Attacking NIWA

Written By: - Date published: 11:57 am, August 16th, 2010 - 98 comments
Categories: act, climate change, law, science - Tags: ,

What do you do when you find science inconvenient to your ideology? Why, you strike it down! Burn the heretics! Or in the modern equivalent, you set the lawyers on them, and try and have the facts declared illegal.

What?

Yes really – it’s happening right now in NZ:

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).

I am not a lawyer – but is there any capacity in the law to do this? To rule scientific data “invalid”? And who is mad enough to try and use the law to muzzle science anyway?

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.

Ahh well, that explains it. The “Climate Science Coalition” has to be the most inappropriately named entity in the history of stupidity. These people have nothing to do with science. They make Luddites look like rocket scientists. And no surprise to find their intellectual peers ACT in bed with them. How richly they deserve each other.

Those with an interest in the subject will recall that this is round two of an ongoing fight. The Climate Anti-Science Coalition tried to fight this battle in the court of public opinion and they lost (details here, and here and here). So now they’re having a go in the court of law, where they will lose again.

[UPDATE: More commentary here and here. The first link (Hot Topic) is, as always, very good on the technical background.]

98 comments on “Attacking NIWA ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. toad 1
    16 August 2010 at 12:14 pm

    And when they lose in Court, they will attack the judge for “judicial activism” and “political bias”. This is like dealing with creationists and flat earthers.

  2. Pete 2
    16 August 2010 at 12:15 pm

    “The “Climate Science Coalition’ has to be the most inappropriately named entity in the history of stupidity.”

    As is the ‘Sensible Sentencing Trust’.

    Otherwise – bloody hell.

    • A Post With Me In It 2.1
      16 August 2010 at 1:23 pm

      I think you will find that calling your self the opposite of what you are is such a common tactic nowadays as to be a cliche.

      So no, it will not even scrap the surface of “most inappropriately named entity in the history of stupidity”.

  3. Pascal's bookie 3
    16 August 2010 at 12:16 pm

    I’ll bet Wishart hasn’t been so excited since he heard that Kitzmiller was going to sue the Dover Area School District.

  4. The Voice of Reason 4
    16 August 2010 at 12:27 pm

    Just an aside, but can we lay off the Luddites, please. It’s bad enough when righties use the term as a perjorative, but lefties really should know their history better. Luddites were not thicko flat earthers trying to deny the realities of the situation they faced, but class conscious tradesman and artisans acting in their (relatively narrow) class interest. They were well educated, well organised and not opposed to machinery per se, but opposed to having their incomes diminished as a result of the introduction of the new methods of production. Not much different to the concerns of the average worker in 2010, but a world away from the belligerent stupidity of climate change deniers.

    • r0b 4.1
      16 August 2010 at 1:06 pm

      Hmm, not quite as innocent as you paint then VOR, with violence and assassination commonly in use. But you’re right, the modern caricature of them is very shallow, and I’ll try not to add to it again.

  5. James Allison 5
    16 August 2010 at 12:38 pm

    Muzzle science???? Where did this come from? The court action is designed to make NIWA account for a blatant manipulation of historic temperature records downwards in order to show an “unprecedented” global warming trend during the 20C.

    • mickysavage 5.1
      16 August 2010 at 2:44 pm

      And Pakistan is not flooded, Greenland is not producing huge icebergs, the tundra is not thawing and the North pole is not disappearing before our very eyes.

      I feel much better thanks.

      Can I open my eyes now?

      • comedy 5.1.1
        16 August 2010 at 4:16 pm

        As long as you shut your mouth

      • zelda 5.1.2
        16 August 2010 at 8:26 pm

        Its called weather. Climate is what is predictable. Weather isnt.
        Pakistan is merely having floods of about 50 year AEP. Untill we have seem the hydrological records you cant assume otherwise.
        As for Greenland and icebergs. Its what they do . Again the size of one ‘berg’ is merely that of about a 20 year cycle.
        And the world will end ! Thats another 20 year cycle. We were supposed to all starve by 1972

    • bbfloyd 5.2
      16 August 2010 at 4:03 pm

      congrats James… ! you get the award for the silliest comment i’ve read today. not gonna bother to point out why. everyone else already knows..

  6. Draco T Bastard 6
    16 August 2010 at 12:43 pm

    This doesn’t surprise me as they’re (the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition) are a bunch of psychopaths that are only interested in themselves.

  7. Frank Macskasy 7
    16 August 2010 at 12:49 pm

    The “Climate Science Coalition’ has to be the 21st century version of King Canute and his (in)famous stand on the beaches of Ye Olde England, commanding the tide to retreat.

    It didn’t.

    He got wet feet.

    The climate change deniers will likewise end up with very wet feet. (Especially if they live on a coastal property.)

    As an aside, is it coincidence that the anti-spam word to make this post was… ‘sciences’? I kid you not.

    • SteveR 7.1
      16 August 2010 at 1:17 pm

      A pedant writes:

      Canute apparently went to the beach and told the sea to retreat just to show his followers that he *could not* do what they believed he could do, i.e. the staged the whole thing as a lesson to his (over-) flattering court.

      Other stories say that he commanded the sea to retreat, but when it didn’t he used this as a lesson of the lowly position of kings relative to nature (or perhaps a god) (perhaps knowing that the sea would not obey him?).

      Either way, the point is about the powerlessness of even kings relative to other forces.

      Not sure where that leaves your point .perhaps just that “CSC’ needs to see that the earth will go its merry way independent of what they wish was the case.

      • Frank Macskasy 7.1.1
        16 August 2010 at 1:20 pm

        You might be right in the true sense of what happened. I was using the commonly held view of what took place.

        (Though Canute might’ve freaked out had the tides retreated as commanded!! )

      • The Voice of Reason 7.1.2
        16 August 2010 at 1:53 pm

        Two ancient canards and a modern one dealt to in a single post. Possibly a new PB for the Standard, but no doubt there will be a righty blog out there with the same commitment to historical accuracy and modern peer reviewed research willing to do better.

        Or … not.

    • bbfloyd 7.2
      16 August 2010 at 4:26 pm

      thanks for the segue frank. if fact,..it won’t just be the deniers who get wet.
      in the final wash up(no pun intended), they will regret their stupidity as much as all of us will, as we try to survive.
      rather than getting bogged down in petty squabbling, shouldn’t the debate now shift toward how humanity will survive the ice age coming?
      i suppose, in the spirit of fairness, i would accept that there is a very slim chance that the deniers are right. but who would be brave, or stupid enough to bet your descendants lives on that?

  8. Robert Winter 8
    16 August 2010 at 12:54 pm

    It is a rather obvious form of bullying – if we cannot win a scientific argument, and they cannot, let’s see if we can bully institutions into submission using financial and political resources. It is worth reading the Statement of Claim, for it makes it clear that this is a political attack because they can’t win any other way. It is also reminiscent of the playgorund – let me win, or I’ll get my big brother to beat you up.

  9. Quay 9
    16 August 2010 at 12:55 pm

    To rule scientific data “invalid’? – gee, where have I heard that before

    • bbfloyd 9.1
      16 August 2010 at 4:38 pm

      many times over in your history books..

    • zelda 9.2
      16 August 2010 at 8:34 pm

      Ruling data invalid ?
      Thats not what they are doing. They are saying a selective 7 station dataset which is then ‘adjusted’ accoding to a method decided by a 30 year old students thesis constitutes the temperature record in NZ and nobody seems to follow why they have done it.
      We have allready had the sea level record in NZ show that the rise has been consistent over the last 100 years or so ( Otago University, School of Surveying) and NOT been increasing since the increase in CO2.
      Perhaps we will find the temperatures havent increased beyond a long term rise.
      Quelle horreur

      • NickS 9.2.1
        16 August 2010 at 10:24 pm

        lolwat?

        Like I said in my post (when it probably gets published here tomorrow), you have these things called “site effects”, in fact for a long time, lead by micro-Watts surfacestations.org, it was the tools climate denialists brought out to try and undermine the US land temperature records. And what I failed to mention in my post, but is mentioned over at Hot-Topic (we have seen you in the comments there…) by Gareth, is that to merge multiple temperature recordings, you need to make them equivalent. i.e. adjusting the raw data to mitigate site effects at each site that will otherwise distort the warming signal in the data.

        And data manipulation, in the forms of transforms, moving averages, removing outliers etc is quite the fucking the norm for data which you couldn’t otherwise analyse with parametric statistical techniques. Particularly time series data for natural events which tend to fluctuate. Like temperatures, or animal populations.

        You also seem to not understand what a thesis is, nor the level of scrutiny the contents of a thesis are exposed to, both in the drafting process and by external reviewers. Which is to say, it’s not a fucking essay, or a small research project you ignoramus. Rather, it’s pretty much at the same level as a peer reviewed paper, and are one of the resources you’re allowed to cite in scientific research if the author hasn’t got around to splitting the thesis contents into publishable units yet.

        And the NZCSET/NZCSC are actually quoted as saying want to invalidate it you illiterate fool.

        As for your claims about sea level rise in NZ, I’ll believe it when you give us a link, because from what I’ve seen on Hot-Topic and here, anything you write isn’t worth trusting without an external reference.

      • Armchair Critic 9.2.2
        16 August 2010 at 10:50 pm

        If you have any doubts about sea level rise I recommend you request an hourly sea level time series from your local port company. They all tend to keep such a record, and for commercial purposes, primarily (understanding sea level is critical to their business – no sea = no business etc.) rather than proving or disproving any theories about climate, weather, whatever. Many ports have been operational for a hundred years or more (and that’s just in NZ), so there are nice, long records available.
        Depending on which port company you ask, you can get raw or processed data, or both, along with metadata. The price is usually quite reasonable, or free if you ask nicely.
        Since you are so concerned about ‘adjustments’, how about you analyse the raw data yourself and tell us what you find, along with a description of what you did to reach your findings. A smarty like you shouldn’t have too much trouble outwitting those dumb-arsed scientists. Surprise us. Tell me something I don’t already know.

  10. Yeah Right 10
    16 August 2010 at 1:06 pm

    It staggers me you so called intelligent well balanced and fair minded lot call this climate science challenge “idealology” when the cold hard facts are staring your ignorance squarely in the face.

    The historical data (i.e. that taken from actual NZ readings over many decades) mapped out as per normal do not show a 1 degree warming.

    In fact the NIWA data shows almost no warming over 100 years.

    Do you want the facts to be proven or just go along with the charade?

    • Robert Winter 10.1
      16 August 2010 at 1:09 pm

      Then let the scientists sort it out, not the courts – simple as that – if the “facts” are so plain, then positivist science will undoubtedly show it.

    • Frank Macskasy 10.2
      16 August 2010 at 1:30 pm

      “In fact the NIWA data shows almost no warming over 100 years.’

      I don’t know where you get that from. NIWA is quite clear on the rise of temperature: http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/information-and-resources/clivar/pastclimate

      And simplified into graph form: http://www.niwa.co.nz/__data/assets/image/0018/105273/varieties/gallery.png

      • burt 10.2.1
        16 August 2010 at 9:41 pm

        lprent

        Remembering as you slag them off for not being up to speed on the distinction between local ice ages and global ice ages that the world consensus on planet wide glacier movement was shocked by this research.

        NZ Herald: 2nd May 2009 – NZ glacier findings upset climate theory

        FFS, the science was settled and then we finally added to the models that perhaps the whole planet didn’t have ice ages all at once… in 2009.. And you wonder why people call you “believers”.

        I’m stunned you are defending NIWA on this lprent. I’m not surprised you don’t agree with the CSC but surely this is about science and not personal ? Surely the more scrutiny and peer review applied to science of said adjustments the better?

        • NickS 10.2.1.1
          16 August 2010 at 10:28 pm

          Question, do you actually grok how glaciers work? Because somehow I doubt it, otherwise you wouldn’t be treating that piece in the Herald as counter evidence to climate change.

          Also, you might want to read about all the other records we rely on, like changes in growing seasons, ground temperatures and migration timings, along with frost counts. And then there’s the satellite readings.

          I guess your ignorance, along with using it as an excuse to pretend you actually understand the science is why we call people like you idiots and denialists.

        • burt 10.2.1.2
          16 August 2010 at 10:59 pm

          NickS

          I know enough about glaciers to know that they don’t all recede and advance in a synchronized global way. There had to be some way to explain the advancing glaciers seen in NZ while the Northern Hemisphere withered. I fully concede my knowledge compared to the authors named in the Herald article is pitiful. Luckily I’ve never been required to quantify glacial interaction with climate on a global scale with flawed assumptions, so it’s not about me.

          • NickS 10.2.1.2.1
            16 August 2010 at 11:14 pm

            Except of course if actually understood the mechanics of glaciers in the first place, you would be making such a naive post, as for as well as local temperatures, climate, precipitation type, timing, amount and frequency all need to be looked at over time to properly model how a glacier changes over time.

            And to put it bluntly, while the study mentioned in The Herald does provide a very useful tool for looking at the history of a glacier, it doesn’t change the fact that at present the world wide trend for glaciers to recede rather than grow is more better explained by increases in regional temperatures due to climate change. Especially in the Arctic Circle, tropical glaciers and the Antarctic Western Ice Sheet. Which despite some growth on the Eastern Ice sheet, the total mass loss on the West sheet gives a net loss of ice mass in Antarctica.

            Also, The other factor your ignoring is the speed of glacial recession, i.e. has it speed up over time, controlling for precipitation? Because while mass loss from NZ glaciers may have started before the current warming, it is clear that they have receded rather quickly in recent decades, in contrast to the early 20th century.

            • burt 10.2.1.2.1.1
              17 August 2010 at 11:11 am

              Perhaps if the IPCC understood glaciers like you think I should then they wouldn’t have made such a naive model for global warming. Keep shooting the messenger, I make no apology for linking a 2009 article that challenged the settled science of that time.

              • NickS …
                17 August 2010 at 11:34 am

                Here’s an idea, go read the IPCC report, because only in pop media reports on glaciers is any of the finer details I’ve mentioned above on glacier growth generally not covered.

                Of course that would require you to read and think, which may be a little troublesome for you.

          • RedLogix 10.2.1.2.2
            16 August 2010 at 11:16 pm

            Burt,

            So now I take you are happy with the idea:

            “The New Zealand findings point to the importance of regional shifts in wind directions and sea surface temperatures,” he said.

            Regional weather patterns such as the El Nino Southern Oscillation were superimposed on the global climate trends reflected in the behaviour of glaciers.

            So can we also take it that you’d be relaxed with the notion that the Medieval Warm Period may well have been a ‘regional effect’ as well? You know, like the scientists have been telling us?

            • burt 10.2.1.2.2.1
              17 August 2010 at 10:55 am

              For sure it could have been regional. That’s not to say we need to remove if from the model as shown in Gore’s carbon trading scheme advertisment and deny it ever happened because our models are not sophisticated enough to model regional effects.

              The science was so settled we needed to ignore real world events the model couldn’t deal with…. call that science ?

              • lprent …
                17 August 2010 at 10:58 am

                The science was so settled we needed to ignore real world events the model couldn’t deal with

                Yes. It is only the scientific illiterates who have a problem with statistical models which show the probability of events. They prefer the certainty of newtonian physics rather than the chaotic probabilities of quantum uncertainty.

                You really need to read more about modern science.

                • burt …
                  17 August 2010 at 11:12 am

                  Modern science…. hide the methods from public scrutiney and denigrate people who insist on transparency…. believers….

                  • NickS …
                    17 August 2010 at 11:33 am

                    lololololololololol

                    You can actually find out the methodologies by looking at the either the literature, or contacting the various organisations. The only “hiding” going on, is entirely in your mind.

                    Also, you might actually need a background in uni statistical modelling to begin to actually understand it.

                  • lprent …
                    17 August 2010 at 11:46 am

                    Science just requires a bit of effort and expended energy to understand. It really isn’t that hard.

                    Of course one of the first things you learn in science is that ‘common-sense’ equates to superstition, and is frequently wrong. Personally I suspect that is your major blockage.

                    • comedy …
                      17 August 2010 at 11:54 am

                      “Science just requires a bit of effort and expended energy to understand. It really isn’t that hard.”

                      Great, I can’t wait for your dissertation on M-theory and the Higgs Boson.

                    • burt …
                      17 August 2010 at 12:13 pm

                      Of course one of the first things you learn in science is that when a model is incapable of reproducing the real world events that the model is incomplete, it’s inputs are corrupted or it is simply wrong. I find it staggering that I’m called a RWNJ-Denier for pointing out that global warming models were shaken by new research in 2009. Messenger life expectancy when delivering inconvenient truths is pretty short around here.

                      The IPCC saying the MWP didn’t occur because it was not present in the place they sampled would be exactly as stupid as a real RWNJ-Denier saying the ice caps are in fine form because the weather is unseasonably cold today.

                    • lprent []
                      17 August 2010 at 1:00 pm

                      I find it staggering that I’m called a RWNJ-Denier for pointing out that global warming models were shaken by new research in 2009.

                      What “new research”. Just because you haven’t read about it before?

                      We’re rubbishing you because you’re so illiterate that you think the research is revelatory. In fact it a simple confirmation of something that anyone who reads even briefly over the field has had as a working assumption for at least 30 years. The only people who seem to think that it is earth-shattering are the RWNJ’s/CCD’s who have been holding onto a euro-centric climate view that was disproven decades ago. The ones that waffle on about MWP, mini-iceages, etc.

                      That the northern and southern hemispheres lead quite different lives in climate has been a working assumption theory from when I was doing climatology in the early 80’s. If you read the article (rather than just scanning to reinforce your illiterate idiocies)…

                      He said much of it reinforced work done 30 years ago by Canterbury University researcher Professor Colin Burrows, who used NZ glacier data to highlight some of the similarities and differences between northern and southern records over the past 12,000 years.

                      Now even a scientific fool like you has to know that a model is a just model. It incorporates various levels on uncertainty in theory. Now in practice the theory that the hemispheres are disconnected has been well established for a long time, and is incorporated into the models used by the IPCC volume 1. What happened here is that one of the premises has been partially confirmed. However It has taken 30 years to confirm that (with a high degree of certainty) for a country well away from the equator that is in fact the case.

                      What would have been more interesting is if that the evidence pointed the other way. Then it would have pointed to a basic flaw in the models at least as far as our latitudes are concerned. Incidentally, this plus results from other countries that means that there is still considerable work to be done on the latitudes between here and the equator.

                      Now if you were unaware of all of this, then I’d have to ask how you missed it on this site. In fact it is the basis that I rubbish the various scientific illiterates like the CRC who waffle on about MWP and mini-iceages as happening at the same time worldwide rather than being the regional events we’ve known they have been for decades.

                    • NickS …
                      17 August 2010 at 12:55 pm

                      Of course one of the first things you learn in science is that when a model is incapable of reproducing the real world events that the model is incomplete, it’s inputs are corrupted or it is simply wrong. I find it staggering that I’m called a RWNJ-Denier for pointing out that global warming models were shaken by new research in 2009. Messenger life expectancy when delivering inconvenient truths is pretty short around here.

                      /facepalm

                      Lolwut? The only thing you pointed out where refinements on measuring the recession and growth of glaciers over time. Which only impacts on the climate models by giving us a better picture into ENSO fluctuations over the last couple of centuries, rather than say completely altering the models which show strongly that CO2 is main driver in the increase in the Earth’s temperature over the last century.

                      It’s not that hard burt, also we’re criticising you not because your message is “inconvenient” but because it contains clear falsehoods. Hey look, that’s another delusion on your part burt.

                      The IPCC saying the MWP didn’t occur because it was not present in the place they sampled would be exactly as stupid as a real RWNJ-Denier saying the ice caps are in fine form because the weather is unseasonably cold today.

                      Right…
                      http://scholar.google.co.nz/scholar?q=medieval+warm+period&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2001&as_sdtp=on

                      Here’s an idea, why don’t you go read the fucking literature instead of making evidence free claims? Particularly as it’s well established at present that the MWP was likely not global, not occurring worldwide at the same time, rather it was regional, with warming and cooling periods occurring at different times worldwide. Resulting in a far, far small net average rise in temperatures that the latest reconstructions show. With a warming rate that was no where near the one recorded in the 20th century.

                      Also, when reading teh literature, you actually have to put papers in context, for example we have Broeckers somewhat now semi-infamous* 2001 paper Was the Medieval Warm Period Global?. Problem is, there’s 9 years of research since it’s been published, that’s 9 years of gathering new information, processing it and publishing it. Which means it would be somewhat foolish of you to not go through the citation record for it on google scholar, let alone actually read the paper first. As Broecker notes clearly again and again that further information is needed to ascertain whether or not the MWP was actually global.

                      Or you could just go read the IPCC reports, since they do actually go through all the relevant, properly reviewed literature on climate change.

                      But that would require you to do some work.
                      _____________________________________
                      *this is mostly because the paper was quote mined by denialists to give us the “UNSTOPPABLE GLOBAL WARMING EVERY 1500 YEARS!” meme. Much like the “irreducible complexity” meme in creationism, it refuses to fully die when hit with actual science.

                    • burt …
                      17 August 2010 at 1:41 pm

                      lprent you said;

                      That the northern and southern hemispheres lead quite different lives in climate has been a working assumption theory from when I was doing climatology in the early 80′s.

                      The linked article said;

                      The first direct confirmation of differences in glacier behaviour between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, the new work topples theories based on climate in the Northern Hemisphere changing in tandem with the climate in the Southern Hemisphere.

                      So you must have disagreed with the theories in the IPCC work that assumed a synchronisation between the Northern & Southern hemispheres? But let me guess, even if you disagreed with their methods and models you just knew their predictions were valid becasue they matched your own more advanced understanding which was not proven till 2009.

                    • lprent []
                      17 August 2010 at 3:19 pm

                      There are still theories out there that say the earth is flat. Do you think that those are good working theories as well?

                      I’d suggest that you READ the article (something that you have managed to fail to show any understanding of to date).

                      What they said was that this topples the theories that said the northern hemisphere and the southern hemisphere changed in tandem. It did not say that a new theory was put into play, in fact the article mentioned work from 30 years ago which looked at the validity of several theories extant at the time.

                      30 years ago, no-one really knew which of the theories about north/south climate linkage were more or less valid than the others. There was very little verifiable evidence between any of the theories (mostly based on timing differences). However it was pretty evident from the O16/18 ratios that there were significant differences in deep water, either from current changes or from climate changes.

                      In the 30 years since there has a been a pile of evidence that shows quite a lot of disjunction between events in at least some periods between the north and southern hemisphere in both the oceans and the land surface. This is just another instance, along with the material that shows in Antarctica, Peru, Aussie, etc. It is hardly earth-shaking…

                      Perhaps you should consider that the NZ Herald isn’t exactly a scientific publication. They take some artistic license in using the word ‘topples’…

                      ….they matched your own more advanced understanding which was not proven till 2009.

                      And here you show yourself to be a scientific idiot again. It isn’t proven that climate linkage theories aren’t valid in at least some periods and under some conditions. It is simply less probable than before this study was done.

                      I’d suggest that you do a remedial statistical course so you get some idea of what we’re talking about. Perhaps we could encourage your fellow illiterates at the CSC to attend as well.

                • NickS …
                  17 August 2010 at 11:45 am

                  They prefer the certainty of newtonian physics rather than the chaotic probabilities of quantum uncertainty.

                  What?

                  It’s more they don’t understand complexity that emerges when dealing with multiple variables, such as the N Body Problem in Newtonian physics, or gene expression networks, or food webs, and nutrient/energy flow through them. All of which are generally fraught with uncertainties. So really they more prefer strawman versions of science, where in certainty is always absolute. Just like in Religion, or with RWNJ and the somewhat rarer these days Stalinists etc.

                  • lprent …
                    17 August 2010 at 11:55 am

                    I was also thinking on the epicycle conundrum even prior to Newton. It was a triumph of ‘common sense’ over reality that took hundreds of years and a hell of a lot of computation with an increasingly complex (incorrect) solutions.

                    I thought it would fit a particular mindset perfectly, and one that these idiot cranks from the CRC display. They are quite useful idiots for someone. The interesting part is to figure out exactly who is funding this delaying timewaster..

                    • NickS …
                      17 August 2010 at 12:08 pm

                      Yeah, but epicycles where the product of mindset that wasn’t examined until the Renaissance, which was described in my lectures as “saving the phenomena”, established by one of the Greek astronomers. It wasn’t so much common sense as it was the result of philosophical ideas being more in front than concepts of empiricism within Greek astronomy. And when you add that to the natural, annoying, human tendency towards venerating ancestors, that’s pretty much what ended up creating that wee mess.

                      Also, one of the Greek astronomers actually had a heliocentric model of the solar system, but it remained in the background until Arab astronomers picked up on it during the Golden Age of Islam.

    • lprent 10.3
      16 August 2010 at 2:01 pm

      YR:

      Bullshit. That is the crap that the CSC nutters used to peddle (you really need to get up to date with nutter mythology)

      However even they’ve had to acknowledge that there has been an overall warming trend since 1850 – which they consider is from the gradual warming up from a ‘mini-ice-age’* in the 17th and 18th century.

      So even amongst nutters, you look like an idiot.

      * For the moment lets ignore the lack of convincing evidence in the proxy records that this ever happened in NZ as a coherent climate shift. It looks like different parts of the country had different effects at different times. The CCS morons cherry pick their research to try and force it into a european mould.

    • mickysavage 10.4
      16 August 2010 at 2:47 pm

      So lets get the lawyers to make a call on this one. Of course they are far more accomplished at making scientific conclusions on huge amounts of data than the scientists are, arn’t they?

  11. r0b 11
    16 August 2010 at 1:36 pm

    See the new links in the update to the post.

  12. NickS 12
    16 August 2010 at 1:40 pm

    Heh, Rob beat me to it, I was going to contribute a post…

    Actually, I might still.

    Anyhow, some extra stuff:
    http://sciblogs.co.nz/the-atavism/2009/12/13/peer-review-for-the-climate-science-coalition/
    http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2009/12/10/new-zealands-denier-gate/

    There’s a few more bits out there on the NZ Climate “science” coalition, but I still need to go hunting for them.

    • r0b 12.1
      16 August 2010 at 1:41 pm

      Actually, I might still.

      Please do!

      • NickS 12.1.1
        16 August 2010 at 2:02 pm

        I’ll try and get in done before 6pm then 😛

        I just need to finish off a post I’ve been procrastinating on then start editing the two parts to make it into a full post for content when my blog finally goes live…

        [Yeah this was in spam – not sure why – sorry! — r0b]

      • lprent 12.1.2
        16 August 2010 at 2:02 pm

        Yep, I’ll be writing one as well (eventually).. But the more perspectives the better..

        • NickS 12.1.2.1
          16 August 2010 at 5:01 pm

          Oh yeah, I’m knocking it together with the blogspot post editor, is that going to cause any issues with cut and pasting the html version into “contribute”? Because I also have access to wordpess if that will make it easier.

        • NickS 12.1.2.2
          16 August 2010 at 7:07 pm

          Gah, still writing/researching. eta is 7:30.

          Just need to cover the links between Alan Gibbs, the NZCSC and the overseas CSC.

          And edit.

      • NickS 12.1.3
        16 August 2010 at 2:10 pm

        I’ll try and get in done before 6…

        And I think the spam filter ate my earlier reply…

  13. Frank Macskasy 13
    16 August 2010 at 1:52 pm

    A representative of the so-called “Climate Science Coalition” was interviewed on National Radio this morning. It turns out that businessman, Alan Gibbs, is a “friend” of the CSC though the spokesperson for that group couldn’t confirm or deny if Gibbs was contributing money.

    http://static.radionz.net.nz/assets/audio_item/0009/2377890/mnr-20100816-0600-Top_Stories_for_Monday_16_August_2010-m048.asx

  14. Irascible 14
    16 August 2010 at 2:24 pm

    I presume the scientist the Climate Change Coalition are using is one Rodney Hide who advertised his expertise and extensive research history on this very topic during the 2008 election campaign.

  15. mickysavage 15
    16 August 2010 at 2:52 pm

    I am not a lawyer but is there any capacity in the law to do this? To rule scientific data “invalid’?

    Off the top of my head possibly through Administrative Review if NIWA is exercising a statutory power of decision or maybe they can seek a declaratory judgment if there is some interest they can show is being affected but either seems like a real long shot.

    And who is mad enough to try and use the law to muzzle science anyway?

    Someone crazy enough not to be at least afraid that climate change might be happening.

    • Draco T Bastard 15.1
      16 August 2010 at 3:12 pm

      Actually, it’s someone who’s psychopathic enough to be concerned that their income may be threatened if climate change is taken seriously enough to produce laws that stop them from polluting for free.

      From the Pundit link

      It’s clear that Dunleavy, Leyland and Edmeades have some questions to answer. Their “charitable trust’ was registered on August 10th, and within days they had lodged their legal action with the court. Was the trust formed specifically to bring the action? I understand that using a trust to bring a legal action provides some protection for the litigants if they lose their case and find costs awarded against them. But if that is the real reason for the trust’s existence, then surely it cannot be regarded as a charitable trust? Whatever the law may say — and I am sure that Dunleavy and co will have had legal advice (C’S’C chairman Barry Brill is a retired lawyer) — it cannot be morally or ethically acceptable for them to hide behind or misuse a charitable trust in this way. It also demonstrates rather nicely that they have no confidence that their case will succeed

      They know that it’s not a viable case so they’ve covered their asses so there won’t be any negative come back on them. It’s going to cost us a few tens of thousands of dollars that could have been used better though.

      • bbfloyd 15.1.1
        16 August 2010 at 4:45 pm

        so, if seemingly intelligent people would bring a case to court knowing they have very little, or no chance of winning, then there has to be another reason to start this process.
        my question would be… whats the reward?

        • burt 15.1.1.1
          16 August 2010 at 5:08 pm

          Trust is the reward. But hey, why not box on without it – worked for the IPCC.

        • Draco T Bastard 15.1.1.2
          16 August 2010 at 10:24 pm

          They get media time.

          And WTF said that they were intelligent? They’re denying fact which tends to indicate that they aren’t.

          @ burt:
          You’re still an idiot. The IPCC is trusted by those in the know (i.e. The only people who don’t trust the IPCC are the people who disbelieve reality). The Climate Science Coalition isn’t as they tend to be a bunch of ideological psychopaths.

    • mickysavage 15.2
      16 August 2010 at 3:12 pm

      Sorry for replying to myself (I know I mention the word “crazy” above) but there is some information at http://www.climatescience.org.nz/images/PDFs/niwa.ct.docs.pdf.

      One aspect is interesting, It claims that Jim Salinger was biased and that somehow his views should have been disregarded. This is the nub of the problem. The proceedings are expecting NIWA to act like a quasi judicial tribunal whereas I would prefer that it made a decision using scientific processes.

      Just saying …

  16. Manus 16
    16 August 2010 at 3:18 pm

    No matter what the reason is for global warming whether it be solar, pollution or historical geological changes that have little to do with humans. Whatever the excuse, it does not justify NIWA ‘s manipulating the science. They were not alone in fudging the data. It was being done worldwide by scientists funded and pressurised by the CO2 fear mongerers who happen to be the same Elite that cause the fiscal collapse and the false flag flu pandemic. These ‘overpopulation Malthusiasts’ even brag about culling the lot of us one way or another. So don’t be monkey with eyes, ears and mouths closed to the real world….the Truth will find them out.

    • mickysavage 16.1
      16 August 2010 at 3:45 pm

      Good to see that you have not predetermined the issue Manus.

      BTW if you are wrong will you apologise to my grandchildren?

    • Frank Macskasy 16.2
      16 August 2010 at 4:23 pm

      “They were not alone in fudging the data. ”

      What data, precisely, have they been fudging?

      And how does that relate with observed phenomena in Antarctica, the Arctic Circle, Greenland, and elsewhere, where ice-mass has been lost?

      And how can the increase in temperature and melting of ice not correlate with the rise in carbon dioxide and methane in our atmosphere?

      And if this is all some vast global conspiracy, I have two questions;

      1. How did NASA become tied in, with their collection of data by orbiting satellites?

      2. Why hasn’t anyone asked me to participate?

      • zelda 16.2.1
        16 August 2010 at 8:21 pm

        The loss of ice mass is minute and is variable anyway.
        Nasa arent involved with the collection of temperature data, merely the’ manipulation’ of it

        • NickS 16.2.1.1
          16 August 2010 at 11:29 pm

          Nasa arent involved with the collection of temperature data, merely the’ manipulation’ of it

          lolwut?

          There’s these things called “satellites”, ones which NASA not only launched, but also collects and collates the data from. As for manipulating the data, occasionally instrumentation isn’t properly calibrated on the ground, or launching into space on a barely controlled explosion can knock things slightly out. Which means someone ends up having to go bug hunting to make sure the data coming in isn’t distorted. Like say the satellite launched to measure air temperatures in the upper atmosphere that research showed was miss-calibrated.

          • mcflock 16.2.1.1.1
            17 August 2010 at 1:31 am

            NASA are big fibbers, all the old pictures from Hubble were perfectly rendered, but they used manipulation to make the blurry blobs look like stars before they could mechanically warp the mirror to make the blobs look like points.

    • Draco T Bastard 16.3
      16 August 2010 at 10:35 pm

      Wow, the Delusion is strong in this one.

      Whatever the excuse, it does not justify NIWA ‘s manipulating the science.

      The science wasn’t manipulated. This has been proven time and time again. This means that you’re believing lies made up by people who have an agenda.

      It was being done worldwide by scientists funded and pressurised by the CO2 fear mongerers who happen to be the same Elite that cause the fiscal collapse and the false flag flu pandemic.

      Strange, I’m sure Jonkey said that he disbelieves in AGW…
      Oh, wait, you’re not in touch with reality. Sorry, forgot. Here’s the truth – the financial speculators like Jonkey and the rest of the banksters caused the GFC. The scientists merely, and only, report fact and weren’t actually pressurised by any fear-mongers. Of course, you believe the fear-mongers that tell lies though…

      These ‘overpopulation Malthusiasts’ even brag about culling the lot of us one way or another.

      Another diversion from reality. The world is over populated, this is going to cause a huge amount of pain. Brag? no.

      …the Truth will find them out.

      You spend all your life disbelieving reality so I’m reasonably sure that you wouldn’t know the truth if it hit you. Which it will.

  18. RedLogix 18
    16 August 2010 at 7:03 pm

    Anyone else noticed how many engineers are CCD’ers? As an engineering type myself I rather baffled by that. In my case I actually worked for a science organisation for many years, so perhaps I gained a perspective that was missing from my Engineering course work.

    But still it’s something that peeves me.

    • zelda 18.1
      16 August 2010 at 8:18 pm

      Good record keeping and providing the data is just as essential in engineering. Or do you think that hiding their methods is ‘scientific’

      • RedLogix 18.1.1
        16 August 2010 at 10:01 pm

        I’ve enough experience to know that while superficially similar science and engineering operate in rather different domains.

        Engineering for the most part works within known and deterministic boundaries. The day to day work usually involves balancing the three traditionally competing demands of price, speed and quality, managing the innate conflicts of interest between clients and contractors, not to mention the delays, cost overuns and risk management. It’s all about getting things done and there is not a lot of room for hypothesis, experimentation and debate.

        Science for the most part is about the unknown and the yet to be determined. While budget constraints are always present to some degree, they are not a primary driver. The work involves enormous amounts of reading, proposing ideas, experimental design, gathering and cleaning data, analysing it and formally processing the results via peer-review and publishing. Science is about unravelling the unknown, it’s all about discovering, new ideas, experimentation and endless debate. It’s an inherently messier process.

        The kind of people who work in each field tend to be quite different too, although that’s a little harder to put into words, but having worked closely with both …there is no missing it once you’ve seen it. Scientists, while often rather ego driven, are usually very candid about the uncertainties and open questions they have yet to tackle. By contrast engineers, while often quite a cheery, boozy bunch…can get arrogantly cock-sure of themselves and how good they are, especially as they gain seniority.

        Yet ironically enough, most engineers are rather poor mathematicians and the last pure science course they took was many, many decades ago at a Stage 1 level. They rather tend to project their own way of thinking and dated science fundamentals onto a topic they really know rather little about…while imagining that they do.

        Or do you think that hiding their methods is ‘scientific’

        What you don’t want to see will remain hidden until you open your eyes.

        • Armchair Critic 18.1.1.1
          16 August 2010 at 10:39 pm

          “What you don’t want to see will remain hidden until you open your eyes”
          That’s the best retort I’ve seen for ages, RL

  19. mcflock 19
    16 August 2010 at 7:08 pm

    question:

    if people are organised enough to form a trust and days later launch a high court action, is it a leap to suspect that they are organised enough to coordinate a similarly-timed campaign on high-volume blogsites within the court’s jurisdiction?

    Or did they just rely on the local crop of wingnuts to spontaneously hold the public debate?

  20. tc 20
    16 August 2010 at 7:16 pm

    I don’t like the message so I’ll sue the messenger……the flat earthers are sooo predictable.

  21. george.com 21
    16 August 2010 at 7:42 pm

    I kind of welcome the deniers taking a court action. The scince will get some sort of scrutiny and if it holds up, I expect it to, another avenue of denial will be cut off for the deniers. A lost court case will undermine their position even further.

    It will of course cost the tax payer money to mount a defence for NIWA. I guess the deniers will have to explain how their actions were taxpayers money well spent. With Rodney Hide right behind them, I suspect he will be very vocal telling the tax payer how their taxes were well spent by the court case.

  22. zelda 22
    16 August 2010 at 8:15 pm

    Gee Judges cant be allowed to look at temperature records !
    How hard can that be .
    Of course NIWA wont let anybody else look at the raw records of all the temperatures they hold.
    That will now change as the ‘discovery ‘ process means that NIWA is over a barrel. The court will force them to ‘cough up’.

    Wasnt there a recent case about some Breast cancer sufferers who wanted the court to review Pharmacs decision.
    Since NIWA has refused to allow full and open disclosure of all their temperature records they are bring it upon themselves

    • RedLogix 22.1
      16 August 2010 at 10:14 pm

      Of course NIWA wont let anybody else look at the raw records of all the temperatures they hold.

      That’s an outright lie. And you know it. In my book that makes you a rather special kind of creep.

    • Draco T Bastard 22.2
      16 August 2010 at 10:44 pm

      Seven Station Data
      Eleven Station Data

      Which proves you to be a liar.

      [Thanks DTB… you beat me to it nicely….RL]

    • KJT 22.3
      16 August 2010 at 11:07 pm

      NIWA raw data. The reasoning behind methods of averaging and anything else you need to make your own graphs has been available on the net for ages. The whole lot was available for review at Waikato Uni. for one.
      Or do you think every academic in the country is in the pay of AGW conspirators. If so where do we all get our payback from.
      The science on AGW is as settled as any science can be. It is only the self interested and the loonies who persist with CCD.

    • mcflock 22.4
      17 August 2010 at 2:07 am

      “Wasnt there a recent case about some Breast cancer sufferers who wanted the court to review Pharmacs decision.”

      Oh. You must mean Herceptin.

      Detailed summary of the public campaign and a summary of the court case – note that the only High Court argument tosucceed in second-guessing Pharmac was procedural, in that it didn’t consult widely enough before making the decision. It also has the intriguing comment “In his decision, Justice Gendall did not comment on the merits of the treatment options.” I.E. the science was not being debated.

      http://www.herceptinriders.co.nz/herceptinriders.php?page=51

      And the coup d’grace, which explicitly states that the decision was overruled by the government (and bugger me if it wasn’t an election issue), not the courts or even new scientific data:

      http://www.guide2.co.nz/politics/news/pharmac-says-it-respects039-govt-second-guessing-herceptin-choice/11/6624

      So basically, you’re trying to argue in favour of courts dictating scientific conclusions by using the pain of cancer sufferers in a misleading way.

      What an odious little worm you are.

  23. Lats 23
    17 August 2010 at 1:39 pm

    Hmm, my understanding is that CSC’s main objection (aside from being CCD’s) is that NIWA modified data from some collection stations. Further, I have been led to believe that NIWA did this in order to normalise the time series data when, for reasons unknown to me, data collection stations had to be moved. Differences between microclimates at sites could be influenced by a number of factors such as altitude, wind patterns, proximity to water bodies, other local geography, urbanisation, etc. If the data collected at the old and relocated sites are different then it seems entirely reasonable to adjust one set of data in order to present a contiguous series of data as if they came from the one location. Otherwise one would be comparing apples with oranges (or PC’s for those with a technical bent) and no meaningful conclusions could be determined.

    Of course I get this info as hearsay (readsay? was from Open Parachutes) so it is possible I am mistaken.

Links to post