JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Don’t mention the Peer Review! New Zealand’s NIWA bury the Australian review

The Australians must have said something awful.

In the never ending quest to hide information that the taxpayer paid for, the New Zealand trial of skeptics vs alarmists is rising to new heights.

This is a legal case asking for discovery of documents, which is much harder to dodge than a simple FOI. Yet NIWA are putting in an Olympic effort to hide what the Australian BOM (their allies?) have said about their work.

The bottom line is that the NIWA team peer reviewed Australia’s new ACORN temperature set and endorsed it as being “worlds best practice” which (judging by what we’ve seen) it clearly is. What a damning review. The NIWA practice is so bad, that even the Australian BOM can’t return the favor and pretend to say something good about it.

NIWA (New Zealand’s National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research) is the official New Zealand organization responsible for climate pronouncements. They pronounced that the country had warmed almost 1°C during the twentieth century, but, oh dear, when skeptics looked, the raw data showed a rise of only 0.23°C  in the same time period. And in the full record, the trend was only a  0.06°C per century since 1850. (During the 20th Century that’s only a 400% exaggeration of the observed trend. It’s more if we look at the whole record.)

This is extreme man-made global warming in action in New Zealand.

This is what the thermometers recorded from 1850 – 2000.

This is NZ unadjusted temperatures recorded at the sites used in the official 7SS series.

 

Here another version of those thermometers after adjustments.

This is what man-made global warming looks like.

 

This is what man-made global warming looks like.

Graph: Warwick Hughes.   See the official version on the NIWA site.

The entire NZ record was based on adjustments described in an  annex in James Salinger’s 1981 thesis. When the skeptics asked for information on the adjustments they became very difficult to find. After years of searching, NIWA finally admitted the statistical calculations were entirely lost. [See “New Zealand – Unaffected by Global Warming”]

Faced with such an inexplicable, hard-to-believe record, the logical next step was to get justice. (If only that were easy). Read on for a brief summary of the High Court action and the latest news.

Legal Proceedings were the Way To Go

The NZ Climate Science Coalition asked for a judicial review of New Zealand’s official temperature record, and put together legal claims in July 2010. NIWA’s response then in defending it’s high quality expert analysis was to take the highly unusual step of declaring that its work was not meant to be taken as being important, official, or anything more than just labnotes for the boys basically. They said: “There is no “official” or “formal New Zealand Temperature Record” and “the NZTR is not a record and is not a public record for the purposes of the PRA”.

Never mind that New Zealand has a carbon reduction scheme written into legislation and it was partly based on the non-official, non-existent, NZTR, and that the IPCC relies on this information too.

NIWA couldn’t justify the upward adjustments to the thermometer data, and promised to redo the lot and get their Australian counterparts to “peer review” it.

In February 2010, NIWA’s minister (the Hon. Dr Wayne Mapp) promised they would reconstruct the 7SS (7 Station Series) and added three further undertakings:

  • the NIWA work would be externally peer-reviewed by two scientists from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BoM).
  • the confidence levels of the adjustments would be calculated and disclosed.
  • by June 2011, a scientific paper describing NIWA’s methods would be submitted to an academic journal for publication, and would be subject to independent peer reviews.

So far they are failing in 3 out of 4 of those objectives. NIWA published their new series in Dec 2010, but oddly, they can’t seem to get public endorsement from their Australian counterparts. The NIWA publications mentioned that the BOM had carried out a peer review, but didn’t say what the BOM concluded.

What did the Australian BOM say?

Richard Treadgold had to resort to an OIA request (Official Information Act) in January 2011. He is still waiting. (NIWA’s review taking a hiding, NIWA’s review: what are they hiding? and NIWA — show us the peer review!)

Warwick Hughes used an FOI to ask the Australian BOM for it’s version. What are the Aussies hiding, No, really — what are they hiding, Some questions for the BoM’s FOI executive. Warwick is appealing the OAIC.

Finally, skeptics resorted to using court ordered “discovery” — surely NIWA would be fast to release the rave reviews they got from the Australians, I mean, really, they would issue a press release with the quotes wouldn’t they? Not so. Whatever the BOM said was so toxic that NIWA spent months working to avoid setting those taxpayer funded thoughts free…

“The Coalition’s legal advisers sought Court-supervised discovery and inspection of the BoM peer-review papers. NIWA’s advisers fought this tooth and nail. After about eight months of constant delays, the parties settled the discovery dispute on a basis which left out the BoM papers.”

The latest news on the NZ court case is:  Affidavits are for ever

Treadgold sums up the current state of things:

NIWA and BoM part company

The Coalition then filed an amended claim to include the Review. NIWA’s amended defence repeatedly referred to it, claiming the BoM peer-review “found the results and underlying methodology used for the 7SS were sound.”

Unfortunately, the BoM don’t agree with them. It was time to split.

So at the eleventh hour, buried at paragraph 306 of Dr David Wratt’s revised affidavit, just a few days before the hearing, we found this surprising abandonment of what was previously the highly-valued and much-touted (such as for assuring the Parliament that all was above board) BoM peer review:

306. TJD113 – TJD120 regarding the BoM review of NIWA’s report: I confirm that NIWA and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) carried out a peer review process. NIWA does not seek to rely on it for the purposes of this proceeding. The reason for that is not that the BOM peer review did not support NIWA’s approach to adjustments and homogenisation of the raw data in temperature records (it did) but, rather, that NIWA and BOM regard the process of peer review and the interchanges between them as confidential, privileged, and subject to public interest immunity. It is inimical to the future relations between NIWA and international agencies such as BOM for these exchanges to be subject to scrutiny in litigation: it impedes the free and frank exchange of information which underpins the value of the relationship between such agencies. Accordingly, rather than rely on the BOM’s work, NIWA proposes to rely on evidence prepared specifically for the purpose of this litigation. In the event that the plaintiff seeks further discovery (which is suggested in Mr Dunleavy’s affidavit) that application will be resisted on the grounds stated above together with the fact that this matter has already been canvassed and settled during the interlocutory rounds of this case when limited orders for further discovery were made by consent. Those orders excluded the BOM material and, so as to put the matter beyond doubt, NIWA does not rely on the BOM review in any event for the purposes of these proceedings.

This boils down to a confession to the Court that NIWA has no evidence to show that the BoM approves of NIWA’s review. NIWA does not even bother to present the ineffectual BoM covering letter at page 15 of the Review, for it expresses no approval of the report – though NIWA claims it does.

 

When I asked him what it all means, and when it would be decided, Richard replied:

“A judicial review is a request for the judge to review something. Having agreed to a review, he can order changes. Anything, really, that he considers just. It’s wide open, although we don’t know when the decision will be delivered. We’ve asked him to look at the manner of NIWA’s production of the NZTR and the 11SS and have pointed out numerous flaws we found in them.

Specifically, we’ve asked for:

  • A declaration that the Adjustments used in the seven station series temperature record were not lawfully made (actual wording to reflect the Court’s findings).
  • A declaration that the Eleven station temperature series was not lawfully compiled (actual wording to reflect the Court’s findings).
  • A declaration that the NZT7 series was compiled unlawfully (actual wording to reflect the Court’s findings).
  • Orders quashing NIWA’s decisions to do those things.
  • Anything else that may be just.
  • Costs.

There might be other things, too. I didn’t attend the whole hearing, haven’t seen the transcript, and haven’t had a complete debrief with Barry Brill. I do know the lawyers were changing things right up to and even during the hearing.”

Tony Cox wondered about the implications and the possibility of further legal action:

Back in October 2010, Tony Cox was asked what it would mean and he replied off the cuff:

The Defence, parts 7 and 8 are novel; the SOC is basically asserting either nonfeasance [not doing something which had to be done] or malfeasance [doing something wrong which had to be done]; the Defence is saying that nothing had to be done and wasn’t done.

This is extraordinarily stupid. Anyone who has paid, been levied, fined or taxed on the basis of this [non-existent] record because a government, statutory body or private firm which charged the fee did so on the basis of this [non-existent] record could now sue for the recovery of the fee[s] they have paid. Class actions anyone?

My thoughts back then remain the same:

In a nutshell, it appears that what it means is what we make of it.

I’m not sure if there is any legal agency with any power to enforce some action at this point (do enlighten me), but it sure could be a gift — though possibly only if the people of New Zealand (and their friends) decide to run with NIWA’s admissions and pursue this to the end.

All the documents, reports, contracts and parliamentary statements that relied on the New Zealand Temperature Record, are surely now begging to be challenged. All the people that mistakenly believed that the NZTR was more than just an unverified, unaudited, internal document, now need to reconsider where they stand.

Background

WUWT has a story about Jim Salinger and others and the way they twisted peer review and targeted Chris De Freitas

My posts on this topic:

New Zealand – Where did that warming go?

Storm trends in Australia and New Zealand? No evidence that CO2 increases extreme weather

 * 19th Century should have been 20th Century in para 5. Fixed. Thanks to Treadgold.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.5/10 (106 votes cast)
Don't mention the Peer Review! New Zealand's NIWA bury the Australian review, 8.5 out of 10 based on 106 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/c5cqk9t

80 comments to Don’t mention the Peer Review! New Zealand’s NIWA bury the Australian review

  • #
    Andyj

    “After years of searching, NIWA finally admitted the statistical calculations were entirely lost.”
    Well, if nobody can remember even the methodology and the reasoning behind the need to make adjustments then we can only suggest fraud. You are absolutely correct. If any data cannot be verified on its methodology then it is void. Anyone using void data will be made to look like a fool when challenged.

    Further down.. What’s this I see. A proverbial rat not holding on to a sinking ship? Credibility for AGW these days is like holding on for dear life while someone is at their fingers with an axe, one at a time. Their only soft target are school children.

    Ohhh and you better watch what you report young lady. Next we’ll be hearing news of you getting hacked…. We know the people who like to soil their knickers don’t like them being held high and shown to the World.

    00

  • #
    Jake

    We don’t know if the 71 to 2000 period is “normal” but those are the values used to assess the changes of the past against.
    What we do know is that if we look at actual temp readings we see that there is virtually no change from 1850 to 1980 odd other then about 30 year periods of ups and downs in actual readings.
    It would therefore stand to reason that IF CO2 is the main driver of temp change and IF the warming is logarithmic and the starting point of CO2 in 1850 was 280 ppm most of the CO2 warming should have occurred before 1980.
    All this shows is that CO2 does do nothing to temp change at the moment.

    00

  • #
    The Black Adder

    No wonder New Zealand have won more Gold Medals than Oz at the Olympics….

    …It`s more warmer down there, than I thought :)

    00

    • #
      Grant (NZ)

      Spelling is important. Here’s an example…

      New Zealand just won Gold.
      Australia just one gold.

      :-)

      Sorry for the O/T

      00

      • #
        Bob Malloy

        Great Get Grant. Just one thing 24 hours too late.

        New Zealand just won Gold.
        Australia just one two gold.

        and a third already assured as long as the crew in the 49ers finish.

        00

        • #
          Ross

          Bob
          We Kiwis had to enjoy it while it lasted !!! We all knew it was only a matter of time before you guys passed us.
          ( But on the medals / population basis we are still miles ahead in no. 1 place. Isn’t playing with stats a wonderful thing !! )

          00

          • #

            Ross, you say here with reference to New Zealand, and I know it’s not on topic, but I just had to say something here, and this is mentioned with humour:

            ( But on the medals / population basis we are still miles ahead in no. 1 place. Isn’t playing with stats a wonderful thing !! )

            As of today, 07Aug2012

            Australia – 22 Million – Gold 2 – 1 Gold per 11 Million

            USA 1 Gold per 11 million

            China 1 Gold per 43 million

            Great Britain – 1 Gold per 3.4 million

            New Zealand – 1 Gold per 1.5 Million

            There’s another reason why I detest per capita arguments so much.

            Tony.

            00

            • #
              Andrew McRae

              Now if you had as your purpose the manufacture of a large quantity of Golden Fleeces… I reckon Aussie would be back in the game. :)

              Suddenly, China.

              00

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            I don’t see your problem Tony.

            00

          • #
            Bob Malloy

            Ross:

            Over here the attitude of our media towards our athletes is deplorable,

            What went wrong, you didn’t win – thats not what we wanted. Channel 9 I’m discussted!! So I thought someone needed to speek up for them.

            ABC radio is little better.

            BTW, congrats to NZ for your time in the (sporting) sun, God knows you get little of the real thing.

            00

          • #
  • #
    Manfred

    Would it be reasonable to suggest that the shape (long and thin) and orientation (long axis approximately perpendicular to dominant weather flow) of the Shaky Isles (SI) means that the local weather and climate are dominated by west to east air flow across an unusually narrow (isthmus like) and isolated land area. The implication is that the more stable Ocean temperature is the dominant weather & climate influence in the SI, and what miniscule amount of terrestrial warming (global mean temp), observed in the Northern Hemisphere continental land mass, is simply obscured by local conditions?

    However, the situation is complicated as the recent research of Anthony Watts WUWT appears to suggest, namely that the adjustment bureau of the Ministry of We Know Best has been either extraordinarily busy fiddling the data or monstrously incompetent (or both) and the true small change in temperature is in fact smaller than hitherto thought – which makes masking in the long thin SI more plausible?

    Anyway, its all a bit retrospective now isn’t it? The UK Met Office published the observation that there has been no change to temperature for the last 15 years (despite the inconvenient rise in CO2). Climate change – as always. But NO CAGW.

    00

  • #
  • #
    Jaymez

    NIWA ‘adjusted and homogenised’ the NZ raw temperature data from a statistically insignificant 0.06C per century warming to an alarming 0.92C per century warming and scared the New Zealand politicians and the people into taking self damaging economic action in the belief that the evidence of global warming couldn’t be clearer.

    Then a group of concerned citizens form a coalition of skeptics and take NIWA to court after NIWA refuse to show how the raw data was adjusted.

    After years of promising the New Zealand Court that they had evidence to support the adjustments they had made to the raw temperature data, and after telling the court Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology had peer reviewed their process, (which was not denied by BOM), delay after delay, excuse after excuse, NIWA incredibly have now refused to provide the evidence to the court because they say it is too sensitive for the courts eyes!

    Any excuse that the adjustment details had been lost is rubbish because if it had been done scientifically, it would be able to be replicated.

    Surely this will once and for all prove that the ‘warming’ which the New Zealand’ Government used to scare its citizens into agreeing to a carbon tax and other poor economic measure was based on fraudulently created data.

    A similar thing appears to have happened in Australia with BOM, and perhaps around the world. How can any newly elected Government resist the opportunity to clear the decks and call a Royal Commission or similar parliamentary judicial enquiry to tear down all the lies built up by this global warming fraud and the funding and taxes which went with it?

    The sooner the better!

    00

    • #
      Ally E.

      You are SOOOO RIGHT! This HAS to be looked into properly and be exposed for the scam it is or this nonsense is just going to keep on repeating. The ordinary citizen has to be shown the truth and there must be repercussions to those criminals who promote the fraud – up to an including any Prime Minister or President caught buying the “scientific” findings they want in order to give them more control over the people.

      00

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        There is a slim chance the new Liberal government will do this. But I believe there will still need to be a strong push from the people to make it happen even then.

        And if a commission is ever taken, and people found wanting, consequences must ensue; not the usual retire and forget method. Incompetence must have consequenses (though we the people are already paying those consequences…)

        00

        • #
          memoryvault

          There is a slim chance the new Liberal government will do this.

          There is also a slim chance that friendly space aliens will soon make contact and share with us the technical secrets of faster-than-light intergalactic travel.

          If I was going to bet on it I know which one I’d back as most likely to happen.

          00

    • #
      tchannon

      Why deny?

      I suspect the reason is very simple.

      Looks like Wikipedia is a reasonable international reference in this case

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_precedence

      And they know it. And BOM know it. They are in a double bind.

      00

    • #
      Jon

      There is only one way for the people. Rid the politicians that create policy based science and Elect politicians that support science based policy only.

      Get rid of the liers.

      00

  • #
    Alexander K

    Manfred, your excellent post reminds of the reason given years ago by the then guardians of NZ’s airwaves, the Post and Telegraph Department, when various entrepreneurs attempted to licence cordless telephones;
    “New Zealand is a long and narrow land mass and cordless telephones are not suitable for it.”
    Which is the best piece of non-physics I have ever read!

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Jo,

    “….as being “worlds best practice” which (judging by what we’ve seen) it clearly is…..” .
    Do you mean “..clearly is not ..”

    Jim Sallinger , on whose work ( PhD thesis) this all started from, studied and worked at the UEA in the UKin the 1980′s.
    How many of the BOM guys can also be linked to the UEA ??

    —————————————————————-
    Ross, unfortunately Jo does mean ‘is’. World’s best practice seems to be to adjust and homogenise to artificially create global warming which cannot then be substantiated with scientific facts. – Mod

    00

  • #
    lawrie

    What this confirms is the false premise on which was based much expenditure of not only tax payers funds but also the funds of individuals. Because of this fraudulent science family farms have been rendered unviable through lock-ups, family homes have lost value through rising sea levels and power bills have risen through feed in tarriffs and RECs. These fraudulent scientists have also jeopardised our ability to grow crops in a cooling world by concentrating entirely on a warming one. States have built multi-billion dollar desal plants based on the advice of AGW advocates and delayed building more efficient dams because the rains will not come again. It is no wonder that the IPCC is claiming immunity from prosecution. I wonder when the discredited chief scientist and the frauds at CSIRO and BOM will seek similar immunity. There is a lot of scope for class action but who would pay? the taxpayer of course. Prison would be a better solution and the revokation of the PhDs of the so called “climate scientists”. Let’s not forget the role of the climate commissioners either. Three greater rogues have never been seen in the halls of science. They sold their souls for fifteen minutes of well paid fame.

    00

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Brilliant summary Lawrie.

      KK

      00

    • #
      Jaymez

      lawrie I haven’t read anywhere that the IPCC is seeking immunity from prosecution, I’d be interested in a reference if you can give us one. It doesn’t surprise me. Though I suspect as a UN body it probably already has some sort of international immunity anyway.

      00

      • #

        The organization responsible for managing a global cap-and-trade system worth billions of dollars for carbon emissions projects around the world is trying to get sweeping legal immunities for its actions, even as it plans to expand its activities dramatically in the wake of the United Nations’ Rio + 20 summit on sustainable development, which starts June 20.

        and

        Internal UNFCCC documents, examined by Fox News, show that among other things, top officials hope to use those immunities to avoid challenges in the future based on such things as:

        –possible conflicts of interest in their duties,

        –breaches of confidentiality in their work,

        –violations of the due process rights of those affected by UNFCCC actions,

        –making decisions or actions that are beyond the legal mandate of the organization or its subsidiaries.

        Read more

        00

      • #

        Though I suspect as a UN body it probably already has some sort of international immunity anyway.

        Actually no, it is not an official UN body (I suspect because the wags at the UN wanted to protect themselves in case the shit hit the fan regards this global fraud).

        00

    • #
      KeithH

      Lawrie says; “I wonder when the discredited chief scientist and the frauds at CSIRO and BOM will seek similar immunity.”
      Unfortunately Lawrie, they’ve already covered their backsides in Disclaimers on their sites.

      “If you use or download Content from this site, you acknowledge that such Content:
      •may contain statements based on scientific research and comprises data collected by CSIRO and third parties;
      •is not professional, scientific, medical, technical or expert advice and is subject to the usual uncertainties of advanced scientific and technical research;
      should not be relied upon as the basis for doing or failing to do something.
      References or links to third party data are provided for information and convenience only and do not mean that CSIRO endorses or approves that data.

      Any use of the Content must acknowledge the source of the Information as “CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (Cape Grim Baseline Air Pollution Station)” and include a statement that CSIRO and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology give no warranty regarding the accuracy, completeness, currency or suitability for any particular purpose and accept no liability in respect of data.”

      In spite of the clear unequivocal warnings, this is the advice Gillard, Swan, Combet, Browne, Milne & co., “relied on” to introduce their destructive tax on carbon dioxide and further force costs up on everything following rises already due to their MRET requirements on energy suppliers!

      http://www.csiro.au/greenhouse-gases/

      00

  • #
    Manfred

    Those charged with the Ministerial sacred duty of safeguarding the interests of the nation have betrayed the nation at every turn, aided and abetted by a delinquent Fourth Estate and an out of control, ideology driven bureaucracy. The imposition of the Kyoto Protocol in the Shaky Isles (under a socialist Ms Clark, the now third most powerful individual at the UN), and continuation of engagement by the centre right Minister of Climate Change (Dr Smith), who despite recurrent and pleading entreaties to look at the science (he has a PhD in engineering) and the debate, stood firm in his exercise of what he termed the “precautionary principle.” This political mantra has now changed to one of “international obligation” and “we have to do and be seen to do, our bit,” echoed robotically by the Fourth Estate.

    At the crux of this subjugation lies the inexorable and pernicious creeping UN Agenda 21. It would be a good idea to get on with a suggested ‘class action’ – before that time runs out and we find ourselves at the barricades!

    00

  • #
    Twodogs

    The more they win, the more they lose. Once you lose your credibility, its all over. Better still, anyone who excuses their dishonesty puts their hand up as someone prepared to lie to further their cause. This just makes it easier to spot the liars and ideologues.

    00

  • #
    sillyfilly

    So how would dear ol’ Warwick (the same bloke who can’t even compare BOM temperature graphs correctly) account for the change in siting or adjustments made for homongenising series: of course he doesn’t therefore his claims are bogus!

    Those who choose to see the detail could go here!

    00

    • #
      cohenite

      That’s garbage silly; as the court proceedings have established, NIWA did not follow its own adjustement criteria listed at your link, or anywhere, including from the Rhoades and Salinger 1993 paper.

      Do keep up dear or we’ll have to put you out to pasture.

      00

      • #
        sillyfilly

        Not out to pasture yet there ol’ mineral, but then we have this from Jo’s links:

        From the BOM:
        “The evidence provided by NIWA supports the homogeneity corrections that have
        been applied to the temperature record to create the ‘seven station’ series. The scientific papers clearly report on major issues which have been identified in the metadata and past scientific literature. It is also clear that a number of significant adjustments (as identified by NIWA in the reports) are clearly required for the raw/composite station series owing to inhomogeneities which would otherwise artificially bias results”

        So who’s out of date?

        00

        • #
          cohenite

          Neigh filly; that bit of propaganda from BOM is neither here nor there; we all know raw data will need some adjustment; and if the BOM public statement, letter really, supports the NIWA adjustments, which have produced DIFFERENT trends from adjustments pursuant to the Rhoades and Salinger criteria, then why won’t NIWA release the details of the full BOM review of NIWA’s criteria?

          C’mon you old mare, answer that.

          00

          • #
            Warren

            Shh,filly…don’t tell ol’ space debris about the NIWA eleven station series.

            00

          • #
            cohenite

            Ok, Warren, how has the 11 series corrected the problems in the 7 series?

            00

          • #
            Warren

            You don’t know? Hmmm…

            [That is not an answer Warren. If your purpose is to just bait and upset people I'll throw you out on your ear. Now answer the question or go find yourself another blog to play childish games on. Mod oggi]

            00

        • #
          AUSTRALIS

          The BOM letter is pointedly confined:

          ” the evidence PROVIDED BY NIWA supports .. the corrections.”

          The implication is that all OTHER evidence fails to do so.

          00

        • #
          Warren

          Cohenite probably knows this by now,but here we go… the eleven stations series uses raw data from stations that have not moved significantly over a 77 year period,1931 to 2008. There are a few minor discontinuities,but no infilling of data has been carried out,in order to make the process as transparent and non-contentious as possible…out of respect for your objections. The stations include the isolated Campbell and Raoul Islands. There is no overlap with any ’7 station’ sites. Trend is a 1C rise over the period.

          00

          • #
            Shevva

            the eleven stations series uses raw data from stations that have not moved significantly over a 77 year period,1931 to 2008.

            How about build up, you know a large car park built around it?

            00

          • #
            cohenite

            Really Warren; and how do you know all this about the 11 series and their rectified status as accurate purveyors of temperature trend since NIWA has NOT released any information about its adjustment procedures? What do you think the NZ law case was about, the top of your head; it was about the secrecy of NIWA’s adjustment methodology! How has the methodology improved with the 11 series? Do you have the code and adjustment methodology for the 11 series?

            Anyway, you are wrong about the reliability of the 11 series trend for more obvious reasons than NIWA’s hocus pocus approach to adjusting; see here.

            00

          • #
            Warren

            The data and code are available from NIWA. Remember,this series features unadjusted data.

            If thermometers offend,explore mass balance of New Zealand glaciers.

            00

          • #
            cohenite

            The data and code are available from NIWA

            Link please.

            00

          • #
            cohenite

            Warren, where are you? I want to hear more about this 11 series unadjusted temperature network; all I’ve got to go on is that it started in 1931 at the time of very cold period with warming flowing from that start position.

            00

    • #
      Jaymez

      I love this from your link Sillyfilly:

      “NIWA has previously analysed temperature trends from data at seven locations which are geographically representative of the country: Auckland, Wellington, Masterton, Nelson, Hokitika, Lincoln (near Christchurch) and Dunedin (see http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/nz-temp-record/review/changes/sevenstations-series). The calculation of climate trends ideally requires very long records of temperature measured with comparable instruments at the same site unaffected by changes in the local environment. Since such undisturbed and very long records do not exist in New Zealand, it is necessary to combine records from different nearby sites, and adjust for the effect of any changes unrelated to the broad-scale climate,such as site moves or instrument changes.
      In February 2010, NIWA documented the adjustments in use at that time (see web link above).
      (my emphasis.

      When you go to that web link you get:

      404 – Page Not Found
      Sorry, we can’t find the page you’re looking for.

      This might be because:
      The webpage is temporarily unavailable.
      The content you are looking for has been moved or taken offline.

      I guess that’s the response the New Zealand court got too when they went looking. NIWA have still refused to fill in the blanks.

      Part of the issue is Salinger claims to have made the adjustments based on the methodology described in his PhD thesis but NIWA can’t produce the goods to show that has been the case. And NIWA has not allowed an independent third party audit of station data, not even by a friendly party such as BOM. All they did was describe to BOM the system they say they used and BOM wrote a nice letter saying that based on what you told us, you are using world’s best practice.

      Sillyfilly you need to let go of your blind faith, you will keep being disappointed, they haven’t earned and don’t deserve your trust.

      00

  • #
    Robert of Ottawa

    The effing lieing bastards are really bastards who are effing lieing. There is no doubt. When are the effing lieing bastards going to effing stop lieing like bastards?

    PS I am a bastard and this post in no way is meant to be derogatory to similar bastards .. only the effing lieing ones.

    ——————————————————————–
    Fortunately the word bastard is fairly tame in the Australian vernacular, (on a par with scoundrel) otherwise the comment would have to be snipped on the basis that no evidence was provided to make that specific accusation. – Mod

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    This stands out in my view:

    It is inimical to the future relations between NIWA and international agencies such as BOM for these exchanges to be subject to scrutiny in litigation: it impedes the free and frank exchange of information which underpins the value of the relationship between such agencies.

    Of course they are covering up something. FOI requests should be filed with BOM to force the uncovering. Whatever it is must stink pretty bad for these statists to want to flush their credibility down the hole as they have done

    Free and frank exchange my ass! It’s very much doublespeak to insist that a coverup promotes a free and frank exchange. Heads should roll for this sentence alone. If I were the taxpayer I’d demand the “free and frank” disclosure immediately.

    00

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      My interpretation was slightly different.

      Unrestrained exposure to a public interested in truth impedes the free and frank exchange of false information which underpins the value of the agencies.

      00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    a confession to the Court that NIWA has no evidence to show that the BoM approves of NIWA’s review

    Oh no, the goat ate my homework excuse again. They must really get those goats out of NIWA, they do like to eat climate stuff ‘way too much.

    00

  • #
    Sonny

    the bottom line is that man made global warming is real.
    Simply adjust temperatures from 1850 to 1975 downward such that you have a steady increase from 1900 to the present. This process is also known as re-writing history and has been used since time immemorial for economic political and ideological warfare.

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    Im with you MarkD,

    the bit before your quote says this

    The reason for that is not that the BOM peer review did not support NIWA’s approach to adjustments and homogenisation of the raw data in temperature records (it did) but, rather, that NIWA and BOM regard the process of peer review and the interchanges between them as confidential, privileged, and subject to public interest immunity.

    I have heard some pretty heavy bull shit in my tme but this takes the cakes, we are not talking about clanestine nuclear weapons laboratories buried in the desert, we are not talking about crucial evidence in a crime, we are talking about the bloody temperature!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    There is nothing that could be considered as a states secret in any of this, as many have said there can be only one reason why we have all this subterfuge.

    00

  • #
    Manfred

    I think what they are trying to allude to here is a collegial academic ‘peer review process’ that embodies anonymity, which is fair enough, save the fact that more contemporary peer review processes permit full transparency and visibility of referee comments, and show a track record to publication for all to see.

    As has been rightly pointed out – this is ‘just’ the temperature record owned by the tax payer. That it has become a cornerstone of corrupt policy and science is the reason why it bats so far above its usual weight. These bureaucrats (not scientists) are knowledgeable, colluding and nervous. They surely don’t want to be ‘found out’.

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    The satellite record since 1979 doesn’t show any warming in the SH extratropics or tropics:-

    http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_NotGlobal_files/image010.jpg

    http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_NotGlobal_files/image011.jpg

    As far as I’m aware, the SH extratropics would include NZ and AU so the regional records are of little consequence.

    Does seem to be some “bad” CO2 in the NH extratropics though.

    00

    • #
      shortie from Greenbank

      What is interesting is that both NH and SH report a temperature drop due to (what is believed to be the driver of that temp drop) the eruption of Mt Pinatubo(sp?) in about 1993 is when that shows up in the temperature record.

      The “bad” CO2 may also be the evidences that “global dimming” is probably a crock and that actual pollution doesn’t dim but perhaps “warms”.

      00

  • #

    [...] Jo Nova Share this:PrintEmailMoreStumbleUponTwitterFacebookDiggRedditLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. This entry was posted in Climate Change and tagged climate fraud, climate research. Bookmark the permalink. ← Andrew Bolt: Billions of your dollars, shipped to foreign green schemes [...]

    00

  • #
    Robbo

    As an experimental physical scientist, I always find it very suspicious when supposedly important but entirely uncorrelated or random effects combine exactly to produce a null result (eg a constant value within statistical error). Saying that those opposite effects (perhaps predicted by your model) are significant but by coincidence exactly cancel each other is sometimes the only way to save your pet scenario, but is usually wrong. And it gets even worse when you need to actually fine-tune a free parameter in order for those effects to cancel each other out…that’s borderline cheating. In almost all of those cases I’ve encountered, the true explanation is that those purported effects were all only second-order corrections to the data.

    Applied to climate measurements: when I read claims that a true, strong natural warming trend combined with station location errors, thermometer reading errors, and whatever else, to give an observed, apparent constant time series [which is the other way of looking at the NZ record here], my strong reaction is that the data themselves were approximately constant, and the various corrections only second-order. Otherwise it’s too much of a coincidence. Similarly, when climate modellers try to convince me that true, strong warming from CO2 combined with true, strong cooling from (uncorrelated) aerosols combine and offset each other, by chance, to give the observed constant temperature trend over the last 15 years, my feeling based on my physical experience is that the data are themselves flat and both additional effects (CO2 and aerosols) only second-order effects.

    00

  • #
    inedible hyperbowl

    My proposal is that we introduce a law called the “science raw data integrity act”.
    This act would make it necessary to make publicly available all research raw data where the research is funded (directly or indirectly) by government. Defence is the only exception, we pay for it, therefore it’s ours. No FOI.
    Falsifying data or adjusting raw data (same thing) would attract a ferocious penalty (amputation at the neck, hanging, 500 lashes, quartering – I am not sure about the penalty).
    Scientists who fiddle data are like surgeons who do not wash their hands.

    00

    • #
      Duster

      Data integrity is – ah – integral to real science. The problem with studies like climate is that there is no means of duplicating a time series. There’s no potential for experimental replication of historical temperature series. The past is – well – past. Climatology, to achieve actual status as a science has to be able to 1) achieve an understanding of the processes of climate that permit reasonable forecast of trends over atleast decadal spans, and 2) using that same theory has to be able to “retrodict” the past climate reasonably at least over over the same time spans. I would push for millennia scales but there’s too much secular noise for that to be likely. Climate “science” can’t do either, and there’s a betting public that says it never will.

      00

  • #
    Beth cooper

    AGW Attribution by Adjustment.

    Say, an NIWA triple A rating, awarded by …
    themselves.

    00

  • #
    Sonny

    It is always interesing to see which posts are not contested by our residnent alarmist commentors…

    00

  • #

    Oh no! How’s NZ going to pay for these emissions?
    Will they claim that it’s steam to escape paying their carbon dues?

    00

  • #
    Andyj

    The reason for that is not that the BOM peer review did not support NIWA’s approach to adjustments and homogenisation of the raw data in temperature records (it did) but, rather, that NIWA and BOM regard the process of peer review and the interchanges between them as confidential, privileged, and subject to public interest immunity.

    What happened to everyone being equal under the law?
    If this lie is immune to the law then the people should be immune to the lie.

    What they regard as law is not what the courts may think when proof of their stance must be shown as evidence. Such a judgement is prejudicial. I suggest if this goes to court, let the judge know of this, it’s tantamount to contempt.

    00

  • #
    Andyj

    As goes NZ’s Volcano. The carbonazis WILL use it to explain away global cooling. The particulates in the sky causing any cooling (does it?) will not get their money back. This tax is one-way traffic.

    00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Well Andy, given that we get some volcanic particulate somewhere most days of the year, it would be hard to say that Mount Tongariro springing a leak, was very significant. White Island is in constant eruption, and acts as a safety valve for the rest of the chain. When that stops erupting is when I might visit my cuzzies in Auzzie.

      This one made the news because the wind was in the wrong direction and they had to divert traffic, and a journalist was inconvenienced.

      00

    • #
      ExWarmist

      Hi Andyj,

      Or more likely blame the eruption on CO2, using this chain of non-reason. CO2 increase -> Melting Ice in Greenland -> Continental rebound -> Volcanic Eruption.

      Q.E.D?

      00

  • #
    TWS

    I writing from America so I am not aware of what happens in the South. Has the peer review process changed as a result of the climate scams? Has general population trust dropped vis-a-vis science in general.

    Because of the politicization of science in general especially soft sciences, people simply no longer believe anything that contradicts their world view.

    Do yo see a way out of this trap?

    TWS

    00

    • #
      Jaymez

      Good question TWS. In short my answer would be: A little bit.Yes. Dont Know. Maybe.

      Peer review process: I think any scientist would have been horrified to see how the Climategate emails revealed how Climate Science had corrupted the peer review process by bullying journal editors, putting bans on journals, and putting the word out to mates to refuse to review papers from non-acquiescing scientists. It does make us wonder how much of that goes on in other areas of science. Though anyone who knows much about climate science would know that much that passes for ‘science’ is actually ‘post normal’ or ‘post modern’ science which hasn’t really gone through the rigours of the scientific method as we used to know it. The fact that an observation of four dead polar bears and what amounted to virtually a passing, totally unsubstantiated comment that their deaths were linked to receding Arctic ice and that more such deaths could be expected due to climate change could pass the peer review system and then get cited so many times in the literature is a classic example of the total corruption.

      Another example of course is the selective use of peer reviewed literature in the IPCC reports and the deliberate rejection of any peer review papers which did not support the IPCC CAGW theme, yet the preparedness to use grey material in what Governments around the world referred to as the ‘Gold Standard’ of climate science.

      The difficulty in getting papers peer reviewed and published which do not support the CAGW theme has lead to a number of scientists resorting to publishing research and papers through non peer reviewed journals and directly through the internet. This helps get their message directly to the public. I know the CAGW scientists sneer at this, but I believe we will see more of this. Atmospheric Physicist Roy Spencer comes to mind as does Richard Lindzen but there are plenty more particularly regarding sea levels and temperatures, corals, severe weather events, and so on which I have read. So there is a small change to the peer review process, but I think there will need to be more!

      Has the general population trust dropped of science in general? Unfortunately I think the answer is yes. And that is a real pity and that is why scientists from other field should be really pissed off with Climate Science. Now the public will have an example to point to whenever anyone says but scientists agree about XYZ. So we will get crazy people thinking it is a bad idea to inoculate against whooping cough, measles, chicken pox and polio, or that it is a bad idea to put chlorine in the water.

      Climate Scientists have damaged the reputation of all science but they didn’t do it alone. It didn’t help that just about ever Academy of Science around the World came out with motherhood statements about the certainty of dangerous man made climate change without the empirical evidence old school scientists would have insisted on seeing first, and without excluding any of the multitude of other possible causes of unexceptional global warming we have experienced in recent decades.

      People tending to believe their world view? The key feed back I get with regards to this from people when I talk to them about climate change is generally how little they know about the scientific details anyway. They have no way of working out what the truth is. If Al Gore and the world’s politicians tell them the world’s scientists bar a few cranks agree the world is warming due to human greenhouse gas emissions they believe it. They don’t know how much of the atmosphere is made up of CO2. In fact most don’t even know it’s mainly nitrogen, the average person thinks it’s mainly oxygen. So the scientific arguments are well beyond their knowledge or their care factor.

      But they do pick up on some things. Firstly, trusted, knowledgeable friends who tell them the science isn’t settled. Maybe they quote them some facts. Then there are bits and pieces in the news, Climategate, Glaciergate etc. And they are aware that countries such as India, China, Russia and so on have no intention of reducing greenhouse gases. Oh, and the drought we were told was here to stay ends, and the dams which would never fill actually over flow, and the snow our children would never know closes airports etc etc. They say hang on – a little whole ago we were being told the science was settled, global warming was happening faster than expected and this was the greatest moral challenge of all time, yet nothing is happening according to the predictions and the various governments of the countries around the world aren’t acting like the world is going to end any time soon.

      The average person is bound to get a little sceptical – whether that means they just disregard everything and stick with their own world view I’m not sure.

      A way out? Seriously the only way out of this trap is to go back to education basics. Stop all these soft degrees at university. When I was at university to do a science degree you had to have done at least Physics or Chemistry at high school level. That’s not needed any more. There are plenty of Environmental Science degrees which are barely anything more than advocacy courses. People are calling themselves scientists who don’t understand the scientific method. Mathematics is failing our scientists too. How else do you explain the basic statistical errors being made by climate scientists in adjusting raw temperature data, or proxy date. How could so many leading climate scientists come up with proxy temperature graphs which make the Medieval Warm Period disappear and not question it at thesis level, at peer review level, at IPCC report level, at all?

      We have to teach students a better quality maths, science and English and flush our universities of activist staff who have no interest in learning, research and teaching. That would be a start!

      00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Jaymez,

    If that was a short answer, please do not do long :-)

    The rot seems to be wider than just climate change. Most of the “soft” sciences – sociology, for example – are now relying more on consensus than empirical research. Epidemiology was always suspect, of course, but the affliction appears to be spreading.

    It is obviously the way young minds are being moulded – no need to question, no need for research, the experts will give you the answers you need to know.

    00

  • #

    Warwick Hughes’ graphic of adjusted temps most clearly shows the temperature plateau increase in the early 1970s roughly coinciding with New Zealand’s 1971 temperature metrication, before which 25.5% were recorded as a rounded .0 Fahrenheit degree … http://www.waclimate.net/round/new-zealand-temperatures.html

    Maybe rounded up, maybe down, but there’s a similar coincidence in Australia where 30.1% of ACORN raw temps were rounded in the Fahrenheit era, thermometers changed to Celsius in 1972 and the temperature shift began … http://www.waclimate.net/round/australia-acorn.html

    00

  • #

    [...] the NIWA methods and after asking for an Australian BOM review, NIWA went to extraordinary lengths to hide that review. Did they hide that review, because it would have lent support to the very evidence the so-called [...]

    00