Judicial review of NIWA temperature mischief

The determination of high-level dishonesty committed by NIWA scientists is wending inevitably to a conclusion.

Chairman of the Coalition and counsel for the NZ Climate Science Education Trust (NZCSET), Barry Brill, filed the Trust’s evidence with the Court during January (copies will soon be available on the NZCSC website) and NIWA is expected to respond by 2 March. We’ll then learn (for the first time) the shape of its defence and have the opportunity to reply. On 20 March, the Court will finalise a timetable, including a fixture for the hearing – which our counsel expects could occur about June or July.

The wheels of justice sometimes turn exceeding slow, but everyone gets a turn to speak and what they say is heard—simple principles, more often honoured in blogland in the breach than the observance yet generally revered.

Decisions in this seminal case against NIWA are eagerly awaited around the world. Will its scientific knavery survive a judicial examination? Can it really say one thing, do quite another, and get away with it—honoured, as before, as a leading scientific institution?

Remember, NIWA said it would use a particular method to calculate adjustments to the raw temperature readings; it not only didn’t use that method, it broke all the rules laid down by that method. I recently posted a summary of NIWA’s scientific outrages against the NZ temperature record.

7 Thoughts on “Judicial review of NIWA temperature mischief

  1. Doug Proctor on February 25, 2012 at 5:31 pm said:

    Dishonesty would only exist at the top, with the underlings doing as they are told, or, perhaps doing what they want because it was what those at the top wanted. But those at the top only need to say that their words and deeds reflect the workers’ actions.

    The only way dishonesty or manipulation can be shown to occur is if those workers whose job it was to produce the new NIWA temperature data, say in public that they were forced to do so against their better judgement, or that someone modified their data without their agreement. Will there be the opportunity to question those whose names are attached to the actual work, not to its publication?

    I worked for a guy who outrageously misused my resource estimates for his company. He refused to meet with me on the subject, thereby maintaining plausible deniability. Unless I was a whistleblower, or the directors asked me, I had no way of getting the truth out. Which they knew. If someone had asked me – at a director’s meeting, or at a public forum – then I would have spoken the truth, but no one did. And made sure that no one ever did (I was let go).

    The weak link is the worker bee. I hope you can get one in front of a microphone.

  2. Doug, what a story! You make me despair!

    But with NIWA we have their specific, multiple statements before their reconstruction that they would use the Rhodes and Salinger (R&S) method of calculating adjustments. Our peer review shows they did nothing of the sort – in fact, they treated the rules of the R&S method with disdain, not merely breaking them but pulverising them. It seems to me a blatant breach of natural logic and scientific protocol. Surely those at the top must accept responsibility for that and cannot escape?

    I, with you, cannot imagine any of the “workers” wanting to jeopardise their employment with such an admission as you suggest is required. I don’t know whether the court case provides the opportunity to question the workers. Therefore I hope the facts are themselves sufficient to establish the existence of dishonesty in the actions of the legal entity known as NIWA and to show it originated with its management.

    I hope, I hope.

  3. Doug Proctor on February 26, 2012 at 1:35 pm said:

    Good luck in court. The documents you speak of do have their authors listed somewhere. I mean other than the Pachauri-level mandarin. If there is an opportunity to call some of them to give evidence, or at least to officially question them, then you will be able to determine beforehand what you will hear from the Top, and whether the story from the Top could be challenged with a rebuttal witness.

    You do not need to call a rebuttal witness, only let the Top know that a rebuttal witness could be called.

    Plausible deniability will get everyone off, every time.

    (By the way, I set up 5 meetings with the Pres to discuss the irregularities of his press release and internal documents. All were cancelled at the last minute. I tried to set up a 6th, though I understood what was going on, and I was told “We will have a meeting when we decide we will have a meeting.” I was happy to be let go, though it was a toxic and distressing time. Politics. Not all can philosophically handle it.)

  4. Luke of the D on March 3, 2012 at 11:59 am said:

    Good luck my brother’s of the South Pacific… do not let the green’s get away with the fallacies of manipulating data. Here the States we’re basically beyond saving… our Dear Leader just won’t stop but come November 2012, perhaps we too can turn the tables on them.

  5. Richard C (NZ) on March 3, 2012 at 2:50 pm said:

    Understanding Homogenization
    Posted on March 2, 2012 by Steven Goddard

    Homogenization is when you replace the best stations in the region, with imaginary data that shows warming. This algorithm is an essential component of retaining research funding.

    ….

    These people are as crooked as it gets. They are getting away with science murder.

    http://www.real-science.com/understanding-homogenization

  6. val majkus on March 4, 2012 at 3:22 pm said:

    BTW Affidavits etc are now up on NZCSC website
    There’s also an index of Exhibits linked but nothing is printed on the links page

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation