Editorial: More light than heat

OPINION: A HighCourt challenge to the way the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (Niwa) calculates climate change is an interesting development.

And while it is likely to add to global warming, hopefully it may shed more light than heat on the greatest debate of modern times.

The challenge, which is already generating an impressive amount of hot air from both sides of the debate, marks an escalation in the increasingly bitter war between those who believe that man is putting the climate in peril, and those who believe it is all a great conspiracy.

At the centre of the debate is Niwa's temperature data that has been recorded over the last 100 years and has been used to calculate New Zealand's rate of global warming.

The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition has launched the challenge, claiming that Niwa was wrong to adjust its records to show a 1deg C rate of warming during the 20th Century. It wants the High Court to test that hypothesis.

Defenders of Niwa argue there is nothing wrong with the adjustments which were made in line with international best practice, peer-reviewed and based on the best science available. Adjustments were made to account for differences between measuring devices and variations in protocols. Using a layman – a High Court judge – to decide on whether the science is right or wrong is the incorrect way to go about it, they argue.

The climate sceptics' attack is nothing short of an all-out assault on the reputation of the scientists working at Niwa.

They are, the sceptics appear to assume, part of a massive international conspiracy to fool the world into thinking the climate is changing because of man-made pollution. They are out to deceive the governments of the world into doing something positive about it.

It can be argued that the sceptics have done everyone a huge favour. They have punted the issue into the hands of an independent third party.

The High Court should be able to listen to the evidence, weigh up the arguments on either side, and make a sound decision.

While the evidence is likely to involve complex science, it will not be beyond the wit of the court to get to grips with it and make a sound and sensible call based on the evidence. Courts handle all manner of complicated cases every day.

There is a danger the court challenge could easily backfire on the sceptics, but they have to be congratulated for being willing to put it to the test.

Like those who believe that the moon landings were faked, and that the United States carefully orchestrated the September 11 terrorist attacks on American soil, the sceptics are willing to believe that thousands have been sucked into this great conspiracy.

In the case of Niwa, the implication is that dozens of our country's brightest scientists are willing participants in a grand collusion.

The High Court will add an important element of credibility to this debate, which must be welcomed.

- © Fairfax NZ News