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.
Slightly OT
Well Bugger me!
Meridian Energy has won its High Court appeal to resurrect its bid for its Project Hayes windfarm in Central Otago. (N.Z.)
Meridian Energy wants to put up to 176 wind turbines in the Lammermoor Range, a plan the Environment Court ruled last year would have too great a negative effect on the landscape.
Who needs the Don Quixote stuff anyway, Windmills on the Lammermoor mountains to supply Auckland? 1000 km away? What’s wrong with a coal fired plant near to Auckland?
Doug
Given the similarity with Hansen’s curve, I wonder if NIWA has been helping him. 🙂
Oh how cute, WP noted “You are posting comments too quickly. Slow down.”
jeef says: August 16, 2010 at 2:04 pm
Doug – the coal goes to China, not India, but still, it’s exported. Quality clean coal too.
Not to get too pedantic but jeef note the following from N.Z. Ministry of Economic Development
Premium New Zealand bituminous coals are valued internationally for their low ash and sulphur contents, and other characteristics such as high swelling, fluidity and reactivity, which allow them to be blended with other coals for use in the steel industry. Exports of bituminous coal, produced entirely from the West Coast, reached 2 million tonnes in 2007. New Zealand coal is exported mainly to India and Japan, with smaller quantities going to Chile, South Africa, Brazil, China, USA and Australia. Most exports are of coking coal, with smaller amounts of thermal and specialist coals. The Pike River mine is being developed for coking coal exports, with first production expected in 2008.
Doug
Icarus- I guess I was expecting someone with a pseudonym like that to have a better grasp of classical history (and maybe a sense of humour too).
Still, with a solar cycle that is struggling to match even the lowest of the (much revised) Hathaway predictions, El Nino being replaced by La Nina, and oceans entering cold phases, the arm flapping required to maintain altitude on the AGW flight of fancy makes the use of the pseudonym peculiarly apt.
Someone asked on this thread: How politicised are the New Zealand courts? I would add a secondary question: How fair are they? As always, the answer depends on which bit of the system you look at.
I do not trust the environmental courts, as in the only case in which I participated (a Resource Consent Tribunal – lowest level), one of the Commissioners worked for the same law firm as the applicant’s lawyer, and did not declare this potential conflict of interest. We subesequently appealed the case (quite complicated – had to appeal to both the Environment Court and the High Court in a short time frame) and won out of court. This case left a bad taste. It felt like classic small town justice – I will not bore you with the details.
The High Court judges are relatively unpoliticised and robust, however, the juries can be politicised. Much would depend on where the case was heard. There is a history of the establishment exercising control over juror selection (for example, Maoris were not allowed to be jurors until the 1960s). On the plus side, NZ juries tend to apply decency and common sense (for example, self-defence cases are usually decided vigorously in favour of the defender – unlike in the UK).
The Court of Appeal is more politicised, and also has question marks over the integrity of at least one judge (he was found to have received loans from one of the parties to a case, and did not declare this – investigation under way).
The relatively new Supreme Court is the most politicised (its judges were appointed by the previous Labour administration).
In New Zealand, the ultimate court of appeal used to be the Privy Council in London. This was excellent from a strictly legal point of view, as the decisions were learned and without political bias. However, the public and politicians did not like the decisions that the Privy Council made, so a few years ago, the link was abolished and a new Supreme Court set up. The last case to be appealed to the Privy Council was a murder case. The Privy Council overturned the decision of the NZ Court of Appeal, and found that the Court of Appeal judges had (a) presumed guilt, and (b) treated evidence like a jury. I will let readers decide what this makes of the NZ courts. For my part it makes me ashamed to be a Kiwi. Two of the three judges who heard the appeal now sit on the Supreme Court.
So, to sum up for the NIWA case: If it goes to a proper High Court case, I suggest NIWA are on a sticky wicket. My guess is that NIWA’s lawyers will do their best to keep the case out of court. However, if NIWA lose in the High Court, depending on the nature of the decision, they may have success on appeal.
I would add that I suspect that most High Court judges would be quite sympathetic to the NZCC, because of the way they have gone about their case, with methodical process (they have repeatedly sought information from NIWA, have given NIWA every chance to correct the record, have sought remedy in parliament first, have been unfailingly polite, and are only going to court as a last resort).
They have started to roll out the experts — the Authority routine.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1008/S00032/journals-not-court-is-place-for-scientific-debate.htm
Since the entire scientific community is, unfortunately, suspect – perhaps the court will prove to be the forum to seek the truth – however it may just cloud the issue.
The peer review process is not impartial in implementation – perhaps the size of the peer group is too small?
The US EPA was able to convince the US Supreme Court that CO2 is a pollutant.
The Court may seem to be able to discern the truth while being apolitical – but, history shows otherwise.
Stumpy (Aug 16th at 1.28a.m.)
thanks for all of the links mate, especially the ones to the NIWA glacier papers. It is almost as if somewhere between 2000 and early last year that Chinn had a change of mind. In the 2000 paper he seems to be reporting it as he sees it, and includes the West Coast glaciers to show an overall gain. By the time he (Chinn) and Salinger appeared on a TVNZ evening news item in early March 2009, the pair were saying in amazement, “Look what they have done!” They being us Global Warmers, i.e. the people who cause Global Warming, which obviously doesn’t include them. Of course the thing that ‘they’ had done was to melt the glaciers at an astonishing rate. It surely must have been an astonishing rate too, according to the graph published by NIWA lately.
Furhter to the court case, once again we see the typical ivory tower attitude emanating from the vice chancellor of Otago University in Dunedin, criticising the need for this court action and reminding all of us low brows that it takes specialists to deal with such a specialized topic and if the the NZCC can’t stump up with such a specialist they should get out of the kitchen, so to speak. This only applies to the skeptical side of course. In the Pro-CAGW camp even a failed politician can lead the good fight without any such criticism from the hypocritical academics.
Cheers
Coops
For some inexplicable reason a spokesman for NIWA has told the media that the first step in the action will be “depositions” and that NIWA will argue there is “no case to answer”.
In fact, depositions are confined to criminal jury trials. Perhaps NIWA feels it is being prosecuted for a felony, rather than merely facing a Judicial Review procedure?
The Science Media Centre has gathered a series of statements from various University-based scientists deploring the possibility of scientists being held accountable for complying with the law. The SMC is a Government-sponsored body, which receives taxpayer funding of about $10,000 per week to blog on selected scientific issues, and is administered by the NZ Royal Society.
The Royal Society vice-president, Prof Keith Hunter, also posted to the rabid alarmist blog “Hot Topic” as follows:
“I want to say how gratified I am that on this day of reckoning, the scientific community and the blogosphere have got behind our friends at NIWA and come out with so many statements of support. Make no mistake, this effort by the NZ*C*S*C is an attack on science and and [sic] attack on integrity. I, for one, will not put up with it! I am hugely comforted by the letters and phone calls of support I have received today. Maybe finally the mainstream scientists of this country are waking up to what the NZ*C*S*C is trying to do. Let there be no doubt – this is another attack on integrity [sic] of the science system. We defeated this when the Nazis did it, we defeated it when the Soviets did it, and we will continue to defeat it! And in case you think it [sic], let me remind you – all it takes for scientific untruths to survive is for honest men and women to ignore them”.
So the Royal Society, with jutting jaw, is vowing to defeat the hapless judge – in the same way as it defeated Hitler and Stalin, when they too attempted to call scientists to account.
Professor Hunter needs to get about a bit more and get away from biased blog sites like “Hot Topic.” The way he has written his statement shows that he is very emotional. Far from a measured scientific response the professor is leading with ‘jutting jaw,’ and pounding heart. In my eyes he appears a bigger fool than if he had just let the process carry on. If their situation is so secure, what do they have to worry about?
The N.Z.C.C. has shown great restraint in it’s efforts to reveal where the real integrity lies, in the face of the usual dross from those other people I might add. Far from being anti-science, this is an attempt to drag one branch of science back to first principles. Empirical evidence should not be so casually lost as seems to be the case for NIWA. The New Zealand tax payer has already paid the bill for those goods to be delivered. NIWA, a tax-payer funded organization, had and still has a duty to safeguard that information for future use. NIWA should be brought to task for their reckless behaviour at the very least. Their arrogant dis-regard for their fellow scientists’ efforts in the field goes hand in hand with their arrogance towards lay people in general. “Trust us. We know best!”
Yeah, right!!!
Coops
Until I read these comments I hadn’t realised just how poorly educated some people could be. Maybe they are all written by the same gnome stuck in a cubicle. Good luck fella – enjoy the peanuts.
[REPLY: Perhaps you would care to share some science to the discussion so educations can be equally judged?…. ~ bl57mod]
of pearls and swine…………
Anthony
It’s the Bureau of Meteorology, not the Bureaux of Meteorologists