Die you zombie bastard DIE!

This is a cut n paste from my email. Assume its block quoted

Watts Up With That? describes the controversy surrounding New Zealand’s official temperature readings after the Climate Science Coalition replotted the raw data and found the “rising temperatures” were really flat. The rises in temperatures reported by the official (NIWA) figures were the result of adjustments. However, the agency defended its adjustments.

NIWA’s David Wratt has told Investigate magazine this afternoon his organization denies faking temperature data and he claims NIWA has a good explanation for adjusting the temperature data upward. Wratt says NIWA is drafting a media response for release later this afternoon which will explain why they altered the raw data.

“Do you agree it might look bad in the wake of the CRU scandal?”

“No, no,” replied Wratt before hitting out at the Climate Science Coalition and accusing them of “misleading” people about the temperature adjustments.

 

The Climate Science Coalition performed a simple test. They downloaded the raw data and plotted it. To their astonishment, the numbers looked nothing like the official figures. The official graph apparently contained adjustments. Worst of all, it was the project of a scientist who had been at the CRU around which a data integrity scandal is now swirling.

To get the original New Zealand temperature readings, you register on NIWA’s web site, download what you want and make your own graph. We did that, but the result looked nothing like the official graph. …

Straight away you can see there’s no slope—either up or down. The temperatures are remarkably constant way back to the 1850s. Of course, the temperature still varies from year to year, but the trend stays level—statistically insignificant at 0.06°C per century since 1850. …

Dr Jim Salinger (who no longer works for NIWA) started this graph in the 1980s when he was at CRU (Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, UK)

The NZ Herald quoted part of Dr. Salinger’s emails which seemed directed toward quashing the efforts of global warming skeptics to advance alternative theories.

Climate scientist Jim Salinger is among the many who have had private emails and documents posted on a blogsite, after computer hackers apparently infiltrated a research centre at the University of East Anglia in Britain.

Dr Salinger’s emails, which date from the middle of this year, form part of an exchange between a number of climate experts on how to respond to a paper by Auckland University scientist Chris de Freitas and two others.

That paper – published in the Journal of Geophysical Research – claimed the el nino and la nina weather patterns were a dominant influence on climate change.

In one July email, Dr Salinger reacts to the de Freitas paper: “Is there an opportunity to write a letter to JGR pointing out the junk science in this?? … If it is not rebutted, then all sceptics will use this to justify their position.”

From one point of view these revelations come at a bad time for the CRU because they will keep the hacked documents purloined from their archives which show them in an unflattering light in the public view. But from another point of view they could be a godsend. All Dr Salinger has to do is show, with crushing scientific rigor, why the figures were adjusted. All Dr. Phil Jones has to do is demonstrate, with mathematical precision, why his carbon models can predict say, next year’s temperature. Because he could, if he had the science behind him. They could, if they had the data behind them.

That’s all there is to it.

Advertisements

One Response to Die you zombie bastard DIE!

  1. Sally says:

    Climate Change Minister Nick Smith’s reply to a letter I wrote in August. Note his statement “have been thoroughly investigated and shown to be scientifically flawed.”

    “The government has investigated various sources of evidence on the science of climate change and is satisfied that the most reliable information is that provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC assessments involve a rigorous and open review process, which is audited by both scientists and governments. In its Fourth Assessment Report, the IPCC states that the evidence for climate change is unequivocal.

    The government considers that climate change is a serious issue and believes that significant and timely action is warranted in order to mitigate its effects. I believe that New Zealand must act now, alongside other nations, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change

    I have read Mr Wishart’s book ‘Air Con’. Although I can appreciate that some people do not accept the reality of anthropogenic global climate change, it is important to realise that many of the claims that are made in ‘Air Con’ have been thoroughly investigated and shown to be scientifically flawed.

    A good starting point for understanding the errors of some of Mr Wishart’s claims is the Royal Society’s ‘Climate change controversies: a simple guide’, which can be found on their website at http://www.royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229. The IPCC also publishes a response to frequently asked questions about climate change, which is listed on their website at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg 1-fags.pdf.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: