Cranks Lose Court Case - NIWA awarded costs

[visitor]

hot-topic.co.nz/cranks-lose-court-case-against-nz-temperature-record-niwa-awarded-costs/

The attempt by NZ’s merry little band of climate cranks to have the NZ temperature record declared invalid has ended in ignominious defeat. In his ruling www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/nz-climate-science-education-trust-v-niwa-ltd/at_download/fileDecision, handed down today, Justice Venning finds:


The plaintiff does not succeed on any of its challenges to the three decisions of NIWA in issue. The application for judicial review is dismissed and judgment entered for the defendant. [and] The defendant is entitled to costs.

It will be interesting to see whether the NZ Climate Science Education Trust, which was established purely to bring this action, is able to stump up to cover NIWA’s costs. If it doesn’t, the NZ taxpayer will be left to pick up the bill for this absurd bit of political grandstanding by the Climate “Science” Coalition.

In his decision, Justive Venning makes a number of interesting points, noting in paragraph 48:


This Court should not seek to determine or resolve scientific questions demanding the evaluation of contentious expert opinion.

Embarrassingly for the CSET, the judge also finds that two of its “experts” were nothing of the sort, declaring large chunks of their “evidence” inadmissible. Here’s the judge on former journalist Terry Dunleavy [par 51]


Section 25 could only apply if Mr Dunleavy was an expert in the particular area of the science of meteorology and/or climate. He is not. He has no applicable qualifications. His interest in the area does not sufficiently qualify him as an expert. I also accept Mr Smith’s further point that Mr Dunleavy’s views are not capable of offering substantial help to this Court on the issue that it has to determine. To that extent I agree that substantial passages of Mr Dunleavy’s evidence are inadmissible.

And in par 53, referring to the CSET’s stats man:


Similar issues (as to the limited nature of his expertise), apply to the evidence of Mr Dedekind.

[54]… Mr Dedekind’s general expertise in basic statistical techniques does not extend to any particular specialised experience or qualifications in the specific field of applying statistical techniques in the field of climate science. To that extent, where Mr Dedekind purports to comment or give opinions as to NIWA’s application of statistical techniques in those fields, his evidence is of little assistance to the Court.

The judge also noted that the other expert witness relied on by the NZ CSET, Bob Carter, also made a number of mistakes in his evidence. Not a good look…

[visitor]

www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1209/S00009/leading-climate-scientists-welcome-judges-decision.htm

Leading Climate Scientists Welcome Judge’s Decision


A group of leading New Zealand climate scientists (listed below) welcomed Justice Geoffrey Venning’s ruling to throw out the claim by the New Zealand Climate Science Education Trust (CSET, a small group of climate change “sceptics”) that NIWA had acted fraudulently in putting together its ‘7-station’ temperature series.

Spokesperson for the group, Associate Professor James Renwick of Victoria University said he was pleased that the court had respected and reaffirmed the credibility of the scientific process. It was a strong message to those wanting to challenge widely-agreed scientific findings to do so honestly and openly in scientific forums.

Dr Renwick went on to say “Scientific analysis and discussion is carried out through the peer-reviewed literature. The basic science of climate change (global warming) has been established for well over a century, and almost all scientists active in climate research agree that human activity is causing the climate to change. For a small group of scientists to appeal to a court of law to find otherwise is bizarre.”

New Zealand temperatures have warmed by about 1°C in the last 100 years, associated with loss of glacier ice in the Southern Alps, reduced frost occurrence, and other changes. Globally, evidence of climate change includes sea-level rise, melting glaciers, and rapidly diminishing arctic sea ice.

The court case has helped raise the profile of the claimants. Much more importantly, the case represents a massive waste of New Zealand tax payer’s funds. In defending the claim, NIWA has spent a huge amount (estimated at well over $100,000) and has diverted a number of its scientists away from their research. The country can ill afford to waste such an amount. “This misguided action of a small group adds confusion to a simple issue – the world is warming and future generations of New Zealanders will have to deal with the consequences” Dr Renwick said.

This release was jointly prepared by, and is endorsed by:

Associate Professor James Renwick, School of Geography, Environment and Earth Sciences, Victoria University of Wellington
Professor Jim Salinger, currently visiting Stanford University
Professor Martin Manning, Climate Change Research Institute, Victoria University of Wellington
Professor Peter Barrett, Antarctic Research Centre, Victoria University of Wellington
Professor (Emeritus) Blair Fitzharris, University of Otago
Professor Keith Hunter, Pro-Vice Chancellor Science, University of Otago

[marchesarosa]

Sounds like all that was lacking was a forensic statistician (like Steve McIntyre) to present the data and a judge who understood statistics.

The judge was making the usual excuse of many alarmist apologists - we have to trust "the experts" because we are too stupid to grasp the nature of the arguments ourselves !

If your info is correct, visitor, the "judgement" was a cop-out not an evaluation of the case.

IIRC, Prof Salinger who devised the system of warmest adjustment of the data in his PhD thesis, has since been sacked by NIWA and, conveniently, has lost his workings out of the methods. Great Science!
What was that about the "reproducibility of results" being the basis of the scientific method?

[marchesarosa]

No one needs a PhD to read that graph, and NIWA still can’t explain it because Salinger lost his working out or the dog ate it, or summat.

What a way to run a business! NIWA has declared itself a Limited Company, by the way, and absolved itself of all responsibility for the use of its "product". I think the Consumers' Association (Which) could do a better job of examining the "product" than the NZ judge did.

[aubrey]

Come off it Marchesa. You go for the Experts who back up your view, and rubbish the experts who do not agree with you (and there are very many more of this than your sort, you know).

[marchesarosa]

That's the scientific method, aubrey!

"Let a Thousand Schools of Thought contend" etc etc

I can assure that there is far more climate science concerned with natural variation coming out of universities and institutes that ever gets publicised in the alarmist (that means almost all) media.

But what would you know? You limit your green research to The Guardian, don't you?

"The overall process involves making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments based on those predictions to determine whether the original conjecture was correct."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Infortunately for climate alarmists, their speculations ("conjectures") have provided neither accurate predictions nor empirical underpinning. That's why they increasingly resort to attacking their opponents with ad hominems and casting aspersions on their mental health - like you with your fallback position that sceptics are "conspiracy theorists".

I think the boot's on the other foot, myself! But carry on with the "consensus" and "conspiracy" memes if they comfort you. I'll just keep on reading the research as it comes out and publicising it.

[marchesarosa]

No answer from visitor, another "post and run" thread, apparently.