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.
sources? you seem to be very confused as to the power of 'sources'. you consider all of mine to be corrupt and dirty while you are sure that yours are all pristine and clean. personally I look at everyone as having a slant in the debate because they are going to promote the evidence in their favour and ignore the evidence against. but that does not change the evidence.
in the case of New Zealand the raw temperature data show almost no warming for the last 150 years. up until the last 35 years no one had any reason to screw around with the readings but there have been changes in thermometers, changes in station location, changes in urbanization and land use. so some adjustments do need to be made.
I personally have problems with the homogenization process and the urbanization correction. in NZ the trend is almost completely from adjustments. in Iceland the automated adjustments make no sense and no explanations have been forthcoming. in the US temps have gone up a couple of tenths of a degree (C) in the last few years and down a couple of tenths in pre-WWII readings. why such a huge change in the last dozen years? did we not know how to read a thermometer before 2000? or 2007?
I think
you are the one being duped! do you not find it the least bit suspicious that the temperature record keeps changing, seemingly every year and all the way back to the beginning? do you not find it suspicious that UHI is found to be insignificant? (negative even, in Muller's case.)
I dont believe either side. I just keep adding more information and evidence to the piles. like most mainline skeptics I believe there has been some warming and that CO2 has had a small effect. I also believe that CO2 theory is fundementally wrong in thinking that CO2 is the control knob, and the preposterous predictions coming from climate computer models are wrong (even if they were right it would be a lucky guess rather than from skill).
many times in the past, especially in physics, refinements in measurements were delayed because a celebrated and respected scientist had made a poor first attempt, and those that followed would shade their new measurements to match up more closely to the poor one. I see this happening in climate science. Mann's hockey stick would get laughed at if it wwere submitted today. the NIWA chose adjustment methods that were almost completely different than Salinger's but were designed to get the same result. Jones' deeply flawed UHI paper in 1990 has influenced thinking on the subject ever since. to the point that Muller and his merry band actually found a way to show that it cooled cities. ahhh, sometimes it takes a very smart person to believe something stupid.
anyways Saigon, I will leave you to thinking that anyone who is conservative is trying to destroy the world and you can leave me to thinking climate science has painted themselves into a corner that they cannot get out of without losing face.
