BREAKING: New Zealand's National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research accused of CRU-style temperature faking

Science, like any other industry (maybe moreso than other industries) needs to be held to the highest ethical standards. As I have been saying all along, if you fund it they will study it. The enticements to a particular conclusion have tainted environmental/climate science for decades. Clipped to EthicsVine.

The seeded article is excellent news, SG.

So does this mean that the glaciers that billions rely on for water are all reforming?...

http://www.asiasociety.org/onthinnerice

Do you believe that all acts of nature are responding to man's negative impact on "her"?

While I believe in protection of the environment I also believe the "Man-Made Global Warming" hype is a scam with the purpose of furthering the One World Socialist government dreams of organizations like the EU.

And you need to learn to practice what you Preach , ergo you have a couple CoH violation comments on one of my thread "Much Ado about Nothing", inclusive of your snarky "Laf"& calling me "ya"

...consider 'em gone.

You clearly have not read The Republican War on Science.

Republican anti-intellectualism (Anti-Intellectualism in American Life by Hofstader) and anti-science are not only endemic to this culture, but systemic.

Thus, the credibility of "deniers" is non-existent and supported by approximately .0002% of the world's population.

Any research leading to conclusions supporting AGW is automatically dismissed by denialists because they believe it was all faked to receive grants, awards, etc. Hence, debate is impossible because anything supporting AGW must be either "flawed" or "fabricated", (and of course, denialist science is always properly conducted, impartial, and based on real data.)

Two can play the conspiracy theory game. "All denialists must be shills for the oil companies, and therefore, AGW is correct." Like the denialists' conspiracy claims, this is completely invalid reasoning.

If both sides are to have a serious debate, both sides need to drop the "they're lying to get money!" claims and stick to the science. Bias needs to be examined seperately for each source and claims of bias need to be backed up with evidence.

Thanks for proving Wrench's point, SG = "the data is all inaccurate except when it appears to show global cooling today or global warmer a thousand years ago."

And considering that you don't trust 21st century data-collectin' methods then why the heck do you trust any data from a 1,000 years ago showing "warmth greater than today"???

Talk about Extreme Cherrypicking!

Laf x 1000

http://www.grist.org/article/must-read-noaa-paper-smacks-down-the-deniers/

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf

As my 2 links in #5.3 clearly show NOAA has dismantled the claims of Anthony Watt's pet surfacestations project.

Simple observation of the Natural World plus NOAA's newer network of remote temperature-measuring stations that are immune to manmade urban influences, have exposed the claims of Watt's surfacestations.org project to be total BS, as the following video clearly shows:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_0-gX7aUKk

My link in 5.5 shows clear photographic proof of NOAA's new remote-location temperature-measuring stations plus my link clearly makes the simple logical argument that even more important than the actual temps is the change in temperatures over time which will indicate whether average temps are cooling or increasing - and the answer is they're trending upward.

Hence Anthony Watts & his surfacestations.org project is double-debunked.

BS.

Both the new remote stations and the old stations that surfacestations looked at, show a warming trend over the decades.

http://peakoil.com/environment/watt-s-up-with-noaa-surface-station-temps-not-much-it-seems-t54246.html

Watt’s response was to carp about NOAA’s non-peer-reviewed analysis, typos and they should have waited for him to publish his report first, which by the way is long overdue. He also claims the study should have been done with the latest data from 90 stations, although how this would change the results he doesn’t say.

For all the snipe hunters on Watt’s Team out there that set out to prove global warming wasn’t happening; at least you got plenty of fresh air and a chance to enjoy it while you still can.

Maybe you should have considered other evidence as NOAA puts it in the report.

Quote:

Q. Is there any question that surface temperatures in the United States have been rising rapidly during the last 50 years?

A. None at all. Even if NOAA did not have weather observing stations across the length and breadth of the United States the impacts of the warming are unmistakable. For example, lake and river ice is melting earlier in the spring and forming later in the fall. Plants are blooming earlier in the spring. Mountain glaciers are melting. And a multitude of species of birds, fish, mammals and plants are extending their ranges northward and, in mountainous areas, upward as well.

_________________
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt

Top

By definition the new stations cannot have shown a warming trend over the decades.

Both the newer stations in remote locations show the exact same change in temps over the time they've been in service as the old stations that Watt's has deemed to be "faulty", ergo there is no divergence.

Plus NOAA has both good [deemed so by Watt himself] and remotely located stations that are decades old.

Did anthony even think of checking the change in temps over time on his surfacestations project, like what NOAA did when they embarassed him?

the argument is that the warming can be explained by natural variation.

BS!

For the last 10 years solar activity has declined and for the past 2 years in particular are near historic lows, and yet the decade of the 2000s are the hottest on record.

In other words, we should have had a cool decade, and not the warmest on record, going by solar influences alone.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/03sep_sunspots.htm

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/arctic-warming-reverse-8000-year-old-trend/story-fn3dxix6-1225769438366

wattsupwiththat.com is a blog & not a scientific site.

A self-proclaimed scientist such as yourself should know better than to always be linking to a blog in an attempt to disprove science.

And the science would be "shoddy" if the 18,000 glaciers of the Himalayas that two billion South Asians rely on for water were all growing as per your mythical "global cooling trend", instead of thawing & vanishing as per eyewitness and photographic accounts spanninga century - see my link in 1.2

And the science would be "shoddy" if the vast permafrosts were re-freezing, and not continuing their rapid thawing which is increasingly threatening to release unimaginable amounts of methane into the atmosphere:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12966

I AM shocked, truly shocked," says Katey Walter, an ecologist at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks. "I was in Siberia a few weeks ago, and I am now just back in from the field in Alaska. The permafrost is melting fast all over the Arctic, lakes are forming everywhere and methane is bubbling up out of them."
The permafrost is melting fast all over the Arctic, lakes are forming everywhere and methane is bubbling out of them

Back in 2006, in a paper in Nature, Walter warned that as the permafrost in Siberia melted, growing methane emissions could accelerate climate change. But even she was not expecting such a rapid change. "Lakes in Siberia are five times bigger than when I measured them in 2006. It's unprecedented. This is a global event now, and the inertia for more permafrost melt is increasing."

Runaway warming

The danger is that if too much methane is released, the world will get hotter no matter how drastically we slash our greenhouse gas emissions. Recent studies suggest that emissions from melting permafrost could be far greater than once thought. And, although it is too early to be sure, some suspect this scenario is already starting to unfold: after remaining static for the past decade, methane levels have begun to rise again, and the source could be Arctic permafrost.

What is certain is that the Arctic is warming faster than any other place on Earth. While the average global temperature has risen by less than 1 °C over the past three decades, there has been warming over much of the Arctic Ocean of around 3 °C. In some areas where the ice has been lost, temperatures have risen by 5 °C.

This intense warming is not confined to the Arctic Ocean. It extends south, deep into the land masses of Siberia, Alaska, Canada, Greenland and Scandinavia, and to their snowfields, ice sheets and permafrost. In 2007, the North American Arctic was more than 2 °C warmer than the average for 1951 to 1980, and parts of Siberia over 3 °C warmer. In 2008, most of Siberia was 2 °C warmer than average (see map).

Considering that all the scientists who have actually visited and measured the temperature of the permafrosts report it's thawing, then your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on as ongoing thawing increases the threat of future methane release.

Now show me science links of research showing the permafrost is getting colder or remaining stable over the decades, as opposed to thawing.

You're a scientist so that shouldn't be difficult for you to post the data of the permafrost getting colder as per your mythical global cooling claims. So go ahead.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=arctic-soil-thaw-may-unleash-runaway-global-warming

And the fallacy of your argument is in thinking the MWP was global in an era where even you have admitted that the Nile river froze.

And as regards the MWP, NOAA's paleoclimatiology makes clear that at it's height it was only equivalent to early 20th century temps.

An additional fatal mistake of your non=sensical argument is in failing to recognize that temps are continuing to trend upwards:

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.html

The additional fallacy of your irretrivably broken argument is failing to recognize natural variation saying we should've been cooling as opposed to warming.

http://ecoworldly.com/2009/10/29/2000-year-arctic-cooling-trend-reversed-itself-near-turn-of-20th-century/