Update: A special message to visitors from Drudge: you are being lied to. Global warming is happening and we’re causing it, but to avoid dealing with the problem folks are shooting the messenger, attacking the scientists who discovered and reported on the problem. The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition isn’t made up of climate scientists, but is just a group of global warming skeptics who gave themselves a fancy title. And they just got caught combining temperature data from different places to get rid of the inconvenient warming trend in New Zealand. If you want to know what the science really says, please read the Copenhagen Diagnosis.

The latest story exciting the denialosphere is being put about by Anthony Watts and is based on a “news alert” from the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition. (Note: New Zealand Climate Science Coalition contains no actual climate scientists.)

The New Zealand Government’s chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn’t there.

The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain’s CRU climate research centre. …

Gareth Renowden explains how the NZCSC concocted their result — they made the NZ warming trend go away by treating measurements from different sites as if they came from the same site. Now that might be simple incompetence, but they also claim that NIWA won’t explain how they adjust the data for site changes, and as Renowden says:

Nothing in the station histories? It’s all there for anyone who can be bothered to look, or to ask politely. But Treadgold and the NZ CSC have no excuse, because the NZ CSC were told about this information at least two years ago, the last time they tried to make a fuss about “adjusted data”. In other words, Treadgold and whoever in the NZ CSC helped him with the data are being more than economical with the truth, they are lying through their teeth.

I wonder how many of the folks accusing NIWA of cooking their data will correct their posts?


  1. #1 wrong at large
    December 12, 2009

    this is not how a real scientist acts,,, this is how a AGWist proselytizers act,,,

    UN Security Stops Journalist’s Questions About ClimateGateby Mike Flynn
    A Stanford Professor has used United Nation security officers to silence a journalist asking him “inconvenient questions” during a press briefing at the climate change conference in Copenhagen.

    Professor Stephen Schneider’s assistant requested armed UN security officers who held film maker Phelim McAleer, ordered him to stop filming and prevented further questioning after the press conference where the Stanford academic was launching a book.

  2. #2 wrong at large
    December 16, 2009


    Inconvenient Question to Al Gore

    Journalist and filmmaker Phelim McAleer (Mine Your Own Business, Not Evil Just Wrong) attempts to ask Al Gore a question about ‘Climategate’ emails at the UN Climate Change Conference. Al Gore’s Press Secretary grabs his McAleer’s microphone and UN security guard pulls the cable from the microphone. For more Inconvenient Questions and answers about The True Cost of Global Warming Hysteria visit http://www.noteviljustwrong.com

  3. #3 Peter Fraser Smith
    February 15, 2010

    Dr Stephen Schneider the same climate expert who was on the global cooling bandwagon (The Iceage Cometh) of the 1970’s. To quote the late John L Daly “Dr Schneider’s 1971 conclusions were nearer the truth and ….. his later change of heart was was due less to new evidence and more to changing temperatures

  4. #4 dhogaza
    February 15, 2010

    Dr Stephen Schneider the same climate expert who was on the global cooling bandwagon (The Iceage Cometh) of the 1970’s.

    Not accurate. Do the google yourself.

  5. #5 jakerman
    February 15, 2010

    Peter Fraser Smith writes:

    >*”Dr Schneider’s 1971 conclusions were nearer the truth and ….. his later change of heart was was due less to new evidence and more to changing temperatures*

    Peter Fraser Smith thanks for contributing but Schneider’s [concern re AGW](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/) is due to [overwhelming evidence](http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/ClimateFrameset.html).

    Your quote from Mr Daly did not include any supporting evience regarding what is “truth” nor what informed Schneider.

    I suggest you make any follow up comments in a live thread such as [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_41.php) < http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_41.php>

  6. #6 sunspot
    May 17, 2010

    Update May 15, 2010


    In the face of all these obstacles, why has NIWA persevered with the 30-year-old Salinger methodology – which they never agreed to adopt in the first place? Could it be that Dr Salinger was so well-trusted by his peers and superiors that they could simply accept his bare assurance that all was well?

    Well, no. He isn’t held in high regard by NIWA:
    First, they fired him for his persistent refusal to accept direction, or to follow company policy, or to cease talking to the media. He appealed to the Employment Court for reinstatement, but NIWA fought that hard for most of last year, and were ultimately successful.

    Secondly, when the SSS was criticised in “Are We Feeling Warmer Yet”, Dr Wratt did not respond with a Salinger argument. Instead, he invented a whole web page describing how the Wellington record had been adjusted for altitude changes, and had a Minister table that in the House. Wratt’s misleading conduct, which is a serious matter, seems to have been motivated by his distrust of the Salinger method.

    Thirdly, NIWA published a new paper called “The NIWA ‘Seven-Station’ Temperature Series” on 3rd February, written by Dr Brett Mullan, which sets out details of 34 temperature adjustments. These have been compared with their counterparts in the Salinger thesis and only one adjustment is the same! This new Schedule of Adjustments does not even pretend to follow the 1981 Salinger precedent – but avoids disclosing that fact.

    The NSS has not been retained out of respect for Salinger. The only remaining explanation is that NIWA and the Climate Ministers are attempting to save face rather than confess that they have been running their policies on the basis of bogus data for many years.

    Piecing together the provenance of the New Zealand historical temperature record has been no easy task. Much of the detail is set out in the Climate Conversation blog. It has involved a myriad of investigative methods but the most productive has been the placement of nearly 50 Parliamentary Questions for Written Answer, for which credit must go to John Boscawen MP. The New Zealand mainstream media, all highly partisan on climate change matters, have evinced little interest in the scandal to date.

    Science claims a special place in the trust of the public because of its unswerving adherence to certain objective methodologies, involving transparency, peer review, replicability and honest purpose. NIWA has forfeited that trust in so many ways.


  7. #7 Doug Proctor
    September 28, 2010

    The New Zealand temperature data dispute is about reasonableness, not about how code was written as per the assumptions and protocols of data management. In all data management there are models; that is how you know whether to warm or cool data or drop data or how to infill missing data. If your model assumptions have errors or, worse, built-in biases, then your output conclusions will be consistent but certainly wrong.

    Much argument by the skeptics (of which I am one) is based on the data, principally on the massaging of the data. If there are 3 corrections, and each one gives the benefit of the doubt to warming, then the end result will be an excess of apparent warming that is artefact rather than real. That is what the pre vs post data correction summaries look like they are showing.

    The effect of cummulative, positive adjustments cannot be over emphasized. The perceived warming of 0.7K is so small relative to daily, yearly and regional variations that the end result systemic biases are a huge problem. Plus, we have to remember – which we forget to do all the time – that there is no antropogenic signal if the warming since 1900 is of the 1.8K/century. That is strictly “normal”, like it or not. Only beyond that is therepotential for AGW. And it has to be 3.0K/century (+1.2C/century) for it to be “catastrophic”. So the amount we are to be worried about is an amount greater than 0.4K over the last 35 years. Have we seen that? Perhaps, if we believe GISS/NASA/NIWA. But the extra 0.3-0.5K is equal to the adjustments. Very worrisome.

    If we are to cvhange global economies, we should be extremely confident on the truth of the temperature data, not on the consistency of the model output or how computer codes work. The confidence in the data is not 95% as the IPCC would have you believe. And it is not even in how the models imitate reality. The confidence is in the consistency of results from model runs using the assumptions and data put into them. The change in banner from “Global Warming” to “Global Climate Disruption” should fire off alarms in the warming community that at the head of the carbon reduction strategies, the “leaders” are aware that the alleged warming NOT clear or well documented.
    That is, if you look at the temperature data itself, rather than the press releases, you will be inclinded to be skeptical also.

    Approach what the authorities say with caution as you would if they wanted you to join the army. There are agendas and there are those all excited by being in the excitment. Same as in high school. We’re just older. Look at the data and see if “reasonablenss” doesn’t make you hesitate.

    The skeptic will accept the result if the questions are reasonably addressed, not just with a reference to authorities. We are beyond Aristotle and Plato as being the wisest of us all. Gore and Suzuki WILL NOT accept questions. Why not? With $79billion invested in AGW in the US alone, you would think that those fellows would have such rock-solid evidence that a questioner would be humiliated. Instead, as Cameron found out, it is more likely that the warmist speaker will be humiliated.

  8. #8 Wow
    September 28, 2010

    > In all data management there are models; that is how you know whether to warm or cool data or drop data or how to infill missing data.

    > Much argument by the skeptics (of which I am one) is based on the data, principally on the massaging of the data.

    And yet each “model” of what data to use and how to correct it (and this information is available at your local government climate centre) gets pretty much the same value.

    This could be

    a) A huge coincidence

    b) A huge conspiracy

    c) Showing that the models used are valid

    (a) is out because there are too many different methods of collection and they agree too closely to both physical expectations and each other to be happenstance.

    (b) is out because if it were, then there would be evidence in the “climate gate” email history.

    But you refuse (c). Why?

    You don’t seem to be skeptical at all, you seem to be denying the logical conclusion.

  9. #9 Marco
    September 28, 2010

    Doug, care to tell us how RSS and UAH are ‘cooking their data’ to yield warming similar to the surface stations?

    Oh, and climate disruption was already used by Holdren many, many years ago. For example here:
    and here:

    And Stuart Pimm explains why it is a better term than global warming:

  10. #10 Dave R
    September 28, 2010

    Doug Proctor:
    >The skeptic will accept the result if the questions are reasonably addressed

    You haven’t asked any questions. You’ve just posted a load of anti-science talking points and conspiracy theories, all of which are [well known to be false](http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php) and have been “reasonably addressed” ad nauseum.

    The fact that you simply parroted them here without bothering to check whether they were true shows that you are [very far from being a skeptic](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/feb/22/climate-change-sceptics). Please do not abuse the word in future.

  11. #11 ligne
    September 28, 2010

    > The skeptic will accept the result if the questions are reasonably addressed.

    they have been, and they do.

    your move.

  12. #12 Bernard J.
    September 28, 2010

    [Doug Proctor](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co.php#comment-2824604).

    So climate scientists have cooked the books, huh?

    Exactly how did they convince the biosphere and the hydrosphere to join the conspiracy, and to do so in a manner that reflects the modelling?

    If there is fraud, then the only people not invited to participate were the pseudo-sceptics and the outright denialists. But don’t worry – if you are feeling a bit left out you can come to the party of reason on my ticket.

    All you need to do is to have your fairy godmother change you ideological ignorance into

  13. #13 Bernard J.
    September 28, 2010

    …somethng resembling objective scientific understanding.

    [Sorry – not sure where the end of the sentence drifted off to.]

  14. #14 Bernard J.
    September 30, 2010

    [Doug Proctor…](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co.php#comment-2824604)?

    You seem to have rather quietened once [challenged on your claim](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co.php#comment-2825439).

    Seriously, if you think that there has been no significant climate change, how then do you explain the biological shiftings (ranges, phenology, et cetera) and the hydrological changes that are all consistent with the warming spoken of by the world’s best trained, professional, expert climatologists?

    You’re welcome to ask the scientific audience or to ‘phone a friend if you need to.

  15. #15 Stuart Mathieson
    October 30, 2012

    The deniers can scrutinise and obfuscate all they like but the direction a multiplicity of independent evidence streams points at is a clear upward trend that only a charlatan (on the payroll) or Flat Earther would deny.

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.