According to the New Zealand Herald:
“A group of leading climate scientists has announced the formation of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, aimed at refuting what it believes are unfounded claims about man-made global warming.
“We believe this is a significant development in opening up the debate about the real effects of climate change and the justification for the costs and other measures prescribed in the Kyoto protocols,” said the coalition’s secretary, Terry Dunleavy.
He said members of the coalition had had enough of “over-exaggerated” claims about the effects of man-made global warming and aimed to provide a balance to “what is being fed to the people of New Zealand”.
He said that the coalition’s three main roles would be:
* To publish and distribute papers and commentaries produced by members of the coalition;
* To audit statements by other organisations, both in New Zealand and overseas, which are published in New Zealand, or are expected to influence New Zealand public policy and public opinion;
* To audit the forthcoming United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.
The coalition has registered a website domain name, www.climatescience.org.nz, which it expects to have running within a day or two.”
And I received the following comment from a reader of this weblog with the link to the newspaper:
“A newspaper snippet on New Zealand contrarians banding together to defeat the IPCC forces of darkness !
I can only hope you give these contrarian guys as much stick as Hansen and the IPCC. Any spurious arguments or hanging one on, and you should be up them for the rent.
And have a look how many contrarian blogs still have the MSU satellite* story the wrong way around.”
I am of course keen to publish criticisms and comments on information at the new New Zealand Climate Science Coalition website, email short essays to jennifermarohasy@jennifermarohasy.com .
——————————–
* For those wondering what the MSU data is, here’s a snippet from ABC Online last August, click here. The article explains how satellite measurements suggesting cooling rather than warming in the troposphere were an artifact of a wrongly calibrated satellite.
It is interesting to read what the explanation HAD BEEN at Global Hydrology and Climate Centre on 14 June 2000 before the calibration problem was discovered:
Global temperatures have been monitored by satellite since 1979 with the Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) flying on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) TIROS-N series of polar-orbiting weather satellites. Data from nine separate satellites have been combined to provide a global record of temperature fluctuations in the lower troposphere (the lowest 5 miles of the atmosphere) and the lower stratosphere (covering an altitude range of about 9-12 miles). The global image above shows monthly-averaged temperature anomalies (departure from seasonal normals), while the graph shows point or area-averaged anomalies for the entire period of record (since January 1979).
The lower tropospheric data are often cited as evidence against global warming, because they have as yet failed to show any warming trend when averaged over the entire Earth. The lower stratospheric data show a significant cooling trend, which is consistent with ozone depletion. In addition to the recent cooling, large temporary warming perturbations may be seen in the data due to two major volcanic eruptions: El Chichon in March 1982, and Mt. Pinatubo in June 1991.
Was this explanation just sweep under the carpet when the scientists found that the satellite data was showing a warming trend? In hindsight how credible was this explanation?
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD has worked in industry and government. She is currently researching a novel technique for long-range weather forecasting funded by the B. Macfie Family Foundation.