Monday, 20 December 2010, 9:47 am Press Release: New Zealand Climate Science Coalition

Call on NIWA to admit latest temperature review not valid

A call has been made on the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) to admit that that there is no valid statistical justification for its claims of a 0.91 degree C rise in New Zealand’s average temperature last century. The call comes from Bryan Leyland, a spokesman for the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC), following the release this week by NIWA of its revised Seven Station Series (7SS), which the agency claimed has been vindicated in a peer review by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BoM).

Enlarged here.

Mr Leyland has also called on the Minister of Science and Technology, Hon Dr Wayne Mapp to ask for the resignation of John Morgan as chairman of NIWA. “Mr Morgan has misled New Zealanders about the robustness of the latest 7SS review. In his media release this week, Mr Morgan wrote that NIWA had asked the Australian Bureau of Meteorology to conduct the peer review to ‘ensure a thorough examination by an independent, internationally respected, climate science organisation. Mr Morgan confirmed that the scientists from the Bureau’s National Climate Centre concluded that the results and underlying methodology used by NIWA were sound.’”

Mr Leyland said Mr Morgan’s interpretation was at odds with what the BoM had actually said in its peer review: “The review does not constitute a reanalysis of the New Zealand ‘seven station’ temperature record. Such a reanalysis would be required to independently determine the sensitivity of, for example, New Zealand temperature trends to the choice of the underlying network, or the analysis methodology. Such a task would require full access to the raw and modified temperature data and metadata, and would be a major scientific undertaking. As such, the review will constrain itself to comment on the appropriateness of the methods used to undertake the ‘seven station’ temperature analysis, in accordance with the level of the information supplied.”

Mr Leyland said that when in December 2009, NZCSC issued a formal request for the schedule of adjustments under the Official Information Act 1982, specifically seeking copies of “the original worksheets and/or computer records used for the calculations”. NIWA responded on 29 January 2010, that they no longer held any internal records, and merely referred to the scientific literature. We leave it to the public to judge whether NIWA’s admission that it had lost the original raw data was a convenient let-out or a failure to maintain proper records.

“Mr Morgan’s press release also claimed that BoM’s review ensured “the ideas, methods, and conclusions stood up in terms of scientific accuracy, logic, and consistency”. This bears no relation to the extremely limited comment actually made by BoM.”

Mr Leyland said Mr Morgan’s spin on what the BoM said in its peer review was another in a long line of misleading claims by NIWA in response to a request by the Climate Science Coalition in February this year that the original 7SS was faulty and should be removed from the NIWA website.

“Either Mr Morgan was misinformed by his own NIWA officials and is not sufficiently scientifically literate to know he was being so misinformed, or he has deliberately misquoted what BoM has said. Either way, he is not a fit and proper person to chair NIWA, and the Minister should demand his resignation,” said Mr Leyland.

“Another question the Minister needs to ask NIWA is why, in view of the BoM’s reference to analysis methodology, the 7SS reassessment was not peer reviewed by someone appropriately qualified in the science of statistical analysis, given that this latest 7SS, like its predecessor, now hurriedly removed from the NIWA website, is more of a statistical challenge of balancing a range of temperatures from seven widely separated weather stations across the country, and trying to arrive at an accurate and meaningful national average temperature, a figure that many climate and statistics scientists around the world say is not possible.

Mr Leyland suggests that NIWA’s claim of vindication is premature, given that the complete 7SS review process is still a work in progress. “In answer to a question in Parliament, the Minister, Dr Mapp, said: ‘NIWA’s review of the ‘seven-station’ series will be supervised by Principal Climate Scientist Dr Brett Mullan. It will be peer reviewed internally by NIWA Chief Climate Scientist Dr David Wratt and Principal Climate Scientist Dr James Renwick; and externally by two respected non-NIWA climate scientists, who have yet to be appointed. In addition, NIWA’s intent, during the 2010/11 financial year, is to submit the work described above as a paper to a scientific journal, where it would be subject to the normal independent peer review process. This work has been incorporated into NIWA’s science planning for 2010/11.  NIWA expects the work to include calculation of the temperature trend and attaching statistical confidence intervals for the resulting “seven-station series”.

“Until that justification has been independently peer-reviewed and published, as promised, the new temperature record should be termed ‘provisional’. Also, NIWA say that they are still working on the ‘statistical confidence intervals’. All the indications are that these margins of error will be large. Until these are calculated, the provisional temperature record carries no credibility as a scientific document.

“In view of the fact that alleged warming of our country was one of the factors used to justify saddling New Zealanders with extra costs of the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), it is vital that any rising temperature claims by NIWA should be able to withstand a high level of rigorous scrutiny that the BoM says is not possible,” said Mr Leyland.

“We find it intriguing that NIWA now tells us that most of the claimed warming occurred in the first half of last century, whereas most of the increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions did not become apparent until the second half of last century, which bears out the assertions of climate skeptics that the minimal warming that ceased about 2002 was due to natural cyclical changes, not GHG emissions and, that, therefore, there is no justification for ETS. The likely continuation of the current cooling phase will make that increasingly evident during the next couple of years,” said Mr Leyland.

He added that NZCSC will conduct its own detailed analysis of the latest NIWA 7SS as early as possible in the New Year, and that it has been promised support from climate and statistics scientists at home and overseas whose qualifications are impeccable. “If NIWA can’t get it right, we will”, Mr Leyland concluded. See release here.

i>Tom Nelson Blogspot

Ultra-alarmist Greg Craven: “in my short time at AGU, I discovered four scientists who are already creating some form of survival retreat for their family, and they told me there are many more”

AGU Fall Meeting. Part III: An Open Letter From Greg Craven | Climate Etc.

It might surprise, and hopefully disturb you, to hear that in my short time at AGU, I discovered four scientists who are already creating some form of survival retreat for their family, and they told me there are many more. But they are all too scared of being ostracized in the scientific community if they speak of it. It struck me that they aren’t even “in the closet” yet. They still think they are isolated freaks of nature, ashamed to share what they truly feel.

...I am filled with despair.  As a result of my time at AGU, I’ve decided to retire completely from continuing to pursue making a difference in the debate, and for my family’s sake I will focus instead on building our own lifeboat. And leave the debate to others.

I know that may confirm to many people that I have indeed gone off the deep end. And I grieve if the many people who have respected and helped me in spreading the videos and writing the book now feel betrayed. So be it. But, given the fact that those four scientists I mentioned were paleoclimatologists, with access to the newest and best data, and with their position of knowing more than any other discipline what the global climate is capable of doing, perhaps you shouldn’t assume I’m crazy. Or that my message has no merit.

---------

Craven Attention
By Steve Mosher, Guest Post on Watts Up With That

Steve Mosher reports that things got a bit bizarre at the 2010 American Geophysical Union convention in San Francisco.

At AGU today I was witness to a “new AGU.” In the very first Steven Schneider Memorial speech Michael Oppenheimer explained the variety of ways that climate scientists can engage the public and the press. There was much I can recommend in Oppenheimer’s advice. He advised scientists to understand that their expertise on particular scientific issues does not give them expertise on all issues, especially on issues that touch on policy. It is one thing to note a scientific finding that climate models predict a 3C warming for the doubling of CO2; it is quite another thing to opine that controlling CO2 is the answer.

Oppenheimer also was clear that scientists should state their bias openly. He self identified as a “progressive” and was open about his time spent at the EDF. All in all a good presentation, especially for fans of C.P. Snow. Oppenheimer did, however, say one thing that was bizarre.

He seemed to offer the following advice:

You can’t sit on the sidelines and do nothing, because your name might show up in a climategate mail. He argued that some poor scientist had been vilified because his name was merely mentioned in a climategate mail. I have no clue who he is talking about, but his argument came down to this. If you think you are safe as a scientist by merely staying in the lab and speaking only about science, you are wrong. Why? because some guy got vilified by just being mentioned in the mails. Let’s be clear about who was the center of the mails: Jones and Mann. As Oppenheimer stated a scientist should not think his expertise in science gives him expertise in other areas, areas like the climategate mails and areas like advising other scientists how to conduct themselves with the press and public. Personally, I’d just block mails from people who ask me to delete things.

After Oppenheimer’s speech the “new AGU” assembled a panel of authors to discuss how to communicate with the press and the public. It was a great panel. A sullen Heidi Cullen didn’t say a word. A late arriving Jim Hansen and Naomi Oreskes who suggested that scientists should study history. One member of the panel dominated the discussion, Greg Craven. If you don’t recognize the name, you might recognize the jester hat: Yes, Greg is the high school teacher who made that video about global warming. Basically Pascal’s wager.

Greg nearly always starts every long-winded rant with the phrase “I’m no expert.”

Today was no different, but it came with a twist. He did claim to be an expert in communicating to the public. He was not. I cannot begin to describe the delicious sense of irony I felt when I listened to a panel of people who have no demonstrated skill or expertise in selling messages to the public, trying to tell scientists how they should sell a message to the public. And the questioners were also entertaining. Only one, Steve Easterbrook, managed to ask a rational question.  But let’s roll tape to the questions and Craven’s performance.

One of the first questions referenced Revkin’s column on the need for more Republican scientists. Oreskes, with boring predictability, said the Republican party has been anti-science since god was a kid. Epic fail, since the question was not a history question, nevertheless, she trotted out her usual gruel. Craven then launched into his act. He wasn’t an expert on psychology but he read that conservatives are irrational and prone to confirmation bias.

There are so few Republican scientists, he explained, because Republicans are irrational.

That is a quote. That is the “new AGU”.

I’ve explained before that this view of one’s opponents leads to only one end. If you believe your opponents are irrational, then at some point you contemplate using force to get them to agree.  I’m not shocked to find this in a teacher. The urge to commit violence on those who refuse to learn is an occupational hazard. I taught, I know. And we should not forget who hit the red button first:

There is a lesson here. People who talk to a captive audience of students do not have expertise in talking to the public at large. You do not convince Republicans by calling them irrational. You do not assume that an audience at AGU is full of Liberals. Greg went on for some time, foaming at the mouth about getting passionate (the first step to violent action) and I don’t think anyone on the panel thought that there might be a conservative ( much less a Libertarian who believes in global warming) in the audience . One panelist copped to being an independent.  Finally, no one on the panel seemed to realize that you do not convince the unconvinced by calling them denialists.

They did seem to agree that Al Gore was not a good choice as a spokesperson and that the meme of “the science is settled” was a bad idea.

The next questioner, sensing that Craven had stolen the show, decided to ask a 10 minute “question,” This activist from Oakland spoke with fire and passion about scientists needing to speak out. Craven, interrupted her passion because she had gone on “long enough”, and tried to steal the show back. Then she complained about him cutting her off.

Thunderdome.

Cullen looked pained. The only professional was silent. At some point Craven made a promise to shut up and stop hogging the limelight. A promise he would break on nearly every subsequent question, even those questions directed specifically away from him. At one point he banged his head on the table. Rational thought at it’s best. And he scribbled furiously as other people spoke, like he was getting ready to pass a note in class.

John Mashey asked a question as forgettable as his screed on Wegman. Craven took charge again and argued the “if not now, when” argument.

Basically, it goes like this. As a scientist you have to decide at some point that enough is enough. You have to put your scientific commitment to the discipline of doubt aside and “blow past” your boundaries.  Say what you feel, not what you can prove.

[Steve Mosher: Mr. Craven has complained that this is not a direct quote of what he said. It is not a direct quote, it is, as the text indicates, a synopsis of my interpretation of his argument. ]

Rational thought at its best.

Steve Easterbrook, thankfully, asked the only intelligent question. On one hand we have Oppenheimer telling us take care when going beyond our expertise. On the other hand we have Craven, saying “blow past” your boundaries. Oppenheimer tried to paper over the difference, and Oreskes, who seemed to be shooting me looks as I sat there laughing, agreed that there was a difference between these views. Craven, breaking his promise again, read what he had been scribbling. Some sort of challenge to climate scientists that he promises to post.

By this time Hansen had joined the dais and the next questioner wanted to know if the push for action against climate change should be like the civil rights movement. Again, the scribbling genius of public communication took the microphone. And explained that he was finally going to keep his promise about shutting up. So, he handed his statement to Hansen, who dutifully read Craven’s forgettable text.  Ah the humility of that. Not content with dominating the dais for an hour our expert in communicating with the public hands a note to Hansen to have Hansen read it. “Here Jim, read this for me.”

After all the PR disasters of climategate they still don’t get it. You don’t convince people by calling them irrational or ignorant. You don’t win hearts and minds by calling them denialists. You can’t scare people of faith, whether they have faith in religion or faith in human ingenuity. And you don’t pass notes in class, Greg. Maybe a dunce hat is in order for that move.

Icecap Note: Leon Festinger wrote a book When Phrophecies Fail and coined the term cognitive dissonance for the denial behavior of cultists (religious or now climate) when their prohecies fail (and skeptics are called deniers!). Back in the 1960s, with nuclear war a threat, many built fallout shelters - see that described here. Hey, that is an idea for a ‘green’ business.  Though we are seeing the alarmists in the beginning of a self destruction, it may be a slow process as we speculated in 2008 here.

By Steve Goddard

Enlarged and animating here.

In 2000, USHCN apparently wasn’t happy with the fact that the 1930s was the warmest decade - so they gave the past a demotion and bumped the 1990s way up.

Apparently that wasn’t enough though. An astute reader (Steve Case) captured the USHCN data in 2008 and again today. Below is a plot of the further adjustments during the last two years. Once again, the present has been artificially made warmer and the past has been made cooler. Temperatures in 2007 were raised by 0.16 degrees, and temperatures were lowered by 0.08 degrees in 1930.

Enlarged here.

Suppose a company wasn’t happy with their financial reports, so they subtracted money from past earnings and added them to present earnings. What would happen to the people in charge? 

Icecap Note: This was the change from USHCNv1 to USHCNv2 in 2009. The v2 removed the Karl 1988 UHI adjustment, replacing it with a ‘change point algorithm’ which is designed to find sudden changes - ‘previously undocumented discontinuities’ (instrument changes, station siting change, etc).

It is a mess. Not of appropriate quality to base trillion dollar painful decisions on.