Richard Rennie
with kind permission of Richard Rennie,many thanks.
A group's appeal against a ruling on
NIWAs climate data contains some
major precedents for challengers to
governmental scientific research.
The Climate Science Education
Trust (CSET), an offshoot of the NZ
Science Coalition, forced
a judicial review in July of NIWAs
data recording used as the basis
for estimating a l'C increase in
a temperafures over the past century.
CSET's calculations had ( determined the increase was nearer
o.l'C, an amount of little statistical
significance. The group maintains such a
difference has major national policy
- impacts on Planning for industry
including agriculture,infrastructure and urban housing in coastal in particular.
. The group had
its challenge rejected by the judge
who determined it was not the
court's place to rule on challenges
that involved "the evaluation of
contentious scientific opinion".
"This was exactly what we had
hoped would not hapPen.
"We had wanted the court to
dissect the information and arrive at
a conclusion that did assess whether
the practices used to adjust the
data were accurate or not," CSET
spokesman Barry Brill said.
The temperature data required
adjusting from its raw state to
estimate the trend.
The usual standard for adjustin$
data was a peer reviewed Process
developed by NIWAs own scientist
Dr Jim Salinger back in 1993' and
regarded as sector best Practice.
Instead NIWA had elected to use an
un-reviewed process develoPed bY
Salinger earlier in 1981.In court NIWA maintained that the
adiustment method was not the onlY
methodology available for adjusting
data, and it was entitled to use
whatever method it believed was
best.
NIWA argued that bY carrying out
an alternative method of calculation
it had in fact strengthened the
validity ofthe Previous results'
The appeal marks a long and
contentious challenge between the
"g roup and NIWA'
Back in 201O Pressure from the
group forced research. science and
technologY minister WaYne MaPP to
order an Australian Bureau
of MeteorologY (BoM) review of
NIWA s temperature monitoring
practices.
The outcome of that review has
never been made Pubiic.
In the review's covering letter
however the BoM states it was
not in a Position to question
underlYing analYsis
and data suPPlied bY NIWA'
including methods used to
compile raw data taken at recording
stations.
The BoM letter concludes that "in
general" NIWAs evidence supports
the corrections applied to the "seven
station series" of weather data'
However, CSET hoPed the
appeal could see the full review
revealed.
The grouP has not Yet succeeded
in obtaining a coPY through
the Official Information Act'
Their request now sits with the
Ombudsman.
CSET will also challenge the
judge's decision lhat answers made
by. MaPP to Parliamentary
questions, requiring significant
preparation and accuracY, were not
to be considered bY the court'
"Yet theY took direct evidence
from David Wratt (chief climate
scientist at NIWA) who was
appearing as a defendant'"
-
The case. has also raised the
spectre of NIWA seeking out
damages from the group, to the tune
of $l17,ooo, aimed PersonallY at
Climate Science Coalition secretary
Terry DunlealY, and Brill himself'
who aPPeared as the grouP's
solicitor.
In cases that involve a level of
public good, seeking costs is rare' ' "Using a judicial review to make a
claim against individuals, there has
never been a case of that in
New Zealand history."
Brill said the aPPeal also aimed
to overturn the ruling that left
Crown Research Institutes (CRI)s
effectively able to present science
unchallenged.
With the aPPeal formallY filed'
NIWA has declined to offer anY
further comment on the case'
A NIWA sPokesman said once a
decision was made on the aPPeal'
the CRI hoPed to laY out all the
facts and details in what was "a
very comPlicated and confusing
matter':
When the judge's decision was
announced last month, NIWA
chairman Chris Mace said High
Court Judge Justice Venning's ruling
was a comprehensive reinforcement
of the professionalism and credibiiity
of NIWAs science and scientists'
Brill acknowledged the
"significant" funds required to power
an"appeal and said the grouP was
considering its fundraising options'
The aPPeal is not expected to be heard until 2013
- Forums
- Science & Medicine
- niwa in nz challenge update by richard rennie
niwa in nz challenge update by richard rennie
Featured News
Featured News
The Watchlist
LU7
LITHIUM UNIVERSE LIMITED
Alex Hanly, CEO
Alex Hanly
CEO
SPONSORED BY The Market Online