I hesitate to become involved again but it is a matter of public record (published on the NZCSC web site) that in January 2010 Terry Dunleavy, as Hon Secretary of the NZCSC, wrote to Tim Mahood, General Counsel for NIWA, setting out details of the Coalition’s request for data ( data NIWA was legally obligated to produce) and foreshadowing, nay almost warning, that if they failed to heed the OIA request legal action in the High Court was likely. As I have said here before, NIWA chose to ignore that warning. Barristers and the Court will determine the consequences.

Efforts by Chris and Rudman to minimise NIWA’s malfeasance do them no credit

Though our Statement of Claim may be construed as an attempt to “invalidate 30 years of work” it is not (for one thing, the work has lasted for 30 years but it has not taken 30 years). We’ll never know the details of how the 7SS was constructed but we must at least ensure that its replacement is properly documented, the shonky 7SS gets withdrawn until replaced and NIWA perhaps gets a tuneup.

But I wish you’d think about what has happened, because then you might realise that we cannot invalidate what has never been validated. Invalidation is logically unavailable!

It is NIWA’s responsibility to justify and secure their own work — whatever they do. They accept this responsibility, so they’re recreating the temperature series from scratch. There is no reason to criticise the Coalition for pressing NIWA to do that.

But this is no argument that you make — it is mere irritation and nit picking. If it is the best you can bring to the field then our fortress is secure. I suppose it’s no surprise when people fail to engage with a difficult subject, but I confess that I am in fact puzzled by your and other critics’ failure to confront the truths that I keep writing about. You have come closest, for which I commend you, but I still get the firm impression you’re trying not to listen to me.

When I say:

I venture to suggest that obfuscation, delay and an eventual announcement to recreate what we asked for invite serious judgement where none was suspected. That has been our experience; I wish you and others would actually believe that.

I am in earnest. I make no empty claim of obfuscation but a provable one. Not that we’re “prosecuting” NIWA for that, or ever would. But it is the reason why we, perhaps alone among New Zealanders, no longer receive NIWA’s statements in an air of credulous trust.

For it was NIWA’s strange responses to our request which begat suspicious thoughts — we carried none to the table. And it was their weird citations of useless papers and the unhelpful, voluminous, labyrinthine Salinger thesis which cemented their fundamental lack of good will among those who knew of it.

NIWA have not been the innocent victim in this affair, though publicly they have played that hand. I repeat:

It should not require a scientist to ask what every citizen of this country is entitled to know: the facts concerning the national temperature record.

Cheers.

There was an element of sarcasm intended in the statement below:
“I have not looked at much published by the Coalition”

There may have been , but it was indiscernible, I have to say, based on your knowledge of the discussion to date.

Can you point me to the peer reviewed publications by the Coalition.

The Coalition does not publish papers. Individuals publish papers. The papers published by the individual members in peer-reviewed journals runs in the hundreds. But paper lists do not denote correctness, and I believe the Coalition would never state that, just because its members are highly published authors, that they therefore must be believed.

In order for the Coalition to make such a serious judgement of NIWA scientists, I expect that there should be some hard evidence in the form of peer reviewed publications written by a scientist adept in the field of climatology. These papers should show why the NZ temperature record is invalid.

I see you’ve moved from making unfounded assertions to making demands. Very well, start with the paper I’ve already mentioned:
Hessell J.D., “Apparent trends of mean temperature in New Zealand since 1930″, NZ J. Science, Vol 23, (1980).
It explains in detail why the urbanisation effects have tainted most of the city records, and when the equivalent rural stations are used to check the city records, they show significantly reduced trends. It is written by one of the most experienced of climatologists of the time, Dr Jim Hessell of the Met Service, and comes from the same period as Salinger’s thesis. He knew these stations well, and he concludes the following:

(Click for larger version, or click http://i53.tinypic.com/20i9bi9.jpg)

I should mention that Jim Hessell is not a member of the Coalition, he retired from the Met Service some years back.

You could also read Rhoades & Salinger (1993), referenced above, which explains in some detail why you should not do what NIWA has done with the ESS (or the 7SS for that matter), and also details the immense uncertainties in attempting to read long-term climate trends from such poor data.

In your debate with Chris you remind me of my burmese cat, toying with a mouse. Your patience is remarkable.

In a letter today to a leading UK cleric (copied to me), a friend in the UK reminded the bishop and his prelatariat of the danger of following false idols, namely (when applied here) attempting to defend NIWA:

” … that of course, is the addiction to the idolatrous and secular cult of climate change. Still, in the face of overwhelming evidence of its fraudulent irrelevance, I’m guessing that that doesn’t have long to run, notwithstanding the increasingly shrill scare-mongering of its proselytisers.”

Chris, NIWA needs leadership, not surrogate-like defence.

In order for the Coalition to make such a serious judgement of NIWA scientists

What serious judgement is implied by asking: “What changes have you made and why?”

I venture to suggest that obfuscation, delay and an eventual announcement to recreate what we asked for invite serious judgement where none was suspected. That has been our experience; I wish you and others would actually believe that.

As for papers: that’s a bit of a laugh. Nobody wants to read a paper that asks a few questions! They want to hear answers, and so do we.

It should not require a scientist to ask what every citizen of this country is entitled to know: the facts concerning the national temperature record.

Cheers.

There was an element of sarcasm intended in the statement below:

“I have not looked at much published by the Coalition”

Surely, if you wished to determine the accuracy of what the Coalition says about NIWA, you would read what the Coalition actually says, rather than what NIWA says it says?

Can you point me to the peer reviewed publications by the Coalition. I will have a look at them. I will not accept links to blogger websites and the like.

In order for the Coalition to make such a serious judgement of NIWA scientists, I expect that there should be some hard evidence in the form of peer reviewed publications written by a scientist adept in the field of climatology. These papers should show why the NZ temperature record is invalid.

I also intend to show that the data I have shown from the eleven station series is not cherry picked to show a warming trend. I am downloading data from the NIWA climate database.
Cheers
Chris

The following post to this one (A tale of two hemispheres) would seem to raise serious questions about the validity of the NIWA temperature record.

I’ve mentioned above that the ESS was thrown together in a hurry. NIWA has an obligation to ensure that all reasonable care is taken when assembling histories.

One of their duties, according to the peer-reviewed literature is as follows:

“Where long-term homogeneous series are required, for example, for studies of climate change, it is best to choose stations that are unlikely to have been affected by gradual changes in shading or urbanization.”
Rhoades & Salinger, “ADJUSTMENT OF TEMPERATURE AND RAINFALL RECORDS
FOR SITE CHANGES”, Int. J. Climatology, Vol 13, (1993)

Why therefore, they chose to use an urban site for their temperature history in the ESS is unclear.

However, there exists another, non-urban site, Te Aroha, which is a much more suitable candidate. This site is specifically mentioned in the peer-reviewed literature as a site unaffected by urbanisation, screen changes or sheltering. Ref: Hessell, “Apperent trends of mean temperature in New Zealand since 1930″, NZ J. Science, Vol 23, (1980).

Te Aroha contains data from 1888 until 2000, when it was closed due to lack of adequate observers. If one must use a site from this region, then Te Aroha is the one to choose.

The long-term trend of this station is just 0.23ºC/century.

http://i37.tinypic.com/a0wd8y.jpg
(all years with even one month missing have been excluded)

Regards,
Bob