An insider’s story of the global attack on climate science

23 January 2014, 6.40am AEST
Jim Salinger

A recent headline – Failed doubters trust leaves taxpayers six-figure loss – marked the end of a four-year epic saga of secretly-funded climate denial, harassment of scientists and tying-up of valuable government resources in New Zealand.

It’s likely to be a familiar story to my scientist colleagues in Australia, the UK, USA and elsewhere around the world.

But if you’re not a scientist, and are genuinely trying to work out who to believe when it comes to climate change, then it’s a story you need to hear too. Because while the New Zealand fight over climate data appears finally to be over, it’s part of a much larger, ongoing war against evidence-based science.

From number crunching to controversy

In 1981 as part of my PhD work, I produced a seven-station New Zealand temperature series, known as 7SS, to monitor historic temperature trends and variations from Auckland to as far south as Dunedin in southern New Zealand.

A decade later, in 1991-92 while at the NZ Meteorological Service, I revised the 7SS using a new homogenisation approach to make New Zealand’s temperature records more accurate, such as adjusting for when temperature gauges were moved to new sites.

For example, in 1928 Wellington’s temperature gauge was relocated from an inner suburb near sea level up into the hills at Kelburn, where - due to its higher, cooler location - it recorded much cooler temperatures for the city than before.

With statistical analysis, we could work out how much Wellington’s temperature has really gone up or down since the city’s temperature records began back in 1862, and how much of that change was simply due to the gauge being moved uphill. (You can read more about re-examining NZ temperatures here.)

So far, so uncontroversial.

But then in 2008, while working for a NZ government-owned research organisation, the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), we updated the 7SS. And we found that at those seven stations across the country, from Auckland down to Dunedin, between 1909 and 2008 there was a warming trend of 0.91°C.

Soon after that, things started to get heated.

The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, linked to a global climate change denial group, the International Climate Science Coalition, began to question the adjustments I had made to the 7SS.

And rather than ever contacting me to ask for an explanation of the science, as I’ve tried to briefly cover above, the Coalition appeared determined to find a conspiracy.

“Shonky” claims

The attack on the science was led by then MP for the free market ACT New Zealand party, Rodney Hide, who claimed in the NZ Parliament in February 2010 that:

Quote:


Mr Hide’s attack continued for 18 months, with more than 80 parliamentary questions being put to NIWA between February 2010 and July 2011, all of which required NIWA input for the answers.

The science minister asked NIWA to re-examine the temperature records, which required several months of science time. In December 2010, the results were in. After the methodology was reviewed and endorsed by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, it was found that at the seven stations from Auckland to Dunedin, between 1909 and 2008 there was a warming trend of 0.91°C.

That is, the same result as before.

But in the meantime, before NIWA even had had time to produce that report, a new line of attack had been launched.

Off to court

In July 2010, a statement of claim against NIWA was filed in the High Court of New Zealand, under the guise of a new charitable trust: the New Zealand Climate Science Education Trust (NZCSET). Its trustees were all members of the NZ Climate Science Coalition.

[continued ...]

[... continued]

Earlier this month, the news broke that major tobacco companies will finally admit they “deliberately deceived the American public”, in “corrective statements” that would run on prime-time TV, in newspapers and even on cigarette packs.

It’s taken a 15-year court battle with the US government to reach this point, and it shows that evidence can trump doubt-mongering in the long run.

A similar day may come for those who actively work to cast doubt on climate science.

lee wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2014 at 5:35pm:


So about that billboard...where exactly is/was it in New Zealand?...

This belongs in environment or fairy tales, where it already is in one. But you knew that.

My post belongs in Politicians suck, NOT Environment—it is about the war on science, not AGW!

St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2014 at 7:04pm:



Forget who you were posting under?

Attack on science continues:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/el-nino-tracking-system-in...

It isn’t even to do with AGW, just the La Nina/El Nino cycles.

But anything to do with “climate” or “science” gets attacked these days.

namnugenot wrote on Jan 28^th, 2014 at 8:11am:

nam has never heard of following the money and his children weep: but still nam laughs at his paper profit if any lol not but still lol somehow but not    wow, so confusing 

# wrote on Jan 28^th, 2014 at 2:12pm:


No you're thinking about the global conspiracy against "science".

# wrote on Jan 29^th, 2014 at 10:47am:


That's just for AG Warmists dishonest enough to classify the hodgepoge of faith, conjecture, supposition, ranting and wild speculation as to causation or effects passed off as "facts" as "science". To which my comment applies in full. You want everyone to accept your position while offering zero substantiation and in the same breath as requiring proof to negating something you yourself can't prove. But you see conspirators and blasphemers against your faith everywhere. 

namnugenot wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 1:13pm:
Acknowledging my own limitations, I accept the judgement of the best qualified. You, on the other hand, seem convinced that the best qualified are all involved in something nasty.

You've never revealed your qualifications, that you have such insight.

# wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 1:57pm:



'lee wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 1:29pm:



I am sorry you didn't understand this. I can't make it simpler.

# wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 2:14pm:



So Climate Science can only use can, could, should in terms of proving AGW bur not in terms of questioning the data? Rather odd.

Homogenisation can be a good or bad thing - neither makes it necessary.

# wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 3:39pm:


My opinion. Can you validate yours, whatever it is?

# wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 7:41pm:



So you believe an OP over a peer reviewed paper? That explains it.

lee wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2014 at 5:35pm:


The Heartland Institute is a front for the US Koch Brothers, who are into big Oil.
They own one of the largest businesses in the world, they are anti climate change & they are big supporters of the US Tea Party.  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_family
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 31^st, 2014 at 12:21am:


As with # "Can you substantiate that?"...I was not aware that wikipedia was subject to peer review?

...and still irrelevant and nothing to do with the NZ case.
......

For heaven's sake lee! We have data from various sources. Researchers need to work with what they have and homogenisation is just one of the tools that they have to make use of that diversity of sources. Nothing nefarious, nothing dodgy.

Just link to the denialist crap that's got you on this time-wasting crusade and be done with it.

# wrote on Jan 31^st, 2014 at 3:33pm:


The question remains should the work by BOM be revisited in the light of this new paper?

lee wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 1:29pm:
Courtesy of progressiveslol: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/29/important-study-on-temperature-adjustments....

Still scraping the bottom of the loony bin for your sources I see, lee. Why can't you just be honest about these things?

lee wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2014 at 8:25pm:

O divine art of subtlety  Yer, right, you go over everyones head ay brother 

# wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2014 at 2:07pm:

So?/quote]

Further into his article-

'For those focusing on climate change – the atmosphere right now is half full of carbon dioxide '

Just so we're sure what he's talking about.

Damian Carrington is the head of environment at the Guardian.

http://www.theguardian.com/profile/damiancarrington

So, the atmosphere is approximately 0.04% full of carbon dioxide.

'December 2013:     396.81 ppm '

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
If the journal of truth and light can be this wrong, why should we believe anything it prints? John Cook's mate Dana Nuccitelli and all.

# wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2014 at 7:28pm:


Perhaps you should ask the writer of the article what he meant.
Dissembling doesn't suit you.

# wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2014 at 7:48pm:

Lee wants another circle party... you have been warned