The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition said it had lodged papers with the High Court asking the court to invalidate the official temperatures record of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (Niwa).
The lobby of climate sceptics and ACT Party have long criticised Niwa over its temperature data, which Niwa says is mainstream science and not controversial, and the raw data publicly available.
The coalition said the New Zealand Temperature Records (NZTR) were the historical base of NIWA's advice to the Government on issues relating to climate change.
Coalition spokesman Bryan Leyland said many scientists believed although the earth had been warming for 150 years, it had not heated as much as Government archives claimed.
He said the New Zealand Meteorological Service had shown no warming during the past century but Niwa had adjusted its records to show a warming trend of 1degC. The warming figure was high and almost 50 percent above the global average, said Mr Leyland.
The coalition said the 1degC warming during the 20th century was based on adjustments taken by Niwa from a 1981 student thesis by then student Jim Salinger, a Niwa employee who was later sacked after talking to the media without permission.
The Salinger thesis was subjective and untested and meteorologists more senior to Dr Salinger did not consider the temperature data should be adjusted, it said.
The coalition would ask the court to find Niwa's New Zealand Temperature Record invalid.
It would also seek a court declaration preventing Niwa from using the NZTR when it advised the Government or any other body on global climate issues. It would also ask the court to order Niwa to produce a full and accurate NZTR.
Mr Leyland said Niwa was refusing to repudiate the NZTR to avoid political embarrassment and loss of public confidence.
A substantive hearing was expected later this year.
Comments
It's really too bad that "skeptics" are so stupid. Where is their science that refutes the current climate science that they are "skeptical" of? It doesn't exist! These freaks simply rail about something that they obviously don't understand, otherwise they'd be part of the process and have their research published in valid scientific journals.
Unfortunately for these morons, including Monckton, we are experiencing the Warmest Year-to-Date Global Temperature on Record. These fools are better ignored as they have nothing to say or add to the discussion.
Where is their science that refutes the current climate science that they are "skeptical" of?
Try reading it next time and you wont have to ask a stupid question.
"He said the New Zealand Meteorological Service had shown no warming during the past century but Niwa had adjusted its records to show a warming trend of 1degC. The warming figure was high and almost 50 percent above the global average, said Mr Leyland"
Man, your comprehension is nill. Try reading the question and then answer the question. Again, where is the science that refutes the current climate science indicating an increase in temperatures? You didn't post any. "He said..." doesn't count. Post links to their research and the articles that they wrote.
Man, your comprehension is nill. p>
And your a dick.
I understood your question just as a lame attempt to reframe and distract, who gives a crap about Monckton. The story is about New Zealand and the conflicting climate record between New Zealand Met Service and NIWA. Nothing more or less than that. An English Politician has Zero to do with it.
Your other link was hilarious. Had to get that posted since La Nina Started in July.
Other than that.. Lawsuit in New Zealand. Deal with it. I'm sure we'll never hear about the outcome.
Same to you, sir.
You obviously didn't understand the question otherwise you would have provided links to relevant articles that supported "he said". Oh, that's right as you can't. The idiots in the Coalition haven't written any or performed any research. Their bios are false and misleading as indicated by the fact that Vincent Gray wasn't an "expert reviewer" for the IPCC. None of the other losers in the Coalition has performed any climate research and so haven't any qualifications to speak on the subject.
What's funny is your absolute ignorance. No, I take that back, it's pathetic.
The lawsuit is showboating. Had those freaks anything of substance, they'd have rebutted the current science in peer reviewed scientific journals. They didn't, as you know from your extensive search for anything by them to support your anti-climate change ideology. They have nothing to offer and so they file a lawsuit. Absolutely pathetic.
J.J. Come on, you can't let Jeff off that easy.. Jeff loves Skepic sites.. it's where he gets all his information.
NOAA’s Jan-Jun 2010 Warmest Ever: Missing Data, False Impressions
The following sections provide some spot checks on the areas of the world exhibiting the most warming according to NOAA. The gridded historical data graphs shown in these sections are from the Hadley CRUTEM3 database for January – June. (CRUTEM3 uses a 1961-1990 base period whereas the NOAA data above is for a 1971-2000 base period. This simply shifts the anomalies on the vertical scale, but does not affect the relative trends.)
It is clear from the following sections that NOAA performs manipulations to create false impressions from the data, including assigning temperature increases were there is zero data.
pretty graphs...
I can see why the new zealanders have move the to the Courts. Science clearly has failed to police itself.
The lawsuit is showboating. Had those freaks anything of substance, they'd have rebutted the current science in peer reviewed scientific journals. They didn't, as you know from your extensive search for anything by them to support your anti-climate change ideology. They have nothing to offer and so they file a lawsuit. Absolutely pathetic.
Then you nothing to worry about
I'll leave that to you.. There is something just not right about hiim.
It seems to me J.J. if you feel confident enough in your side of the argument, than there is no need for calling another poster names.
Alright, where's the article refuting NOAA's research? wattsup is run by a weatherman. From his bio "Weather measurement and weather presentation technology is my specialty." This implies that he'd be able to write a scientific article refuting the volumes of poor measurement technique used by NOAA but he hasn't! If there were anything behind the denier's allegations then they'd see it in the scientific literature as scientists would have uncovered this "truth".
Maybe we should pay more attention to Trekkies who say that we can go faster than the speed of light and stop listening to physicists who say we can't.
That you say that indicates that you don't know anything about the scientific process. Where are the articles and research that indicates that any of your contentions are true? What about the fact that if what you believe were true then the science being presented would prove you correct as none of it would align don't you get?
The famous Jeff personal Ad hom attack and Appeal to authority post. I do miss those Jeff.
You know the NOAA story is merely a press release and not a peer reviewed scientific journal. Seems even a monkey or weatherman can look up the climate data for central Greenland where NOAA claims there is 5 degree warming and there is no weather station there. In the Real world people call that an unsubstantiated lie. Since Science Daily is just a parrot journal perhaps NOAA need to be hauled into court and let a third party decide whether there was a 5 degree warming in central Greenland where nobody lives and there are no weather measuring stations.
Your so adorable and consistant.
Although there is a new paper out. (McShane and Wyner 2010) look it up. Good stuff. Really rips up Mann reconstructions. What is that 800 some odd papers I've posted that you dismiss.
I Mel is still as impartial as she always has been. You come through and Blast away posters with ad hom's (Morons, Freaks, Stupid, Fools) JJ cals you an Ass. For being a raging dick. And JJ gets in trouble.. I think Jeff is a Forum pet. Pitbull by proxy.
Why don't you try and figure out how NOAA shows 4-5 degree increases in areas with no montering stations or station own publically available data refutes NOAA claims. Particularly in Turkey where the actual station shows .5c increase and NOAA claims 4.oC increase..
But I know you can't.. so you just say "write a press release that refutes the NOAA"
DONE.
Quit your whining you little baby. Your railing against "authority" just shows your cluelessness, like there's some hidden truth that will be exposed to certain "enlightened" individuals. Well, I've got news for you, the only ones you can appeal to are the authorities on any given subject because they know what they're talking about.
Here's some other news for you, you could take classes in climatology, geology, paleontology, or some other relevant science and do your own research! then you wouldn't have to rely on anyone else as you would be part of the process, ready to expose any hidden agenda.
That's irrelevant to the issue of the lack of credentials of the deniers. Again, post scientific articles that refute the current climate science.
You're consistent in your ignorance. So, again, go ahead and post a link to articles and research that refutes the current climate science. I'm waiting.
Or, better yet, prove that you understand any of the underlying science. Show us that you are participating in the research. Let's see some of your own results and conclusions, and let us review them. This would be good if you were capable, but I doubt we'll see anything from you except little rants against "authority".
You are as you have no point, but that won't stop you from promoting nonsense because you seem incapable of performing or understanding science from your posts.