How Dare You Question Us!

New Zealand's Climate Scientists Under the Cosh

It has hit the headlines that NIWA--the taxpayer funded Institute which claims to have data which maintains the records of New Zealand's temperatures for a century and a half or so--has fudged the data. It has now been revealed by the Climate Science Coalition that NIWA "adjusted upwards" the later temperatures, or the earlier results downwards, in key temperature recording sites.

Without these adjustments the temperature in New Zealand for the past one hundred years shows no warming at all!

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.

Well, that allegation stung NIWA into action. The head of NIWA, Dr David Wratt, put out a press release to refute and rebut the scurrilous allegations of the Climate Science Coalition.

NIWA Media Release 26 November 2009

Warming over New Zealand through the past century is unequivocal.

NIWA's analysis of measured temperatures uses internationally accepted techniques, including making adjustments for changes such as movement of measurement sites. For example, in Wellington, early temperature measurements were made near sea level, but in 1928 the measurement site was moved from Thorndon (3 metres above sea level) to Kelburn (125 m above sea level). The Kelburn site is on average 0.8°C cooler than Thorndon, because of the extra height above sea level.

We wonder if the good doctor would specify what "internationally accepted techniques" he is referring to. Accepted by whom? we wonder. By the folk at the CRU in East Anglia that appear to have made a long career of making data up. By Michael Mann of the now-infamous Hockey Graph, who just happened to slip an algorithm into a regression routine which "adjusted out" the Medieval Warming Period of the early 1400's so that he could "prove" that temperatures have risen markedly in the twentieth century over previous centuries. Is this the kind of technique NIWA has employed? Precisely what are these techniques? Time to fess up, doc.

It is not unusual for scientists and researchers to adjust data. For example, economists use seasonally adjusted data all the time. But they always specify that the data has been adjusted and they can always specify precisely where and when the adjustments have been made. Peer review can then evaluate the data series, from the base data, and the adjustments. Time to get all this out, doc.

It seems reasonable to adjust the Wellington temperatures in some way if the measuring station was moved from sea level to 125m up Mt Victoria. But hold on, how does NIWA know that the average temperature up Mt Victoria is 0.8 degrees lower than at sea level? When did it work that out? If it was any time in the last hundred years, their data will likely be shonky and distorted. Why? Because as the Wellington metropolis grew and expanded temperatures closer in to the city would have likely got artificially higher due to the heat emitted by urban areas. It is critical that the adjustments made now be disclosed and peer reviewed.

Such site differences are significant and must be accounted for when analysing long-term changes in temperature. The Climate Science Coalition has not done this.

NIWA climate scientists have previously explained to members of the Coalition why such corrections must be made. NIWA's Chief Climate Scientist, Dr David Wratt, says he's very disappointed that the Coalition continue to ignore such advice and therefore to present misleading analyses.

NIWA scientists are committed to providing robust information to help all New Zealanders make good decisions.

For more information, contact:

Dr David Wratt
Chief Scientist (Climate)
NIWA, Private Bag 14-901
Wellington, New Zealand
Phone: +64 4 386 xxxx
Cellphone + 64 021 xxxxxx

Great. Glad to see Dr Wratt that you are committed to providing robust information to help us make good decisions. Now, prove that your adjustments have been robust. You must participate in this if you are to retain credibility.

We are particularly curious as to whether you have adjusted any temperature stations for urban effects. As noted above this would have had the effect of artificially jacking up later temperatures simply due to their being caught up in urban sprawl. There are seven long term data series originating from Auckland, Dunedin, Wellington, Nelson, Hokitika, Masterton, and Christchurch. All of these locations would have been subject to increasing conurbation over one hundred years that would have effected temperature readings to some degree. Presumably your adjustments would have led to later temperatures, particularly in the major metropolitan areas, being adjusted downwards. We would also like to know the algorithms used to make the adjustments--just to check, you understand.

When questioned a bit more closely by Ian Wishart, Dr Wratt (public servant, committed to providing robust data to the NZ public--yes, that Dr Wratt) got a bit tetchy.

Look, we’re talking about scientific studies here. I’ve told you we’ll put out information about Wellington. Basically it’s not up to us to justify ourselves to a whole lot of people that come out with truly unfounded allegations. We work through the scientific process, we publish stuff through the literature, that’s the way that we deal with this stuff and I can’t have my staff running around in circles over something which is not a justified allegation. The fact that the Climate Science Coalition are making allegations about my staff who have the utmost integrity really really pisses me off.

“That’s all I’ve got to say to you now – [click]

A "whole lot of people" you are so dismissive of and to whom you don't think you need to justify yourselves would be the same NZ public you are committed to providing robust data to, right?

Well, at least it's good to know that you have published stuff through "the literature"--that's a relief. OK, so what articles, what published material--where will be find the base data and the adjustments and rationales etc that have surely been published somewhere, because you are all scientists, right, and scientists get published literature "peer reviewed" by competent, but independent scrutineers, who will have double checked all your data, assumptions, algorithms and regressions. Right? Yeah, right.

Since your staff have the utmost integrity, as you claim, and since you are peerless research scientists, you do not have a thing to worry about. It is all above board and verifiable, and already checked "in the literature", as you say. So, again, what publications, where, when? And who were the peer reviewers, so we can go ask them what they did, just to make sure, now, they did actually check over your adjustments to ensure that they were according to "internationally accepted" standards.

And since you are so kosher and above board, that's why you cut off the phone conversation with Ian Wishart. Right? You were just insulted that anyone would have the temerity to imply anything other than totally above-board activity on your part. This would all be laughable and a storm in a teacup if it were not the case that this data and "evidence" has been used by one Dr Nicholas Smith to justify the New Zealand Government imposing a huge new tax upon all of us. It is now deadly serious, Dr Wratt because we, our children, and our grandchildren all have serious skin in this particular little game.

You had better come clean, and quick. We smell a very big Wratt.