NZ’s NIWA accused of CRU-style temperature faking

The New Zealand Government's chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn't there.
The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain's CRU climate research centre.
In New Zealand's case, the figures published on NIWA's [the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric research] website suggest a strong warming trend in New Zealand over the past century:
briefingroom.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c51bc53ef012875dc003a970c-800wi

The caption to the photo on the NiWA site reads:
From NIWA's web site — Figure 7: Mean annual temperature over New Zealand, from 1853 to 2008 inclusive, based on *
*between 2 (from 1853) and 7 (from 1908) long-term station records. The blue and red bars show annual differences from the *
*1971 – 2000 average, the solid black line is a smoothed time series, and the dotted [straight] line is the linear trend over 1909 *
*to 2008 (0.92°C/100 years).

But analysis of the raw climate data from the same temperature stations has just turned up a very different result:
briefingroom.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c51bc53ef012875dc00a7970c-800wi

Gone is the relentless rising temperature trend, and instead there appears to have been a much smaller growth in warming, consistent with the warming up of the planet after the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850.

briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/breaking-nzs-niwa-accused-of-cru-style-temperature-faking.html

When you only have 2-7 time series, it doesn't take a lot of "adjustment" to significantly affect the "corrected" results.

Seems this yet another false accusation. scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co.php#comments

[quote="Calliso, post:3, topic:177561"]
Seems this yet another false accusation. scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co.php#comments

[/quote]

Why is it false? Because Tim Lambert says so? This challenge should be simple to disprove. The first figure is the official graph from NIWA that includes adjustments to the raw temperature measurements. The second graph is (purportedly) what you get from the unadjusted temperature measurements; the raw data for which is apparently available (which is more than one can get from CRU which lost or destroyed theirs or from NASA which won't release theirs). If the second graph is wrong then it should be a very simple thing for NIWA to prove by providing their own version with their own data. Lambert accuses the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition of fudging the graph by "combining temperature data from different places", a charge which itself seems to be misleading as there is a valid controversy over the proper adjustment to make in combining data from a station that was closed in 1928 and moved to a different location. Until and unless NIWA releases their own graph of their own raw data - which you have to admit would be the simplest of things to do - it is more reasonable to accept the charge than to dismiss it.

Ender

I thought it was one of the principles of the scientific method that the results are reproducible?

There is growing evidence that even the raw data from other countries is being cooked, relentlessly pushed to show warming:
[LIST]
*]Peru
*]Bolivia
*]New Zealand
*]CRU - all countries
[/LIST]

Even global data sets suffer the same problem:
[LIST]
*]NOAA
*]GISS
*]NOAA/USHCN
*]NASA
[/LIST]
The so-called Global Warming signal emerges almost entirely from their manual adjustments.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.