It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The latest story exciting the denialosphere is being put about by Anthony Watts and is based on a "news alert" from the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition. (Note: New Zealand Climate Science Coalition contains no actual climate scientists.)
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. ...
Gareth Renowden explains how the NZCSC concocted their result -- they made the NZ warming trend go away by treating measurements from different sites as if they came from the same site. Now that might be simple incompetence, but they also claim that NIWA won't explain how they adjust the data for site changes, and as Renowden says:
Nothing in the station histories? It's all there for anyone who can be bothered to look, or to ask politely. But Treadgold and the NZ CSC have no excuse, because the NZ CSC were told about this information at least two years ago, the last time they tried to make a fuss about "adjusted data". In other words, Treadgold and whoever in the NZ CSC helped him with the data are being more than economical with the truth, they are lying through their teeth.
I wonder how many of the folks accusing NIWA of cooking their data will correct their posts?
Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
I wonder how many of the folks accusing NIWA of cooking their data will correct their posts?
Originally posted by melatonin
Aww, I assume like those at drudge the OP misinterpreted this article.
The liars weren't who they thought they were, lol. Talk about posting stuff without engaging the brain.
Originally posted by melatonin
Drudge posted the article thinking it was an attack on climate science.
Yet it was actually showing the deception of a group of deniers attacking climate scientists.
He's a hack. And I think you think you made the same mistake (given I had you on ignore for likely good reasons).