NIWA is being sued by the NZ Climate Coalition, mainly due to the differences in data in this graph:
Niwa sued over data accuracy
The country’s state-owned weather and atmospheric research body is being taken to court in a challenge over the accuracy of its data used to calculate global warming.
The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition said it had lodged papers with the High Court asking the court to invalidate the official temperatures record of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (Niwa).
The lobby of climate sceptics and ACT Party have long criticised Niwa over its temperature data, which Niwa says is mainstream science and not controversial, and the raw data publicly available.
The coalition said the New Zealand Temperature Records (NZTR) were the historical base of NIWA’s advice to the Government on issues relating to climate change.
Coalition spokesman Bryan Leyland said many scientists believed although the earth had been warming for 150 years, it had not heated as much as Government archives claimed.
He said the New Zealand Meteorological Service had shown no warming during the past century but Niwa had adjusted its records to show a warming trend of 1degC. The warming figure was high and almost 50 percent above the global average, said Mr Leyland.
Full story here:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4026330/Niwa-sued-over-data-accuracy
But it seems some think the challenge is “stupid”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4026553/Court-challenge-to-Niwa-stupid
The New Zealand Climate Science Education Trust, a newly registered arm of the Coalition, has filed a claim in the High Court seeking a declaration to invalidate the NZ Temperature Record, currently promoted by NIWA, and featured on its website. Media release, backgrounder and summary of claim here:
http://www.climatescience.org.nz/images/PDFs/niwa.ct.docs.pdf
Partial text below, more details in the PDF link above.
The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition
Hon Secretary, Terry Dunleavy MBE JP, 14A Bayview Road, Hauraki, North Shore City 0622
Phone (09) 486 3859 – Mobile 0274 836688
– Email – terry.dunleavy@nzclimatescience.org.nz
13 August 2010
High Court asked to invalidate NIWA’s official NZ temperature record
The High Court has been asked to invalidate the New Zealand official temperature record (NZTR) as promoted by the Crown Research Institute, NIWA. These records are the historical base of NIWA’s scientific advice to central and local government on issues relating to climate change. NIWA maintains temperature archives for the past
century, and also projects them forward for the next century.
The statement of claim filed on behalf of the New Zealand Climate Science Education Trust (NZCSET) asks the court for three rulings:
A: to set aside NIWA’s decisions to rely upon its Seven Station Series (7SS) and Eleven Station Series (11SS), and
to find the current NZTR to be invalid
B: to prevent NIWA from using the current NZTR (or information originally derived from it) for the purpose of
advice to any governmental authority or to the public
C: to require NIWA to produce a full and accurate NZTR.
”Twentieth-century temperature records are now being challenged all around the world” said Bryan Leyland, spokesman for the NZCSET. “But I think we are the first country where the issues are to be placed squarely before an independent judicial forum.”
“Many scientists believe that, although the earth has been in a natural warming phase for the past 150 years, it has not heated as much as Government archives claim. The precise trend figure is extremely important, as it forms the sole basis of the claim that human activities are the dominant cause of the warming.
“The New Zealand Met Service record shows no warming during the last century, but NIWA has adopted a series of invariably downward adjustments in the period prior to World War 2. Because these move the old temperature records downwards, the 7SS NZTR shows a huge bounce-back of over 1°C in the first half of the century” said Mr
Leyland. “Although this is out of line with dozens of other records, and has been the subject of sustained questioning by both the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition and the ACT party, NIWA refuses to accept that there are serious problems with the adjustments. In fact, no one has been able to explain exactly how they were
arrived at.”
The Court proceedings also allege bias and unethical conduct on the part of NIWA’s National Climate Centre. These are based partly on NIWA allegedly delegating the NZTR decision to a former employee, James Salinger, knowing that he had a vested interest in an untested theory put forward in his own 1981 thesis. NIWA also knew that the data and calculations for that theory had been lost, and, thus could not be replicated.
Another core criticism is NIWA’s constant reliance on an eleven-station series it produced last December. The flaws in this paper have been highlighted many times, including at
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/06/nz-climate-crisis-gets-worse
“We find it hard to believe NIWA management just failed to notice that all the warming in the ‘eleven-station’ series was caused by the fact that it starts off with only three stations in 1931. From 1945 onwards there are between 9 and 11 stations” said Mr Leyland, “It’s astonishing how the increasing number of stations leads to greater warming, more alarm, and increased research grants.”
The Court will be asked to rule that NIWA has refused to repudiate the current NZTR in order to avoid political embarrassment, and feared loss of public confidence in the objectivity of its scientists. The proceedings were filed and served this week, and NIWA has up to a month to respond.
What type of stupid trial is this? How do the courts have any jurisdiction over the temperature record?
Can I sue if I don’t like the statements of James Hansen?
Perhaps Michael Mann will sue because he doesn’t like the head post at WattsUpWithThat.com?
This cannot come too soon. There are people & agencies at work going back and destroying paper records/altering documents.
The same sort of suit needs to be filed in the US as well.
As McShane and Wyner 2010 (wryly) said:
“We assume that the data selection, collection, and processing performed by climate scientists meets the standards of their discipline.”
Exactly Stu. The way out is murky and monsters lurk. Raw is the be all and determining factor.
Well maybe all is not lost.
NIWA with its history revision may have captured the first documented proof that global warming is over except for the background ice age exit rate.
NIWA’s new and improved data recording; excuse me that’s reconstruction, clearly shows that MMGWCCAGW stopped abruptly in 1970 and has ever since been trending downwards so the future trend clearly is lower than the ice age exit background; so clearly we are going into a new ice age pretty soon. Should be pretty good for New Zealand, since with their ocean regulated Temperature; IT’S THE WATER !! , they should still be growing food, when everybody else is icing over.
MikeN:
At August 16, 2010 at 10:17 am you ask a series of questions and I offer my answers to them.
You ask:
“What type of stupid trial is this?”
I answer, as “stupid” (or otherwise) as any other trial in a NZ Court of Law.
You ask:
“How do the courts have any jurisdiction over the temperature record?”
I answer that they do not, but they do have the ability to ensure that a public body funded by government does not provide demonstrably false information to government.
You ask:
“Can I sue if I don’t like the statements of James Hansen?”
I answer that this would depend upon the statements. If, for example, they were libelous then you could. However, you do not say which statements by Hansen you dispute so it is not possible to provide a specific answer to your question.
You ask:
“Perhaps Michael Mann will sue because he doesn’t like the head post at WattsUpWithThat.com?”
Of course, anybody could try to sue anybody else but the Court would reject a clearly frivolous claim such as you suggest, and the Court would apply costs against the person (in your hypothetical case, Mann) who made such a frivolous claim.
Now, I have answered your questions,so perhaps you would be willing to answer this one from me.
What purpose did you have in posing such silly questions that have such obvious answers?
Richard
Ah, Icarus, we now have a teachable moment. Without government interference in the market, there would never have been a diversion of corn into ethanol, as it is the subsidies paid by the government that makes ethanol production profitable. The same government interference in financial markets caused the great collapse of 2008 and the subsequent recession. The US Government, through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, guaranteed thousands of loans that went to people who couldn’t afford to repay them. Large banks and Wall Street firms were very aware that these loans were not likely to be repaid, so they securitized the loans and sold them on the market as MBSs(mortgage-backed securites). Of course, these securities were either worthless or overvalued, so we end up with the subprime crisis. My point is that none of this was possible without the US government guaranteeing the original loans. No guarantees, no MBSs, no subprime crisis, no recession. See how the system works. The government caused this crisis by doing something that should not have been done. Now we have unintended consequences.
Environmentalists have contributed to the problem as well. They badgered governments to ban the production and distribution of DDT. Rather than study the problem and make sane recommendations on the use of DDT, the outright ban prevented the use of DDT where it would have saved lives. Spraying DDT inside homes where mosquitoes congregate would have prevented several million people from dying of malaria. The outside spraying ban was fine, but the complete ban eliminated the best defense we had against malaria. Environmentalists should be ashamed of themselves. Another teachable moment.
And now we have the same group of people who are using scare tactics and misinformation in order to force the First World into making insane decisions on energy production. The solar and wind silliness has been tried in Spain, and it utterly failed, yet you continue to argue and lobby for its implementation elsewhere, when nothing good can come of the solutions you propose, at least not at the present time. The unintended consequences of your policy will be the destruction of the First World. Frankly, I can’t imagine anything short of nuclear war that would do more damage to the world we live in than what you are proposing. Think Pol Pot and the depopulation of Cambodia, and perhaps that would be comparable.
I wonder if you’ve really considered what you are proposing, Icarus, and whether the dishonesty of the people in the climate change/global warming community bothers you. Look at the graphs, Icarus, and tell me why temperatures are being adjusted downward in the past. Why would anyone who is honest do that? Other than the obvious, which is deception. And why these same people, who are on the public payroll, are not responsive to questions? Is that the transparent government you want? Not me, brother, show me the data, the code, and the reasons for the temperature adjustments.
Geroge E Smith: “After all they used to monitor the entire Arctic nofth of +60 deg, with just 12 Stations; so having 9 or 11 stations for NZ must surely be gross overkill.”
As I understand it, NIWA produced the eleven-station series in response to claims by the NZ Climate Science Coalition about adjustments to data from seven-station series. NIWA says the eleven-station series is unadjusted, and produced a warming trend in line with the adjusted series.
http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/all/2009/nz-temp-record/temperature-trends-from-raw-data
The coalition’s subsequent complaint was that not all the eleven-station series cover the full period. I can’t say how valid this objection is.
There’s a fair back-story to this issue, and it’s not clear that the NZCSC has a case solid enough to take to court.
NIWA explains its temperature adjustments here: http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/all/2009/nz-temp-record/seven-station-series-temperature-data
I’m glad somebody is finally suing a climate center over massaged data. Good luck to them and may it lead to more lawsuits (hopefully resulting in setting the records straight).
This article http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/05/crisis-in-new-zealand-climatology may put into context the reasoning behind the Court case being pursued by the New Zealand Science Climate Coalition.
I for one am very happy to see this happening. Basically, we must use a leaf blower (or an aeroplane propellor) to blow the mountains of chaff away to reveal the few grains of truth that have so far proved so elusive in the CAGW saga.
(I note the American spell checker considers both ‘aeroplane’ and ‘propellor’ are spelt wrongly. Sigh.)
BTW, happily I am able to access this site via one of the ISP’s that don’t block it here in Fiji. WUWT is considered by some (not the Government) to be a “threat” and is on the “blacklist of the company”.
Anthony, for more info please email.
OK, I’ll elaborate on the “seven station series”, at least for the
South Island, which has four stations, located thus: on the west coast,
on the north coast, on the south-eat coast, and on the east coast
about 15km inland. If anyone tries to tell me that extrapolations
can be made from these sites to cover Southland, Fiordland, Central
and West Otago, The Southern Alps, most of east Canterbury, & etc
then my answer would be unprintable !
DR:
Which of the two data sets are used by GHCN?
neither.
GHCN makes their own adjustments to the raw data ( from some 250 or so stations in NZ) to create it’s own data set. Although it is not correct to call it “raw” data, there is a data set at GHCN called “unadjusted” (does not include any systematic adjustments, only corrections for presumably erroneous data) as well as an adjusted data set which includes adjustments for a variety of reasons (station movement, UHI, equipment changes and such), neither agrees with the NIWA data set. Nor apparently does the HadCRUT data set.
New Zealand has complicated weather. It is better to think of us as a very small continent in weather terms with a fully formed but miniature continental weather pattern.We have an east-west divide for example. The weather map for New Zealand is about as complicated as the weather map for the whole of the US.
Icarus – 2500 years and you still don’t get it.
IT IS THE SUN.
Daedalus
Re George August 16, 2010 at 11:02 am
You are spot on. The temperature in NZ should at the very least, track the SST for that part of the world (assuming that the SST record is valid). NZ is surrounded by the ocean and has a maritime climate. The graph shown is basically the result of the “standard” adjustments made according to the 1981 Salinger PhD thesis. What is even more important is that part of this thesis was adopted and used by CRU of UEA fame (see various papers by Folland et al). Hence the similarity of all the “official” temp records.
At least this case is a step in the right direction. Jim Salinger has long been discredited as an acolyte of Phil Jones at CRU and his manipulation of the NZ climate data is now well known. Now that Helen Clark is gone there is a chance that the new P.M. of New Zealand, the pragmatic John Key, might see the sense in using the abundant coal reserves in N.Z. to fuel its electricity demands instead of building expensive and inefficient windmills that defile the N.Z. landscape. BTW the hypocrisy of exporting it (coal) to India so that they could burn it still astounds me!
I guess the ETS tax is needed here (short term) for a cash strapped country, but that contributes nothing to the economy- in fact just the opposite. A decent power supply strategy does, and freed of the lunatic co2 bogey, we might just get back to a realist approach to energy supply in this country.
So New Zealanders, open your eyes to the lunacy promoted by the so called greens that has taken over and show a bit of common sense.
Doug
Ian H – spot on with the NZ weather assessment – not bad for something that’s only 7km wide at it’s narrowest either!
Doug – the coal goes to China, not India, but still, it’s exported. Quality clean coal too.
Can’t see this proposed court case getting off the ground to be honest, but at least it’s in the media, a bit.
Fantastic !
NZ’s carbon tax is $14 per tonne must be hurting.
Icarus says:
August 16, 2010 at 9:46 am
Henry chance says:
August 16, 2010 at 8:52 am
The carbon tax is worse than borrowed money. It is tax and we don’t get a penny back.
Lobby your government to introduce fee-and-dividend – the more you reduce your carbon emissions, the better off you’ll be.))
Icarus, are you on Earth??? Why would anyone with a brain or sense of good behaviour willingly take part in a scam for personal gain?? Skeptics, NO, Cultists, definitely.
regards
Icarus:
Please explain the relevance to the subject of this thread of the pseudo-scientific video you posted at August 16, 2010 at 2:53 pm.
Richard
Icarus I see your crock and raise you UNISYS.
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html
What is that SST cold spot off south-east NZ?
“”” says:
August 16, 2010 at 2:04 pm
Ian H – spot on with the NZ weather assessment – not bad for something that’s only 7km wide at it’s narrowest either! “””
Well that is being conservative; I know of at least one spot that is maybe one km wide; because you forgot about those tidal estuaries that run toward each other there, south of Auckland.
Actually; to be pedantic; New Zealand is just about zero wide at it’s narrowest; because I have stood at dozens of points on the coast that were near zero wide; well most were at least a foot wide so I could stand on them. Clearly there’s a lot of places in Cook Straight where NZ is zero width.
“”” Ian H says:
August 16, 2010 at 1:31 pm
Why do they have so many stations. Why not just put one thermometer somewhere near Mt Ruapehu, in the middle of the NI, and another one somewhere near Arthur’s Pass, in the SI.
New Zealand has complicated weather. It is better to think of us as a very small continent in weather terms with a fully formed but miniature continental weather pattern.We have an east-west divide for example. The weather map for New Zealand is about as complicated as the weather map for the whole of the US. “””
And that complicates the computation of an average in what way ?
Only if the spatial and temporal sampling is all screwed up is it difficult to recover the true average; and of course in the case of New Zealand, it surely is.
Memorable line from the original press article back early in the year:
“From the “A goat ate my homework” excuse book”
So will NIWA subpoena the goat?