Yet ANOTHER Climate Fraud uncovered in NZ!

[skidder]

This story is starting to get going as well.

http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/11/...dging-of-data/

"

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:



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).

Shall we have a look at the raw data, pooh pooh’ed as so irrelevant by the warmist crowd?



This picture of actual temperatures whistles a different tune altogether.
According to the Climate Science Coalition:

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.

The comparison between the raw data and the adjusted data was made possible after a colleague of Dr. Jim Salinger – formerly with NIWA – provided the information after years of direct requests to Salinger himself went unanswered. Salinger started this graph in the 1980s when he was at – yep, you guessed it – CRU (Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, UK.
For an even more interesting contrast, here is just one of the seven graphs provided in the Climate Science Coalition’s paper linked above, showing the raw data compared to the adjusted data. The graph below is the Auckland station. [Navigate to the first link above, and to pages five thru eight to see them all.["..........

[icm63]

Re: Yet ANOTHER Climate Fraud uncovered in NZ!

TRUE... emails found in the hacker database were contected to staff at NIWA

Here they are:
http://www.niwa.co.nz/about-niwa/our...anagement-team

This fellow was sacked from NIWA, I have no idea why, but he was working at NIWA while he was emailing the those fellows on the hackers list..it has been reported his name was on their emails to/cc.
http://www.weatherwatch.co.nz/conten...ks-dr-salinger

YES..follow the money...

[neoken]

Re: Yet ANOTHER Climate Fraud uncovered in NZ!

Yawn, go away.

[freuchie]

Re: Yet ANOTHER Climate Fraud uncovered in NZ!

Yawn, go away.

Yes, go away. You are disturbing the sand that my head is buried in.

[c1ue]

Re: Yet ANOTHER Climate Fraud uncovered in NZ!

The NIWA may not be an actual case of fraud, but again the lack of transparency has led to at least an image of impropriety.

As for NIWA in the CRU mails: there are 34 including:

Salinger
Renwick
Mullan
Wratt
Lowe

You'll note in particular that Salinger, Renwick and Mullan are in the short list in this email where one of the 'bad' papers is being group-dissected:

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emai...1248790545.txt

From: Phil Jones

To: Michael Mann , Jim Salinger
Subject: Re: ENSO blamed over warming - paper in JGR
Date: Tue Jul 28 10:15:45 2009
Cc: trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, j.renwick@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, b.mullan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Gavin Schmidt

Jim et al,
Having now read the paper in a moment of peace and quiet, there are a few things to bear in mind. The authors of the original will have a right of reply, so need to ensure that they don't have anything to come back on. From doing the attached a year or so ago, there is a word limit and also it is important to concentrate only on a few key points. As we all know there is so much wrong with the paper, it won't be difficult to come up with a few, but it does need to be just two or three.

...SNIPPED

[doom&gloom]

Re: Yet ANOTHER Climate Fraud uncovered in NZ!

what will the glowball secularists do without their Glowball Warming Religion?

[Ghent12]

Re: Yet ANOTHER Climate Fraud uncovered in NZ!

what will the glowball secularists do without their Glowball Warming Religion?

The most devote will continue to practice in cult-like fashion, while the less devote will move on to the next thing that seems plausible enough and is preached with such conviction, yet is also not a currently established religion.

[zilbo79]

Re: Yet ANOTHER Climate Fraud uncovered in NZ!

Climate deniers are good at taking the playbook from Big Tobacco. They are good at manufacturing uncertainty about the must indisputable scientific evidence showing the link between human-emitted carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect. They launder information by touting results from fake, scientific-sounding organizations. They promote scientific spokespeople and pay for scientific research in order to lend legitimacy to their claims. And finally, they attempt to recast the debate by attacking the peer review process. Don't believe the deniers trying to discredit scientists, they've discredited themselves in do so:

[icm63]

Re: Yet ANOTHER Climate Fraud uncovered in NZ!

zilbo79...

What utter rubbish..

That data is for last 100 years.. so what.. study 2000 years then that may mean something..

100 years is a spec of time in climate TRUE climate studies.

The last maths MODEL that was supposed to guide a group of wise fellows was the mortgage models of CDS, MBS..

For years that was the bible..

The best book on the subject on the data is..

AIRCON..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90otAJORkK8
http://www.amazon.com/Air-Con-Seriou.../dp/0958240140

[c1ue]

Re: Yet ANOTHER Climate Fraud uncovered in NZ!

Climate deniers are good at taking the playbook from Big Tobacco.

So you're saying that the $70B+ spent by the US government doesn't outweigh the $23M spent by Exxon?

And the $22M granted to Phil Jones of CRU-UEA alone is not a potential conflict of objectivity?

They are good at manufacturing uncertainty about the must indisputable scientific evidence showing the link between human-emitted carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect.

Please find for me the evidence that the climate will runaway due to man made CO2. Because no one in the entire world has yet been able to do so.

Simply stating CO2 is a greenhouse gas doesn't mean squat. As I've posted before:

http://www.itulip.com/forums/showpos...3&postcount=76

Um, Man made additions to the existing CO2 in atmosphere is all of 3.2% - and CO2 overall in the atmosphere is only 0.38%

So Man made CO2 is all of 0.012% of the atmosphere - yet is a major driver?

The IPCC 'projections' not only lump all CO2 together for its temperature increases, it also accelerates the temperature increases due to a mysterious and completely undemonstrated/unproven forcing. There is no historical record of such behavior either.

They launder information by touting results from fake, scientific-sounding organizations. They promote scientific spokespeople and pay for scientific research in order to lend legitimacy to their claims.

As opposed to "Mike's Nature Trick". And "we must get rid of this editor". And "We'll keep this 2 papers out of IPCC somehow".

"Grimy arse!" cried the kettle to the pot.

And finally, they attempt to recast the debate by attacking the peer review process. Don't believe the deniers trying to discredit scientists, they've discredited themselves in do so:

Who is attacking the peer review process? And who are you describing there?

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/bl...ttings-33.html

Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489)

Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI request.(1212063122)

Letter to The Times from climate scientists was drafted with the help of Greenpeace.(0872202064)

Mann thinks he will contact BBC's Richard Black to find out why another BBC journalist was allowed to publish a vaguely sceptical article.(1255352257)

Tom Wigley says that von Storch is partly to blame for sceptic papers getting published at Climate Research. Says he encourages the publication of crap science. Says they should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation. Says that whether this is true or not doesn't matter. Says they need to get editorial board to resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch too. (1051190249)

Mann discusses tactics for screening and delaying postings at Real Climate.(1139521913)

Tom Wigley discusses how to deal with the advent of FoI law in UK. Jones says use IPR argument to hold onto code. Says data is covered by agreements with outsiders and that CRU will be "hiding behind them".(1106338806)

Santer complaining about FoI requests from McIntyre. Says he expects support of Lawrence Livermore Lab management. Jones says that once support staff at CRU realised the kind of people the scientists were dealing with they became very supportive. Says the VC [vice chancellor] knows what is going on (in one case).(1228330629)

Rob Wilson concerned about upsetting Mann in a manuscript. Says he needs to word things diplomatically.(1140554230)

Santer says he will no longer publish in Royal Met Soc journals if they enforce intermediate data being made available. Jones has complained to head of Royal Met Soc about new editor of Weather [why?data?] and has threatened to resign from RMS.(1237496573)

Reaction to McIntyre's 2005 paper in GRL. Mann has challenged GRL editor-in-chief over the publication. Mann is concerned about the connections of the paper's editor James Saiers with U Virginia [does he mean Pat Michaels?]. Tom Wigley says that if Saiers is a sceptic they should go through official GRL channels to get him ousted. (1106322460) [Note to readers - Saiers was subsequently ousted]

Later on Mann refers to the leak at GRL being plugged.(1132094873)

Jones says he's found a way around releasing AR4 review comments to David Holland.(1210367056)

Wigley says Keenan's fraud accusation against Wang is correct. (1188557698)

Phil Jones wrote:

Tom,
Just for interest! Keep quiet about both issues.

Jones calls for Wahl and Ammann to try to change the received date on their alleged refutation of McIntyre [presumably so it can get into AR4](1189722851)

Mann tells Jones that he is on board and that they are working towards a common goal.(0926010576)

Jones says that UK climate organisations are coordinating themselves to resist FoI. They got advice from the Information Commissioner [!](1219239172)

Funkhouser says he's pulled every trick up his sleeve to milk his Kyrgistan series. Doesn't think it's productive to juggle the chronology statistics any more than he has.(0843161829)

Wigley discusses fixing an issue with sea surface temperatures in the context of making the results look both warmer but still plausible. (1254108338)

Jones says he and Kevin will keep some papers out of the next IPCC report.(1089318616)

Tom Wigley tells Mann that a figure Schmidt put together to refute Monckton is deceptive and that the match it shows of instrumental to model predictions is a fluke. Says there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model output by authors and IPCC.(1255553034)

Grant Foster putting together a critical comment on a sceptic paper. Asks for help for names of possible reviewers. Jones replies with a list of people, telling Foster they know what to say about the paper and the comment without any prompting.(1249503274)

David Parker discussing the possibility of changing the reference period for global temperature index. Thinks this shouldn't be done because it confuses people and because it will make things look less warm.(1105019698)

Briffa discusses an sceptic article review with Ed Cook. Says that confidentially he needs to put together a case to reject it (1054756929)

Prior to AR3 Briffa talks of pressure to produce a tidy picture of "apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data". [This appears to be the politics leading the science] Briffa says it was just as warm a thousand years ago.(0938018124)

Phil Jones having problems with explaining issues over the Lamb image of global temps in the early IPCC reports. Says it shouldn't be discussed openly at Real Climate. Says better left buried.(1168356704)

Phil Jones emails Steve [Schneider], editor of Climatic Change [plus others, editorial board of the journal?], telling him he shouldn't accede to McIntyre's request for Mann's computer code. In later email to Mann ("For your eyes only, delete after reading") Jones says he told Jones separately [presumably meaning without saying to the rest of the board] that he should seek advice elsewhere and also consult the publisher and take legal advice.(1074277559)

Briffa says he tried hard to balance the needs of the IPCC and science, which were not always the same.(1177890796)

Giorgio Filippo (University of Trieste) says that IPCC is not an assessment of published science but about production of results. Says there are very few rules and anything goes. Thinks this will undermine IPCC credibility. Says everyone seems to think it's OK to do this.(0968705882)

[Starving Steve]

Re: Yet ANOTHER Climate Fraud uncovered in NZ!

Climate deniers are good at taking the playbook from Big Tobacco. They are good at manufacturing uncertainty about the must indisputable scientific evidence showing the link between human-emitted carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect. They launder information by touting results from fake, scientific-sounding organizations. They promote scientific spokespeople and pay for scientific research in order to lend legitimacy to their claims. And finally, they attempt to recast the debate by attacking the peer review process. Don't believe the deniers trying to discredit scientists, they've discredited themselves in do so:

I could not dis-agree with you more:

The ones that have lied and cherry-picked the evidence are the ones who believe in man-made global warming. And you have seen two cases now where the evidence (the actual temperature data at climate stations) has been massaged and re-worked so as to fit with their AGW hypothesis: at New Zeland's Climate Analysis Office and also at the University of East Anglia, Climate Research Centre.

Second, in science, NOTHING is ever settled. All theories and beliefs, all data, all observations, all models, everything is open to critical review and checking. In fact, in science--- if it is valid science---, critical thinking and re-checking of data is encouraged. If the science is really valid, such re-checking acts to strengthen or re-validate the science; it doesn't detract from the science--- unless the science is erroneous and bogus to begin with.

The second point is really important for kids to understand. Science does not "settle" issues. It doesn't close-out discussion. Nothing is ever "off-the-table" for critical review and re-thinking.

Third, science does not operate on a "consensus" or "a consensus of scientists". If it did, science would be a popularity contest. Science operates on critical thinking and critical review of everything....... This is also very important for kids to understand.

So we have discovered with the global warming bunch both a religion (in the sense of closing-off debate and closing-off checking) and a faking of the raw temperature data, apparently to fit models... That tells me plenty.

[unlucky]

Re: Yet ANOTHER Climate Fraud uncovered in NZ!

Personally I'm inclined to believe that AGW is very likely to be on the mark. However the stuff that came out from CRU shows that they have an unhealthy focus on attacking and undermining opponents, rather than on doing science. You can't ask scientists not to form political opinions, and some say it's inevitable that those opinions will influence their work. That must be true to some extent but professionals should be capable of keeping emotive questions at arms length.

I worked for 10 years as an academic scientist before moving into industry. In academia we competed whole-heartedly against certain other research groups, just as in industry I compete whole-heartedly with certain other companies. But in academia we would never have discussed our competitors in the terms seen in those emails. That would have been viewed as pretty unprofessional. (Industry is a different matter ).

I suppose the CRU do not view the "deniers" as legimate scientific competitors. But in that case why the excessive and defensive focus on rebutting them?

I would be very surprised if the claims about "fake" data are proven to be true. There are certain standards that have not been undermined, and this is one of them: any scientist who is found to have faked data will never work again as a scientist. I seriously doubt that the CRU scientists would have taken that risk, because a mere graduate student entering the institution for the first time could have called them on it. (I know of an MIT associate-professor whose career was terminated in precisely this way).

What is much more likely is that the data has been processed using published techniques that the scientific community has accepted as legimate to some extent, but that may be unintelligible or unacceptable to others. Note that virtually all raw measurements have to be processed to some degree to make any sense out of them, since they are typically full of noise and artifacts introduced by the measurement systems. The techniques used by the CRU scientists may be right or wrong - I don't know - but I imagine they have been discussed publicly in the relevant scientific literature and that scientists reading the processed data will have formed a view (either accepting or skeptical) on each of those techniques. For a scientist to use "secret" techniques or to publish data without disclosing how it has been processed, would be unacceptable to other scientists.

Having said all that, it's clear from their private emails that the CRU scientists are on the wrong mission. George Monbiot, a noted AGW proponent, has called on the head of the CRU to resign, and I think he is right. The world desperately needs professional climatologists who will focus on just doing the science, we already have plenty of air-heads to conduct the political debate.

[we_are_toast]

Re: Yet ANOTHER Climate Fraud uncovered in NZ!

Personally I'm inclined to believe that AGW is very likely to be on the mark. However the stuff that came out from CRU shows that they have an unhealthy focus on attacking and undermining opponents, rather than on doing science. You can't ask scientists not to form political opinions, and some say it's inevitable that those opinions will influence their work. That must be true to some extent but professionals should be capable of keeping emotive questions at arms length.

I worked for 10 years as an academic scientist before moving into industry. In academia we competed whole-heartedly against certain other research groups, just as in industry I compete whole-heartedly with certain other companies. But in academia we would never have discussed our competitors in the terms seen in those emails. That would have been viewed as pretty unprofessional. (Industry is a different matter ).

I suppose the CRU do not view the "deniers" as legimate scientific competitors. But in that case why the excessive and defensive focus on rebutting them?

I would be very surprised if the claims about "fake" data are proven to be true. There are certain standards that have not been undermined, and this is one of them: any scientist who is found to have faked data will never work again as a scientist. I seriously doubt that the CRU scientists would have taken that risk, because a mere graduate student entering the institution for the first time could have called them on it. (I know of an MIT associate-professor whose career was terminated in precisely this way).

What is much more likely is that the data has been processed using published techniques that the scientific community has accepted as legimate to some extent, but that may be unintelligible or unacceptable to others. Note that virtually all raw measurements have to be processed to some degree to make any sense out of them, since they are typically full of noise and artifacts introduced by the measurement systems. The techniques used by the CRU scientists may be right or wrong - I don't know - but I imagine they have been discussed publicly in the relevant scientific literature and that scientists reading the processed data will have formed a view (either accepting or skeptical) on each of those techniques. For a scientist to use "secret" techniques or to publish data without disclosing how it has been processed, would be unacceptable to other scientists.

Having said all that, it's clear from their private emails that the CRU scientists are on the wrong mission. George Monbiot, a noted AGW proponent, has called on the head of the CRU to resign, and I think he is right. The world desperately needs professional climatologists who will focus on just doing the science, we already have plenty of air-heads to conduct the political debate.

Nicely said.

NPR did a story the other night about the defensive nature of some scientists. They said some journals had tightened their data standards in order to prevent some poorly supported claims of denialists from being published or republished. The concern was that the denialists from outside the scientific community ("air heads") would then take segments of the publication out of context or deliberately misrepresent the content for political and propoganda purposes. Since this is exactly what the deniers do, their concern was more than justified.

By tightening the standards for everyone, it restricted access from both extremes and allowed the publication of the more supported consensus papers. Dr. Hanson has wanted to publish a paper for some time that shows man made Global Warming is accelerating at a faster pace than the models are showing. But he also can not meet the more stringent requirements of the journals.

[Diarmuid]

Re: Yet ANOTHER Climate Fraud uncovered in NZ!

Nicely said.

NPR did a story the other night about the defensive nature of some scientists. They said some journals had tightened their data standards in order to prevent some poorly supported claims of denialists from being published or republished. The concern was that the denialists from outside the scientific community ("air heads") would then take segments of the publication out of context or deliberately misrepresent the content for political and propoganda purposes. Since this is exactly what the deniers do, their concern was more than justified.

By tightening the standards for everyone, it restricted access from both extremes and allowed the publication of the more supported consensus papers. Dr. Hanson has wanted to publish a paper for some time that shows man made Global Warming is accelerating at a faster pace than the models are showing. But he also can not meet the more stringent requirements of the journals.

I notice that your modus operandi seems to match closely the dogma preached by those to the forefront and the most hardened of AGW fundamentalists , initially to deny all conversation and name call, with appeals to authority; then just appeals to ridicule when your authority sources have been called into question. It has been noticed now more recently, a more conciliatory tone,is this in respect to more recent revelations and what appears to be a general turning of views?, one watches with some anticipation to see if this means is adopted on a more wide spread basis to instill credibility in organizations, which increasingly find said in tatters.

[doom&gloom]

Re: Yet ANOTHER Climate Fraud uncovered in NZ!

Second, in science, NOTHING is ever settled.

sorry, the debate is over, AlGore says so and he would never lie to us, would he? :p