

Sea levels may "only" rise eight metres, we are told, enough to swamp much of New York, Chicago, Miami, New Orleans and San Francisco in all likeliheood.

So what? Says SSDD - they were higher in the last ice age. Relax.

In addition to lying every time you post...you can't read either.

I would ask you to go back and re read, but the chances of that are pretty slim. I said that duing the last interglacial, sea level rose 8 meters higher than during this one...What precisely makes you believe that sea level during this one should not rise as much as during the last? I didn't say that I don't care, but when people chose to live near the ocean, or in a flood plain, or on an earthquake fault, or in a region in which wildfire is simply part of the ecology, they do get what they get. The claimate can't be expected to take their troubles into consideration.

 

[SSDD]

6. Drought - That one makes no sense at all. It flies in the face of what your warmist priests predict. They say that warming will result in more water vapor in the atmosphere....more water vapor in the atmosphere is not compatible with drought. Drought is the result of less water vapor in the atmosphere.

And then you go on to prove that you have not listened to A THING scientists have been predicting.

Really - after all this time and all these threads and you STILL don't understand the basic concept of climate change?

Drought is VERY much a factor. For Spain, Australia and parts of Africa and South America, drought may be the single largest factor people experience in their day-to-day lives.

Drought will not be a factor in a warmer, wetter world...Of course, all of those predictions are speculation based on the output of terribly flawed computer models. May as well argue about how many angels can dance on a pinhead like you.

 

[ima]

Another sign of just how clueless and retarded you are is that you imagine that that is what I'm "here arguing about". The climate scientists who are warning mankind about the dangers and consequences of anthropogenic global warming and its associated climate changes are not "full of shit", you anti-science denier cult fool.

You are a liar. You say here that you "have respect for the environment and other sentient beings" but you just got through saying repeatedly that you "don't care" about the environment or all of the people and animals on Earth.
Climate scientists predict that rising sea levels caused by AGW threaten the well being and safety of the literally billions of humans beings who live near the coastlines and also threaten to destroy the trillions of dollars in human investment in all of coastal cities and other coastal infrastructure, and you say you don't care.
Climate scientists predict that shrinking mountain glaciers all around the world threaten the summer water supplies for drinking, washing, agriculture, etc., for hundreds of millions of people and you say you don't care.
Climate scientists say that increasingly severe and numerous heat waves have already killed tens, or perhaps hundreds, of thousands of people and will kill many more in the future, and caused wildfires and billions of dollars in damages and crop losses, and you say you don't care.
Climate scientists predict that extreme storms and floods will cause increasing amounts of damage and loss of life and you say you don't care.
Climate scientists predict an increase in regional droughts, like in the American southwest, ruining crop lands and forcing people to become refugees and you say that you have a spring so you don't care about everybody else on the planet.
Climate scientists predict an increase in tropical diseases as the zones where they can spread pushes farther away from the equator due to AGW and you don't care because you foolishly imagine that it can't affect you.
You don't care about the economic consequences of warming and climate changes on everybody else on Earth because you say you already have enough money. You poor delusional retard.
Pentagon studies warn us that AGW will probably eventually cause wars over water and other resources and you just don't care.
You claim you have "respect for the environment" but you aren't concerned about the "loss of biodiversity" and the "destruction of ecosystems" that climate scientists predict will result from AGW. You are a liar and a fool.

I care about my environment with regards to things that I can effect personally, like not eating meat, which saves forests, ground water, animal welfare... Also, I own over 50 acres of wooden forest in my backyard which means that I take out more pollution from the atmosphere than I put in. As well, I have a natural water spring on my land so I don't use chemically treated water. Plus, I had only 2 children, which would solve the world's eco-problems if everyone stuck to that. Like I said, what are YOU doing?
Things that I can't control I don't care about because they are out of my control. Anyways, everything on that top 10 list is due to OVERPOPULATION, which is mentioned NOWHERE!!!!!! So we can't fix a problem if we're unable to properly identify the source of the problem.

Everything on the top 10 list is actually due to global warming brought on by human caused changes in atmospheric composition (40% increase in CO2 levels). Your claim that all of those things on the list are "due to OVERPOPULATION" is just another sign of how extremely retarded and clueless you are. Actually to say, as you just did, that rising sea levels, shrinking mountain glaciers, killer heat waves, extreme weather events, droughts and floods are all caused by 'overpopulation' is a clear indication of outright insanity. Crawl back in your hole, you poor confused cretin.

"Everything on the top 10 list is actually due to global warming brought on by human caused changes"

Too many humans spewing too much gas and shit into the environment. Less humans=less pollution. More humans=more pollution. It really is a simple concept, what don't you get?

 

[RollingThunder]

I care about my environment with regards to things that I can effect personally, like not eating meat, which saves forests, ground water, animal welfare... Also, I own over 50 acres of wooden forest in my backyard which means that I take out more pollution from the atmosphere than I put in. As well, I have a natural water spring on my land so I don't use chemically treated water. Plus, I had only 2 children, which would solve the world's eco-problems if everyone stuck to that. Like I said, what are YOU doing?
Things that I can't control I don't care about because they are out of my control. Anyways, everything on that top 10 list is due to OVERPOPULATION, which is mentioned NOWHERE!!!!!! So we can't fix a problem if we're unable to properly identify the source of the problem.

Everything on the top 10 list is actually due to global warming brought on by human caused changes in atmospheric composition (40% increase in CO2 levels). Your claim that all of those things on the list are "due to OVERPOPULATION" is just another sign of how extremely retarded and clueless you are. Actually to say, as you just did, that rising sea levels, shrinking mountain glaciers, killer heat waves, extreme weather events, droughts and floods are all caused by 'overpopulation' is a clear indication of outright insanity. Crawl back in your hole, you poor confused cretin.

"Everything on the top 10 list is actually due to global warming brought on by human caused changes in atmospheric composition (40% increase in CO2 levels). Your claim that all of those things on the list are "due to OVERPOPULATION" is just another sign of how extremely retarded and clueless you are. Actually to say, as you just did, that rising sea levels, shrinking mountain glaciers, killer heat waves, extreme weather events, droughts and floods are all caused by 'overpopulation' is a clear indication of outright insanity. Crawl back in your hole, you poor confused cretin."

Too many humans spewing too much gas and shit into the environment. Less humans=less pollution. More humans=more pollution. It really is a simple concept, what don't you get?

The amounts of the various kinds of pollution, mostly industrial, that are poisoning our only planet, and, more importantly the amount of CO2 mankind is pumping into the atmosphere, are not in a direct relationship to the number of humans on Earth, as you so idiotically assume. We could have just as many people here and have way less pollution if the greed of the few didn't overpower the wisdom of the knowledgeable. There could easily be less people on Earth and more pollution than now, if people were even more stupid about fouling our own nests. We can have a modern industrial civilization that uses renewable energy sources instead of fossil fuels. The levels of pollution and CO2 emissions are not directly correlated with the population numbers. You seem to be way too simple minded to grasp this, you poor little dimwitted confused fruitcake.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Climate "Science" 101

Warming = caused by manmade global warming

Climate change = everything not covered in "Warming"

 

[RollingThunder]

Climate "Science" 101

Warming = caused by manmade global warming

Climate change = everything not covered in "Warming"

I guess you just proved that you're sooooo retarded that you failed 'climate science 101'.

Try again, little retard.

The current abrupt warming trend that is pushing temperature outside the range of natural variability - caused by mankind's carbon emissions and deforestation practices.

Climate changes - the inevitable result of that human caused abrupt warming trend.

 

[RollingThunder]

6. Drought - That one makes no sense at all. It flies in the face of what your warmist priests predict. They say that warming will result in more water vapor in the atmosphere....more water vapor in the atmosphere is not compatible with drought. Drought is the result of less water vapor in the atmosphere.

And then you go on to prove that you have not listened to A THING scientists have been predicting.

Really - after all this time and all these threads and you STILL don't understand the basic concept of climate change?

Drought is VERY much a factor. For Spain, Australia and parts of Africa and South America, drought may be the single largest factor people experience in their day-to-day lives.

Drought will not be a factor in a warmer, wetter world...

Drought is already a "factor" and a result of AGW, and it is being directly observed by people in a number of places. People who aren't hampered, as you are, by being unable to see what is in front of them, and of course, that's because their heads aren't jammed up their asses like you have your head jammed immovably up your ass.

Of course, all of those predictions are speculation based on the output of terribly flawed computer models.

Of course, all of your posts are clueless drivel based on the output of a terribly flawed brain.

 

[SSDD]

Drought is already a "factor" and a result of AGW, and it is being directly observed by people in a number of places. People who aren't hampered, as you are, by being unable to see what is in front of them, and of course, that's because their heads aren't jammed up their asses like you have your head jammed immovably up your ass.

Prove two things thunder and you can change my mind. First prove that the climate is changing due to the activities of man. Keep in mind that output from computer models isn't proof of anything but how easily you are duped if you believe them.

Second, prove that the drought being seen in the world today is any worse than previous drought and caused by a different set of factors.

We both know that you will be able to prove neither and will make a false claim that such proof has already been presented rather than simply post it. In short, you fail to prove my points and tell yet another lie in an attempt to cover up your failure.

 

[IanC]

Crisis in New Zealand climatology
by Barry Brill

May 15, 2010

The warming that wasn't

The official archivist of New Zealand’s climate records, the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), offers top billing to its 147-year-old national mean temperature series (the “NIWA Seven-station Series” or NSS). This series shows that New Zealand experienced a twentieth-century warming trend of 0.92°C.

The official temperature record is wrong. The instrumental raw data correctly show that New Zealand average temperatures have remained remarkably steady at 12.6°C +/- 0.5°C for a century and a half. NIWA’s doctoring of that data is indefensible.

The NSS is the outcome of a subjective data series produced by a single Government scientist, whose work has never been peer-reviewed or subjected to proper quality checking. It was smuggled into the official archive without any formal process. It is undocumented and sans metadata, and it could not be defended in any court of law. Yet the full line-up of NIWA climate scientists has gone to extraordinary lengths to support this falsified warming and to fiercely attack its critics.

For nearly 15 years, the 20th-century warming trend of 0.92°C derived from the NSS has been at the centre of NIWA official advice to all tiers of New Zealand Government – Central, Regional and Local. It informs the NIWA climate model. It is used in sworn expert testimony in Environment Court hearings. Its dramatic graph graces the front page of NIWA’s printed brochures and its website.

Internationally, the NSS 0.92°C trend is a foundation stone for the Australia-New Zealand Chapter in the IPCC’s Third and Fourth Assessment Reports. In 1994, it was submitted to HadleyCRUT, so as to influence the vast expanses of the South Pacific in the calculation of globally-averaged temperatures.

The Minister of Research Science and Technology, the Hon Dr Wayne Mapp, has finally become alarmed at the murky provenance of the NSS. The Government has directed and funded a 6-month project to produce a new national temperature record, with published data and transparent processes. The replacement record is to be the subject of a scientific paper, which is to be peer-reviewed by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.
.....
The NSS has not been retained out of respect for Salinger. The only remaining explanation is that NIWA and the Climate Ministers are attempting to save face rather than confess that they have been running their policies on the basis of bogus data for many years.

CONCLUSION

Piecing together the provenance of the New Zealand historical temperature record has been no easy task. Much of the detail is set out in the Climate Conversation blog. It has involved a myriad of investigative methods but the most productive has been the placement of nearly 50 Parliamentary Questions for Written Answer, for which credit must go to John Boscawen MP. The New Zealand mainstream media, all highly partisan on climate change matters, have evinced little interest in the scandal to date.

Science claims a special place in the trust of the public because of its unswerving adherence to certain objective methodologies, involving transparency, peer review, replicability and honest purpose. NIWA has forfeited that trust in so many ways.

Hon Barry Brill OBE is a New Zealand barrister and solicitor. He is a former Minister of Science & Technology, and Minister of Energy, and is currently chairman of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.

Quadrant Online - Crisis in New Zealand climatology


this was the run up to the NIWA collapsing because they wouldnt (and couldnt) answer the questions put forth to them by the govt.

like a phoenix rising from its own ashes, the newly minted private NIWA sent its new methodology to the Australian BOM for peer review. the methodology passed but the aussies pointedly refused to comment on the actual results produced. an independent audit of the NIWA results found large discrepancies, roughly only 1/3 of the warming. when the matter was taken to court, the court decided that they were not capable of deciding what was correct scientifically and sided with the climatologists rather than the statistitians.

notch up another victory for Michael Mann's favourite ploy of 'brazen it out'.

I cannot believe you neg repped me for this post Saigon. you are one pompous asshole, that's for sure!

I may even have some of the story wrong, 2010 is a long time ago but I didnt hear you or the NIWA explain how Salinger put up a data set that took raw figures with no increasing trend, and turned them into an increasing trend that was higher than most of the world and multiples of the southern hemisphere average.

when the NIWA were asked to provide documentation for the SevenStationSeries, did they or did they not throw up their hands and confess that they did not have the methodology, and in fact did not know how Salinger derived it or even why it was publically released?

I wish I had the time to look back but there was a thread here on the same subject.

in the mean time, I hope you reap what you have sown. Im sure that there are lots of people here that are looking for a place to use their rep to show their displeasure at typical alarmist behaviour.

 

[ima]

Everything on the top 10 list is actually due to global warming brought on by human caused changes in atmospheric composition (40% increase in CO2 levels). Your claim that all of those things on the list are "due to OVERPOPULATION" is just another sign of how extremely retarded and clueless you are. Actually to say, as you just did, that rising sea levels, shrinking mountain glaciers, killer heat waves, extreme weather events, droughts and floods are all caused by 'overpopulation' is a clear indication of outright insanity. Crawl back in your hole, you poor confused cretin.

"Everything on the top 10 list is actually due to global warming brought on by human caused changes in atmospheric composition (40% increase in CO2 levels). Your claim that all of those things on the list are "due to OVERPOPULATION" is just another sign of how extremely retarded and clueless you are. Actually to say, as you just did, that rising sea levels, shrinking mountain glaciers, killer heat waves, extreme weather events, droughts and floods are all caused by 'overpopulation' is a clear indication of outright insanity. Crawl back in your hole, you poor confused cretin."

Too many humans spewing too much gas and shit into the environment. Less humans=less pollution. More humans=more pollution. It really is a simple concept, what don't you get?

The amounts of the various kinds of pollution, mostly industrial, that are poisoning our only planet, and, more importantly the amount of CO2 mankind is pumping into the atmosphere, are not in a direct relationship to the number of humans on Earth, as you so idiotically assume. We could have just as many people here and have way less pollution if the greed of the few didn't overpower the wisdom of the knowledgeable. There could easily be less people on Earth and more pollution than now, if people were even more stupid about fouling our own nests. We can have a modern industrial civilization that uses renewable energy sources instead of fossil fuels. The levels of pollution and CO2 emissions are not directly correlated with the population numbers. You seem to be way too simple minded to grasp this, you poor little dimwitted confused fruitcake.

There's no way mankind can keep adding more people and reduce pollution at the same time. We are not that technologically or sociologically advanced. You live in a fantasy world.
Btw, do you call me fruitcake because you're afraid that you might be one?

 

[polarbear]

Crisis in New Zealand climatology
by Barry Brill

May 15, 2010

The warming that wasn't

The official archivist of New Zealand’s climate records, the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), offers top billing to its 147-year-old national mean temperature series (the “NIWA Seven-station Series” or NSS). This series shows that New Zealand experienced a twentieth-century warming trend of 0.92°C.

The official temperature record is wrong. The instrumental raw data correctly show that New Zealand average temperatures have remained remarkably steady at 12.6°C +/- 0.5°C for a century and a half. NIWA’s doctoring of that data is indefensible.

The NSS is the outcome of a subjective data series produced by a single Government scientist, whose work has never been peer-reviewed or subjected to proper quality checking. It was smuggled into the official archive without any formal process. It is undocumented and sans metadata, and it could not be defended in any court of law. Yet the full line-up of NIWA climate scientists has gone to extraordinary lengths to support this falsified warming and to fiercely attack its critics.

For nearly 15 years, the 20th-century warming trend of 0.92°C derived from the NSS has been at the centre of NIWA official advice to all tiers of New Zealand Government – Central, Regional and Local. It informs the NIWA climate model. It is used in sworn expert testimony in Environment Court hearings. Its dramatic graph graces the front page of NIWA’s printed brochures and its website.

Internationally, the NSS 0.92°C trend is a foundation stone for the Australia-New Zealand Chapter in the IPCC’s Third and Fourth Assessment Reports. In 1994, it was submitted to HadleyCRUT, so as to influence the vast expanses of the South Pacific in the calculation of globally-averaged temperatures.

The Minister of Research Science and Technology, the Hon Dr Wayne Mapp, has finally become alarmed at the murky provenance of the NSS. The Government has directed and funded a 6-month project to produce a new national temperature record, with published data and transparent processes. The replacement record is to be the subject of a scientific paper, which is to be peer-reviewed by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.
.....
The NSS has not been retained out of respect for Salinger. The only remaining explanation is that NIWA and the Climate Ministers are attempting to save face rather than confess that they have been running their policies on the basis of bogus data for many years.

CONCLUSION

Piecing together the provenance of the New Zealand historical temperature record has been no easy task. Much of the detail is set out in the Climate Conversation blog. It has involved a myriad of investigative methods but the most productive has been the placement of nearly 50 Parliamentary Questions for Written Answer, for which credit must go to John Boscawen MP. The New Zealand mainstream media, all highly partisan on climate change matters, have evinced little interest in the scandal to date.

Science claims a special place in the trust of the public because of its unswerving adherence to certain objective methodologies, involving transparency, peer review, replicability and honest purpose. NIWA has forfeited that trust in so many ways.

Hon Barry Brill OBE is a New Zealand barrister and solicitor. He is a former Minister of Science & Technology, and Minister of Energy, and is currently chairman of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.

Quadrant Online - Crisis in New Zealand climatology


this was the run up to the NIWA collapsing because they wouldnt (and couldnt) answer the questions put forth to them by the govt.

like a phoenix rising from its own ashes, the newly minted private NIWA sent its new methodology to the Australian BOM for peer review. the methodology passed but the aussies pointedly refused to comment on the actual results produced. an independent audit of the NIWA results found large discrepancies, roughly only 1/3 of the warming. when the matter was taken to court, the court decided that they were not capable of deciding what was correct scientifically and sided with the climatologists rather than the statistitians.

notch up another victory for Michael Mann's favourite ploy of 'brazen it out'.

I cannot believe you neg repped me for this post Saigon. you are one pompous asshole, that's for sure!

I may even have some of the story wrong, 2010 is a long time ago but I didnt hear you or the NIWA explain how Salinger put up a data set that took raw figures with no increasing trend, and turned them into an increasing trend that was higher than most of the world and multiples of the southern hemisphere average.

when the NIWA were asked to provide documentation for the SevenStationSeries, did they or did they not throw up their hands and confess that they did not have the methodology, and in fact did not know how Salinger derived it or even why it was publically released?

I wish I had the time to look back but there was a thread here on the same subject.

in the mean time, I hope you reap what you have sown. Im sure that there are lots of people here that are looking for a place to use their rep to show their displeasure at typical alarmist behaviour.

I never neg-repped anybody no matter what but I think I`ll make an exception after I`ve been reading here today and follow your advice just as soon as I post this.
Here is something more interesting than Saigon`s & cohorts usual garbage
I noticed for the past few weeks that the Manitoba Highways department is installing huge concrete culverts all along the Transcanada and on the roads in the Assiniboine and Red River valley....because we have been dumped on all winter long and it`s not tapering off:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oest2WFuoOo&feature=youtu.be"]March4_2013 - YouTube[/ame]

It`s not really "abnormal" but the problem is compounded because we had cold snaps below -35 C that lasted very long. River and Lake ice is way thicker than it has been and it won`t be easy to drain all that melt water into the Nelson River and out into the arctic ocean as it normally is.
Which means our friends south of us in Minnesota and the Dakotas will get flooded when all that water backs up. We got huge Floodwater bypass channels and won`t have a problem except maybe what to do with all the hydro-power we generate with it. But south of us across the border they don`t have this vital infra structure which would connect with our flood-way-channels. U.S. Enviro-activists blocked that and rather gloat when Fargo and other cities get flooded...which then is "evidence of global warming"...EVERY TIME IT HAPPENS.

I think it`s high time Americans kick some ass just like my friends do back in my home town in Germany. "Moped jousting" is a Spring time ritual:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhtTBDZKQLE&feature=youtu.be"]Moped jousting - YouTube[/ame]

You leave your Audi or Porsche in your garage, put on a full face cover helmet, get out your moped and kick over all the radar traps in your neighborhood. My friend told me that the new stands are way harder to kick over and he almost crashed on this pass.