Global warming?

[ZenGum]

It's amazing how this tiny little drab of media-beat-up evidence about a single laboratory is enough to convince you it is all a fraud, yet a huge amount of widespread, published, peer-reviewed evidence wasn't enough to convince you that humans are changing the planet's climate.

It is always easy to convince a man of what he wants to believe, but that doesn't mean it is correct.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

is enough to convince you it is all a fraud,

Excuse me, are you referring to me here?

[TheMercenary]

I have no doubt that man has affected the climate. The problem I have is that when other learned peoples call into question the validity of the studies or how they were conducted they are minimized or worse. Let all the data become public and allow their peers to examine the evidence and replicate it in similar experiments.

[ZenGum]

True dat. Burning oil to produce hydrogen would be stupid.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Some people feel it's a justifiable way to move the pollution out of highly congested cities, to the country, by using it to power public transportation. But it doesn't look good in the big picture.

[ZenGum]

...and using "oil shale" ... bloody filthy.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

...and using "oil shale" ... bloody filthy.

I have seen reports and read stories about how the Oil Shale business in Canada has created some ecological disasters.

[spudcon]

The most efficient and prevalent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapor, not CO2. Using hydrogen as a fuel would put much more water vapor in the air, and that really could cause global warming.

[Undertoad]

A climate scientist in NZ has been found to have adjusted temps up. How: people got the actual, raw data and compared it to what he was publishing as NZ's climate history - and found the data to have been heavily massaged.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/2...-official-one/

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 1.3°C, creating strong warming from a mild cooling, yet there’s 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 CO2—it was created by man-made adjustments of the temperature. It’s a disgrace.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

A climate scientist in NZ has been found to have adjusted temps up. How: people got the actual, raw data and compared it to what he was publishing as NZ's climate history - and found the data to have been heavily massaged.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/2...-official-one/

The NZ government agency explained the adjustments.

NIWA’s analysis of measured temperatures uses internationally accepted techniques, including making adjustments for changes such as movement of measurement sites. For example, in Wellington, early temperature measurements were made near sea level, but in 1928 the measurement site was moved from Thorndon (3 metres above sea level) to Kelburn (125 m above sea level). The Kelburn site is on average 0.8°C cooler than Thorndon, because of the extra height above sea level.

Such site differences are significant and must be accounted for when analysing long-term changes in temperature. The Climate Science Coalition has not done this.

NIWA climate scientists have previously explained to members of the Coalition why such corrections must be made. NIWA’s Chief Climate Scientist, Dr David Wratt, says he’s very disappointed that the Coalition continue to ignore such advice and therefore to present misleading analyses.

NIWA scientists are committed to providing robust information to help all New Zealanders make good decisions.

http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publi...mperature-rise

A NIWA scandal or overblown (mis)representations by the CSC skeptics?

At the very least, it is reasonable to see both sides before jumping on another (?) scandal bandwagon.

[xoxoxoBruce]

So all but one of their measuring stations, except one, were moved to higher ground? Why would the lower the early readings, and raise the later ones? Sure makes it more difficult to keep track of "corrections".

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

At the very least, it is reasonable to see both sides before jumping

I agree, most reasonable.

[classicman]

ruh roh

[Clodfobble]

So wait, is this New Zealand scandal (collection of scandals?) separate from the one the hackers exposed, or the same one?

[Undertoad]

Separate.