When asses go to law

by Gareth on August 16, 2010

In a bizarre twist to the tale of New Zealand’s climate sceptics and their strange obsession with the minutiae of the history of temperature measurement in New Zealand, it now emerges that they have lodged papers with the High Court [Stuff & NZ Herald, via NZPA], seeking to have the court rule that the National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) should:

  • set aside NIWA’s decisions to rely upon its Seven Station Series (7SS) and Eleven Station Series (11SS), and to find the current NZTR [NZ temperature record] to be invalid
  • to prevent NIWA from using the current NZTR (or information originally derived from it) for the purpose of advice to any governmental authority or to the public
  • to require NIWA to produce a full and accurate NZTR [text from their press release]

The mind boggles. Just what is an “invalid temperature record”, and how on earth is a judge expected to rule on that? Given that NIWA has received funding to do a thorough re-working of the long-term temperature history of NZ, mainly as a result of the earlier kerfuffle, why are the cranks so keen to go to court now? Science is not done in law courts. Then there are questions to be asked about the organisation and funding of this legal effort, as well as questions about possible abuse of process and waste of taxpayer funds…

 

The genesis of this story goes back to November last year, when Richard Treadgold and the NZ Climate “Science” Coalition trumpeted the release of a “study” that showed (in Treadgold’s words):

We have discovered that the warming in New Zealand over the past 156 years was indeed man-made, but it had nothing to do with emissions of CO2 – it was created by man-made adjustments of the temperature. It’s a disgrace.

It was a shonky study, as I showed conclusively at the time, in what has proved to be the most widely-read Hot Topic post to date. NIWA’s response was to develop a new temperature series, using data from places where adjustments had either never been required or were very minor, and it demonstrated that warming was unequivocal — if anything slightly greater than in the original “seven station” series. Since then, Treadgold and the C”S”C have — with their friends in the far-right ACT Partytried to turn the affair into a scandal, with no success. This latest legal ploy is a transparent attempt to get some more mileage out of what should, by all sensible measures, be the deadest of dead horses.

The case is being brought not by the NZ Climate Science Coalition or Climate Conversation Group, but by a newly-incorporated charitable trust, the New Zealand Climate Science Education Trust. The trustees are NZ CSC stalwarts Terry Dunleavy and Bryan Leyland, together with relative newcomer Doug Edmeades. An application for charitable status was made at the end of July and it was granted on August 10th. The Deed of Trust can be read at the Ministry of Economic Development’s Societies and Trusts Online site: search for “2539286 – NEW ZEALAND CLIMATE SCIENCE EDUCATION TRUST”. The stated aims of the trust (section four of the trust deed) look innocuous enough, but include a standard “do what you like” clause: 4.2.8: Such other activities and enterprises to further the charitable purposes of the Trust as the Trustees may decide. The documents sent to the press over the weekend can be read, in lightly edited form, at Treadgold’s blog.

It’s clear that Dunleavy, Leyland and Edmeades have some questions to answer. Their “charitable trust” was registered on August 10th, and within days they had lodged their legal action with the court. Was the trust formed specifically to bring the action? I understand that using a trust to bring a legal action provides some protection for the litigants if they lose their case and find costs awarded against them. But if that is the real reason for the trust’s existence, then surely it cannot be regarded as a charitable trust? Whatever the law may say — and I am sure that Dunleavy and co will have had legal advice (C”S”C chairman Barry Brill is a retired lawyer) — it cannot be morally or ethically acceptable for them to hide behind or misuse a charitable trust in this way. It also demonstrates rather nicely that they have no confidence that their case will succeed…

There are also questions to be asked about the funding of this legal effort to discredit NIWA and its scientists. Legal advice isn’t cheap, especially when seeking to bring a case before the High Court. The NZ C”S”C has always been rather coy about its funding, maintaining that it’s just a group of interested individuals who volunteer their efforts. Nevertheless, it has strong links with the US think tanks organising and funding campaigns against action to reduce carbon emissions, and has developed close ties with the Rodney Hide’s ACT Party — one of whose most generous supporters is climate sceptic and multi-millionaire Alan Gibbs. Of course, the NZ C”S”C might just have had a sausage sizzle outside a North Shore New World, and a bit of a whip round their membership, but on Radio NZ National’s Morning Report this morning [at 8:13am] Bryan Leyland admitted that Gibbs was “one of our friends”.

The question of funding is particularly important, because any reasonably objective assessment of their statement of claim shows it to be highly unlikely to succeed. The summary attached to the NZ C”S”C press release is pretty tedious, but it’s worth taking a look at the second paragraph:

The official NZ Temperature Record (NZTR) [...] the historical base for most Government policy and judicial decisions relating to climate change, wholly relies upon a “Seven-station series” (7SS), adopted in 1999.

You don’t to need to read any further, to be honest, because this is sufficient to establish the statement of claim as nonsense. As I’ve said before, the NZ temperature record is interesting, fascinating even for those of a meteorological or climatological bent, but there is no such thing as an “official” temperature record that has formed any sort of “historical base for most government policy and judicial decisions relating to climate change”. No NZ government of any flavour has ever relied on NIWA’s temperature series for anything much, certainly not used it as the basis for any policy. NZ government policy in this area depends far more on the international scientific and diplomatic context than it does on the temperature in Hokitika in 1890.

So if the case is pretty much certain to fail, why go to the expense of bringing it in the first place? It’s a waste of good money, surely? Dunleavy et al, and their mysterious backers, clearly disagree — and the reason’s obvious. This is not about science, or improving the NZ temperature record, it’s about attention seeking. Having failed to get the government to delay the introduction of the ETS at the beginning of July, the C”S”C and its “friends” are getting desperate. Like spoilt children, they’re pouting and screaming and throwing toys out of the pram.

The results of this hissy fit are predictable. My guess is that the court will refuse to consider the case — which will give the CSC another excuse for a loud public whinge. Questions in Parliament by Hide and Boscawen? A racing certainty, I reckon. But much judicial time and public money will have been wasted in the process, and the NZ temperature record will continue to show what it always has and always will do — significant warming over the last 100 years. Meanwhile the world will continue to warm

{ 115 comments… read them below or add one }

Grant August 16, 2010 at 10:29 am

I’m not a lawyer, but I’d like to think that the court will simply rule the claim as inappropriate for the courts and not look at it. Likewise, I find it hard to imagine a lawyer advising them (in good faith) that a court would accept ruling on the validity of scientific data. As you say, it does suggest the real motivation lies elsewhere.

Tony August 16, 2010 at 10:35 am

When this case has finished perhaps the New Zealand law courts can decide whether or not the Arctic ice sheet should be permitted to continue melting, that droughts and floods should be a legally permissible activity, and perhaps whether or not the melting of glaciers across the five continents doesn’t contravene any international agreement.

Gareth August 16, 2010 at 10:39 am

My favourite comment so far is the tweet from No Right Turn: @norightturnnz So, what are the morons in the NZCSC going to do next? Ask the courts to rule that pi = 3?

Macro August 16, 2010 at 11:24 am

It has happened before!
“It happened in Indiana. Although the attempt to legislate pi was ultimately unsuccessful, it did come pretty close. In 1897 Representative T.I. Record of Posen county introduced House Bill #246 in the Indiana House of Representatives. The bill, based on the work of a physician and amateur mathematician named Edward J. Goodwin (Edwin in some accounts), suggests not one but three numbers for pi, among them 3.2, as we shall see. The punishment for unbelievers I have not been able to learn, but I place no credence in the rumor that you had to spend the rest of your natural life in Indiana.”

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/805/did-a-state-legislature-once-pass-a-law-saying-pi-equals-3

Thomas August 16, 2010 at 10:32 pm

….which was actually done in Indiana, USA a wee while ago by law….
see: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/sci-math-faq/specialnumbers/lawPieq3/

Its never to late to join the flat earth society. Perhaps Leyland and Co will sue next to establish that the Earth is flat! What a fitting task it would be for Gibbs and Co to support….

Grant August 16, 2010 at 10:59 am

Gareth,

That’s a great line and it does put it in context so well in just a few words.

Gareth August 16, 2010 at 11:22 am

The best tweets can be like haiku – exquisite little jewels

nommopilot August 16, 2010 at 10:33 pm

you should tweet that

Rob Taylor August 16, 2010 at 11:00 am

Interesting. After emailing copies of the recent NOAA “10 reasons” report to local deniers, I received the following response from one Bryan Leyland, on 29 July, wherein he makes several testable claims and predictions.

“So what if the world has been warming?
Where is the proof that it is manmade? None there.
A 13.5 year sunspot cycle is hard evidence of imminent cooling. Probably severe. Probably starting before the end of this year.
What will you do when it happens?”

Thus, Leyland had already accepted that the temperature rise is real before filing suit.

I believe the legal term for this is “a frivolous and vexatious claim”, and look forward to NIWA lawyers obtaining discovery of all relevant documents from the claimants and thus exposing these charlatans once and and for all.

Bill Ramsay August 16, 2010 at 11:02 am

I left a message on the CSC website yesterday suggesting that they were wasting their time with this. I received an email from Mr. Dunleavy with a graph and several claims against Jim Salinger and the lack of peer review of this PHd thesis.

I replied by suggesting hat he and his organisation had been told multiple times that their assertions on ‘manipulation’ [and I take this to be of a fraudulent kind] have been shown to be without merit.

That was last night, I haven’t heard back, he’s probably very busy just now.. Be interesting to hear more.

What these people don’t seem to realise is that a court very rarely ‘proves’ anything. and that on balance they will be shown to be complete plonkers. They also seem to forget that once you lay yourself open in a court all manner of other things can and do float to the surface. Hopefully their funding, etc. will be exposed.

I suspect that Gareth is correct and that the court will refuse to be drawn into this. If not, it should be fun to watch.

Kind regards
Bill

cindy August 16, 2010 at 11:05 am

Rob: “malicious” is another term that springs to mind around this one.

Russell also has a blog up at Public Address

Australis August 16, 2010 at 11:39 am

Speaking of “shonky studies”, I wouldn’t talk about NIWA’s series of unadjusted stations – which seems to have been wholly discredited at http://tinyurl.com/3xwrbrw.

I don’t see why the High Court would have any more trouble getting to the truth of a disputed temp record than it does in resolving any other disputes. Unlike a blog, a High Court Judge will consider the evidence on both sides of the issue, and apply an objective and rational mind.

Gareth August 16, 2010 at 11:50 am

Discredited? By Brill? You have to be joking. It amounts to a whinge that “they said 11 stations, but sometimes there are fewer than that”.

If they have scientific proof that NZ is not warming, or not warming as fast as any of the series NIWA has created, then why have they not done the hard yards and produced a paper for publication in the peer-reviewd literature? The MetSoc journal Weather & Climate would be interested to see such a paper, I’m sure, though whether it would actually pass peer-review has to be open to doubt, given the nature of the stuff they’ve produced to date.

R2D2 August 16, 2010 at 11:45 am

Rob Taylor: Point of clarification on your comment: Leyland is referring to a world temperature rise and doesn’t “admit” that it is happening but rather says so what if it is.

I think the issue for CSC is that they believe Salinger has exaggerated the warming for NZ. Such as exaggeration, if it indeed has occurred, along with similar exaggerations in other nations could be argued to lead to a belief that human influence on the climate is greater than it is in reality.

Macro August 16, 2010 at 11:56 am

“I think the issue for CSC is that they believe Salinger has exaggerated the warming for NZ”
If they believe this – then the OBVIOUS solution for them is to properly demonstrate in a peer-reviewed published article in a reputable scientific journey their arguments for holding that point of view. Not to waste the time of Law courts in a stupid, vexatious, and frivolous court action.

Macro August 16, 2010 at 12:02 pm

journal

bill August 16, 2010 at 1:33 pm

So what if the world has been warming?
Where is the proof that it is manmade? None there.

Any reasonable person would conclude that that statement implies a concession that the world is, indeed, warming. Rather than dispute the point it even immediately attempts to shift the responsibility for the warming elsewhere!

And then we get treated to the return of the risible ‘global cooling’ meme! How any educated adult could cling to that is beyond my comprehension; but it fits with not being able to see any evidence that humans are responsible for the ‘so what’ warming!

Richard Christie August 16, 2010 at 11:57 am

@ Australis
Courts can hopeless when considering science. The problem is they behave like journalists, giving equal time to the cranks and mainstream viewpoints. Peter Ellis found that out to his dismay at his second appeal and then it was hammered home with Eichelbaum’s discredited report http://peterellis.org.nz/2007/2007_francis_new_evidence.pdf

David Thompson August 16, 2010 at 12:14 pm

I don’t know why they bother. There was a typo in the IPCC 4AR, so man made climate change has been completely debunked and we can all set about polluting to our hearts content.

Those evil scientists are trying to crush the delicate flower of capitalism, thank God for those brave men in the CSC and the people’s battler “Perky” Rod Hyde.

RW August 16, 2010 at 12:18 pm

I see that Farrar has tried to half-convince himself that the CSC morons have a case – he would, wouldn’t he. And judging by the 50+ responses he has already, many of his faithful coterie of ferals are on the side of idiocy.

chris August 16, 2010 at 12:19 pm

The pro climate change scientist in England state that they have fiddle the figures to produces the warming to collect their grants. The media supports these cranky scientists on government pay roll to undermine the sovereignty of countries, with a wish to setting up global TAX on climate change. This is not about green issues, its more about greedy big powerfull neighbours and their power games.

Johnmacmot August 16, 2010 at 12:35 pm

LOL! Very good, Chris, but that’s much too far over the top to be a good Poe.

But just in case you really believe that hogwash, how about you prove it? Evidence, please. And don’t waste our time with links to looney denialist sites.

Rob Taylor August 16, 2010 at 12:35 pm

That’s right, Chris. The buggers also fly around in black helicopters financed by the Illuminati on behalf of ZOG.

RW August 16, 2010 at 12:51 pm

What a load of conspiracist drivel. Take another pill.

Mike C August 16, 2010 at 1:01 pm

tinfoil hats!

Carol Stewart August 16, 2010 at 12:45 pm

Excellent summary, Gareth. The cynicism of this move is quite staggering. It beats me why NIWA haven’t sued them for libel (oh, OK, it’s because they’re busy doing science, not wasting time on these clowns).
I’ll have to add that I’m more worried about the prospect of Tony Abbott being the next Australian PM than about the NZCSC.

John August 16, 2010 at 12:52 pm

If NIWA has nothing to hide then why the worry? The fact that they ‘lost’ the original adjustments & workings to the raw data, and then when they were forced to redo the temperature record with documented adjustments they arrived at a different result raises a few doubts for me. It’s true that the courts can’t really consider science, but they can explore the possibility of NIWA being caught out fiddling the numbers for fraudulent reasons to obtain access to govt. funds. If NIWA’s work is so ‘robust’ where are the workings and evidence? Forgive me if I’m wrong, but I always thought that scientific facts had to be backed by proof, which they ‘lost’, and when they finally did come up with some workings they differed from the original results that were used to influence govt. policy. If NIWA played by the rules there would be no court case, and the fact that the AGW crowd stonewall attempts to independently analyse their work seriously undermines their credibility. People tend to ignore those who mislead and lie to them (intentional or not), and the falling numbers of those who believe in AGW is the result. But no, instead of getting to the truth the AGW crowd circle the wagons once again & resort to abuse (‘asses’). Have you all asked yourselves why you are so defensive about a verification of the adjustments when they are different to the originals? Isn’t that the scientific method? What are you all afraid of? Aren’t organisations employed by the taxpayer accountable for the money they receive & the work they do, and is it unreasonable for the govt. or the taxpayer to examine this work? If they really did lose the adjustments, is this acceptable scientific practise? Would a uni degree be given without the supporting workings? No? Of course not, but they try to get away with saying that NZ is warming almost 50% above the global average without providing any proof. Sorry, NIWA deserve to be in court and their defense is anything but robust.

Carol Stewart August 16, 2010 at 12:57 pm

“If NIWA has nothing to hide then why the worry? ”
Er, because it is a stupid, vexatious waste of time and resources? Others may have more energy and inclination than me to respond to your lazy and misinformed diatribe.

John August 16, 2010 at 1:04 pm

Not as much of a ‘stupid, vexatious waste of time and resources’ as basing expensive govt. policy on faulty & unverifiable data.

TBWood August 16, 2010 at 1:05 pm

Hi John.

Let’s say it does go to court. Let’s say that NIWA is found to have correct records, and in fact it does show that there is warming.

Will you believe it then? Or will there be some other red herring?

TB

John August 16, 2010 at 1:14 pm

I always believe provable science, & I’d be especially interested in why NZ is warming almost 50% above the global average. Will you believe it if they are caught lying?

TB Wood August 16, 2010 at 1:18 pm

Sure.

I’ll repeat my question. If the NIWA temp series is found by a court of law to be correct, will you change your views?

John August 16, 2010 at 1:40 pm

Yup, either of the 2 different versions that they have. I thought I’d answered your question. All I want is proof.

Macro August 16, 2010 at 2:30 pm

You already have it!
What sort of “proof” do you want?
Both of the series are there for you to inspect ad infinitum. They both show much the same result.

John August 16, 2010 at 3:45 pm

Yes, but without the adjustment workings. Are we expected to take it all on faith?

Gareth August 16, 2010 at 3:55 pm

Not at all. You do what the cranks should have done: download the raw data, look at the station histories, do the statistical analysis to determine the adjustments required, then reconstruct the series and see what’s changed. Independent verification doesn’t mean just checking someone else’s working, it means doing the work yourself and seeing if you agree. That’s how progress is made in science. For an insight into how it can be done, check NIWA’s very detailed (and interesting) explanation of the adjustments made to the Hokitika data to create a single series.

John August 16, 2010 at 4:29 pm

Gareth – The burden of proof doesn’t lie with me or anyone else but NIWA, it’s up to them to provide the reasons for the adjustments not for me to guess what they could be.

Your link doesn’t work, but NIWA needs to explain all of it’s adjustments, not just Hokitika.

Macro August 16, 2010 at 4:48 pm

The burden of proof does lie with you! You are the one making the accusation that the adjustments (which all lie within the sphere of acceptable scientific methodology) are not valid. And it’s no good wringing your hands and saying you don’t like it. You need to argue rationally and logically) and show conclusively to the whole scientific community that the methods of adjusting data as done with-in this series is unscientific and why that is the case.

John August 16, 2010 at 9:02 pm

Well the fact is that I haven’t said that the adjustments are wrong & I can’t say their adjustments are unscientific until I see the reasons for them can I? That’s what the whole debate is about, the fact that NIWA has no proof to back up it’s statements.

Mike C August 16, 2010 at 1:38 pm

“NZ is warming almost 50% above the global average”

John, this quote shows why we need to be careful with the slipping and sliding of some “skeptics”.
Unless I am mistaken the NIWA temperature record being “challenged” is a Land record, but the global average being referred to is Land + Ocean. Oceans warm slower than land so we would expect the NIWA Land record to show greater than average warming.

A quick check of the NASA Land series shows warming (globally) of around 1 dC since 1890 which would put NIWAs values very close to the world average.

John August 16, 2010 at 1:55 pm

I often wonder why the pro AGW crowd insist on using the inaccurate land/ocean temp. measurements that need to be adjusted in the first place, and are incomplete, when they have perfectly accurate satellite data from 2 satellites. Although 1 of the satellites is getting old, it still gives a more accurate reading than the adjusted and approximated land/ocean measurements.

Mike C August 16, 2010 at 2:05 pm

John

The satellite record is for the atmosphere, not ground level and only extends back ~30years.

Furthermore an enormous amount of adjustment is needed to get a temperature signal from the satellites because they don’t measure temperature directly (unlike the land record which is actually pretty good). Roy Spencer outlines the difficult process of taking microwave emissions from oxygen atoms and turning that into a temperature signal here).

Doug August 16, 2010 at 2:19 pm

Mike it always amuses me that for a group of people that are always keen to express their distrust of proxy measurements in climate science. They are more than happy to quote one of the two satellite temp records. Which is of course using microwave emissions as a proxy measure for the tropo temperature.

John August 16, 2010 at 2:53 pm

It’s not the proxy measurements, it’s just the consistency of the adjustments.

John August 16, 2010 at 3:53 pm

Isn’t it the atmosphere that is supposed to be warming?

The land records only go back 150 yrs. & gives us nothing to compare the industrial age against, how about the ice cores?

The real reason they don’t use the most accurate method is that it doesn’t give them the answer they want.

Mike C August 16, 2010 at 4:30 pm

John, but the rather confused state of your post I’m not sure if you are trolling or just not particularly knowledgeable in this area.

By atmosphere I mean troposphere, which is measured by satellites and shows a warming trend almost identical to the surface (thermometer) record. Prior to the instrumental record we have proxy records, but even if we didn’t it still wouldn’t take away from the fact the world is currently warming.

If you truly are interested in learning more I suggest you start by looking at “How do we know the world has warmed?” from NOAA.

Simon Arnold August 16, 2010 at 5:55 pm

There is a useful, about to be published, contribution to the issue of pre instrument proxies here: http://www.e-publications.org/ims/submission/index.php/AOAS/user/submissionFile/6695?confirm=63ebfddf

John August 16, 2010 at 9:07 pm

Of course it’s warming, it’s been warming since the end of the last ice age – doesn’t mean that people are responsible. It’s convenient that the temperature records that they use don’t put the warming in context historically.

Mike C August 16, 2010 at 10:37 pm

Not true.

If anything global temperatures had been slowly declining since a peak in the early-to-mid interglacial, until of course we started warming the earth back up again.
Here’s a chart of holocene temperatures. Next time it would be nice if you would to provide some evidence for your claims, as so far it seems you don’t have any.

John August 16, 2010 at 10:48 pm

Hey Mike C, your Holocene temp. chart shows that the warming started about 500 yrs. ago. I’m wondering if we were using fossil fuels at the time and pumping out industrial amount of CO2. Funny how the warming started before we started pumping out the CO2 isn’t it? Hmm?

CTG August 16, 2010 at 11:18 pm

John, part 1: “Of course it’s warming, it’s been warming since the end of the last ice age”.

John, part 2: “warming started about 500 yrs. ago”

Is it really too much too ask for you denialist types to be consistent between one post and the next?

Which is it, John – warming for 500 years, or warming for 10,000 years?

Of course, the actual answer, if John had bothered to actually look at the graph in question, is warming for the last 150 years; absolutely, unequivocally due to the actions of humans. But John doesn’t want to hear about that – cue head in sand.

Thomas August 16, 2010 at 10:40 pm

Not all places of the world warm the same as the Global Average. Thats why its called a Global Average! Got It?
Many places such as the Arctic for example have warmed a multitude of the Global Average. NZ is pretty close to it really.
The Global Average includes all the oceans where warming is dampened by the thermal inertia of the oceans.
Get some science tutoring!

Australis August 16, 2010 at 1:44 pm

Yes. Although NIWA said there were 11 stations but there were only 3 – Ruapehu, Palmerston Nth and Queenstown – hardly representative of NZ as a whole. Then, by slowly dribbling in extra stations over a period of 24 years, they created an upwards trend. This is not science!

Macro August 16, 2010 at 2:36 pm

If you have valid concerns – PUBLISH!

John August 16, 2010 at 2:47 pm

I’m sure it’ll all come out in the court case.

Macro August 16, 2010 at 3:22 pm

That NZCSC are idiots? Yes!
That they have a case? No.

Doug August 16, 2010 at 2:49 pm

So what you are saying is that the climate stations were chosen to show a warming trend?

If this were true the scientists would have their careers and reputations destroyed when it came out as it would inevitably.

Why would anyone do this?

Mike C August 16, 2010 at 2:57 pm

No Australis, instituting a court case instead of re-analyzing the data and publishing your theories in a respectable journal is not science.

Once again it exposes the CSC for what they really are, a PR operation.

Chris August 16, 2010 at 2:37 pm

The global warming scientist in the UK are the scientists that failed to find any warming. Kind of inconvenient for the climate Crusaders having only just found a new World religion to follow.

New Zealand is just a large city on the global scale. No wonder our politicians are willing to do the ETS bidding of others in return for a puppet seat at global summits.

No warming, no global taxes, and oh dear no overseas trips to debate the problem.

Ps Conspirators get pretty touchy when caught out.

Doug August 16, 2010 at 2:41 pm

Could we have a link please or a name?

Macro August 16, 2010 at 2:45 pm

I wouldn’t waste my time Doug – he’s obviously beyond hope.

diessoli August 16, 2010 at 2:49 pm

“The global warming scientist in the UK are the scientists that failed to find any warming.”
I guess you refer to what Phil Jones said in an interview and which is widely misused.
See here for a clarification: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Phil-Jones-says-no-global-warming-since-1995.htm

Doug August 16, 2010 at 2:54 pm

diessoli, if he is talking about Dr Jones’ comments then he definitely is not qualified to hold an opinion on this matter, but I await his reply in good faith.

Australis August 16, 2010 at 3:05 pm

Right. There were 3 stations in 1931 and then 8 extra stations were dribbled in over the next 24 years. How can that be a series?

Macro August 16, 2010 at 3:28 pm

This has been dealt with before – ad infinitum. You are repeating yourself and you still have no valid argument.

Doug August 16, 2010 at 3:29 pm

Australis according to this page http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/all/2009/nz-temp-record/temperature-trends-from-raw-data. Your summary seems to be inaccurate.

The first station active was in 1906 the last in 1948, which is 17 years from 1931. I also count 5 stations active in 1931. I am sure that the error estimates reflect the reduced number of stations in the early years of the series.

Chris August 16, 2010 at 3:32 pm

The vicar at the church of global warming has said he made the evidence of his existence up. But the congregation keep turning up regardless, as it makes them feel better, and the vicar enjoys the weekly collection from his sheep.

Go on believing if you like, but it is no longer an active faith, it is rather an act of betrayal to your fellow man in favour of the multinationals and big bank sponsors.

RW August 16, 2010 at 3:45 pm

Go away, you ignorant conspiracist troll. Ditto for Australis – we’ve heard his recycled poppycock ofetn enough.

John August 16, 2010 at 4:18 pm

Why don’t you go away RW, it’s not like you own the comments section. The ‘recycled poppycock’ doesn’t cost you any money does it, but your viewpoint has the govt’s hand firmly in everyone’s wallet. Asking NIWA to produce it’s workings isn’t unreasonable, & if they cooked the numbers taking them to court isn’t either.

Johnmacmot August 16, 2010 at 4:38 pm

Plainly, John, this is a clear admission from the NZ Septics Club that they have no scientific credibility whatsoever. If there was a real scientist within this tiny group, he or she would be capable of making a scientific case within the usual scientific process, and would publish.

All they have to offer is a bit of political grandstanding, funded by the odd rich turkey with names like “fibs”. The funny thing is that it might not quite have the results that the club hopes for…

RW August 16, 2010 at 6:41 pm

You idiot mates at CSC have no substantive description or criticism of exactly what “cooking”/”fiddling” has been going on. On the other hand, those morons at one stage cheerfully concatenated records from sites at significantly different altitudes, and continued repeatedly peddling the resulting tripe even after the mistakes were pointed out to them several times over. It’s simply gutter politics.

John August 16, 2010 at 9:12 pm

They just want to see the adjustments double checked. That’s what is supposed to happen in science and the fact that it hasn’t raises doubts – NIWA’s assertions are unsubstantiated and as a result the govt policy is not based on fact, only speculation.

nommopilot August 16, 2010 at 10:53 pm

then, once again, why do they not challenge the science in a scientific forum? they have constantly badgered NIWA and Salinger and are yet to produce anything scientifically robust enough to enter a high school science fair let alone a journal.

CTG August 16, 2010 at 11:23 pm

They just want to see the adjustments double checked.

What, they can’t double check the adjustments themselves?

Must be because NIWA posted the adjustments on that new-fangled interwebs things. I mean, how is a dinosaur supposed to use a computer? Their little tiny arms can’t reach the keyboard.

John August 18, 2010 at 3:31 pm

CTG
‘What, they can’t double check the adjustments themselves?’

If NIWA can’t find their own adjustments then how is anyone else supposed to. If you can supply the link showing all the adjustments made & the reasons why for all of the stations that they use then I’m sure NIWA, me, and everyone else will be very grateful.

CTG August 18, 2010 at 10:29 pm
Doug August 16, 2010 at 3:45 pm

I on the other hand see enablers like Chris as supporting the status quo, those with huge investments in the existing energy, transport, and manufacturing sectors, which of course comprises the multinationals and big banks.

Go figure?

Chris August 16, 2010 at 5:54 pm

The banks love ETS. Who do you think run the schemes on behalf of governments ?

Braclays Capital have been very impressed with the amount of money they have made with the European scheme, and noted that not a single tone of Carbon was “saved” in the process.

Chris August 16, 2010 at 4:51 pm

Lied to by Global power monger, the global warmer fanatics continue to fan the same message in order introduce extra TAX and laws on the hard working populations of the world.

bill August 18, 2010 at 3:47 pm

Lied to by Global power monger, the global warmer fanatics

The vicar at the church of global warming

This isn’t a debate, this is simply ranting, Chris.

You have joined a select club, along with Girma and Joe Fone – I will automatically vote to obscure any of your comments that contains similar language in the future, and encourage others to do the same.

tomfarmer August 16, 2010 at 5:13 pm

We are asked why are they doing this..?

Could be here, guys.. Kahan’s pov would suggest legs for some politically-inspired or aspired-to wizardry..

Personally, on the face this intended action appears misuse of the High Court.. wrongful aka punishing intent etc.. as I say misplaced.

But there appears oodles of evidence that perpetrators are also misplacers.. yes?

Bob Keeland August 16, 2010 at 6:14 pm

[Comment deleted: The person claiming to be "Bob Keeland" is posting from an NZ IP address. Either post under your own name, a consistent pseudonym, or not at all. GR]

Cate T. Fraser August 17, 2010 at 4:08 am

None of this high court stuff is about science and evidence – it is a deliberate strategy to waste climate scientists’ time. You drag everything out, you put as many road blocks in the way, you waste people’s precious time. It is criminal behaviour when we are facing a road to catastrophic climate change.

Carol Cowan August 17, 2010 at 9:57 pm

I agree with Cate. We have lost 30 years already in which we could have been actively reducing carbon emissions, and those of other greenhouse gases. The balance of gases in the atmosphere has been changed and we, our children and our childrens’ children are going to be living with the consequences for years to come. One day those who call themselves skeptics will be known by their real identity – traitors!

Chris August 18, 2010 at 12:11 am

In NZ the Labour government was forced to agree to the Kyoto Protocol because the Alliance Party self destructed and Labour needed the Greens for support in Confidence and Supply. The cost of that support was agreement to GE legislation and the Kyoto Protocol. Labour could see that the GE debate had no financial return, but the carbon credit trading game looked much more promising. Positive credit-trading with all our trees acting as CO2 sinks made politicians see dollar signs. But just as Enron came unstuck mired in financial ruin and scandal, so too is the Kyoto Protocol set to ruin economies and bring down governments and any players foolish enough to be taken in.

Macro August 18, 2010 at 12:31 pm

Chris – you are re-writing history here! Kyoto was in 1991 and the Party ratifying the agreement was National. Simon Upton was the minister at the time.

bill August 18, 2010 at 12:56 am

But just as Enron came unstuck mired in financial ruin and scandal, so too is the Kyoto Protocol set to ruin economies and bring down governments and any players foolish enough to be taken in.

Yep, the Kyoto Protocol, and Enron – peas in a pod! Can’t you see it, people?!

Wibble.

Froth.

Wibble.

(Meanwhile, back on Earth…)

John August 18, 2010 at 8:24 pm

Hey CTG

‘Which is it, John – warming for 500 years, or warming for 10,000 years?’

The answer to your question is both. The long term trend since the ice age has been up, and the graph clearly shows the upward trend that Mike stated starting 500 yrs. ago. If you’d taken the time to actually look at the graph you’d see the numbers on the bottom are THOUSANDS of years, not hundreds. Oops, perhaps it was you who didn’t look at the graph properly, try the one at the bottom of this page:

http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/ice-core-graph/

Notice how the current temp. peak that we’re currently at is the coolest in over 400,000 yrs.? Oops again?

John August 18, 2010 at 8:36 pm

Hey Mike,

‘it would be nice if you would to provide some evidence for your claims’

Strange you don’t apply the same standards to NIWA with regard to their adjustments. Why is that? Hmmm?

bill August 18, 2010 at 9:16 pm

evidence for claims still outstanding: assume none available

John August 18, 2010 at 9:23 pm

You might have to take me to court to get an answer bill, but you could try looking in my post before this one. Maybe you should try publishing.

bill August 19, 2010 at 1:49 pm

You might have to take me to court to get an answer bill

This is called a projection, ‘John’! The courts and threats to litigate generally appear to be your side’s particular hobbyhorse.

An ironic option, don’t you think, for the very self-styled courageous ‘free thinkers’ who routinely claim victim status in this dispute?

Mike C August 19, 2010 at 1:44 am

As regulars here will know, we have traveled the adjustments road before.
There are a number of scientific reasons why adjustments need to be made to temperature records and in fact if you didn’t make them you’d be doing poor science.
Gareth outlined a very good example here, ie: what should you do when a recording station is moved up a hill to where the air is colder?

But this isn’t secret, NIWA have done what real scientists do and published their results and adjustments for the scrutiny of their peers. That’s the standard I hold them to, peer reviewed science that stands the test of time. They have made much information available on their website for everyone to look at, and John, that includes you.

After all, if you were a true scientific skeptic you would actually attempt to learn about adjustments instead of pontificating about them from a state of willful ignorance while offering no evidence to back up any of your claims. Why is that? Hmmm?

John August 18, 2010 at 8:47 pm

NIWA’s defense is almost as weak as the case for AGW. You alarmists are soooo easy to beat in debate. The reason is so simple if you think about it – you can’t defend the indefensible. All you can do is get angry & abusive at those who point out the many flaws that, if you’d really had an open mind, you should’ve seen yourselves all along. Luckily more & more people are waking up to the AGW BS every day, & those who believe are now a minority. This is a pro AGW forum but the amount of contributors is rather small – where are they all?

No wonder so many sceptics refer to AGW as a religion – all you have is faith. The ‘science’ doesn’t add up, hence the dodging, weaving, number fiddling, & ‘hide the decline’ ing. Maybe it’s big oil’s fault.

bill August 18, 2010 at 9:12 pm

I’m calling Poe on this guy!

Or does he actually imagine that this sweeping log of tired old claims and links to the usual suspects constitutes ‘beating’ anyone in a debate?

This is a pro AGW forum but the amount of contributors is rather small – where are they all?

This from someone who’s making comment #89! My last comment was #107 on another post! You couldn’t make it up!…

Richard T August 18, 2010 at 10:02 pm

If you’re not some poor sod sweating profusely in underwear while manning some keyboard in Russia and being paid peanuts to post annoying troll’s on climate web sites then you must be utterly delusional and may even believe lamingtons to be a form of headwear.

NIWA will win the court case, if they have ever been guilty of anything it’s been by trying to answer the kind of questions raised by the CSC as any good scientist would; i.e., in good faith, carefully, and logically. If I were asked questions about Salinger’s 7 station time-series, one of the first things I would do is try and create an independent series from a different set of stations. This they did and guess what? – the answers were consistent implying nothing much wrong with the 7SS. Another thing the idea of establishing a definitve NZTR is a bit of a fiction in so far as their will always be error bars attached to this, so even if NIWA did produce this as the CSC is demanding they would still argue the toss. The CSC just hasn’t liked the answers already provided as it didn’t suit their purposes – which I guess are purely political.

In the book by “Poles Apart” the question is asked “what piece of evidence would change your mind about global warming?” Many sceptics refused to answer – that speaks volumes about the CSC mindset – hermetically sealed.

p.s. Augie Auer said once “that climate change would be yesterdays news in 5 years time”, well that must have been close to 5 years ago now – like most other things he was wrong on that count as well.

Maxim August 18, 2010 at 9:08 pm

Hey John,
Keep going, you have a clear run for goal.

The attack poodles are having their evening Milo, but will soon pop up like Charlie Brown in the Pumpkin Patch

John August 18, 2010 at 9:16 pm

GOOOOOAAAAAALLLLLLLL!!!!!

bill August 18, 2010 at 11:13 pm

Empty vessels really do make the most noise! To describe your efforts as ‘vapid’ would be to oversell them…

John August 18, 2010 at 9:34 pm
Macro August 18, 2010 at 10:16 pm

Why would anyone ever want to look at something posted there?

John August 18, 2010 at 10:42 pm

Keep those blinkers on Macro, in case something shatters your delusions.

bill August 18, 2010 at 11:29 pm

Macro, you didn’t miss much – quelle surprise! – but the cats in cardboard boxes were rather endearing!

If you like cats in boxes…

Macro August 19, 2010 at 10:56 am

I like the cat on here! It speaks a lot of sense!
My cat and cardboard boxes is better not talked about!

Johnmacmot August 18, 2010 at 10:57 pm

My goodness, John, we’re privileged tonight!

Your wit and profundity are rare things. So rare, in fact, that they are just a little elusive. Well, completely lacking.

Keep trying though. That’s how you learn and improve.

One minor problem is you don’t have anything to say nor do you know what you are talking about. That’s normal in the Denialosphere, but you are smart enough to know it. That’s why you have no more to offer than being a nuisance.

Not by any chance a member of the ACT Party Juniors?

Chris August 18, 2010 at 11:54 pm

It is a known fact that when a person from the Third World moves to a western industrialised country, such as the NZ, they increase their ‘carbon footprint’ by 4 times. So every one of those millions of immigrants who have come to the NZ has increased the carbon footprint of the NZ immensely.

Our simplest and most effective way to limit our Carbon Foot print is to stop further 2nd/3rd World immigration, rather than cripple our industry with red tape and TAX.

NickS August 19, 2010 at 12:02 pm

Millions of immigrants? lolwut?

Given immigrant to NZ from developing nations isn’t particularly much, restricting it would hardly dent our carbon emissions, where as motivating business and agriculture to lower their carbon emissions would more likely have far more of an impact. Especially as it would effect consumers as well.

The stupid, it doth burn.

bill August 19, 2010 at 2:23 pm

Our simplest and most effective way to limit our Carbon Foot print is to stop further 2nd/3rd World immigration, rather than cripple our industry with red tape and TAX.

Wow, that simple, eh? Ah, the Xenophobes speak! Haven’t you forgotten to stipulate that we shouldn’t let any of the uppity little blighters industrialise their own economies, either?

Let’s see – if I immigrated to NZ from Oz I’d halve my carbon footprint automatically (don’t ask, it’s magic!). Hey, I know; our government (either flavour, sadly) is always looking for new offshore processing locations for the hordes that are allegedly overrunning us (thanks, John Howard – a man after your own heart, Chris), why don’t we divert them all to you and then we halve the CO2 emissions involved as well?

The trouble with your sort of thinking is that by implication you must believe that might is indeed right – what if if this blowtorch reasoning is ever turned on you one day? But that’s actually what you fear, isn’t it; that ‘they’ are people who think just like you?

Rob Taylor August 19, 2010 at 6:17 am

At least Chris acknowledges that AGW is overwhelmingly caused by the industrialised countries.

Unfortunately, the consequences are overwhelmingly experienced in the developing world, e.g. the unfolding catastrophe in Pakistan & China.

As for stopping future climate refugees, how does he plan to turn back millions of Australians, Indonesians and Chinese?

Chris August 19, 2010 at 10:50 am

Which way of life do you prefer Rob ? Indonesian, Chinese, Pakistani, or Indian ?

Which ever group you like the most, invite 4 million of them over here, and they can take over democracy for you, and then it will become their problem as to how to keep out the rest (which I’m sure they will be able to solve, as it not hard).

In the mean time the current lot can get on with accelerating your nightmare of AGM as they fly back and forth to visit relatives.

The more that come, the fast we the planet will warm, causing more to come, and ending in a runaway feedback loop.

How do you deal with the immigration warming effect ?

Rob Taylor August 19, 2010 at 12:25 pm

Chris & NickS, I am not talking about immigration, I am talking about invasion.

First will come the wealthy and powerful buying up land as an insurance policy, then the middle classes seeking a better future for their children, then the flood of “boat people” seeking a chance for survival.

Along the way, NZ will become part refugee camp, part intensive farm – whilst our democracy will probably not survive, at least we will not lack for organic fertiliser.

NickS August 19, 2010 at 2:07 pm

NZ First voter by chance?

Because your xenophobia’s showing, might want to get it cut out and cauterised.

And yes, while there will be large population movements caused by climate change, our already restrictive immigration laws and nationalist bs and the large stretches of ocean, basically leave a likely future of us acting as a lifeboat for Pacific Island nations. As without good boats, it’s actually difficult to move large numbers of refugees here illegally in the numbers your paranoia is deluding you into believing, say unlike Australia.

Where as continental regions, are likely to see major climate refugee movements. Which given the conservative estimates in the Stern Report, or the one from the Pentagon, are projected to cause massive global economic and political disruptions. That’s only if we don’t take the steps soon to adapt to projected precipitation amount changes and deal with all of our carbon emissions.

adelady August 19, 2010 at 3:47 pm

Good boats to move large numbers of refugees to Australia?

Such large numbers in fact that it will take 20 years worth of current arrivals of refugees in boats to fill the MCG. I know it’s famous as a large sporting venue, but that’s not very many people.

NickS August 19, 2010 at 6:07 pm

No, to move them across to NZ. The straits separating Australia from Indonesia can be very easily crossed, heck you build a raft and get across there, and if the AUS navy can’t hold them back, or destroy the boats, they can go back for more people. It wouldn’t be quick, but you could move quite a lot of people, more than enough to fill that stadium of yours…

Where as the Tasman is prone to big waves and nasty weather, that will sink ill-prepared or poorly maintained vessels.

Rob Taylor August 19, 2010 at 8:21 pm

You appear to be thinking in current terms of impoverished economic migrants, whereas I am more concerned at an influx of the well-armed and well-heeled, for whom NZ will be an attractive refuge to sit out the consequences of their unsustainable carbon-rich lifestyles back home.

It is always the fate of weaker nations well-endowed with scarce natural resources (think food and clean water) to be fought over by those for whom might makes right. They will not be arriving half-starved in leaky boats…

{ 8 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: