Global warming?

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.