Three Questions for NIWA

Just in from the Auckland Public Meeting: Climategate, NIWA and the ETS

When it came to light that NIWA’s official temperature graph and the data on their website were at odds, the former returning an increasing temperature graph the latter a flat graph, three questions were asked of NIWA by the Climate Conversation Group that they are yet to answer.

  1. Why, of all the temperature stations in New Zealand, were the 7 stated sites chosen to be deemed indicative of New Zealand’s temperatures?
  2. What precise adjustments were made to the temperatures?
  3. What was the methodology of 1 and 2?

NIWA have talked about how they adjusted temperatures recorded in Wellington. But this does not answer these questions.

NIWA have had Jim Salinger cite 11 sites that, without adjustment, showed some warming but again this does not answer the questions above and some warming is not the same thing as anthropogenic warming.

As long as NIWA keep answering questions they were not asked and fail to answer the ones they have been asked, as long as anthropogenic climate change apologists like Gareth Renowden and Ken Perrott keep trotting out red herrings and other fallacious answers all the while waving “trust the scientists” placards, this issue will not go away.

Flat climate temperature charts were adjusted upwards. This has happened in more than one country and it appears from the leaked climategate emails that this was done for political and not scientific means. It is, therefore, reasonable for  us to have some questions and unease about all this and it is equally reasonable to expect NIWA to friggin’ answer these questions. If there is a sound answer to 1-3 then tell us, show me the science.

Go to Source

Comments are closed.