NZ C"S"C – Page 2

NZ climate cranks’ trust folded, Brill et al try to escape justice

The New Zealand Climate Science Education Trust (NZCSET), the body established three years ago to bring a legal case against the National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), has been put into liquidation without paying the costs awarded against it after its case failed — confirming my suspicion when the trust was formed that it had been created purely to protect the litigants from the consequences of a failed action. The NZCSET owes NIWA at least $89,238.90, but Steve Kilgallon at the Sunday Star Times reports that no monies have been paid:

NIWA chief executive John Morgan said it was still considering pursuing two of the trust’s key players – former wine journalist Terry Dunleavy, a Justice of the Peace and MBE, and retired lawyer Barry Brill, a former National MP – for the money, but was waiting for the liquidation process to finish.

He added: “On the surface it looks like the trust was purely for the purpose of taking action, which is not what one would consider the normal use of a charitable trust”.

Kilgallon also spoke NZCSET trustee Bryan Leyland:

Trustee Bryan Leyland, when asked about its assets, said: “To my knowledge, there is no money. We spent a large amount of money on the court case, there were some expensive legal technicalities.”

Funding had come “from a number of sources, which are confidential”.

Leyland thus confirms — perhaps inadvertently — that the NZCSET was created solely to bring the court action, and to protect its own trustees from the consequences of their actions. It was apparently able to find “a large amount of money” to pay its lawyers to run the action, but not to pay the costs awarded against it.

A quick look back at some of the dates associated with the trust and its case against NIWA is instructive:

The NZCSET’s Statement of Claim against NIWA was filed in the High Court on July 5th 2010.
The NZCSET’s Deed of Trust is dated July 30th, so the trust did not exist at the time the case began.
The NZCSET’s registration as a trust was not granted until August 10th, shortly before news of the case hit the press.
In the two and a half years since the formation of the NZCSET there is no sign that the trust attempted to meet any of its stated educational objectives.

It is quite clear from the actions of the trust, and the glib statements made by its trustees, that it was never intended to do anything other than bring a case against NIWA. It was always a legal manoeuvre — an attempt to hide the perpetrators of a piece of politically and ideologically-inspired tomfoolery behind NZ trust law.

If NIWA decides not to pursue Dunleavy, Leyland and Brill for restitution of its legal costs, then the NZ taxpayer will have to pick up the bill. Even if funds are forthcoming, they will not cover the huge waste of scientist and management time spent in handling the case. Having failed to make warming go away by litigation, they must now face up to the heat of public outrage at their scandalous misuse of public money.

Monckton and the big waka

Monckton tried to blink. His eyes were gritty and he could barely focus on the scribbled formulae on the pad before him — his crucial contribution to the redesign of Britain’s nuclear deterrent. The tiny screen of his Osborne transportable computer blinked lazily at him. His back was sore. The air in No 10 was very dry, and there was a racket going on outside the Cabinet Room. It sounded as if the functionaries were running every vacuum cleaner in Whitehall over the new dark blue carpets the blessed Margaret had installed. The scruffy red shagpile left by Callaghan was in a skip in Downing Street, and the Laird was glad to see the back of it. He was rather pleased with the shade he’d chosen, and even happier that Margaret had liked it. The shining light of modern conservatism entered the room, her bright halo and blue crimplene dress throwing a magical illumination onto the oak panelling. She strode to Monckton’s side and put her hand on his shoulder. A frisson of almost erotic excitement coursed down his spine and disappeared down a trouser leg. He dressed to the right.

“Chris. Wake up.” He opened his eyes and the recurring dream turned into the stuff of nightmare. The whiskery face of Bryan “British” Leyland, his devoted minder on this barnstorming tour of New Zealand, leered beerily into his face. Every bump of the ageing Toyota ute brought Leyland’s face ever closer to the Laird’s nose. He recoiled, elegantly.

Continue reading “Monckton and the big waka”

Brill’s Quadrant rant: a snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings

Barry Brill, the superannuated politician and lack-lustre lawyer ((He prepared the case for the NZ CSET’s attempt to sue NIWA, famously described by the judge as “prolix”.)) who rejoices in the position of chairman of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, has been given room for a rant by right wing Aussie magazine Quadrant, and — surprise, surprise — he uses it to air the climate crank cliché du jour: The science is settled: no warming. Here’s Brill’s conclusion:

The statistical fact is that the late 20th century warming trend is history. It is over. It is so yeterday (sic). As Monty Python’s immortal “Dead Parrot” sketch illustrates so vividly, there is a vast gulf between “resting” and “dead”.

Unfortunately for Brill, and to borrow a line from a somewhat more apposite Monty Python sketch, he’s clearly suffering from “grievous mental confusion”, and an inability to construct an proper argument. As the script has it: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.

Brill is happy to contradict the evidence, by ignoring the great scads of the stuff that show warming continues. Global surface temperatures are not the only index of warming, nor do they reflect any standstill. Ice melts and oceans continue to warm, as Jeff Masters points out today — and as numerous others have pointed out since the crank echo chamber decided it was time to push this stupid meme.

Warming will stop only when atmospheric CO₂ stabilises and the oceans reach thermal equilibrium, which isn’t going to happen any time soon. In the meantime Brill and his band of cranks, by propagandising for inaction are stealing all our futures. The world will be a much worse place than it need be, and Brill will have to take his share of the blame.

NZ Herald’s turn to offer propaganda as opinion – De Freitas’ links to cranks hidden from readers

The new “compact” NZ Herald has taken a downmarket tabloid approach to informing its readers by running an opinion piece about the recent courtroom defeat for NZ’s climate cranks by prominent climate sceptic and Auckland University geographer Chris de Freitas, without explaining de Freitas’ long history of association with the cranks he’s defending. In the article, de Freitas overstates the uncertainties associated with temperature records, even going so far as to imply that the warming trend over the last hundred years might be “indistinguishable from zero” ((“Temperature trends detected are small, usually just a few tenths of one degree Celsius over 100 years, a rate that is exceeded by the data’s standard error. Statistically this means the trend is indistinguishable from zero.”)). He also overplays the importance of temperature series to policy-makers — a line straight out of crank litigant Barry Brill’s playbook, and self-evident nonsense.

Despite this transparent partiality, the opinion editors at the Herald credit him like this:

Chris de Freitas is an associate professor in the School of Environment at the University of Auckland.

But, as the Herald opinion team well know, de Freitas is much, much more than a mere associate professor in the School of Environment. He has a track record of activism against action on climate change that stretches back two decades. Here, for the poor misled readers of the new Herald‘s opinion pages is a handy, cut-out-and-keep guide to de Freitas’ long history of climate denial activism.

Continue reading “NZ Herald’s turn to offer propaganda as opinion – De Freitas’ links to cranks hidden from readers”

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 [PDF], 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…

I did have to laugh out loud at one point (not something that often happens when reading a judgement), when reading the judge’s comments on the original NZ CSET submissions:

Both the original statement of claim and the first amended statement of claim were prolix.

One wonders who brought a shine to those words…

No doubt the crank spin machine will be hard at work to try to salvage something from this train wreck, but it’s hard to see how. Common sense has prevailed. Warming remains unequivocal, and can’t be ruled inadmissible — unlike the Coalition’s precious “experts”.

[Update: Leading Climate Scientists Welcome Judge’s Decision on Temperatures

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.

…and…

… 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.

The press release was prepared and 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 ]