NIWA vs the nutters

Written By: - Date published: 7:32 am, December 19th, 2010 - 19 comments
Categories: act, climate change, making shit up, rodney hide, science, scoundrels, the praiseworthy and the pitiful - Tags: , ,

The nutters in this case are the misnamed Climate ‘Science’ Coalition who appear to have no ability at science, but quite a good track record in convincing the feeble minded, like Rodney Hide. Of course that is probably just politics. Act appears to have a track record of maintaining an open door for letting any nutty special interest groups write their policies and allowing nutters to become their MPs and disgrace themselves. But I digress.

The nutters are currently running a case against the NIWA who are the body who run and interpret our weather records amongst other tasks. The basis of their accusation amounts to the nutters saying that NIWA fiddling the books on our weather tempature records to support climate change. Because weather stations are at different altitudes, have had different equipment, and have been at varying locations over the last century, the raw values are adjusted. The nutters are asserting that these adjustments are systematically biased.

This is quite arrant bullshit as anyone who has actually done some earth sciences (or any field science at all) knows. All instruments have quirks that have to be adjusted for and there are adjustments required to maintain a series of measurements when the instruments are moved. Eventually I suspect that the court will find the nutters case to be without foundation.

There have been several unconvincing attempts by the nutters to massage the raw data to reflect the picture that they want to see. As far as I can see, the whole point of the case is an attempt to take control of the data being fed to politicians and change it to something more palatable to the prejudices and biases of the ideologically driven nutters and their feeble-minded political friends.

Anyway, on Thursday…

NIWA today released a report reviewing its seven station temperature series, which adds to its analysis of New Zealand’s temperature trends over the past 100 years.

The report was independently peer reviewed by Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology to ensure the ideas, methods, and conclusions stood up in terms of scientific accuracy, logic, and consistency.

“We asked the Australian Bureau of Meteorology to conduct the peer review to ensure a thorough examination by an independent, internationally respected, climate science organisation”, said NIWA CEO John Morgan.

Mr Morgan confirmed that the scientists from the Bureau’s National Climate Centre concluded that the results and underlying methodology used by NIWA were sound.

But a chart is worth a thousand words.

As Gareth put it in his post at Hot-topic – “NIWA’s new NZ temperature series: plus ça change…” (also at sciblogs)

…as expected the changes from the “old” seven station series are more or less negligible. The trend over the last 100 years is identical, 0.91ºC per century, as the graph above shows. There are minor differences in some years, and larger ones at some stations, but the net effect to is confirm what we already knew: New Zealand warmed significantly over the last century. Commenting on the new report, NIWA CEO John Morgan said:

“I am not surprised that this internationally peer reviewed 2010 report of the seven station temperature series has confirmed that NIWA’s science was sound. It adds to the scientific knowledge that shows that New Zealand’s temperature has risen by about 0.9 degrees over the past 100 years”.

I’m not surprised either. But I confidently predict that the NZ Climate “Science” Coalition and Richard Treadgold will still find something to whinge about. After all, they’re trying to sue NIWA to have the original seven station series declared invalid. Now it’s been replaced — by something that looks rather similar. Which just confirms how shonky their original complaint and their subsequent silly suit really were.

Indeed. I can just imagine the whining taking place now. Personally I’d suggest that as part of their defense in the court case, NIWA take the disclosed ‘evidence’ from the nutters, mostly from Chris Treadgold, and get the same evaluation done on that. Previous attempts by this pack of illiterates are notable mostly for their basic errors of procedure.

19 comments on “NIWA vs the nutters ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. MrSmith 1
    19 December 2010 at 8:50 am

    Great post Lprent , Hopefully another nail in Hides coffin, as for the rest of the buffoons at CSC they suffer from Denialism – a willful refusal to rationally consider the evidence and draw the appropriate conclusions.

  2. Robert Atack 2
    19 December 2010 at 8:51 am

    A tad off topic, but goes with the Homer cartoon

    Fox News Tells Reporters to Deny Earth Has Ever Warmed or Cooled

    Apparently Fox News needs to watch their own movie, Ice Age

    Whether its scientists who butcher the peer review process to support their claims that man is causing global warming, or a university statistician who plagiarizes to make a quick buck from warming critics, there seems to be remarkably little unbiased research going on in the scientific, political, and journalistic community.

    A perfect example of this bias comes courtesy of a memo sent by Fox News managing editor Bill Sammon. The email is entitled “Given the controversy over the veracity of climate change data…” and was sent out to Fox News’ anchors.

    It states:

    …we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies.

    The email was leaked by an internal source and sent to Media Matters, a progressive organization that monitors conservative media outlets.

    link

  3. joe90 3
    19 December 2010 at 9:31 am

    You left out the religious nutters and their campaign against those who would like to protect the environment.

    edit: A link to the religious nutters campaign.

    • MrSmith 3.1
      19 December 2010 at 10:23 am

      I agree Joe90 They are a huge part of problem.

      The Belief in any god strikes me as being for the simple minded , don’t ask any questions ‘just believe my son’ I am the truth………….. , but hang on I want to know the how and why , don’t ask questions, we don’t want the truth this in religion and it has nothing to do with the truth and everything to do with social control and keeping the masses in the dark , here is a quote I picked up somewhere that I like.

      “A front-page story in the Daily Progress here in Charlottesville, Va., recently described a group of people who said they had given up on politicians and were beginning to gather at gas stations to publicly pray for cheaper gasoline. These are people who are seriously hurting because they need gas to get to work and back home, and they can no longer afford it. I don’t want to laugh at their acts of desperation, but that is exactly what politicians will do, politicians who are no doubt thrilled to see people standing in parking lots talking to the sky rather than standing in their offices talking to them.

      • RedLogix 3.1.1
        19 December 2010 at 11:58 am

        don’t ask any questions ‘just believe my son’ I am the truth

        The people you have encountered who spout that sort of cartoonish nonsense are fundamentalists. They’re only related to actual religion is a fairly tangential and tragic fashion.

        • lprent 3.1.1.1
          19 December 2010 at 12:14 pm

          I’d agree. The whole question of faith is rather a closed book to me. But when I look at people you can see the difference between those who use it to enhance their life and that of others, and those who use it as a crutch or a weapon canting about others.

          One group I respect and periodically have bouts of pure envy , the other I despise and avoid.

          • Mac1 3.1.1.1.1
            19 December 2010 at 12:43 pm

            Faith in that way is a bit like a blog site.

            Some use it to enhance, others as a crutch or to cant, as you say. The Standard I respect and often envy in it the contributions of others. Yet there’s a lesson in reading the cant and hypocrisy, even if it is to firm the resolve and prepare for a big change in 2011 politically.

            We can have faith to change what needs to be, the hope that we can do so, and the charity to do it on the behalf of others as well as ourselves. Thanks, Lprent.

        • MrSmith 3.1.1.2
          19 December 2010 at 12:52 pm

          Any fundamentalists I meet RedLogix usually run for the garlic and stakes on meeting me, but I still ‘belive’ organized religion is and has been a huge problem with getting the masses to understand and take science seriously , most if not all Religion is based on ‘belief’, why because is mostly a load of make ‘believe’ dribble “god works in mysterious ways” they seem to have a analogy that fits every situation .

          Even if you know relidgion is a lie but you have been brought up to ‘belive’ there is always that little bit of doubt in the back of your mind, plus you can never have a conversation challenging someone about there beliefs it seems without offending them, this is part of problem as they just don’t want to question there ‘beliefs’ and have always just gone along with the masses (don’t rock the boat), Climate change is an attack on a lot of peoples beliefs because suddenly these scientists are saying that we the human race are having a profound affect on the planet and our environment, now this just doesn’t fit in with the stories a lot of people have been brought up to ‘believe’, wasn’t the planet created as our own little play ground to do with as we like, so what do they do they grasp at anything or anyone that says these scientists don’t know what they are talking about, because know-one likes to look stupid, but this is the age of stupid I guess isn’t it.

          • RedLogix 3.1.1.2.1
            19 December 2010 at 2:58 pm

            but I still ‘belive’ organized religion is and has been a huge problem with getting the masses to understand and take science seriously

            This is partially true. But then again you would be hugely surprised at the number of science PhD’s sitting in the pews of the Baptist Church I was regularly attending until a few years ago. (We moved town, nothing more…). It was almost a pre-condition of membership to have at least a tertiary degree.

            the stories a lot of people have been brought up to ‘believe’, wasn’t the planet created as our own little play ground to do with as we like,

            Again that would be a very literal, fundamentalist,interpretation of the Bible. Before the scientific era the idea of ‘dominion over the earth’ was most often made in analogy to the absolute dominion and rule of kings and monarchs. Given the limits of human knowledge in those times, this was a natural and commonly held paradigm.

            But in the modern era most mature believers would these days understand that phrase in a completely different way, something much closer to the idea of humans being entrusted with guardianship over the earth and all lifeforms. And that science has now given us the insights and tools to carry out such a task.

            The most logical consequence of belief in a God, is that there must be some underlying coherence and consistency in Creation. This means that science and religion must ultimately be in harmony with each other. If there is some apparent contradiction or disagreement, it can only mean that we do not yet have a full or proper understanding of one … or more likely… both.

            • MrSmith 3.1.1.2.1.1
              19 December 2010 at 4:02 pm

              I can’t agree with much of this paragraph Redlogix,

              “But in the modern era most mature believers would these days understand that phrase in a completely different way, something much closer to the idea of humans being entrusted with guardianship over the earth and all lifeforms. And that science has now given us the insights and tools to carry out such a task.”

              Humans have evolved to this point so i don’t see how we where ever entrusted to look after the earth, we just happen to be at the top of the food chain at this point. The point I have been trying to make though is that underlying religious belief is bad for us as a species in regard to climate change anyway, it just creates doubt and inaction, science is seen by many as the enemy of religion as science want’s to ask questions and find answers to those questions, religion has no answers here it just creates doubt and inaction.

              • RedLogix …
                19 December 2010 at 4:29 pm

                You are welcome to disagree Mr Smith; but consider that if we fail in this task, one way or another, the consequence will likely be the extinction of our species. On my good days I have just enough faith to dare hope that we will be able to get beyond all the doubt and inaction, to marginalise the powerful vested interests arrayed against us and agree on a common, rational course of action to prevent the unthinkable.

                Fundamentalist canon is easy to spot, because it’s all written with the linguistic trick of either/or. That’s how it gets its strength. Fundamentalist canon says this is good, that is evil; this is right, that is wrong; this gets you into Heaven, and for that you’ll go straight to Hell. Fundamentalist canon is unquestionable, unswerving, and unashamed of the violence committed in it’s name. Fundamentalist canon says My way or the highway. We are damned if we don’t go along with them. It is in essence a means of coercive power and control.

                Fundamentalism is the antithesis of religion because it is centered in the literal and the material, which is entirely the domain of science, but in contrast true religion is about ideas, abstracts such as justice and compassion, and a sense of the overwhelmingly the humbling, unknowable mysteries of worlds beyond our grasp.

                Fundamentalists are our common enemy Mr Smith.

                • Jeremy Harris …
                  19 December 2010 at 5:22 pm

                  I think some of the earliest environmentalists were religious, from memory the founder of the Sierra Club (or similar) was a Christian…

                  • prism …
                    20 December 2010 at 9:41 am

                    Jeremy H There’s a difference between being fundamentalist and being ‘religious’. Mustn’t generalise too much that’s sloppy thinking. Some fine people with good thinking have been religious and some have been doubters. Connecting fundamentalists and thinking may be an oxymoron.

                • MrSmith …
                  19 December 2010 at 6:22 pm

                  We will survive because we are selfish, but I’m afraid climate change is a bit like smoking, you want to give it up and everyone tells you it going to kill you, so you will give up tomorrow. Some will die and it won’t be there fault a lot like tobacco. I am normally an optimist but this has got me worried .
                  A book for you Redlogix if you haven’t already read it: The Origins of virtue. by Matt Ridley

  4. Mac1 4
    19 December 2010 at 10:02 am

    Did not President Reagan appoint an assistant secretary for the environment or some such who believed that the End Time was going to happen within two generations? Therefore since there was no need to protect the environment, he would allow exploitation to occur in National Parks.

  5. prism 5
    19 December 2010 at 1:03 pm

    CScienceC are termites undermining the country. They go crazy on the heady brew of their own ideas not diluted with reality. Is the graphic an x-ray of Homer Simpson-s head with a pea brain floating in space?

  6. Draco T Bastard 6
    22 December 2010 at 11:31 pm

    Well, it seems that the nutters have come out lying, prevaricating and generally foaming at the mouth.

    Our unreliable witness then makes a truly heroic leap of faith:

    “The new temperature record shows no evidence of a connection with global warming.”

    Yep, according to the CSC, NZ warming is not connected to global warming.