Let me say again that our (the NZCSC’s and the CCG’s) only objective is to discover the temperature adjustments, the reasons they were made and the reasons for choosing those seven stations to represent the whole country.

Many people have mistaken the nature of our study, and have overlooked the fact that we simply compared two things on NIWA’s own web site: their “official” graph of NZ temperatures and the “official” temperature data they make available for download. It turns out that they’re radically different, but there’s not one word of explanation for that. Why should we be expected to know the kinds of changes that might be applied, when ordinary citizens don’t know? They should spell them out very carefully. But even though we’ve forced them publicly to state: “we applied changes,” they have still not told us what those changes were or why they were made.

This is a kindergarten dispute and could be laughed at if nothing depended on it. But the government is taking large amounts of money from us based on conclusions drawn from these changes to recorded temperatures, so we deserve to know what those changes are.

You correctly state that in the original study we were “provocative and confrontational” but it is not correct that this made NIWA refuse to answer our questions and become defensive.

The truth is that they have been behaving like this (principally in the person of Dr Salinger) since the 1980s towards, at a minimum, Dr Vincent Gray, Dr Warwick Hughes and Dr Jim Hessell. There will have been others. Note, too, that this behaviour was towards fellow scientists, not just to upstart laymen like me. It might be justifiable towards the impertinence of outsiders but it is reprehensible between colleagues. Our study did its job, of bringing this scientific request to public notice, but it did not precipitate the truculence from NIWA, it only put it in the spotlight.

A good question is why can you be so level-headed and objective in studying this matter when they cannot? What is the nature of their emotional attachment to this issue that it interferes with what must be their scientific instinct? Those scientists are surely not ill-intentioned, but they are less than open.

I agree with your analysis of the Wellington example NIWA so craftily volunteered. You might like to know that we think there are good reasons to question their adjustments between Kelburn and the airport and even perhaps reasons to challenge them. More on that soon.

Though Niwa claim the adjustments were warranted, this has yet to be demonstrated. It is only what they say. This is where they hold the upper hand in the public perception, for without access to the figures and the methodology, we cannot “prove” their adjustments inappropriate. We cannot even challenge what we are not aware of! All we can achieve is hand-waving. They must first relent before we can judge the wisdom of what they have done.

Our questions are aimed, effectively, at what Salinger has done, and he has just flown the coop! Fired from NIWA! One wonders if NIWA actually have any data left from his work, or he is hanging on to it. Wouldn’t that be interesting?

The purpose of the request under the Official Information Act is to force them to release this public information; let us hope that the events following the CRU leak of emails give them an extra incentive to comply.

However Richard, a point I want to make, is that based on what you’ve said above, and in your original paper — you do have a tendency to jump to conclusions at times, and perhaps be unnecessarily provocative and confrontational when it’s not warranted. This doesn’t help your cause, and it may be why NIWA aren’t answering your questions and being defensive.

For instance, in the original paper you published you made statements like “there is nothing in the station histories to warrant these adjustments”, that they give “a false impression of warming”, and “it’s a disgrace”.

However NIWA have given one example (the altitude change of the Wellington station) where one of their adjustments was valid. On that basis, the statements you made in your initial paper are incorrect. This is at least one adjustment (upwards) that was warranted.

If you’d said there’s no *apparent* reason for the adjustments that would have been ok, but instead you’ve made definite statements that implies data fiddling. If I was an honest scientist at NIWA, that would ruffle my feathers too, and make me loath to give you information unless I had to.

The question of course is why were all the other adjustments made? It seems implausible to me that large altitude changes would be responsible for all or most of the adjustments. Even for Wellington itself, there were other adjustments made that remain unexplained, seemingly unrelated to any change in altitude of the station.

I have some experience in analyzing complex datasets as part of a decision making process. Sometimes, to reach a conclusion, assumptions have to be made without a definite and provable basis, dare I say it, on ‘gut feel’. Whilst not perfect, this is better than throwing all the data out and reaching no conclusions at all, just because a small element of doubt exists. So on one level, if the scientists at NIWA are honest, and the adjustments were valid but based on an imprecise method, I can understand their possible reluctance to articulate their methodology — especially if they thought you’re acting in bad faith and are there just to pick holes in it.

On the other hand, I share your skepticism. I know from first-hand experience that subtle assumptions, one way or another, can tip the balance either way when analyzing complex data. If there was any pressure at all with NIWA to show a warming trend, they could easily sway the results that way without outright fiddling. I’m not saying this necessarily has happened, but I can easily see how it could happen. I suspect the Wellington altitude adjustment is not typical, and this example was given precisely because it was the easiest to explain and the least controversial – and that the others are not so clear-cut.

So despite some reservations on how you’ve conducted this debate, NIWA do need to front up and show how they made their adjustments, and be prepared to argue the toss.

Both sides need to focus on the facts, rather than the polemics of who provided what data to whom and on what date.

I would add an obfuscation you didn’t cover: “the balance of evidence suggests”. What does that mean? Scientists I’ve heard agree there must be a human influence on the global climate, since there are plenty of measurable regional effects, but after $90 billion it remains indiscernible. “Nice suggestion, but we can’t recommend policy on that basis, I’m afraid. We need something more… I don’t know… scientific!”

It sounds believable yet it says nothing of substance. The marvel is that NZ scientists have been trying to get data out of these guys for decades — decades! And still they see reasons not to comply. We can only hope the NZCSC request to NIWA under the Official Information Act brings a result.