Think of this as a car crash. NIWA says: The cars fine, theres nothing wrong with it. Then: We cant find the keys (actually weve lost the car).
Later: We werent driving it.
Finally: The car doesnt exist.
Theres a litany of excuses. The National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) claims New Zealand has been warming at 0.92°C per 100 years. But when some independent minded chaps in New Zealand graphed the raw NZ data, they found that the thermometers show NZ has only warmed by a statistically non-significant 0.06°C. They asked for answers and got nowhere, until they managed to get the light of legal pressure onto NIWA to force it to reply honestly. Reading between the lines, its obvious NIWA cant explain or defend the adjustments.
Richard Treadgold was one of that team and wrote it up here.
The legal documents:
August 2010: The NZ Climate Science Coalitions put together legal claims.
The NZCSC filed judicial review proceedings against NIWA, requesting the Court to:
Declare the 7SS invalid
Direct NIWA to prepare a valid replacement NZTR
September 14th 2010: NIWA defended itself
Treadgold colorfully summed up what happened when NIWA put out its defense.
NZCSC: Its faulty. NIWA: Its not ours.
How can this be the action of earnest, dedicated scientists their answer to months of implied accusations of dishonest science? Having suffered, according to their supporters, attempts to smear their top scientists, how can NIWA respond by saying they dont want to be held responsible?
Theyre not defending the temperature record or the mistakes in it, theyre virtually saying: Youre right, the dataset could be shonky, so were washing our hands of it. Which gives us no confidence in the science they might have applied to it. What the hells going on?
it gets worse.
NIWA has formally stated that, in their opinion, they are not required to use the best available information nor to apply the best scientific practices and techniques available at any given time. They dont think that forms any part of their statutory obligation to pursue excellence.
And that little bombshell just does my head in. For how can they pursue excellence without using the best techniques?
NIWA denies there is any such thing as an official NZ Temperature Record, although theyre happy to create an acronym for it (NZTR).
Specifically NIWA claims:
Point 7: There is no official or formal New Zealand Temperature Record;
(b) [NIWAs] website contains a page titled New Zealand temperature record (NZTR), being an informal description for a collection of different streams of climate information
Point 8: The NZTR is not a record and is not a public record for the purposes of the PRA
It is a controlling public office in respect of the Database; and
(f) It is not a controlling public office in respect of the NZTR, 7SS, 11SS or Marine Measurements for the purposes of the PRA
The implications are far reaching (if a bit open ended)
I wondered out loud in an email to Tony Cox about what it would mean, he replied off the cuff:
The Defence, parts 7 and 8 are novel; the SOC is basically asserting either nonfeasance [not doing something which had to be done] or malfeasance [doing something wrong which had to be done]; the Defence is saying that nothing had to be done and wasnt done.
This is extraordinarily stupid. Anyone who has paid, been levied, fined or taxed on the basis of this [non-existent] record because a government, statutory body or private firm which charged the fee did so on the basis of this [non-existent] record could now sue for the recovery of the fee[s] they have paid. Class actions anyone?
In a nutshell, it appears that what it means is what we make of it.
Im not sure if there is any legal agency with any power to enforce some action at this point (do enlighten me), but it sure could be a gift though possibly only if the people of New Zealand (and their friends) decide to run with NIWAs admissions and pursue this to the end.
All the documents, reports, contracts and parliamentary statements that relied on the New Zealand Temperature Record, are surely now begging to be challenged. All the people that mistakenly believed that the NZTR was more than just an unverified, unaudited, internal document, now need to reconsider where they stand.
Background information
From Quadrant: Crisis in NZ Climatology and NZ Climate Crisis Gets Worse
Links to the NZTR
7SS (7 station series) and 11SS (11 station series)
7SS only (one left click for a blowup)
Thanks to Bryan Leyland and Richard C
h/t to several other people who deserve to be named
(and Ill do that as soon as I can find those comments).
Thanks Richard C for those extra links and Tony Cox for his thoughts.