In brief
- NIWA’s 2024 Annual Climate Summary falsely claims a record high atmospheric pressure in Ranfurly, contradicted by historical data.
- Science Minister Judith Collins, who backed NIWA’s accuracy, faces credibility challenges over this error.
- The Media Council ruled RNZ could rely on NIWA’s statements, despite evidence of misinformation.
- Ian Wishart argues that the government and media’s lack of accountability promotes disinformation and erodes public trust.
NIWA’s credibility takes another hit in 2025
An elite team of climate scientists, ultimately reporting to Science Minister Judith Collins and whose research underpins Prime Minister Luxon’s climate policies, have begun 2025 getting their climate data wrong…again.
NIWA has just published its Annual Climate Summary for 2024, and dropped yet another embarrassing clanger, this time over what it claims was a record high atmospheric pressure measured in New Zealand last year in the South Island town of Ranfurly.
NIWA’s record claim under scrutiny
Just to explain, “highs” on the weather map signify fine weather, while “lows” suck wind and rain into an area and often signify storms.
“Settled weather was a feature of July,” reported the NIWA climate experts in ACS24, “with a blocking high pressure system in place for several weeks. The strength of the high pressure peaked on 10 July, when Ranfurly (Otago) registered a mean sea level air pressure (MSLP) of 1046.5 hPa – which is mainland New Zealand’s highest MSLP measurement on record.”
So, in plain English, NIWA claims NZ recorded its strongest ever high pressure system, over Ranfurly in July 2024, when atmospheric pressure reached 1046.5 hectopascals (30.9 inches of mercury on the old style barometer readings).
Judith Collins, who cut the ribbon at the opening of NIWA’s new $20m supercomputer last year and promised much more accurate climate research, famously told Centrist at the time that she continued to have full confidence in NIWA because the climate agency had assured her they had not lost any climate data.
Let’s test NIWA’s record-breaking claim
In 1867, the port of Auckland barometer recorded a high of 1049.8 hPa (30.99 inches of mercury) – more than three hPa higher than the 1046.5 NIWA “record” from 2024.
In 1877, Wanganui’s weather station recorded a high of 1107.3 hPa (32.7 inches).
In 1889, meteorological equipment at Lincoln recorded 1052.2 hPa.
NIWA’s “highest MSLP measurement on record” from 2024 of 1046.5 hPa was also blitzed in 1906 when Christchurch reported a high of 1051.1 hPa (31.04 inches).
In 1937, Methven recorded a high of 1054.9 hPa.
Minister Collins stands by NIWA despite errors
On that basis, because NIWA has clearly lost these climate records, Science Minister Judith Collins may be rueing the day (also last July, a couple of weeks after the alleged Ranfurly “record”) she gave Centrist this statement:
“As the Minister of Science, Innovation, and Technology I take your suggestion that NIWA has mis-led Parliament very seriously. I have had my officials engage with NIWA to ascertain the facts. My officials inform me, based on the explanations provided by NIWA, that they do not believe Parliament has been mis-led. This is on the basis that: No historical climate records have been lost…
“…I accept these explanations. Accordingly, I confirm that I continue to have confidence in NIWA and its board.”
The NIWA information is important for both defending against climate disasters and determining if something really is an historically extreme climate event. So is there some way to apply pressure to NIWA to up their game, or the media to not just repeat the misinformation? It seems the New Zealand Media Council isn’t it. It issued a ruling in December that RNZ News had published false information from NIWA, but that the national radio network shouldn’t be punished because it should be entitled to take NIWA statements as gospel:
“Could RNZ rely on NIWA information, Principles (1), (4), (6)?” posed the Media Council in its judgement.
“Mr Wishart devotes much of his longer complaint to attack the accuracy of what NIWA says about climate, and RNZ’s reliance on information from NIWA. Mr Wishart regards NIWA as a climate agency “desperate for news headlines and prepared to spruik misinformation to get them”. (Mr. Wishart argues) RNZ cannot “appeal to NIWA’s authority” because NIWA is no longer credible in the area of climate records and RNZ has been put on notice of this.
“However, NIWA is a government agency. News organisations must be able to rely on information supplied by such government organisations in the absence of material which shows the NIWA information was wrong.”
The Media Council had been given irrefutable proof that NIWA had repeatedly published false climate information, but the Council said neither it nor RNZ had the expertise to judge:
“The Media Council, as a body, is quite unable to form its own assessment of the rights and wrongs of information from a government agency. It does not have the resources to make any assessment of scientific issues.
“Nor can it be reasonably expected that RNZ should devote resources to checking information provided by such a government agency when it is reporting a serious emergency on an hourly basis, where there is a threat to life and the situation is changing rapidly through the day. It was reasonable for RNZ to rely on the NIWA information.”
No one is suggesting an emergency warning about a major storm should not be acted on immediately. That is different than adding in the climate change sales job. The incredible take home point from the Media Council ruling: that it is OK for government agencies to misinform the people of New Zealand, and the news media have no duty to fact-check the government.
That attitude may be some of the reason the credibility of New Zealand’s legacy media is nose diving faster than a concrete seagull.
Media accountability under question
New Zealand’s main media watchdog is endorsing a “three wise monkeys” (see, hear and speak no evil) approach which effectively turns reporters into mere “repeaters” of state-sanctioned disinformation, despite documentary evidence to the contrary staring them in the face.
If the watchdog won’t enforce media accuracy standards, and cabinet ministers won’t enforce Westminster accountability standards, it is promoting an uninformed electorate.
Image: Facebook
