NIWA’s sham: but wait — there’s more

The Holy Grail

Independently peer-reviewed scientific papers published in learned journals are the Holy Grail of climate science alarmists, and the IPCC in particular. So they want to get friendly papers in and keep contrary papers out.

The Climategate emails show continuous collusion between members of the “Hockey Team” to prevent journal publication of any paper which challenged the IPCC dogma. Because, once published, a paper becomes part of “the scientific literature” and authors are obliged thereafter to take it seriously.

Of course, the IPCC manipulates the system outrageously. After Chairman Pachauri assured the media that it disregarded non-peer-reviewed opinions, revelations came that more than one-third of the material used by some Working Groups came from the “grey” literature (usually written by Big Green activists).

NIWA closely follows the party line. That’s why it has insisted endlessly that the New Zealand temperature record (NZTR) included adjustments “described in the peer-reviewed scientific literature” which were “in accord with internationally accepted techniques.”

Rhoades & Salinger (1993) hit the spot perfectly. Co-authored by a respected New Zealand statistician and by NIWA’s own principal scientist, it dealt directly with the appropriate statistical techniques for adjusting temperature data under New Zealand’s particular conditions (check). It was funded by the Government (check), independently peer-reviewed (check), and published in an appropriate journal (check). Since publication, it has not been rebutted or heavily criticised (check).

Brazenly false claim

There was only one problem — applying the adjustment techniques from R&S didn’t produce any warming trend. What to do? Claim the techniques were out-dated? Write up some different techniques which produce warming, and somehow have them published? All too hard. Solution: “reverse engineer” the outcomes they wanted, adopt methods which produce them, and blatantly (though falsely) claim it was produced by R&S.

But there is a further problem with the scientific literature. Another distinguished paper dealing with New Zealand’s particular conditions (check) found serious contamination of Auckland and Wellington data by non-weather influences. This paper was also funded by the Government (check), independently peer-reviewed (check), published in an appropriate journal (check), and has not been rebutted or even criticised (check).

Hessell¹ (1980), “Apparent trends of mean temperature in New Zealand since 1930,” says plainly that there was no significant change in New Zealand’s annual mean temperatures from 1940 to 1975 — the very period for which NIWA claims our greatest warming ever! The paper’s abstract reads:

The evidence of apparent continuous warming over New Zealand since 1940 is examined from both physical and statistical standpoints. It is found that the exposures of most of the thermometers have been affected by changes in shelter, screenage and/or urbanisation, all of which tend to increase the observed mean temperature. A systematic analysis of all New Zealand climatological stations with sufficient length of record reveals that no important change in annual mean temperatures since 1930 has been found at stations where the above factors are negligible. Neighbour station comparisons support these findings.

An inconvenient truth

The paper classified New Zealand weather stations in two categories — “Reliable” and “Unreliable”. Four of the Unreliable stations were used in the 7SS — Auckland, Wellington, Dunedin and Hokitika. NIWA has studiously ignored that inconvenient truth.

Applying a number of statistical tests over a 40-year period, Hessell recorded that the stations whose data he identified as Unreliable had warmed at about five times the rate of the Reliable stations. This result tested as ‘highly significant’ . He also found that New Zealand urban stations were significantly warmer than their nearest rural counterparts.

Hessell calculated that many stations (including Auckland and Wellington, in particular) were affected by both Urbanisation and Shelter effects during the period 1930–80.

The Hessell paper on its own puts paid to NIWA’s warming theory. Because, while NIWA says most warming occurred during 1940–60 and in Auckland, the “scientific literature” says exactly the opposite.

Who do we believe? NIWA itself wants us to believe the Holy Grail — the peer-reviewed literature, so we will. But because there are no published papers supporting its position, we won’t believe NIWA, and they know it.

If NIWA wanted to challenge the established literature, the correct scientific method is crystal clear. They should submit a research paper setting out the flaws in the Hessell findings and survive independent peer reviews arranged by the journal’s editor. They chose not to do this. Instead, they relied upon sleight-of-hand.

The Hessell paper is listed in the bibliography of the NIWA Review’s Auckland chapter, giving the clear impression that NIWA accepts it and has relied upon it. But you won’t see anywhere that NIWA actually rejects virtually all of the paper’s findings.

Deception

Hessell is mentioned in the text only at page 33 (regarding a 1950 screen change), where NIWA explains that the paper is consistent with its own view. Footnote 28 on page 38 demonstrates that NIWA is acutely aware of the paper’s arguments against using the Auckland data, but it cleverly slide-slips any actual discussion of those arguments:

Hessell (1980, Figure 3) showed a graph of Albert Park wind data from 1918, although the NIWA climate database does not currently have digitised monthly wind-run data prior to 1946.

If the “digitised data” are not in their database, how is that significant? They could find and use the paper analogue records instead. This is deception. It is not the sort of impartial advice we are entitled to expect from a taxpayer-funded public agency. It displays none of the even-handed and objective analysis that was once associated with scientists. It is unprofessional and unacceptable.

NIWA scientists know it is important to get this right. NIWA’s NZTR is the historic basis of its climate science advice to all tiers of Government and to the judiciary — which involves decisions costing billions of tax dollars.

But their overriding loyalty lies with the credo of dangerous anthropogenic global warming, and that trumps all other considerations.

¹ Hessell, J.W.D. 1980. “Apparent trends of mean temperature in New Zealand since 1930.” New Zealand Journal of Science, 23, 1-9.

Views: 77