Bolt is a nut
Last Thursday the Herald-Sun columnist and blogger Andrew Bolt had the scoop on yet more falsified global warming data. This time it was a graph from New Zealand's National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research on the warming trend there:
The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, which created the last two graphics and includes an IPCC reviewer, now alleges that [Dr Jim] Salinger and NIWA have refused to explain the basis on which the data was adjusted:
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.
Of course, their reasons may well be perfectly valid, involving the correction of known flaws and adjustments for discontinuities.
But given what we’ve learned from Climategate about fudging of figures, hostility to scrutiny and an almost messianic faith in warming theory, a public explanation is essential.
Why were the figures adjusted to show a warming? Everything now needs to be rechecked.
Unfortunately for Bolt, none of this is true. Much like another exploitation of hysteria from NZ this year, the NZCSC timed the release of its confection to occur during what Bolt and his ideological kith have imaginatively termed 'Climategate'. For those on the fainting couch, the NZCSC's table and graph last week seemed as plausible as Jeff Goldblum falling to his death while filming in NZ did on June 26th. 'I wonder how many of the folks accusing NIWA of cooking their data will correct their posts?' Tim Lambert asks. Bolt hasn't corrected his post; indeed, yesterday he was still at it: 'We’ve already seen serious questions raised about the way a warming rise was calculated in New Zealand'. Everything now needs to be rechecked, Andrew.
Another Bolt post from yesterday refers to an interview on Radio National's Counterpoint with Professor Aynsley Kellow, Head of the School of Government at the University of Tasmania. Both Bolt and Counterpoint's co-host, the 'tic Michael Duffy, refer to their fellow traveller Kellow as 'an Australian IPCC expert reviewer'. Why would a professor of government be an IPCC expert reviewer, you ask? The answer: anyone can be one! A few years ago, Lambert, discussing the NZCSC's claim that founding member Dr Vincent Gray was 'an expert reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change', noted that:
'"Expert reviewer for the IPCC" doesn't mean that they asked him to review material -- all it means is that he asked to see the draft report. The only real requirement to be a reviewer is to sign an agreement not to publicly comment on the draft. Of course, just because he hasn't any qualifications or experience in climate research doesn't mean that he might not be able to offer some insight.'
More to the point, though, Bolt and others want to traduce the 'corrupted' IPCC. Yet they also want to give their lies a patina of credibility by noting that Kellow or whoever is an 'IPCC expert reviewer' (well, if an IPCC expert reviewer says it...). Wouldn't the participation of scientists that 'tics like Bolt agree with in the IPCC process invalidate their belief that the IPCC is a conspiracy? It doesn't make sense. But such is the intellectual dishonesty they traffic in. If only these hacks got the same exposure the other ones did.
The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, which created the last two graphics and includes an IPCC reviewer, now alleges that [Dr Jim] Salinger and NIWA have refused to explain the basis on which the data was adjusted:
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.
Of course, their reasons may well be perfectly valid, involving the correction of known flaws and adjustments for discontinuities.
But given what we’ve learned from Climategate about fudging of figures, hostility to scrutiny and an almost messianic faith in warming theory, a public explanation is essential.
Why were the figures adjusted to show a warming? Everything now needs to be rechecked.
Unfortunately for Bolt, none of this is true. Much like another exploitation of hysteria from NZ this year, the NZCSC timed the release of its confection to occur during what Bolt and his ideological kith have imaginatively termed 'Climategate'. For those on the fainting couch, the NZCSC's table and graph last week seemed as plausible as Jeff Goldblum falling to his death while filming in NZ did on June 26th. 'I wonder how many of the folks accusing NIWA of cooking their data will correct their posts?' Tim Lambert asks. Bolt hasn't corrected his post; indeed, yesterday he was still at it: 'We’ve already seen serious questions raised about the way a warming rise was calculated in New Zealand'. Everything now needs to be rechecked, Andrew.
Another Bolt post from yesterday refers to an interview on Radio National's Counterpoint with Professor Aynsley Kellow, Head of the School of Government at the University of Tasmania. Both Bolt and Counterpoint's co-host, the 'tic Michael Duffy, refer to their fellow traveller Kellow as 'an Australian IPCC expert reviewer'. Why would a professor of government be an IPCC expert reviewer, you ask? The answer: anyone can be one! A few years ago, Lambert, discussing the NZCSC's claim that founding member Dr Vincent Gray was 'an expert reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change', noted that:
'"Expert reviewer for the IPCC" doesn't mean that they asked him to review material -- all it means is that he asked to see the draft report. The only real requirement to be a reviewer is to sign an agreement not to publicly comment on the draft. Of course, just because he hasn't any qualifications or experience in climate research doesn't mean that he might not be able to offer some insight.'
More to the point, though, Bolt and others want to traduce the 'corrupted' IPCC. Yet they also want to give their lies a patina of credibility by noting that Kellow or whoever is an 'IPCC expert reviewer' (well, if an IPCC expert reviewer says it...). Wouldn't the participation of scientists that 'tics like Bolt agree with in the IPCC process invalidate their belief that the IPCC is a conspiracy? It doesn't make sense. But such is the intellectual dishonesty they traffic in. If only these hacks got the same exposure the other ones did.