The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC) in its article ‘NIWA Challenged to Show Why and How Temperature Records Were Adjusted’ (February 7, 2010) provides its readers with an insight into the climate scandal that has now been dubbed ‘Kiwigate.’
NIWA is New Zealand’s National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research and is accused of repeatedly frustrating NZCSC in its attempts to get government climatologists to explain how they managed to create a warming trend for their nation’s climate that is not borne out by the actual temperature record.
According to NZCSC, climate scientists cooked the books by using the same alleged ‘trick’ employed by British and American doom saying scientists. This involves subtly imposing a warming bias during what is known as the ‘homogenization’ process that occurs when climate data needs to be adjusted.
When such data adjustments (homogenizations) are made, scientists must keep their working calculations so that other scientists can test the reasonableness of those adjustments. According to an article in Mathematical Geosciences (April 2009) homogenization of climate data needs to be done because “non-climatic factors make data unrepresentative of the actual climate variation.”
The article tells us that if the raw data is not homogenized (or, as I would argue, “fudged”) the “conclusions of climatic and hydrological studies are potentially biased.”
According to the British independent inquiry into Climategate chaired by Lord Oxburgh, it was found that it was the homogenization process itself that became flawed because climatologists were overly guided by “subjective” bias.
Andrew Bolt, writing for Australia’s Herald Sun (November 26, 2009) commented that the Kiwigate scandal was not so much about “hide the decline” but “ramp up the rise.”
Bolt goes on to report, “Those adjustments were made by New Zealand climate scientist Jim Salinger, a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).” Salinger was dismissed by NIWA this year for speaking without authorization to the media.
Here is where it gets interesting: Salinger once worked at Britain’s CRU, the institution at the centre of the Climategate scandal. Salinger became part of the inner circle of climate scientists whose leaked emails precipitated the original climate controversy in November 2009. In an email (August 4, 2003) to fellow disgraced American climate professor, Michael Mann, Salinger stated he was “extremely concerned about academic standards” among climate skeptics.
NZCSC made a joint press release with the Climate Science Conversation Group (December 18, 2009) accusing NIWA of publishing, “misleading material.” The two organizations claim that NIWA had been “defensive and obstructive” in requests to see New Zealand climate scientists’ data.
NZCSC goes on to report, “The main objective of our temperature study was not to show that the raw data has been tampered with, even though that opinion was emphasized and cannot yet be excluded.”
On January 29, 2010, in what seemed like a reprise of the Phil Jones debacle at Britain’s Climate Research Unit, the Kiwi government finally owned up that ‘NIWA does not hold copies of the original worksheets.” They lost their calculations! Maybe their dog ate their homework.
Kiwigate appears to match Climategate in three essential characteristics. First, climate scientists declined to submit their data for independent analysis. Second, when backed into a corner the scientists claimed their adjustments had been ‘lost’. Third, the raw data itself proves no warming trend. Thus we may reasonably infer a ‘carbon copy’ of Climategate.
NZCSC explained their frustrations in trying to get to actual truth about what had happened with New Zealand’s climate history, “NIWA did everything they possibly could to help us, except hand over the adjustments. It has turned out that there was actually nothing more they could have done – because they never had the adjustments…. None of the scientific papers that NIWA cited in their impressive-sounding press releases contained the actual adjustments….”
After a protracted delay NIWA was forced to admit it has no record of why and when any adjustments were made to the nation’s climate data.
Independent auditors have shown that older data was fudged to make past temperature appear cooler, while modern data was inexplicably ramped up to portray a warming trend that is not backed up by the actual thermometer numbers. This was one of the tricks employed by Mann to create the now discredited hockey stick graph of a warming earth.
How can it be that climate scientists in different countries at the opposite side of the world are facing extraordinarily similar data fraud allegations?
The world is left with more questions than answers. In the latest development, New Zealand’s High Court has been asked to invalidate NIWA’s temperature record http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1008/S00033/court-asked-to-invalidate-niwa-temperature-record.htm .
With so many climatologists having ‘lost’ their calculations, no one can now replicate their methods and confidence in climate science has evaporated.
In addition, further scandalous revelations with Glaciergate and other ‘gates’ have mired the IPCC in an alleged international data fraud conspiracy that undermines the entire theory of man made climate change.
Bolt, A. ‘Climategate: Making New Zealand warmer,’ Herald Sun (November 26, 2009)
Costa, A.C. and A. Soares, ‘Homogenization of Climate Data: Review and New Perspectives Using Geostatistics,’ Mathematical Geoscience, Volume 41, Number 3 / April, 2009.
New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, ‘NIWA Challenged to Show Why and How Temperature Records Were Adjusted’ (February 7, 2010).
NZCSC & Climate Science Conversation Group; Press Statement of December 18, 2009.