2015, the beginning of ice free arctic?

[SSDD]

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.

Ditto.

 

[Saigon]

Ian -

I negged rep you because you were bluffing and because you had not checked your facts. This statement is simply false - and any one of a dozen sites would have confirmed that if you had checked.

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

Seizing on a topic from a blog and presenting it is evidence of some massive conspiracy - and working on the assumption that no one will know the real story - does not show great integrity.

Your source - and how many times do we see this here - is a right wing politician with no training in science, and a discredited politician at that. If you knew anything about ACT or Muldoon or Richard Prebble or Rodney Hyde, you would NOT be championing their view of science. It is based purely and simply on politics, just as everything ACT stands for.


Don't take the neg rep personaly, because it was not meant personally. I have also pos repped you in the past. Here your posting was very poor, and you probably realise that yourself.

 

[Saigon]

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?

What Niwa did was this:

- Released all of their data.

- Went back to square one and performed the entire research over again, and released the new sets of results.

- Explained exactly why weather stations had been moved and what impact that had had on their raw data.

 

[SSDD]

What Niwa did was this:

- Released all of their data.

- Went back to square one and performed the entire research over again, and released the new sets of results.

- Explained exactly why weather stations had been moved and what impact that had had on their raw data.

You left out the first thing Niwa did....Before they did anything, they reinvinted themselves as a private organization. That is an important step, don't you think in so far as political accountability goes? The rest was just so much whitewashing that still hasn't adequately answered the questions that prompted the change from government to private in the first place.

 

[Saigon]

You left out the first thing Niwa did....Before they did anything, they reinvinted themselves as a private organization.

Absolute nonsense.

NIWA were a spin-off from the "Quango-hunting" of the Lange-Prebble administration, and along with a dozen other units connected with various ministries, were semi-privatised in around 1992. I can list the other units semi-privatised at the same time if you wish. It is now a CRI, actually - NOT a "private orgaisation".

In no case did the privatisation have anything to do with scandal, or indeed with anything political, nor did it occur in the same decade.

Can you admit that you were wrong?

 

[IanC]

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?

What Niwa did was this:

- Released all of their data.

- Went back to square one and performed the entire research over again, and released the new sets of results.

- Explained exactly why weather stations had been moved and what impact that had had on their raw data.

who is bluffing now? you are!

- Released all of their data.

the NIWA couldnt supply the methodology behind the 7SS. that is what started the whole thing off! Salinger's pet project just appeared on the official site, and when it was finally questioned they had to admit it was a mystery and that it couldnt be reproduced because the methodology and data had 'disappeared'.

rather than gut it out the NIWA declared that they werent an 'official' source of climate information, and then promised to redo their work from scratch. they sent their new methodology to the Australian BOM for peer review and got this back.
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/docs/bom-peer-review-ltr-on-niwa-7ss.pdf

damned by faint praise if you ask me.


this is all very reminiscent of the Mann hockey stick fiasco. first it was right. then it was mathematically wrong but could still have given the right answer. then it was old news and no one wanted to talk about it anymore.


raw temps-

turned into MANMADE warming-

homogenization is an awkward thing. while I agree that certain adjustments must be made to correct for certain things I am also concerned that obviously good records, like those in Iceland, seem to be automatically distorted into warming trends that arent realistically present. New Zealand seems like another case in point where the warming is almost totally comprised of 'adjustments'. if long standing and well documented sites are being manipulated in this fashion what can be said about the poorly documented and chopped up histories of the rest of the non-western world?

 

[IanC]

Ian -

I negged rep you because you were bluffing and because you had not checked your facts. This statement is simply false - and any one of a dozen sites would have confirmed that if you had checked.

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

Seizing on a topic from a blog and presenting it is evidence of some massive conspiracy - and working on the assumption that no one will know the real story - does not show great integrity.

Your source - and how many times do we see this here - is a right wing politician with no training in science, and a discredited politician at that. If you knew anything about ACT or Muldoon or Richard Prebble or Rodney Hyde, you would NOT be championing their view of science. It is based purely and simply on politics, just as everything ACT stands for.


Don't take the neg rep personaly, because it was not meant personally. I have also pos repped you in the past. Here your posting was very poor, and you probably realise that yourself.

I cannot help but notice that while you dismiss anyone from the 'right wing' you never have anything to say about 'left wing' activists and those with strong ties to environmental organizations. but you do seem to think that the paltry few millions supporting the skeptical side obviously leads to corruption whereas the billions of dollars floating around the warmist side has no ill effect.

 

[ima]

I can't wait for all the ice to melt, it should be really warm. I like warm!

 

[Saigon]

you never have anything to say about 'left wing' activists and those with strong ties to environmental organizations.

I don't use them as sources.

Not only do you use a right-wing politian as a source, but I think it is fairly clearly that you did not know who he was, or what party he represents, at the time you chose him as a source.

I'm really delighted this topic came up, because it really proves both quite how gullible Deniers are, and also how willing you are you snatch at anything and present it as proof of some mystical conspiracy - even when none exists.

 

[Saigon]

Ian -

I missed the part where you acknowledged that you were wrong to claim NIWA had ceased to function, had been privatised as a result of scandals etc etc etc.

And no, I am not bluffing.

NiWA very nicely conducted the Seven Stations research again from scratch, and have released all of that raw data on their site. Your own link confirms the accuracy of the rsearch. It's all here, including explanations on why adjustments were made:

http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/information-and-resources/nz-temp-record/review/changes/seven-station-series-temperature-data

btw. All of the original data is also available.

 

[IanC]

you never have anything to say about 'left wing' activists and those with strong ties to environmental organizations.

I don't use them as sources.

Not only do you use a right-wing politian as a source, but I think it is fairly clearly that you did not know who he was, or what party he represents, at the time you chose him as a source.

I'm really delighted this topic came up, because it really proves both quite how gullible Deniers are, and also how willing you are you snatch at anything and present it as proof of some mystical conspiracy - even when none exists.

you dont like right wing politicians even if they happened to be a former Minister of Science and Technology, and think they should be dismissed out of hand. do I get to dismiss anyone with ties to environmental organizations? or left wing politics? would there be anyone left?

 

[Saigon]

Ian C -

Your source NOW belongs to a political party (he changed party from National to ACT) I would consider both populist and bordering on the extremist. He has no background in sciences, and no training in sciences. His previous association with the Muldoon administration you might consider more a condemnation than a recommendation, I'd have thought.

I don't think any politician is a reliable source, which is why I never use them as sources.

 

[IanC]

Ian -

I missed the part where you acknowledged that you were wrong to claim NIWA had ceased to function, had been privatised as a result of scandals etc etc etc.

And no, I am not bluffing.

NiWA very nicely conducted the Seven Stations research again from scratch, and have released all of that raw data on their site. Your own link confirms the accuracy of the rsearch. It's all here, including explanations on why adjustments were made:

'Seven-station' series temperature data (archive) | NIWA

btw. All of the original data is also available.

one of the saying from the skeptical side is "you have to watch the pea under the thimble".

I looked at the NIWA web site and it states-

The 'seven-station' series was originally constructed by Dr Jim Salinger as part of his Ph.D. His thesis is held by Victoria University of Wellington, and the reference is:

Salinger, M.J., 1981. New Zealand Climate: The instrumental record. Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the Victoria University of Wellington, January 1981.

'held' and yet it was not released, and the data was 'lost'.

the raw data when when adjusted by Salinger and Rhodes1993 methodology does not match the results published. according to statisticians brought in from outside the results do not match now either.

you want me to 'admit' that NIWA was privatized long before the current scandal. I do not know when it was privatized. I assumed it was recently but I easily could be wrong.

are you willing to 'admit' that NIWA proclaimed that their service was not official or meant for international consumption when they were pressed to defend their results?

 

[Saigon]

Ian C -

It seems that you got taken for a ride on the whole 'privatisation' thing, which took place in 1992 - around 25 years before this "scandal" erupted. Now were they ever closed down, as you claimed.

It might worth questioning your sources a little more deeply when they are so clearly unreliable.

It is abundantly clear why the data was changed, and where and how. It just isn't a mystery. It's just another example of you guys seizing the wrong end of the stick.

 

[IanC]

Ian C -

It seems that you got taken for a ride on the whole 'privatisation' thing, which took place in 1992 - around 25 years before this "scandal" erupted. Now were they ever closed down, as you claimed.

It might worth questioning your sources a little more deeply when they are so clearly unreliable.

It is abundantly clear why the data was changed, and where and how. It just isn't a mystery. It's just another example of you guys seizing the wrong end of the stick.

privatization is a red herring that has little to nothing to do with the fiasco of NIWA. I am interested in the nuts and bolts of the New Zealand temperature records and methodologies. you only seem to be interested in claiming that right wing politicians are cranks, so everything they say can be ignored. the incompetence of NIWA climate science is astounding and should be a clear warning to every country in the world to examine their own temperature records.

I have noticed that you are totally staying clear of Salinger.

 

[RollingThunder]

To get back on topic....

 

[ima]

To get back on topic....

Ya, so what?

 

[RollingThunder]

To get back on topic....

Ya, so what?

It has to do with the topic of this thread, you clueless retard.

2015, the beginning of ice free arctic?

 

[Saigon]

privatization is a red herring that has little to nothing to do with the fiasco of NIWA.

Except that much of the "fiasco" is entirely contrived.

As I said earlier - you grab these things off blogs like they were gifts from god, don't check the facts, and then find out that most of the facts are false.

And yet at no point do you actually admit or even apparently realise that you have been conned by your sources. the most amazing thing is - you will be conned against next week. You'll learn nothing from this experience.

And this is what it all really comes down to on these threads - we have posters who will not even look at research by the British Antarctic Survey - but will swallow anything they read on investors.com without a second thought.

Staggering.

btw. If you had read NIWA's only pages - and what kind of person would attack them without doing so? - you've have learned that the adjustments were only made because some stations had been moved over the years, and the data needed to be corrected for wind and altitude. The differences are absolutely infinitesimal.

 

[SSDD]

To get back on topic....

Ya, so what?

It has to do with the topic of this thread, you clueless retard.

2015, the beginning of ice free arctic?

This thread is just one more thing to bookmark and trot out in 2015 to remind you guys just how wrong you are and to show you why you are rapidly losing influence in the world. You can only cry wolf so many times before people stop listening...and you can only be wrong so many times before people stop taking you seriously. There are a string of failed predictions coming from you guys going back to the 70's. This is just one more example.

The refreeze this year in the arctic has blown away all previous records and there is more ice up there now than there has been in a very long time. The models that predict an ice free arctic in 2015 didn't predict the sort of refreeze that has happened this winter.