I wrote a post a while ago, in which I asked Brian Rudman of the New Zealand Herald to apologise for the rude way that he spoke about the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC). No surprise, but no comment and no reply was forthcoming, even though his rudeness about NZCSC was unjustified.
The subject that started this was the NIWA official temperature record. NZCSC were simply trying to find out how adjustments were made to thermometer readings to create the official New Zealand temperature record. Facing stonewalling by NIWA, NZCSC finally took NIWA to court, at which point NIWA backed down, denying the official temperature record was official (see here for full story). The reason was that, in basic terms, it was beyond any scientific defence. The current situation is that NIWA have revised the record, and are once again denying access to the details of the adjustment.
The key point in the whole story is that NZCSC were vindicated. The New Zealand official temperature record had no foundation in science. I therefore found it interesting to find another article dated August 16, 2010 in the New Zealand Herald, as follows:
Court action against New Zealand’s state-owned weather and atmospheric research body is “stupid” and just creating confusion, University of Otago pro-vice chancellor of sciences Keith Hunter says.
The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (Niwa) is being taken to court in a challenge over the accuracy of its data used to calculate global warming.
But Prof Hunter told Radio New Zealand the courts could not determine whether or not the adjusted records had been adjusted properly.
“It can only be done by people who have an established scientific reputation in meteorology. So if the coalition has got those people they should do the analysis. If they haven’t they should find someone else who has got that.
“There is nothing sinister about making adjustments. Measurements are often adjusted because of procedural differences between stations or changes in instruments with time.
“The coalition are just creating confusion. Throwing mud and if they throw enough mud some will stick and organisations like Niwa get dragged down in it,” Prof Hunter said.
As with any newspaper report, we can not know whether the remarks were taken out of context, and I am sure that Professor Hunter would not want to have his views misrepresented. In particular, he is a high profile New Zealand scientist, in a position of responsibility in a research based university. As such, I thought it might be an idea to see if Professor Hunter is still standing by these views. In particular, he discussed NZCSC as ‘throwing mud’, which would suggest that they had motivations that were not related to a concern about the scientific accuracy of the NIWA temperature records.
Bearing in mind, the court action saw their actions as being vindicated, and a temperature record with no sound foundation withdrawn, I have sent Professor Hunter the following email.
Dear Professor Hunter,
I have found a news story from the New Zealand Herald in which you discuss the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition’s court action to question NIWA’s temperature record as ‘stupid’ and suggest that they are ‘throwing mud’ at NIWA. NIWA later retracted the official status of the temperature record, and have since reconstructed the temperature record. As you may or may not be aware, the original temperature record failed to meet what any scientist would call a reasonable standard of science.
As I understand the situation, the cause of the court action was the refusal of NIWA to release information on the adjustments to the temperature record. The court action was a last resort, and one which finally revealed that NIWA had no firm scientific basis for the temperature record. Interestingly, they are again blocking access to the adjustments to the new temperature record they have developed.
In light of the fact that NZCSC have, through their efforts, revealed that the New Zealand temperature record was without scientific foundation, would you care to retract your comments to the New Zealand Herald, or clarify the comments in light of subsequent events. I am sure that, as one of New Zealand’s leading scientists, you would feel that NZCSC have done a service to science in revealing a widely cited body of scientific data to be without scientific merit. Perhaps you may wish to congratulate them on their contribution to the ongoing investigations in climate change?
For your reference, I have linked to the original story in the New Zealand Herald, and a summary of the NZCSC fight to clarify the science behind the New Zealand Temperature record.
I have also published a copy of this email online, and it can be found at the following address: [address of this post in email]. I will, of course, publish any reply in full.
I very much look forward to your reply.
Mark, NZ Climate Change
It will be interesting to see if a scientist is willing to back those who revealed the lack of scientific foundation for the New Zealand temperature record.