PDA

View Full Version : Again! New Climate Scandal Breaking in New Zealand!




Epic
11-25-2009, 09:33 PM
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/uh-oh-raw-data-in-new-zealand-tells-a-different-story-than-the-official-one/#more-13215

http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m11d25-New-Zealand-climate-agency-accused-of-data-manipulation



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 1.3C, creating strong warming from a mild cooling, yet theres no apparent reason for it.

We have discovered that the warming in New Zealand over the past 156 years was indeed man-made, but it had nothing to do with emissions of CO2it was created by man-made adjustments of the temperature. Its a disgrace.

NIWA claim their official graph reveals a rising trend of 0.92C per century, which means (they claim) we warmed more than the rest of the globe, for according to the IPCC, global warming over the 20th century was only about 0.6C.

NIWAs 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.



And the real story on the East Anglia CRU hack/whistleblower is what's found in the COMMENTS in the code:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/crus_source_code_climategate_r.html

tangent4ronpaul
11-25-2009, 10:05 PM
WOW!

This needs to spread like wildfire....

-t

paulitics
11-25-2009, 10:15 PM
This is great news. What a scandal.

Dieseler
11-25-2009, 10:18 PM
This is indeed a a a nother blockbuster.
I wonder what people will say when Obama signs the Copenhagen agreement and Cap and Trade passes in light of all of this?
They Are Going To Do This To Us.
I see nothing in the recent past that would indicate anything different.

devil21
11-26-2009, 12:53 AM
Looks like the hacked CRU files is prompting some revisiting of the basic data being used. There will only be more and more. The question is whether enough doubt can be raised to halt the agenda. I seriously doubt it. At this point it's been shown that the FACTS have literally no relevance to the elitists working behind the scenes. I hope that more and more of this comes out soon.

Imagine if the whole global warming thing is completely debunked yet they move forward with the huge tax increases anyway. How will the populous react to double or triple power bills over something that's been confirmed a hoax? Should be interesting. Let's keep the momentum going. Keep spreading this info around.

revolutionary8
11-26-2009, 01:07 AM
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_pGOnGM04xgk/SRvCqqyHXZI/AAAAAAAADcY/AhFvmtOHXT0/s320/Droids.jpg

Dieseler
11-26-2009, 01:11 AM
Imagine if the whole global warming thing is completely debunked yet they move forward with the huge tax increases anyway. How will the populous react to double or triple power bills over something that's been confirmed a hoax? Should be interesting. Let's keep the momentum going. Keep spreading this info around.

That is exactly what they are going to do man.
No doubt in my mind.

devil21
11-26-2009, 01:21 AM
That is exactly what they are going to do man.
No doubt in my mind.

Is it bad that I almost hope they do? I imagine (hope) that would be a huge wake up call for the sheep. Whoever leaked the CRU data may turn out to be the greatest patriot of the 21st century. I can hope....

phill4paul
11-26-2009, 01:34 AM
OMG! Like what didn't we all realize before that our government didn't already know?

Honestly, freedom is inherent, we shouldn't have to work so hard at it!

The fact that we do speaks volumes!

Paul Revered
11-26-2009, 01:51 AM
Wratt says NIWA is drafting a media response for release later this afternoon which will explain why they altered the raw data.

It will read.


"uhhmm...uhhbuhdabuhbaduh.."

squarepusher
11-26-2009, 02:00 AM
bombshell

tangent4ronpaul
11-26-2009, 03:58 AM
That last link given by the original poster is an important one - in case anyone didn't click through.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/crus_source_code_climategate_r.html

For starters, three separate scientists were asked about "the trick" referred to in one of the more damming e-mails that has gotten a lot of media attention. They gave three conflicting answers.

Then they dig into some of the source code itself...


Skimming through the often spaghetti-like code, the number of programs which subject the data to a mixed-bag of transformative and filtering routines is simply staggering. Granted, many of these "alterations" run from benign smoothing algorithms (e.g., omitting rogue outliers) to moderate infilling mechanisms (e.g., estimating missing station data from that of those closely surrounding). But many others fall into the precarious range between highly questionable (removing MXD data which demonstrate poor correlations with local temperature) to downright fraudulent (replacing MXD data entirely with measured data to reverse a disorderly trend-line).

In fact, workarounds for the post-1960 "divergence problem," as described by both RealClimate and Climate Audit, can be found throughout the source code. So much so that perhaps the most ubiquitous programmer's comment (REM) I ran across warns that the particular module "Uses 'corrected' MXD - but shouldn't usually plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures."

What exactly is meant by "corrected” MXD," you ask? Outstanding question -- and the answer appears amorphous from program to program. Indeed, while some employ one or two of the aforementioned "corrections," others throw everything but the kitchen sink at the raw data prior to output.

For instance, in the subfolder "osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog," there’s a program (Calibrate_mxd.pro) that calibrates the MXD data against available local instrumental summer (growing season) temperatures between 1911-1990, then merges that data into a new file. That file is then digested and further modified by another program (Pl_calibmxd1.pro), which creates calibration statistics for the MXD against the stored temperature and "estimates" (infills) figures where such temperature readings were not available. The file created by that program is modified once again by Pl_Decline.pro, which "corrects it" – as described by the author -- by "identifying" and "artificially" removing "the decline."

But oddly enough, the series doesn’t begin its "decline adjustment" in 1960 -- the supposed year of the enigmatic "divergence." In fact, all data between 1930 and 1994 are subject to "correction."

And such games are by no means unique to the folder attributed to Michael Mann.

A Clear and Present Rearranger

In two other programs, briffa_Sep98_d.pro and briffa_Sep98_e.pro, the "correction" is bolder by far. The programmer (Keith Briffa?) entitled the "adjustment" routine “Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!” And he or she wasn't kidding. Now IDL is not a native language of mine, but its syntax is similar enough to others I'm familiar with, so please bear with me while I get a tad techie on you.

Here's the "fudge factor" (notice the brash SOB actually called it that in his REM statement):

yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]

valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor

These two lines of code establish a twenty-element array (yrloc) comprising the year 1400 (base year, but not sure why needed here) and nineteen years between 1904 and 1994 in half-decade increments. Then the corresponding "fudge factor" (from the valadj matrix) is applied to each interval. As you can see, not only are temperatures biased to the upside later in the century (though certainly prior to 1960), but a few mid-century intervals are being biased slightly lower. That, coupled with the post-1930 restatement we encountered earlier, would imply that in addition to an embarrassing false decline experienced with their MXD after 1960 (or earlier), CRU's "divergence problem" also includes a minor false incline after 1930.

And the former apparently wasn't a particularly well-guarded secret, although the actual adjustment period remained buried beneath the surface.

Plotting programs such as data4alps.pro print this reminder to the user prior to rendering the chart:

IMPORTANT NOTE: The data after 1960 should not be used. The tree-ring density records tend to show a decline after 1960 relative to the summer temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set this "decline" has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring density variations, but have been modified to look more like the observed temperatures.

Others, such as mxdgrid2ascii.pro, issue this warning:

NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values will be much closer to observed temperatures then (sic) they should be which will incorrectly imply the reconstruction is more skilful than it actually is. See Osborn et al. (2004).


But here's what’s undeniable: If a divergence exists between measured temperatures and those derived from dendrochronological data after (circa) 1960, then discarding only the post-1960 figures is disingenuous, to say the least. The very existence of a divergence betrays a potential serious flaw in the process by which temperatures are reconstructed from tree-ring density. If it's bogus beyond a set threshold, then any honest man of science would instinctively question its integrity prior to that boundary. And only the lowliest would apply a hack in order to produce a desired result.

BUSTED! :D

-t

Ricky201
11-26-2009, 04:09 AM
Is it bad that I almost hope they do? I imagine (hope) that would be a huge wake up call for the sheep. Whoever leaked the CRU data may turn out to be the greatest patriot of the 21st century. I can hope....

Revolution would certainly prove inevitable and violent if the masters of the universe decide to force such legislation as Cap & Trade/Copenhagen Treaty down our throats when it is revealed to the general public to be an absolute hoax. The current tea parties will be nothing compared to what is coming if this does happen.

devil21
11-26-2009, 04:30 AM
Revolution would certainly prove inevitable and violent if the masters of the universe decide to force such legislation as Cap & Trade/Copenhagen Treaty down our throats when it is revealed to the general public to be an absolute hoax. The current tea parties will be nothing compared to what is coming if this does happen.

On the other hand, if that happened and nothing material changed then this country really is done for as a free society. There's nothing more brazen except maybe neighborhood death squads.

Roll credits and close the curtain.


I can't wait to see the next damning article. This is going to get really good as the 30K+ skeptic scientists start gaining steam. The Internet is pretty dangerous, eh Rockefeller?

BillyDkid
11-26-2009, 05:43 AM
many of us have known for a long time that the global warming threat has been exagerated from the beginning and most of us have suspected that it has largely been a hoax and that the science was not merely flawed, but completely suspect. Sadly though, there is going to be a huge push back from the media and from vested interests (read: Al Gore and his devotees) to the recent revelations, so don't expect the media to suddenly be speaking truth just because the truth is out in the open. These people are still very likely to win in spite of the fact that it will result in much suffering and onerous, ruinous legislation.

Carson
11-26-2009, 07:30 AM
http://photos.imageevent.com/stokeybob/thenewera/globalwarmingturkeyrippedofffromRockIsDead.jpg

I found this in a fark contest;

It's the Fark Annual Thanksgiving Eve Draw A Hand Turkey For Mom Contest. Past losers include Jerry Garcia and James Doohan. LGT last year's results. VE. Gobble Gobble (http://www.fark.com/cgi/comments.pl?IDLink=4797670)

JenH88
11-26-2009, 07:45 AM
sweet! this thing needs to keep snowballing.... more hackers, more whistle blowers, more reviewing of the past data... makes our enemy evermore apparent.

lmfao@ waiting for a 'reason why they did it'.. yeah.. they're really going to just come out and say "oh yeah, we were perpetrating a fraud, you caught us"

squarepusher
11-26-2009, 10:54 AM
bump

Endgame
11-26-2009, 11:06 AM
I wonder who is behind these hackers. Concerned individuals making a huge difference, or being backed by someone with dough. Encouraging either way.

tangent4ronpaul
11-26-2009, 11:07 AM
I wonder who is behind these hackers. Concerned individuals making a huge difference, or being backed by someone with dough. Encouraging either way.

I suspect an insider wistleblower....

-t

JenH88
11-26-2009, 11:37 AM
I suspect an insider wistleblower....

-t

that's the word around the rumor mill.. something about how the files were saved seems more like someone just saved the files vs. hacking in and taking them... im not all computer techy so.. <shrugs> but it does seem more likely to me to be a whistleblower who has a conscious with copenhagen approaching..