NZ average temperatures, 1853-2008, per NIWA
Climate scientists in New Zealand today accused the foremost climate-research institution in New Zealand of data manipulation of the same type as the East Anglia Climatic Research Institute (CRU) is alleged to have done.
The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition today issued this paper saying that a graph published by the New Zealand National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) is not only wrong but is the result of painstaking and unjustified adjustment of raw temperature data covering the period from 1853 through 2008, Ian Wishart of The Briefing Room announced today.
At issue is a claim by NIWA that the average temperature over New Zealand declined from 1853 to 1909 and then began to rise, and has been rising ever since, at an average rate of +0.92 degree (Celsius) per century.
NZ unadjusted temperatures, 1853-2008, per CSC
However, unlike the case with the CRU, NIWA's raw data remain readily available, at least to climate scientists. Richard Treadgold, of the Climate Conversation Group, and his colleagues requested and obtained the data used to produce the NIWA graph. Using these data, they produced a graph of their own. Their graph, shown here, displays no such decline from 1853 to 1909 and consequently no such steep increase from 1909 through 2008 as that shown on the NIWA graph. Instead, according to the CSC, the linear trend is a negligibly gentle +0.06 degree per century since 1853.
Treadgold's group alleges that the NIWA graph was produced, not from the raw data that NIWA supplied, but rather from temperature readings that had been adjusted. The CSC scientists were able to obtain the adjusted dataset from an un-named associate of Dr. M. James Salinger, formerly of NIWA and, before that, of CRU. Comparison of the two datasets shows significant upward adjustments of the post-1909 data and equally significant downward adjustments of the pre-1909 data, thus producing a downtrend and then an uptrend, instead of the nearly flat trend that Treadgold's group found.
Climatic Research Unit (Photo courtesy CRU)
Ian Wishart of The Briefing Room, and also of Investigate magazine, asked Dr. David Wratt, the chief climatologist at NIWA, for comment. Wratt said only that NIWA would issue a press release later that day; none has been forthcoming at the time of this writing.
The CSC scientists, in their paper, conclude that the New Zealand government is relying on an untenable conclusion from the data at hand, and now openly question the need for any cap-and-trade system such as that which Treadgold and his colleagues presume will be under consideration in Copenhagen beginning next Tuesday.
UPDATE: The Climate Change Examiner reports today that NIWA has now issued this press release in answer to their critics, and also supplied this link to further information as to the placement of their weather stations and why, they said, the numbers required adjustment.
NIWA climate scientists have previously explained to members of the Coalition why such corrections must be made. NIWA’s Chief Climate Scientist, Dr David Wratt, says he’s very disappointed that the Coalition continue to ignore such advice and therefore to present misleading analyses.
Exactly how the CSC has "misled" the public or their colleagues is far from clear from the NIWA statement. NIWA are now claiming that some of the weather stations were moved, and thus the adjustments become necessary to account for such movement. This begs the question of why the stations had to be moved to begin with, why they were moved to different elevations, and why NIWA did not simply reconfigure their indices to make sure that tney always based their average on the same mix of weather stations at various elevations as existed before the movement of any given site or sites.
Like this article? Want to be notified of more? Click Subscribe, above.
Comments
How quicky the climate house of cards is falling. I expect dozens, if not hundreds of politically motivated so called "scientists" to be outed and exposed. Then they should be fired their cushy "research" jobs and run for a political office as they should have done in the first place.
I expect some cushy University job openings to come up very soon.
This is the biggest Chicken Little scam in the history of the modern world.
What a bunch of dumb people the world to buy into this crap.
P.T Barnum would be proud...
Q: How many climate scientists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None. There's a consensus that it's going to change, so they've decided to keep us in the dark.
At last the hoax has been revealed. This is the greatest revelation since Columbus discovered that the world is not flat, but round. Call your Senators, Representatives, this madness has got to stop!
Dude .... very good !
You're asking the wrong question. The question is if they actually moved more stations to colder places than warmer places by a considerable degree around 1930. It is the only way to explain such a marked change before that point. The data after that point is largely the same in both versions. It also doesn't explain the choppiness of the unadjusted data beforehand. Some parts go down by more than others.
Politics thrives on fear. Promising to save people means votes which means money. There are always people willing to take money to lend credibility to fears. In fact, the greater they make that bogeyman appear, the richer and higher they climb.
The long held assumption that skeptics are in the pocket of big business is actually the opposite of what really goes on. It behooves us to be skeptical of anyone promoting the existence of a bogeyman.
Notice they don't call it global warming anymore?
If this climate change fraud legislation passess the government will rake in hundreds of billions of dollars and the crooks on Wall St and Algore's company stand to make hundreds of millions trading carbon credits.
This is designed for the criminals on DC and Wall Street to rape the litle people on Main Street.
Let me make sure I've got this right...taking temperature readings and plotting them on a graph is misleading...taking temperature readings and adjusting them base on personal prejudice and THEN putting them on a graph is accurate and unbiased.
George Orwell, call your office
You can see where the stations were moved by the vertical lines on the 7 graphs - it's NOT THE POINT! 6 out of 7 datasets were arbitrarily cranked downwards by at LEAST 0.5C FROM THE START OF THE MEASUREMENTS! Look at the graphs on the pdf.
Excellent article Terry, thank you!
The religious zealots of man caused global warming have been exposed for the false prophets they are. Too bad so many people still insist in believing the garbage they spew. We can only hope that there is enough time left to stop the madness behind the largest takeover of political and economic power in mans history. What a hoax it is! I have been preaching this to my wife and kids for years now.
Is climate research government funded?
Search ABC news for a mention of the scandal
abcnews<dot>go<dot>com/search?searchtext=climategate
"No Results"
Pathetic, worse than Tass and Izvestia during the Soviet years.
From Gavin Schmidt to Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Klaus Lackner, these 'scientists' are becoming celebrities, feted in Hollywood and San Franciso, appearing on Letterman, the earth science rock stars of politics. Why wouldn't the climatologists skew data, suppress criticism and dissent, and augment reality at the sight of the billions and trillions of dollars being wafted by Gore, Goldman Sachs, national and state governments, international entities and entire industries?
Siri....Right on the money....no pun intended!
There's a disturbing lack of balance in the replies to this article. Not one person...OK, one person...mentioned the moving of weather stations. OF COURSE if some jokers in the 1930s moved their weather stations then the raw data will need adjusting. Did Treadgold's group even bother to ask why the data was adjusted before 'concluding' NIWA's position is 'untenable'? There are lots of reasons why someone might want to move a site - their institution moved; perhaps a new site was a more reliable one, etc etc. Furthermore, to expect NIWA to fully explain why these guys 100 years ago were moving their weather stations?as the author of this article does, is surely very unreasonable!
There's the implication that NIWA deliberately moved the weather sites to allow artificial adjustments, but that's ridiculous given they've only been making a noise about it for the last few decades, comparatively recent given the timescale involved.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!