Bishop Hill Victory for Kiwi sceptics
Oct 7, 2010 Climate: Sceptics Climate: Surface John O'Sullivan, via GWPF and Retephslaw.
In the climate controversy dubbed Kiwigate New Zealand skeptics inflict shock courtroom defeat on climatologists implicated in temperature data fraud.
New Zealand’s government via its National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) has announced it has nothing to do with the country’s “official” climate record in what commentators are calling a capitulation from the tainted climate reconstruction.
As the story makes clear, there are interesting parallels to Climategate, with government scientists resisting requests for data and then claiming the data was lost. With the raw data apparently showing no warming trend, something that only appears once these scientists have homogenised and adjusted the figures, it does look suspiciously as if books may have been cooked.
Reader Comments (66)
That is wrong. The "hide the decline trick" was a different trick.
Steve2, there are lots of different tricks in this game!
"Hide the decline" is only one of many.
I feel a Haka coming on!
Now we wait and see the new NZTR, apparently all ready to go, subject only to peer review by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM).
Interesting times ahead, amazing what happens when things get exposed to sunlight.
So that nice Mr Jim Salnger spent time with CRU at UEA. Who corrupted who? It is not so much follow the money, as follow the slime.
Python references have been all the rage this week. So where else would they have set their "Village Idiot Course" but UEA
The homogenisation team, including team photographs.
http://www.homogenisation.org/index.php
The full squad
http://w3.cost.esf.org/index.php?id=206&action_number=ES0601
The star player
http://w3.cost.esf.org/index.php?id=209&idecost=7502
Thru the brilliant detective efforts of Donna Laframboise it looks like we have another 'gate' on our hands.
This time 'ExtinctGate'.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/another-ipcc-train-wreck-species-extinction-part-1/
http://nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/10/07/another-ipcc-train-wreck-species-extinction-part-2/
Donna has uncovered that 5 of the 10 authors on AR4 WG2 Chapter4 have links with the WWF.
So that means that New Zealanders live in a country where there is no official temperature? Or possibly officially no temperature? That should have some interesting ramifications. I wonder if they have the equivalent of UK cold weather payments for the elderly, if so, what now? The mind boggles.
Mac
So if you want to organise a secret conspiracy, you call it a homogenisation team! That is brilliant. It is all taxpayer funded, to defraud the taxpayers.
At least the ECMWF (European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting) had the decency to admit that they could not forecast weather in the medium range, although they did not decide to disband themselves to save tax payers money
It is truly amazing how many skeletons keep crawling out of the cupboards now that Climategate opened the doors a little and shone a light in there. The Climategate whistle-blower deserves whatever he wants (within reason or the law). Will he give us more on the anniversary? I hope he kept the best bits back.
One wonders how much longer the Grand Narrative of AGW can be sustained?
Maybe the non warming of New Zealand will turn out to be as local, as the Little Ice Age was to Dickensian England
And it seems we have another battle looming:
Satellitegate US Agency Faces Courtroom Climate Showdown
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6419&linkbox=true&position=1
Is it too much to hope ...?
Take a look at NASA GISTEMP, and you find that recent temperatures have been changing each year. Look at their annual summaries, and the chart on each one. In 2001, the temp for 1998 is .59, but now it is just .57 after dropping to .54 by 2005. The original reported temp at year end 1998 was .64.
"surface temperatures of over 400 degrees fahrenheit"
Blimey - that makes UHI effects look pretty trivial! It would certainly make some hockey-stick...
Don't think those sats are used by Roy Spencer so a non starter.
This site gives more details on the NZ lack of temp record.
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2010/10/observations-on-niwas-statement-of-defence/
"Oct 7, 2010 at 5:11 PM | matthu
And it seems we have another battle looming:
Satellitegate US Agency Faces Courtroom Climate Showdown"
Have you been to WUWT on this? Looks like a dud to me-
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/04/an-over-the-top-view-of-satellite-sensor-failure/
Not saying anything we don't all already know, but considering how the SH is 80.9% water, and that NZ is "just" an island, its climate is essentially the climate of the SH at NZ's latitude. At least the trend should be very representative.
FACT: The past winter of 2009-2010 in the NH was brutally cold.
FACT: The super record cold winter in South America reached all the way up into the Amazon.
Yet even UAH's satellite data shows S America as seriously, seriously above average. See
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/05/september-2010-uah-global-temperature-update-0-60-deg-c/
The accompanying image is astounding, with all that red below the Equator.
Post-adjustment global temps threaten to make 2010 go down as one of - if not THE - warmest year on record. From a NH perspective, this just makes no sense. From a SH perspective, this also makes no sense. But they keep TELLING us that this warming is happening.
This MUST force us to ask: If NZ is not really warming, then is ANY of the SH warming real? Hadley/CRU in the UK doesn't use the same adjustments as NIWA, but they still show more increase than does the real/raw NZ data.
The next question must be, to both NIWA and CRU: Let us please see those adjustment numbers and will you please tell us where the numbers came from?
SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE is behind the adjustment numbers. Not just for NZ, but for the entire SH and the NH, too. Who came up with them?
Next question: What VETTING was done on those adjustments? Was ANY vetting done at all? Or are they all just ivory tower - theoretical - numbers? At least in NZ they are asking these questions.
In an Earth Science that has such large claims on recent - and ongoing current - history, climatology has no excuse if they are using ivory tower numbers, when all they have to do is to go out and TEST the numbers.
The NZTR adjusted numbers that are so blatantly contrary to the raw data hopefully are collectively the smoking gun that proves that the science has been tainted by fudged data. I am loathe to ever use the term "proved," but in this case, I make an exception: If the raw data that covers an entire country the size of NZ so clearly contradicts the published data, then the claimers of warming are the ones upon whom the burden of proof lies. Until they prove it, we should all consider it UNproven. And why should we do otherwise? If they can't back it up (and it looks like they can't), then they should all be tarred and feathered, or whatever else they might do south of the Equator. And once those people are taken down, then those questions above need to be asked, about where the adjustment numbers came from. And then the numbers need to be corrected. The Kiwis are looking at the adjustments and should have results soon in their 6-month mandate. We should all be looking forward to that.
We will not be rid of this whole flim-flam endeavour until the gang leaders are caught and made to answer for their lies. Again, that is another term I seldom use. Is it lying when they adjust that which doesn't need adjusting? Or if it even only just INCLUDES adjustment factors that are unnecessary or wrong. Those wrong ones should not be in there, even as only part of the adjustment. That is plain to see.
The Climategate file at http://di2.nu/foia/harris-tree/briffa_sep98_e.pro clearly shows the following (re-stated as a list, and also prefaced, for clarity):
The trend is clear. But the AMOUNT is astounding! 2.6°C added - to numbers that overall for the 20th century only show a 0.7°C rise. These adjustments would turn even a sizable DECLINE into an incline.
(Be aware that the 1929-1943 period was the exact period that was the warmest in the pre-1990 era; for them to adjust those downward is an amazing feat of hubris. Temps from 1943-1970 were in decline, yet they were adjusted up. Even in 1959 - at the height of that cooling period, was given an adjustment greater than the entire century is said to have warmed globally. But those 2.6s since 1979 - those need some serious explaining.)
So, were these the same adjustments that were applied to the NZ data?
But I digressed. My point was that NZ is almost certainly a very good representative of the oceanic SH, and if NZ isn't really warming, then is ANY of the SH warming real? And if the SH is not really warming - when it is the driver of most of the "global" warming - then is ANY of the global warming even happening?
When we are called "deniers," that we don't believe the "science of global warming," it is because of things like this - that we don't accept the adjustments. If science means making adjustments that fly in the face of the real data, we WILL not accept those adjustments.
And why should we?
It is not a case of US being deniers. It is a case of THEM needing to prove their claims.Not saying anything we don't all already know, but considering how the SH is 80.9% water, and that NZ is "just" an island, its climate is essentially the climate of the SH at NZ's latitude.
In all the Mannian/CRU/GISS reconstructions, it is the SH that is the primary "increaser" involved in global warming. With its larger % of ocean coverage than the NH, that has always seemed to me a bit off-kilter, since the ocean has such a moderating effect on climate.
FACT: The past winter of 2009-2010 in the NH was brutally cold.
FACT: The super record cold winter in South America reached all the way up into the Amazon.
Yet even UAH's satellite data shows S America as seriously, seriously above average. See
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/05/september-2010-uah-global-temperature-update-0-60-deg-c/
Post-adjustment global temps threaten to make 2010 go down as one of - if not THE - warmest year on record. From a NH perspective, this just makes no sense. From a SH perspective, this also makes no sense. But they keep TELLING us that this warming is happening.
This MUST force us to ask: If NZ is not really warming, then is ANY of the SH warming real?
The next question must be: Let us please see those adjustment numbers and will you please tell us where the numbers came from?
SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE is behind the adjustment numbers. Not just for NZ, but for the entire SH and the NH, too. WHO came up with them?
Next question: What VETTING was done on those adjustments? Was ANY vetting done at all? Or are they all just ivory tower - theoretical - numbers?
In an Earth Science that has such large claims on recent - and ongoing current - history, climatology has no excuse if they are using ivory tower numbers, when all they have to do is to go out and TEST the numbers.
The NZTR adjusted numbers that are so blatantly contrary to the raw data hopefully are collectively the smoking gun that proves that the science has been tainted by fudged data. I am loathe to ever use the term "proved," but in this case, I make an exception: If the raw data that covers an entire country the size of NZ so clearly contradicts the published data, then the claimers of warming are the ones upon whom the burden of proof lies. If they can't back it up (and it looks like they can't), then they should all be tarred and feathered. And once those people are taken down, then those questions above need to be asked, about where the adjustment numbers came from.
We will not be rid of this whole flim-flam endeavour until the gang leaders are caught and made to answer for their lies. Again, that is another term I seldom use. Is it lying when they adjust that which doesn't need adjusting? Or if it even only just INCLUDES adjustment factors that are unnecessary or wrong. Those wrong ones should not be in there, that is plain to see.
The Climategate file at http://di2.nu/foia/harris-tree/briffa_sep98_e.pro clearly shows the following (re-stated as a list, and also prefaced, for clarity):
The trend is clear. But the AMOUNT is astounding! 2.6°C added - to numbers that overall for the 20th century only show a 0.7°C rise. These adjustments would turn even a sizable DECLINE into an incline.
So, were these the same adjustments that were applied to the NZ data?
But I digressed. My point was that NZ is almost certainly a very good representative of the oceanic SH, and if NZ isn't really warming, then is ANY of the SH warming real? And if the SH is not really warming - when it is the driver of most of the "global" warming - then is ANY of the global warming even happening?
When we are called "deniers," that we don't believe the "science of global warming," it is because of things like this - that we don't accept the adjustments. If science means making adjustments that fly in the face of the real data, we WILL not accept those adjustments.
And why should we?
It is not a case of US being deniers. It is a case of THEM needing to prove their claims.
MikeN@5:32, That is one of the well known 'features' of GISTEMP, the past changes with every update released.
With contentious issues such as the hockey stick, the defence is usually along the lines of - 'It's Correct!!', a position grimly held until overwhelming evidence proves otherwise, at which point it switches to 'Well, I'm not really interested in hockey sticks anyway, don't know too much about them', to 'And anyway, it's not really important to the overwhelming proof of CC/AGW/ACD.'
The NZ result suggests that the final phase is 'Not ours guv, it followed us home, honest! Better give it a blanket and a saucer of milk.'
It also suggests to me that Mr. Cuccinnelli has it right. A court of law is exactly where one wants to ask these questions?
What I find puzzling is that neither http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications nor http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=653&Itemid=1
have any comment on this news yet?
And yet it is supposedly three weks since "... NIWA released their Statement of Defence in response to the NZ Climate Science Coalition’s Statement of Claim regarding an Application for a Judicial Review. "
Having lived in New Zealand, could I just remind everyone that it is not a "small Country". If you were to place the southern point of NZ on Barcelona, the most northern tip would be north of the most northern part of Scotland. So it is sub tropical towards the north and probably the climate in the south is more like the UK & Ireland. In fact, there are 2 main islands, logically named North & South with tiny Stewart Island at the bottom. It probably has a total area similar to all of the Uk with a bit of Ireland thrown in for good measure.
Peter Walsh
Matthu passes comment on the fact that there have been no postings on various sites about this NIWA scandal. I am also following www.stuff.co.nz to see what they have to say. stuff.co.nz is the web site for the major (probably only) newspaper chain in NZ and they appear to be ignoring the subject.
Is censorship alive and well in NZ just as it is over here when anything negative about AGW is news?
Peter Walsh
It's actually a massive experiment in Pavlovian conditioning: the IPCC tells the climate guys what they'd like to hear, with a big pile of cash as the lure. Then Al Gore rings a bell...
Is censorship alive and well in NZ just as it is over here when anything negative about AGW is news?
Affirmative
There is some background to this case here
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/
The story is hard to follow for an outsider, (as Anthony Watts points out in the comments), but the gist of the story is that there is a "seven station series" (yes, only 7 stations for the whole of NZ) that have had arbitrary adjustments made to them. As Peter Walsh points out above, NZ is a country of wide climatic conditions, varying from sub-tropical to semi-desert.
The methodology of the adjustments is apparently documented in Jim Saligers thesis which is only available for viewing during certain hours in the Wellington library.
No one in NIWA has yet managed to explain these adjustments.
Does this mean that the people who have purchased such data from NIWA in the past are now entitled to a refund.
RETEPHSLAW
There was a flurry of articles on this around the turn of the year on the following site
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1002/S00004.htm
If there is no longer an official temperature record for New Zealand, what are CRU and GISS using to calculate global temperatures and the amount of warming over the last century?
Andy Scrase: "The story is hard to follow for an outsider..."
The "story" is hard to follow, anyway. It seems that one of the parties to the case has received a defense brief, and the smoking gun is: "Because NIWA formally denies all responsibility for the national temperature record (NZTR)."
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/
I'm not sure of the import of this statement, nor what it means in context, since the writer cannot link to a document.
However, it is possible that NIWA is "not responsible" for the New Zealand national temperature record because that responsibility lies with another agency, the MetService.
@Brendan H
The Met office may be responsible for the raw temperature data but it is the adjusted data set, and the unclear methodology used to derive this that is the issue
My understanding is that NIWA have published the adjusted data on their website and have defended it as theirs.
PHAROS
Thanks for that info. Haven't seen that one before so I will check it out.
Rgds
Peter Walsh
This small skirmish may have been won, but the war is lost ... there is a carbon price in NZ, active now, and the re-constituted temperature record soon to be released will be "raw-figure adjusted", with adjustment methods NOT released to the public
And so it goes ...
Andy Scrase: "The Met office may be responsible for the raw temperature data but it is the adjusted data set, and the unclear methodology used to derive this that is the issue."
Yes, that is probably what Treadgold is saying. Unfortunately, his writing style is opaque to the point of being incomprehensible.
The gist seems to be that NIWA has calculated another temperature record, so Treadgold is claiming that NIWA is washing its hands of the the original. How this will play out in the court -- or even reach a full hearing -- remains to be seen.
When Treadgold is in victory-dance mode it's difficult to get much sense from him.
@ianl8888
Why will the adjusted methods not be released to the public?
We have FOI laws in NZ too, do we not?
Mac wrote:
Another IPCC Train Wreck: Species Extinction (Part 1)
There, Part 1 is now clickable :-)
And be sure not to miss it. Wait till you read about the Thomas paper: This is AR4, WG 2... but the IPCC polluted process parallels AR3, WG 1 and the Mann paper. It's quite uncanny!
And while on the subject of WG 2 ... considering how damning the IAC report is, with perfect timing, "The Co-Chairs, Convening Lead Authors of Regional Chapters and Head of Technical Support Unit of Working Group II of IPCC Fourth Assessment" - for some unfathomable reason - decided to throw themselves under the caboose of this wrecked train!
AR4′s Working Group 2 really needs to get a clue
But speaking of Mann ... spotted the following in one of the comments at RP Jr's:
Couldn't have put it better myself!
Sorry, forgot to paste in the thread at Pielke Jr:
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/10/interview-with-houston-chronicle.html#comments
I just wish they would have spent a few minutes proofing the article. A nice polished article is so much easier to forward around to friends...
James
O/T apology, but perhaps someone in London could contact Penny Wild at the Camden School for Girls and inform her:
7 Oct: Camden News Journal: JAMIE WELHAM: It’s just too explosive! School eco film is scrapped
Camden School for Girls in Sandall Road would not comment on whether it was happy with the finished product, commissioned by environmental group 10:10, which was pulled this week following a furore over the graphic scenes…
The three-minute film, entitled No Pressure, was dubbed “enviro-snuff” by disgusted critics and questions are now being asked over the school’s judgment in letting it go ahead.
Tom Bugeja, a teacher at the children’s charity Kids Company based in Camden Town, said: “I think it’s a bit embarrassing for the school to be associated with this. They’ve ended up looking pretty stupid.”
Similar scenes were filmed at the school in September featuring ex-Spurs footballer David Ginola and X-files star Gillian Anderson being blown up for expressing mock ambivalence to carbon emissions.
Sixth-form pupil Conrad Landin defended the school’s stance. The 17-year-old said: “It was clearly well intentioned but I think there is a danger with a younger audience, that they might not understand. As far as the school is concerned, I think they agreed to it because they support the campaign.”..
Chairwoman of governors Penny Wild said she had not been told about the piece.
http://www.camdennewjournal.com/news/2010/oct/it%E2%80%99s-just-too-explosive-school-eco-film-scrapped
Some confusion up-thread, hopefully these snippets from Climate Conversations will help
But first a word to disparagers.
Where are your balls when it comes to taking "adjusters" to court?
It seems only NZCSC and Ken Cuccinnelli are the only ones fronting up (EPA submissions notwithstanding).
Now,
There is a lot at stake in this case.
Hence:
Richard C says:
October 8, 2010 at 12:15 pm
“I’m waiting for a reply from our lawyer before posting the two Statements I wrote about; it’s only fair to let people read them, I think! But I’m not 100% sure whether they are already public docs by being lodged with the High Court. The last thing I need is to perturb a judge!”
Understandable caution.
Remember though, that the NZ legal process is also under international scrutiny in this case.
The NZCSET Statement of Claim is in the public domain so there is no reason that the Statement of Defence should not be.
We (the people) need to see that the NZCSC lawyers are picking up the deficiencies in the defence.
[i.e. Richard Treadgold is a party to the proceedings and he is getting advice from the lawyer before releasing the NIWA defence. If you were in his shoes, would you not exercise the same degree of caution?]
Richard C says:
October 7, 2010 at 8:20 pm
They are both owner via heritage asset transfer and custodian via Public Records Act 2005
[This is my contention i.e. NIWA is disavowing responsibility for the NZTR BUT there are ownership/custody issues that the NZCSC lawyer(s) must address to hold them to ownership/custody of the record. A scan of comments at Climate Conversations will reveal the background to the two critical points: heritage assets and Public Records Act 2005]
[The following comment is still in moderation at Climate Conversations at the time of this comment here]
Richard C says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
October 7, 2010 at 9:03 pm
“NIWA formally denies all responsibility for the national temperature record (NZTR).”
Are they effectively “discharging” or “disposing” of a public record?
From Public Records Act 2005
Interpretation
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—
[snip]
discharged record means a record the status of which as a public record is cancelled in accordance with section 25
disposal, in relation to a public record or local authority record, means—
(a) the transfer of control of a record; or
(b) the sale, alteration, destruction, or discharge of a record
http://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2005/0040/latest/DLM345537.html?search=ts_act_Public+Records+Act_resel&p=1#DLM345537
If so, did NIWA get the Chief Archivist’s authorisation?
Authority to dispose of public records
(1) The Chief Archivist may authorise in writing, in accordance with the purposes of this Act, the disposal of a public record (other than those referred to in subsection (3)) by—
(a) transferring control of the public record to another public office; or
(b) transferring control of the public record to the Chief Archivist; or
(c) altering or destroying the public record; or
(d) selling the public record; or
(e) discharging the public record.
(2) Before authorising a disposal under subsection (1), the Chief Archivist must give not less than 30 days’ notice, in the manner the Chief Archivist considers appropriate, of—
(a) the intention to dispose of the public record, with a general description of the public record concerned; and
(b) the place where additional information may be obtained on the public record concerned and the person to whom any comments may be sent.
[snip]
http://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2005/0040/latest/DLM345735.html?search=ts_act_Public+Records+Act_resel&p=1#DLM345735
25 Discharge of public records
(1) The Chief Archivist may authorise in writing the discharge of a public record only if—
(a) the Chief Archivist considers that the public record is suitable to be discharged; and
(b) the public record is an open access record that is not in current use; and
(c) the release of the public record is consistent with the principles of the Privacy Act 1993; and
(d) the public record is not subject to a request under the Official Information Act 1982; and
(e) the administrative head of the controlling public office agrees to the public record being discharged; and
(f) the person to whom the public record is to be discharged is not a Minister of the Crown, the Chief Archivist, an employee of Archives New Zealand, the Archives Council, a member of the Archives Council, or an employee of the controlling public office.
[snip]
(3) A public record that is discharged—
(a) becomes the property of the person to whom it is discharged; and
(b) ceases to have status as a public record or to be subject to this Act.
(4) A public record discharged under this section must be noted in the discharge register, in accordance with section 19(1)(b).
http://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2005/0040/latest/DLM345743.html?search=ts_act_Public+Records+Act_resel&p=1#DLM345743
I don’t think they did.
[i.e. NIWA may not be able to get off the hook that easily.Their defence is probably a bluff to hand an empty "victory without firing a shot" to NZCSC in the hope that there will be no further action. Our hope, on the other hand, is that NZCSC will put the knife in]
Note that none of the above required sight of NIWA's Statement of Claim.
Hopefully, this will add insight into the state-of-play
"NIWA's Statement of Claim." in my previous comment should read "NIWA's Statement of Defence"
Bah!
Further to Peter Walsh
Indeed NZ is about 25% larger by area than Great Britain. It extends about 1000 miles north to south. Because of its location and geography it is probably not possible to compare the climate with any other region of the Earth, and I would suggest that any claim of an "average" climate is deluded wishful thinking. It is just too varied. For example, if one was to take the (approximate) latitude line running across the South Island from Milford sound in the west to Dunedin in the east the topography goes from sea level to >5000 feet (in 20 miles) back to sea level. Total distance <100 miles. The climate varies from temperate rain forest (rainfall 6.8 metres/year) to alpine (.9 metres/year) to sub-continental arid (<.5 metres/year). Average temperatures for Milford Sound vary from a min of approx 2C to a max of 20C Below freezing and temperatures exceeding 30C are rare. Queenstown, just 30 Km away has an average temperature variation of 0C to 23C. Qeenstown is often significantly below freezing in winter and may exceed 30C in summer. Further inland the extremes become more severe with extremes of -20C and of 40C. Coastal Dunedin becomes more equatable with an average range of 3C to 19C but extremes of -5C to 30+C.
If one small slice can have such a variation one wonders what variations occur over the rest of the country. No, strike that, I know what variations occur. It's cold today! After several days calm sunny days with temps of low 20'sC it has dropped to about 13C. The sun isn't shining and 100% overcast at 5000-10,000 feet, no wind at all. Can I have my warming back please.
See, the should 'ave 'ired my Ron. E'd 'ave sorted them at.
@Andy Scrase
Good luck with that... Aus has such FOI laws as well - the information is just declared as commercial-in-confidence, or part of Cabinet briefings, or part of National Defence under Energy Security, or ... etc
Ho-hum. No hope. Remember the the Aus BOM is "peer-reviewing" this and they are Grand Masters at pea-under-shell obfuscation. Doubtlessly passing these techniques on in their full bloom to their NZ colleagues
Give the Scientists a break folks. They've read their Bradbury and are totally cogniscent with the relevant metrics of "Cooking the Books"
That they hadn't fully comprehended the wisdom of Mrs B is hardly surprising. She is soo yesterday.
I mean. You want jugged Hare. Catch it first!
Roast Rabbit? Same advice.
Deceptively simple but therein lies a wee trap.
Don't tell the diners that the Hare is fillet steak nor that Mr Bunny is gigot!
Applying the 451F(?) recipe to cooking will certainly desensitise the palate to the origins of the donor.
It does nothing for the taste.
Kiwis paid top dollar for haute cuisine. They got fleeced.
The pap pushers, even when found out, kept the cash. That's bad but, even worse, the Mr Bigs got the get out of jail free card and continue to make the rake!
Now that makes it truly obscene.
From a country without a brain-cell to a nation without a dissenting politician of conscience or a temperature record, may I offer my sympathy and misgivings about our collective aspirations!
@RoyFOMR
We do have a political party in NZ (ACT) that have an official "sceptic" viewpoint on climate science, and have taken a fair bit of interest in this case. They also have a cabinet seat in our MMP government.(MP Rodney Hide)
Recent parliamentary questions concerning NIWA were deflected by a taxpayer funded PR agency, Network PR
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2010/08/niwa-prefers-spin-to-straight-answers/
The PR company themselves managed to do a disappearing act with data when a webpage promoting their PR success at information suppression disappeared.
The Google cached version was the only evidence of this page.
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2010/08/naive-fanfare-silenced-by-foot-in-mouth-niwa/
Further info on nzclimatescience.net
STATEMENTS OF CLAIM & DEFENCE IN COURT ACTION V NIWA
Posted 8 October 2010
(links to two pdfs)
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=667&Itemid=1
I trust Dr Roy Spencer is looking at the seemingly anomalous high temperatures for South America referred to by Fleet2thefire, Oct 7 at 6:54PM.
Typo alert - It is Jim Salinger not Jim Saligers.
Jim Salinger appears to be the Kiwi equivalent of Phil Jones and Michael Mann. Can anyone provide more detail on his publications?
some useful background
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/05/crisis-in-new-zealand-climatology
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/06/nz-climate-crisis-gets-worse
original NZCSC paper:
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/docs/awfw/are-we-feeling-warmer-yet.htm
OT: A new 10:10 parody - and one of the better ones.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqT4gIZuaq8
"Victory for Kiwi sceptics
In the climate controversy dubbed Kiwigate New Zealand skeptics inflict shock courtroom defeat on climatologists implicated in temperature data fraud."
This headline and lead exist mostly in the imagination of the bloggers concerned. The case has yet to go to court, so it's unlikely that there has been a "shock courtroom defeat" or any other tabloid outcome at this point.
It looks like some bloggers have taken a garbled and "creative" interpretation of texts and events by Richard Treadgold of the blog Climate Conversation Group, and added their own gloss.
From what I can see, the basis for the NZ Climate Science Coalition case is the claim that NZ Government policy on climate is based on advice received from NIWA, which is in turn based on something called an "official" NZ temperature record. Both claims are doubtful.
NIWA -- not the MetService as I mistakenly suggested earlier -- is the “controlling public office” for what is called the "climate database", ie the record of NZ temperatures. But this database is not the same as the various series derived from it. NZCSC seems to have confused the two.
For a more informative and critical view see:
http://hot-topic.co.nz/niwa-v-cranks-4-shoot-out-at-the-fantasy-factory/#more-5989
Brendan H
Sure there has been no court case. But the comments and blogs are based on the words of NIWA's statement of defence. That is , their own words , nothing made up by anyone else. All very simple.
I note you refer to a "critical view " by Hot-Topic.Gareth Renowden is the guy who thought the 10:10 video was very funny and anyone who was offended lacked a sense of humour. Enough said !