The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Good planets are hard to come by > Comments

Good planets are hard to come by : Comments

By Andrew Glikson, published 9/2/2010

Climate change: the international system required to protect the lives of future generations is failing.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
spindoc

I had to do a bit of digging, but is this:

http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/docs/OIA%20Ltr2%20NIWA%20to%20NZCSC.pdf

the “admission” I asked you for? If not, could you please provide it.

_____

You say the NZCCC has reviewed and rejected the NIWA document

http://www.niwa.co.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/101834/7-Station_Temperature-Series.pdf

and is explained in the post dated 7th February here

http://nzclimatescience.net/

This really bothers me because what I linked to is dated 9th February ... 2 days after it was supposedly reviewed and rejected by NZCCC.

_____

In here you will find links to both raw and adjusted data that the NZCCC says they couldn’t get (literally and figuratively I suppose)

http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/news/all/nz-temperature-rise-clear/seven-station-series-temperature-data

They also explain why data is adjusted, what data is adjusted, when and how it is was done.

_____

spindoc, putting your sceptic hat on - don't you think it a tad unlikely that;

• 4 independent bodies in

• 4 different countries - New Zealand, Russia, Canada and Australia

• all concurrently AND just prior to the big kahuna in Copenhagen

• all discovered a ‘fraud’

• in each of those country’s temperature records

• and that there is strong opposition in each of those countries to tackling climate change?

Would like your thoughts.
Posted by qanda, Friday, 12 February 2010 4:52:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Everyone is entitled to his opinion but not to his "facts" (Senator Daniel Moynihan):

Polar melt:
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/press_releases/press_release.php?id=989
http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/26/nature-dynamic-thinning-of-greenland-and-antarctic-ice-sheets-glacier/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32985250/ns/us_news-environment/

Arctic sea ice cover(1870 - 2009):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Seaice-1870-part-2009.png

Averaged sea level change:
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/images/CSIRO_GMSL_figure.jpg

Mapped localised sea level change:
http://climate.nasa.gov/images/ssh_trend_map1.gif

Atmospheric CO2 levels (from about 1960):
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.png

Longer term CO2 levels:
http://climate.nasa.gov/images/CarbonDioxideGraphic11.jpg

Conspiracy theories and ad-hominem are not substitute for science.
Posted by Andy1, Saturday, 13 February 2010 1:01:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Andy1 - chew on that spindoc, Amicus! Thing is, we know this planet is a dynamic system and changes are happening. Our civilisation developed through one of the most benign periods of this planet's surface, but that was never going to last. I recall reading of ancient ice core sample studies in a Scientific America 25+ years ago. Core samples showed evidence of climactic upheavals, wild temperature fluctuations preceding Ice Ages.
Whilst we can't be sure of how much current changes derive from our activities, how much are due to other influences, its time we started putting energies into thinking about how its going to affect us, how to adjust and adapt to inevitable change.
Its not about scientists' scare tactics, though I imagine some feel they have to beat the drum loudly because there's resistance to their message. There will always be exceptions, but scientists I've met are genuine, decent humans, if a little nerdy, obsessed with their inquiries. Its common sense, thinking positively, about how we can work together, strengthen communities, develop resourcefulness in our children and how we can adapt our society.
And I do apologise if I seemed 'abusive' - it wasn't meant that way. There was tongue firmly placed in cheek. It just seemed to me that you were attacking the wrong targets, really did sound like the Unseen University - anyone read Terry Pratchett? Well, maybe you should! Lighten up guys! I do have a doctorate, in Adult Education, but am a bit of a polymath with a good conceptual intelligence that can grasp the gist, if not comprehend exact sceince.
However, I must take exception to the misplaced aggression aimed at 'greenies', who are just mostly people who love this planet and are horrified by the mess we are making of something so beautiful, but are trying to do something positive about it. Some may be misguided, but no one has a unassailable claim on the Truth, We are all just flawed beings trying to cope. So please, don't go beating up on any earnest young conservationist you come across.
Posted by Dr Merlyn, Saturday, 13 February 2010 4:57:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you Dr Merlyn,

At last some words of wisdom, instead of the ubiquitous toxic language directed toward those concerned about the future of their children and about other species.

Scientists and environmentalists simply request a reduction in polution, for reasons based in climate science as well as direct observations around the world.

The >320 billion tons of carbon emitted since 1750 (moe than half the original inventory of the atmosphere) did not go into outer space ... Deforestation removes the nature protection of the biosphere. Arctic Sea ice is disappearing fast, melting of Greenland and West Antarctic ice has increased, sea level rise is accelerating, climate zone shifts leave large regions in a state of semi-permanent drought, the intensity of hurricanes is increasing, oceans are acidifying.

For an authoritative up-to-date report summarizing climate change developments refer to:

"Climate Change 2009: Faster Change & More Serious Risks"
by Will Steffen, climate change advisor to the Australian Government.
http://www.anu.edu.au/climatechange/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/climate-change-faster-change-and-more-serious-risks-final.pdf
Posted by Andy1, Saturday, 13 February 2010 8:09:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
qanda, mitigation, excuses and old links, already shown to be invalid are not going to reverse that which has already been admitted by NIWA. They admitted it, if you don’t like that fact, take it up with NIWA.

How you could possibly confuse the “posting date” of any link with the original date created baffles me?

I did caution you, “Once you question the probity, you will instantly become a skeptic” I should have added, if you are not ready, don’t go there.

You really do need to “read” and “comprehend” the report.

“Our objective was achieved upon Tim Mahood’s admission on 29 January that “NIWA does not hold copies of the original worksheets.” Our study is therefore a success, because the scientists who made proper requests for the data and adjustments that will let them replicate Jim Salinger’s work now, for the first time, have a proper answer. The answer, of course, is that “we don’t have them”, and that will lead to further questions or whatever.”
“Our scientists searched through the other scientific papers that NIWA cited in their impressive-sounding press releases. None of them contained the actual adjustments.”
“They told us where to find the adjustments, citing obscure papers from 20 and 30 years ago. Bizarrely, they alleged that we already “know” or “have” the adjustments and claimed that a couple of emails they had sent contained the adjustments.”
“We found that the two emails they quoted were not sent by NIWA, and they weren’t sent to the NZCSC. They came from Dr Jim Salinger, who sent them to two independent scientists (who happened to join the Coalition about then) right at the time (July 2006) when the Coalition was created, before it had considered the New Zealand temperature record. So NIWA made it sound as though these two private emails were proof that they had disclosed the adjustments. But it was poppycock. So they didn’t come from NIWA, weren’t sent to the NZCSC and didn’t contain the promised adjustments — there couldn’t be much more wrong with them.”

Dr. Merlyn, panic and confusion, but no embarrassment?
Posted by spindoc, Saturday, 13 February 2010 8:30:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spin it, or doctor it, all you like spindoctor (very appropriate).

I see the following (repeated for others' benefit) takes you out of your comfort zone.

Putting your sceptic hat on - don't you think it a tad unlikely that;

• 4 independent bodies in

• 4 different countries - New Zealand, Russia, Canada and Australia

• all concurrently AND just prior to the big kahuna in Copenhagen

• all discovered a ‘fraud’

• in each of those country’s temperature records

• and that there is strong opposition in each of those countries to tackling climate change?

Here's my thought on it:

No, it not unlikely. In fact, there is a concerted campaign by certain groups and individuals in very high places (with vast amounts of power, money and control) to maintain the status-quo. Indeed, there is intense lobbying and funding going on to ensure the required action in tackling human induced climate change is thwarted.

The New Zealand Climate Change Coalition is just one cog in a very big wheel. Its people like you with their eyes squeezed tight, and hands clasped to their ears, that can't grasp the bigger picture. The reason, you don't want to.

nuff said.
Posted by qanda, Saturday, 13 February 2010 10:25:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy