Crusaders of the lost wallet: NZ’s climate cranks lose costs case

News reaches HT (hat tip to Rob Taylor) that the Appeal Court has rejected the NZ Climate “Science Education” Trust’s appeal for a reduction in the costs awarded against them when they lost their original case against the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research over the New Zealand temperature record. This latest judgement finds that the NZCSET “did not act reasonably”, and has “mounted something of a crusade against NIWA’s records” (excerpts courtesy of Rob Taylor here).

The judgement comes as no surprise to members of the reality-based community, but the final failure of their futile finagling leaves Barry Brill, Richard Treadgold and the trustees of the NZCSET with questions to answer. I posed three, as yet unanswered, questions last time I covered this issue. To keep things simple for these bears of little legal brain, this time I’ll only ask two.

Are you planning to meet the costs awarded against you? If not, why do you think you should be above the law you so egregiously abused in bringing the case in the first place?

The trustees of the NZCSET are Bryan Leyland, Doug Edmeades and Terry Dunleavy. One rather hopes they have deep pockets…

167 thoughts on “Crusaders of the lost wallet: NZ’s climate cranks lose costs case”

  1. Joy to the world! And shame to the deluded bunch of climate cranks. Finally the bottom of some pockets will need to be upturned to scrape together the cost of their folly!

  2. Meanwhile, one of the last denizens of Treadgold’s denialist blog, our old friend AndyS, equates the incompetence of Brill, Dedekind and Dunleavy to that shown by the EQC and Len Brown:

    Do you also celebrate when EQC manage to shaft yet another Christchurch earthquake claimant, or Len Brown gets away with yet another scam in the Auckland council?

    Good point, Andy!

    1. Its funny really! They have been now shown in many ways how folly their arguments are, yet carry on to blame the law itself….

      Soon they will likely argue that the laws of Physics must surely need to change to accommodate their deluded stance….

      Delusions often only die together with the brain that holds them so dear….

    2. Ah, and the residents of Christchurch started their own earthquake, did they, Andy? 😉

      And Dixie(2) cites Dickens! How very Moncktonian! Similarly, um, let me try to recall; did the charming Bumble take himself to court?

  3. The court case has been a failure for the ‘cranks’ undoubtedly. They however have raised some concerning issues.

    ‘In para 4, NIWA denies it has any obligation to use the best available data or best scientific techniques, while conceding that it has statutory duties to pursue excellence and to perform its functions efficiently and effectively.’

    Why is NIWA not convinced about the quality of their data? Does this not undermine their records? Thoughts?

    1. You’ll be astonished, astonished, to learn that this is a straight quote from Climate Conversations, and specifically from Richard Treadgold, in 2010!

      Now, you being a good ‘skeptic’ and all, Murray, will have actually read the relevant document, won’t you?

      [*Smiles sweetly / flutters eyelashes*]

      And so you will be able to point out to us where exactly it says exactly what you say it does. Here it is, just waiting for your call.

      I’ll give you a hint – paragraph 4 as provided by NIWA, is an exhaustive list of their statutory obligations under the Crown Research Institutes Act, Public Records Act, and the Crown Entities Act.

      Also, ever been involved in many court cases, Murray? I’m going to guess the answer is ‘no’. I shouldn’t really be this kind to you, but I will observe that ‘but, save as admitted, denies paragraph X’ may not mean exactly what you might like to think it means.

      Oh, and you’ll probably have to read your friends’ original Statement of Claim, too. But I’m sure you’ll sort that all out, won’t you, pet?

  4. Just a general observation of the comments above, this all seems very petty and immature. I personally like to see our government organisations and bureaucracy tested regulary, it helps keep them honest. In this case it was futile although some interesting questions were raised in the process. The far more significant court case recently is the approval of Bathurst to mine coal on the West Coast. I wonder if this news meet with the same gleeful response from your adversaries? I doubt it.

    1. yawn…..

      “I personally like to see our government organisations and bureaucracy tested regulary, it helps keep them honest. In this case it was futile although some interesting questions were raised in the process.”

      Yes the interesting question is – “will these muppets payup and – shut up?”

      And your right about the futility of the case – the stupidity and illogic of their argument was pointed out to them numerous times, here and elsewhere, but still they persisted in taking this ridiculous case.
      Your wrong that there is anything of significance to come out of this with regard procedure on NIWA’s part.

      As for keeping our government departments honest – ever heard of the auditor general?

    2. Speaking of the Escarpment mining decision, can anyone provide an analysis of why this challenge failed in the environment court? Why for example is climate change not permitted as a playing card?

  5. Bill, are you saying NIWA used best practice to make all their adjustments to raw data? If they did and have recorded them and made them available for others to scrutinise, I’m not even sure why the climate conservation group were complaining. NIWA were not that open with this information though were they?

    1. Murray, the hapless cranks of NZCSET are members of the NZ Climate “Science” Coalition, one of many front groups set up by the US Heartland Institute, itself a creation of the fossil fuels and tobacco industries.

      I have no doubt that their vexatious case against NIWA was a trial run for an international PR / legal campaign to waste the time and resources of national climate monitoring authorities.

      In this light, NZCSET’s abandonment of the case and the subsequent award of costs against them has struck a blow for rationality against the paid-for denial of reality by some of the world’s wealthiest and most perfidious corporations.

    2. I have every confidence that NIWA is doing exactly what it’s supposed to. This is, of course, not the same thing as meeting some arbitrary standard of what they ‘ought’ to have done, because some don’t like the result!

      I note you did not deal with the actual issue, ‘Murray’. You asked for ‘thoughts’, remember? Should we take it you’re no longer going to defend your (albeit borrowed) claim?

    3. Murray: you appear to be getting your information on the NIWA case entirely from the NZCSET or Treadgold. In order to get the full picture you should read the extensive coverage I’ve provided at Hot Topic, starting here.. NIWA has never hidden any information, and has spent a lot of time trying to educate people about site adjustments – the reason for them, and how they’re done.

  6. They could be decedents of Hitler himself Rob, who cares? The issue is NIWA was being very secretive with their adjustments, I don’t know about you but it sets off a few alarm bells for me. Why wouldn’t they be happy to share that information if it’s all done correctly?

    Don’t quote me Tony but I think it was around not being able to prove a specific mine can be directly blamed for changing the climate. It’s impossible to measure the impact of a single mine.

    1. First it was ‘lack of confidence in data quality’. The moment that sinks it’s ‘secrecy’.

      1: Dump. 2: Fail to defend. 3: Goalpost shift.

      Pure Troll.

  7. What am I meant to be defending here Bill?

    I would be interested in Threadgold’s response to that. He was of the opinion that NIWA was not so forthcoming with all their adjustment workings. If all the adjustments are as clear as how you explained then there shouldn’t be an issue here.

    1. Come on Murray. Admit it, you have probably never ever actually looked at the NIWA website. At least that would be a firm conclusion one must draw from your ridiculous assertion:

      The issue is NIWA was being very secretive with their adjustments, I don’t know about you but it sets off a few alarm bells for me.

      Murray: you have one thing in common with most climate science cranks: You refuse to actually consult the sources of information that you deride in your comments. You simply regurgitate the lies and the drivel of the sad and sorry corners of climate and science denial you come across elsewhere on the net.

      For the lurkers and for you Murray, here is the anchor on the NIWA website to the temp series and the adjustments and all:

      The reader can find the details from raw data to adjustments and the reasons why all there. This site from NIWA has been up there for a long time now.

    2. Yeah, contextual reading sure is hard, isn’t it, ‘Murray’?

      Readers are free to scroll up and see if they’re equally mystified.

      Your claim here is nonsense. Second-hand and shopworn nonsense, at that. Subsequent ducking of the point, and a strategic attack of Alzheimers, is the closest we’ll ever get to an acknowledgement of this from you.


  8. Can you please put me on to where NIWA explains this effect and how they adjust for it? I can’t find it.

    What’s my homework teach? I looked at your NIWA post, it still leaves many questions unanswered, though.

    1. Murray, if you are honestly searching for a deeper understanding of climate science and especially the methods used in ‘forensic climate science’ to derive a continuous record from various sources then you will find ample reading by following the NIWA website to the actual science papers they reference. Do your homework.
      If you have any of these unanswered questions of yours, you might want to make these explicit. Perhaps then some people at this site can assist you with understanding genuine questions.

  9. Notice how this personality type just won’t ‘reply’? To reply implies an obligation on ‘Murray’s’ part to respond in good faith. That isn’t how it works, for him.

    He just dumps the chum, let if fall where it may, and then flaps lazily back out to the Contrarian Archipelago to scoop up some more.

    If you imagine, ‘Murray’, that you’re raising any doubts in the mind of anyone who isn’t already one of you, I suggest that you’re sadly mistaken. Hazy and self-satisfied insinuations of malice may well be the kind of thing that impresses you, sure, but you’re dealing with members of the reality-based community now…

  10. Please ask a direct question if you feel I have not answered it, I’m happy to do so.

    I have looked at the NIWA site, it does appear to explain many of the complaints. How did the case even get to court then if all the information was on the website? It doesn’t make sense to me. Still no info on the urban heat effect?

    1. OK: last warning. It’s not our job to feed you information – though lots of people have gone out of their way to do so. If however you fail to read and understand that material, and persist in asking stupid questions, then you are not participating in good faith, and I will put you on moderation. That means that I will only pass comments by you if they add substantively to the discussion.

      Please read and try to stay within the Hot Topic comment policy.

  11. I’m not sure I understand. I thought these comments were a chance to discuss views? What have I done wrong? If you don’t have the info on the urban heat effect just say so, it’s not a big deal, I was just asking for some help. I get the impression people with different views are not welcome on this site. I’m sorry you feel that way.

    1. Read the comment policy again. Sensible discussion is a multi-way process. “Different views” are welcome here, but you need to be prepared to play the game by the rules – and of these, the deliberate misrepresentation of the facts is one you need to pay close attention to.

  12. It states you promote robust discussion. I have not said one word that I know to be a lie. Now you allow a double standard by overlooking the swearing at me while trying to tell me I am knowingly spreading lies. Is this site a joke? I had hoped it was more serious and up for discussing real issues.

    1. We would, I’m sure, be very happy to discuss real issues if you showed any sign of really engaging with the subject matter. All you do is provide unreferenced assertions and innuendo, then show little appreciation of the issues. You need to make an effort to understand – otherwise all we’re doing you is spoon-feeding you stuff that is very old hat indeed.

      If you really, genuinely, want to get to a decent understanding of the climate system and what we’re doing to it, I strongly recommend you read Spencer Weart’s History Of Global Warming (there’s a link in the blogroll). It’ll take an effort, but be well worth it. Then you’ll be equipped to ask interesting questions…

  13. There are hundreds of books on climate change, they can’t all be right. Unless the conclusion of the book states climate change has been exaggerated I would not agree with it anyway. The great thing about our society is we are allowed the privilege of different views, debate is part of the process of achieving greater knowledge.

    1. Murray:

      “Unless the conclusion of the book states climate change has been exaggerated I would not agree with it anyway.”……

      Oh dear, here you go Murray! At least you honestly tell all the world to see that you are not seeking knowledge or facts, you only seek confirmation of your personal bias!

      You are a typical representative of parts of society who have preconceived notions without the knowledge to substantiate these and without the will to question these in the light of even substantial evidence.

      This is not a suitable disposition from which to engage successfully with such an important matter such as climate change. And this is certainly not how science works.

      As others said, this will obviously a pointless discussion with you then unless you address a specific question and – reference your sources for your information! – and we can then discuss our understanding of the matter.

    2. Well, need we go any further? The denier mentality in two sentences:

      Unless the conclusion of the book states climate change has been exaggerated I would not agree with it anyway. The great thing about our society is we are allowed the privilege of different views, debate is part of the process of achieving greater knowledge.

      TRANSLATION: “Despite my knowing next-to-nothing about the issue, I know what I want to be true. And I’ll reject out-of-hand all information that doesn’t fit with the conclusion I jumped to. Yet I’ll claim I’m participating in a ‘debate’ that will achieve ‘greater knowledge’ because I’m incapable of seeing the ludicrousness of my own position.”

      ‘Murray’ is wasting your time. I remind you that we only have all the world’s academies of science, 97% of practising climate scientists, and the BoM, CSIRO, NIWA, NASA and NOAA etc. on our side.

  14. I’m sorry Thomas, what makes you think that book holds all the truth? Have you read the entire NIPCC report and dismantled all their arguments? I think not. As a tax payer I’m allowed my own view on how our country is run, there is no official reading list we have to read before our opinions are valid.

    1. ” As a tax payer I’m allowed my own view on how our country is run”
      Which is why our country is in such a sad state at the moment when opinions like yours predominate.

      ” there is no official reading list we have to read before our opinions are valid.”
      Opinions are not a matter of validity! Simply holding an opinion does not automatically make it valid. A major misconception in today’s world where everyone thinks that their opinion is as “valid” as anyone elses! I might be of the opinion that 2+2 = 5, or that the earth is round, and the moon is made of green cheese. Or that economic growth is not only necessary but must continue indefinately. Just because I am opinionated doesn’t make my belief system valid.

  15. No but plenty of scientists back both sides so it’s not too unreasonable for a layman to have either view. Remember if your position was that convincing we would have a global carbon agreement by now and it’s a bit of a long shot to blame the inaction on oil companies. Most of the voting public are yet to be convinced.

    1. Wrong. 97% of bloody qualified bloody climate bloody scientists do not back your position. They back the other position. Get it?

      This woolly-headed ‘if one side says 2+2 equals 4, the other says it’s 5, well, there’s arguments on both sides, of course, but I’m going to smugly claim the answer is 4.5 and that anyone who says otherwise is some sort of partisan’ crap is why we’re in this mess.

      As I’ve said before, now all you and your disinterested, ‘non-partisan’ ‘I may not know much but I know what I’d like to think is true [chuckle chuckle] ‘ mates have to do is vote in some new laws of physics!

    2. ” plenty of scientists back both sides”

      No they don’t. A handful seeking attention such as J Curry and our very own de F etc does not make plenty, and almost without exception, they make unsupported claims outside of their “expertise”,and have but a handful of peer reviewed articles all of which have been roundly debunked (ie shown to have serious flaws in logic and fact) by those who are experienced in the area. Most of these “charlatans” make unreferenced and unsupported statements in nonscientific articles in the popular press. This is not how science progresses, is unprofessional, and leads to the mistaken impression that there is some “debate”.

      There is debate within the scientific community, nothing is ever fully settled – that is the nature of science, but not as these few rogues would have you believe.

  16. That 97% claim is hardly peer reviewed. Anyone can run a survey to find the answer they want to find. Insulting the scientists who disagree with you is a bit immature. Any genuine search will find hundreds of scientists that hold a different view to you, trying to minimise this fact is pointless.

    1. Bullshit. Give us these ‘hundreds of scientists’ and their qualifications, ‘Murray’. And you’d better not mention the freakin’ Oregon Petition.

      97% of actually qualified actually practicising actual real-live qualified bloody climate bloody scientists do not agree with you. You don’t want to believe that: tough, because it remains a fact.

      And what is it about the freakin’ ‘reply’ option you can’t figure out?

  17. Not sure about me being a Dr guys. I am just a normal kiwi guy who is tired of climate alarmism.

    Actually I would be one of the 97% if I was a scientist. I think humans are contributing to climate change in many ways, I just don’t think its significant compared to natural cycles. I assume many sceptics are also part of that 97%.

    Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring ’97-Percent Consensus ……/global-warming-alar...
    May 30, 2013 – Global warming alarmist John Cook, founder of the misleadingly named blog site Skeptical Science, …

  18. Sorry, pure amateur with technology. The jist,

    The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action.

    1. Congratulations, Murray, you’ve now achieved Level Four in the process of climate change denial!

      1) Climate change isn’t happening

      2) Climate change is happening, but it’s part of the Earth’s natural cycles

      3) Climate change is happening, it may well be due to human activity, but it’s generally beneficial

      4) Climate change is happening, it’s probably due to human activity, but it’s not going to be as bad as the computer models suggest

      5) Climate change is happening, it is caused by human activity, it’s a bad thing, but there’s very little we can do about it and there are lots of other bad things we should attack first.

      Keep up the good work, Murray, but be sure not to read any of the references provided.

  19. Will you even admit the question asked in the survey still includes many sceptics views? Bet you are not big enough for that.

    I could read AR5 cover to cover and it would make no difference. The research referenced like the ones you give only represent one view. You rubbish the scientists who disagree with you so why should I treat your references any differently?

    1. This conversation can serve no purpose anymore.

      Yes, just imagine how different your life might have been had you ever been prepared to make a good faith effort, such as reading the references we’ve (far-too-patiently in my view) provided for you, or if you’d responded directly to the points raised, ‘Murray’!?

      How anyone can mouth off about a paper they clearly just won’t look at is beyond me.

      I will acknowledge that I’m perfectly confident that your ‘reading’ the AR5 would make no difference; on that I’m sure we can all agree…

      1. “This conversation can serve no purpose anymore.”

        It is still very entertaining ; was it ever anything else? The conversation at “Hot Topic ” that is. I hope you save the world soon Bill: you wouldn’t want to die a failure.

            1. And, princeling, where did I make any such claim? If I’d played for the Swans in 2012 I couldn’t point to the Premiership, then? Give me a break…

              This is actually a denier standby, hence all the drivel about any particular AR4 lead author’s not having actually won a Nobel! Well, in the interests of not offending delicate and selectively discriminating sensibilities, let’s just say I’ve got a few nice certificates, then, from the people that count, shall we?

              Farmers, incidentally, have next-to-no-chance of rolling the miners back, this side of the Tasman. But you’d have to be happy about that! It’s only those bloody Greens that try to defend them…

            2. Incidentally, have you ever noticed that while Right-wing hippies are one of the least-loved species on the planet, usually their colossal self-regard more than makes up for it? 😉

  20. Wow!

    ” there’s very little we can do about it and there are lots of other bad things we should attack first.”

    Consensus at last . . . at least 97% . . . not counting Japan.

    Ah well, life will go on, very much the same as always, and a good thing too.
    Don’t lose too much sleep over this new reality people : life is too short.

      1. It’s the constant droning inside the Hot Topic bubble. I’m surprised that you can still hear it given your marked overexposure. Pop outside to reality sometime ; you may find it refreshing. But don’t scare yourself 🙂

  21. You read the NIPCC report and I will read AR5, is this fair? We can compare notes and settle the dispute once and for all.

    Nice change of tack form your hollow 97% claim. You know it means nothing so will not defend it, yet will still pull it out to convince the easily fooled of this world.

    Winning? I’m pretty sure common sense is still ahead of climate alarmism on points.

    1. You said that the 97% consensus figure was not peer reviewed. This is not true. That figure comes from a peer reviewed paper by Cook et al.

      Either you were not aware of this, and therefore arguing from ignorance, or you were aware of it and deliberately misrepresenting the facts. I call the latter. Stop lying.

            1. Peer review still has to follow the scientific process. This is obviously too much like hard work for the people at WUWT.

              Tol, for example, doesn’t like the criteria used in Cook et al to classify the papers, so comes up with his own criteria – and gets different results. That is not verification of the Cook et al paper, it’s a different study. To replicate or verify the results of a paper, you must follow the methods in the paper you are testing. If Tol had done that, he would have come up with the same answer.

              He is perfectly free, of course, to write up his own paper using his criteria, and publish that. The fact that he has chosen not to do that speaks volumes. The fact he chose to publish at an anti-science site like WUWT says even more.

              The fact that you uncritically accept WUWT as being relevant in any way whatsoever also speaks volumes about you.

            2. Oooooh heavy! You think I should care what anyone thinks of me? You know nothing about my acceptance/non acceptance of WUWT. but don’t let that stop you from making accusations of heresy. It’s laughable.

              If I worried about that sort of nonsense I would never have become an organic farmer 30 years ago. The “consensus” at the time was that it was impossible.
              I know you struggle with this , but the consensus can be wrong.

            3. So climate science and peer review is wrong simply because you met resistance in becoming an organic farmer? What a strange self-justification for wilful ignorance.

            4. You are making things up : I said the consensus can be wrong. You may need help with this 🙂

            5. I think everyone here who understands the scientific process (not looking at you Murray!) recognises that there is no finality in knowledge.

              However the likelihood that climate scientists are wrong about AGW is about 1%, and the likelihood that they have it wrong about climate sensitivity is about 2% – so to suggest that the consensus is wrong; is to draw a very long bow indeed. Indeed the latest research would suggest that the consensus is on the low side if anything.

              I understand where you are coming from with regards organic farming – been there done that myself. Gareth could also no doubt describe a similar experience with regards his endeavours (as Jeanette also). But this is quite different from “conventional wisdom” – Organic practices have after all been practiced for centuries, its just that we are now rediscovering them.

        1. Pathetic. Speaking of the uninformed or mendacious, the estimable Rodney Hide is trotting out the old “no warming in 16 years” line in his latest anti-Greens rant.

          Cue Woody Guthrie.. ” … put it on the ground, spread it all around …. “

        2. Bio – clearly you don’t understand our paper, but the clincher really is that over 97% of the authors of the papers which express an opinion on anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change, i.e. climate scientists, agree with our (97%) finding. Couldn’t be any clearer.

            1. Bio – just as a preface, I don’t ever aim to change a contrarian’s opinion of the validity of human-caused climate change, because there is no way of reasoning a person out of a position they never reasoned themselves into in the first place. As ever, my comments are intended for the casual reader – to correct contrarian misinformation.

              Why don’t you present it at WUWT? Journals are less relevant these days.

              You are either a comedian, or delusional.

              I guess your refutation of Tols finding is available. Right?

              I suggest you read Tol’s rejection letter, from the scientific journal, on his blog. Allegations of bias are completely refuted by the survey of experts whom wrote the papers. Of those expressing an opinion on current global warming, over 97% of respondents agreed that it is human-caused. As Macro has pointed out that’s simply a reflection of the overwhelming majority of evidence.

          1. I’ve made no attempt to understand your paper Rob ; I was just pointing out that peer review is open-ended.
            In my view one logical fallacy, in this case , argumentum ad populum , is just as boring and time-wasting as another, like argumentum ad vericundiam. I’m sure that you will agree.

            1. Sorry but you wouldn’t know and argumentum ad populum or a argumentum ad vericundiam if you fell over them! No one here is arguing from authority, and the the paper showing a 97% consensus on anthropogenic global warming in peer reviewed papers is simply that.. That is where the consensus lies, contrary to what deniers claim. This is not an argument from authority nor popularity, It is an examination of the available knowledge. That is what science is..

            2. ” the paper showing a 97% consensus on anthropogenic global warming in peer reviewed papers is simply that.. ”
              Agreed ! Completely irrelevant to the science and pointless. It says absolutely nothing about the rectitude of the science.
              But that has not prevented people from using as a form of validation of their personal view.

              So what exactly was the motivation for it do you think?

    1. Demagogs of the East and West stand united in hailing propaganda onto the masses….. What a show and what a sick stunt to hijack polish national day celebrators for a photo op by one of the sickest denier organizations crafted by Koch and Koch and their paid lackeys….

      1. Demonstrations are just a side show ; mere entertainment. The real story is the ongoing reductions in emissions targets , and it has barely begun. Do you think that there is a chance that CER will see a N. Z. move similar to the recent pledge to repeal the carbon tax in OZ?

          1. What are they thinking? That they can repeal the laws of physics? The Earth continues to build up heat, and the oceans continue to become more acidified. It’s going to take much more than wilful ignorance to turn that around.

            1. Most people believe that another glaciation is inevitable , but nobody knows when it will happen.

            2. Worrying about glaciation 500,000 years into the future seems to be rather missing the point. Suggest you read some of David Archer’s papers on this subject.

          2. Very few truly sensible people offer themselves for election , for very good reasons. The odd brave one , like Jeanette and Rod , has a go, but mostly we are reduced to voting for the least undesirable . Hobson’s choice.
            The only way to minimize the negative impact of the politicians is to reduce the scope of government to the bare essential needed for civilisation to evolve, and to allow the populace more freedom in their choices. You know, the Greeks at first used to elect politicians by lottery , to prevent anyone from amassing power, and thereby ensuring re-election. It’s not such a bad idea.

            1. All very well. How do you however then organize 7 Billion + people to act in such a way as to prevent the destruction of what sustains them? How do you compel free individuals in a minimal government scenario to act for the common good of all? So far no libertarian has been able to point that out to us.

            2. Global governance is not possible Thomas ; it’s nothing to do with libertarianism as far as I can see.
              Anyone can “think global”, but “act local ” seems to be the limit at this stage. Not that we even pay lip service to that ideal. In my view the government role in Law and Order includes protection of the Commons by the Office of the Public Defender. We have never had such a thing in this country. The Law of Torts , in particular of nuisance, was sufficient to prevent the destruction of the Commons , but who should bring the action? Who would have the resources?
              Only the State.

            3. “Global governance is not possible Thomas;” Says the great and renowned philosopher and proclaimer of great certitudes, the … drum roll.. .. Biofarmer from Waikikamookau somewhere between Palmerston and Waipukurau.

              You know, things are changing and rapidly around here on planet Earth at the moment. The structures of governance that evolved during times of the imperial expansion of the Anglo-Saxon culture into a planet that was still a few shoe sizes bigger than the feet of its dominant predator species are not necessarily the same that will prove successful going forward!

              The facebook generation and those to follow will have a quite different perspective on life than you. Stay tuned to the evolution of our systems…

            4. I can’t argue with that ; there is no response needed to an ad hominem 🙂
              But seriously ; One Ring to Rule them All ?
              Who are you suggesting ?
              The U.N?

              Let me guess . . . txt voting right?

              Yep change is happening , but I see the elitists becoming more entrenched with every passing day. What do you see?

            5. Sorry, I did not intend an at-hominem, but was pointing out the certitude in your assertion which I think is not warranted. Its just one opinion in the end.

              I agree that elitists are barricading themselves with abandon and with fear. Just look at the Orwellian system they have put in place (NSA) to have the second best to thought control in place….
              It all reeks of fear if you ask me, fear, which is the root of all evil as a friend of mine used to say.

              But the times are changing and I can foresee the people will wake up to demand from their leadership to be part of a global solution and not a block of the same.

            6. ” I can foresee the people will wake up . . . ”
              I think that is where we differ, probably because of our age difference / life experience. You have ahead of you more time in which to see your hopes realised.

              Whereas I see that the sheeple are increasingly dormant , and that this is a deliberate policy on the part of the ruling elites. The more that people are forced to concentrate on basic survival , with just enough circus thrown in to prevent their becoming disgruntled, the easier it is for the elitists to achieve the control that is desired. It seems too easy in the age of the TV sound-bite. Yep ; Orwellian , for sure.

  22. I’m willing to concede the Cook survey was peer reviewed. Is any one here willing to concede it asked a question that includes most climate sceptics in the 97%? Very few people dispute humans are contributing to climate change, the dispute is how big is our contribution. What is the percentage of scientists who think the IPCC has exaggerated the impact of CO2? My guess is most of them.

  23. What is the percentage of scientists who think the IPCC has exaggerated the impact of CO2? My guess is most of them.

    Really? And on what basis are you sufficiently qualified to make that determination? How many climate research papers have you read?

    1. So you think that most of the 3000 something scientists who contribute to the IPCC process are then thinking that they exaggerated their own work?? How ridiculous. 🙂

    1. But he has read WUWT! Quoted it in fact!
      Surely that counts more than any silly ol climate science paper Rob – I mean those things are sooo booooring… full of silly ol facts and stuff. Why live in the real world when you can live in lala land.

    1. We do know that climate change is benefitting wine growing closer to the poles and creating problems for wine growers in previously good areas. That did not really have to be in that story, the point of which is that NZ wines are good enough to sell the rest of NZ by association.

  24. All of that commentary and still no acknowledgment that the question asked in the Cook survey includes sceptics in the 97%. I was quick to admit where I made an assumption about it not being peer reviewed, shame there is not more integrity in alarmville. If you are not open to accepting the reality of a silly little survey, then what hope is there you would be open to different views on more important climate issues? You have just proven how political your views are and have therefore devalued everything you say. No wonder climate change is such a hard sell.

    1. Murray, you still don’t seem to have grasped that the survey was not one in which individuals were asked their opinion, but was a count of all the published peer-reviewed articles written about climate change . To quote from –
      “A survey of 928 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject ‘global climate change’ published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004).

      A follow-up study by the Skeptical Science team of over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of ‘global warming’ and ‘global climate change’ published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013). The scientific authors of the papers were also contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming.”

      Until humans started burning fossil fuels on a large scale (ie the industrial revolution) the carbon cycle was in balance – the amount of carbon dioxide produced by natural processes was also taken up by natural processes. Now it is out of balance, so carbon dioxide is accumulating in the atmosphere and in the oceans.

      It doesn’t make any difference to physical laws if every scientist and politician keeps silent on this issue – the carbon dioxide levels continue to increase and continue their effect of inhibiting the passage of infra-red radiation through the atmosphere, thus causing global warming. I agree with the earlier poster who suggest you read The Discovery of Global Warming ( ). If you want to enter a debate you need to have accurate information.

      1. “Murray” has no intention of grasping any point made here by rational science. He is simply a troll and a sock-puppet to boot, whose sole intention is to distract attention and waste people’s time.

  25. Yes but….
    Here’s the genesis of the lie. When you take a result of 32.6% of all papers that accept AGW, ignoring the 66% that don’t, and twist that into 97%, excluding any mention of that original value in your media reports, there’s nothing else to call it – a lie of presidential proportions.

    From the original press release about the paper:

    Exhibit 1:

    From the 11 994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW and in 0.3 per cent of papers, the authors said the cause of global warming was uncertain.

    1. You don’t give any citation there, Murray. Why don’t you click on Google Scholar and do your own survey of the works ‘published’ there?

      John Cook is known to me as a man of integrity. You are not known to me. So I trust John Cook’s work over your opinions any day, especially as John always cites his references.

  26. I guess we’ve already pointed out to The Man with No Inputs here here that creationists use the same tactics? You know; every biology paper that doesn’t specifically endorse evolution must reveal a skulking anti-Darwinist! No, really, it does!

    No amount of explanation will serve to penetrate ‘Murray’s’ pre-determined position, of course, but for those with a less-fossilized intellect, here’s the news in brief; wherever climate scientists express a view on AGW they endorse it’s existence 97% of the time. Slightly more if they rate their position themselves.

    (And who wants to bet that this supposed ‘gotcha!’ is as far as Murray has ever bothered to read? What, everybody?)

    Now, if you had bothered to read the paper, you’d get to this bit where they deal directly with the freakin’ point under the convenient heading of ‘Discussion’ –

    Of note is the large proportion of abstracts that state no position on AGW. This result is expected in consensus situations where scientists ‘. . . generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees’ (Oreskes 2007, p 72). This explanation is also consistent with a description of consensus as a ‘spiral trajectory’ in which ‘initially intense contestation generates rapid settlement and induces a spiral of new questions’ (Shwed and Bearman 2010); the fundamental science of AGW is no longer controversial among the publishing science community and the remaining debate in the field has moved to other topics. [my emphasis] This is supported by the fact that more than half of the self-rated endorsement papers did not express a position on AGW in their abstracts.

    The self-ratings by the papers’ authors provide insight into the nature of the scientific consensus amongst publishing scientists. For both self-ratings and our abstract ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time, consistent with Bray (2010) in finding a strengthening consensus.

    Oh, I know this makes no difference to you, ‘Murray’, but, in the golden words of Terry Pratchett, there are some minds you couldn’t change with a hatchet!

    97% of the actual real-live qualified experts in the field think AGW is real. Geddit? It’s as solid as the link between cancer and smoking.

    Would you argue against that many heart specialists? I mean, what are the freakin’ odds? Again, in the equally golden words of Damon Runyon – the race may not be always to the swift, nor yet the battle to the strong, but that’s the way the smart money bets!

    1. Neural outsourcing! Quelle surprise!

      So, can we safely assume he hasn’t read the paper at all, he’s just read up on the ‘interpretations of the interpreters of interpretations’ that fit his confirmation bias? What, everybody again? 😉

      Providing just such sludge for the likes of ‘Murray’ is now an industry in itself, and some of its practitioners are doing quite nicely, thank you! It’s a whole lot easier than competing in the crowded and hotly-contested mainstream of actual science journals.

      And with peers* like Murray, review’s a doddle!

      *one is reminded of Pratchett’s ‘I’ll just lay down some sawdust’!

  27. Make up your minds! I copied the link and extract for Carol because she was complaining about my comments not being cited. Then you moderate the link for some strange reason. I was only doing it because people wanted that information. I also notice that you shoot the messenger (WUWT) rather than the message, that is a clear sign you can’t find fault with the message but don’t like its content. If sceptical science is constantly used as a reference on this site I’m very interested why WUWT is deemed not appropriate. Do you chose which politically motivated blogs are acceptable? Alarmville is sinking fast.

    1. What an idiot you are Murray. The reason wattsuphisbutt gets short shift by intelligent people is that it is full of junk, rubbish, misinformation and lies. It just shows your lack of intelligence or honesty that you keep referring to it. Time you got lost I think.

    2. If sceptical science is constantly used as a reference on this site I’m very interested why WUWT is deemed not appropriate.

      Skeptical science relies upon, and cites, the peer-reviewed scientific literature. If a reader doesn’t accept what has been written they can always check the references for themselves. We defer to the knowledge of experts. Of course, the coherency and consilience of the scientific evidence really clinches it. The continued warming of the planet is simply the consequence of these multiple lines of evidence.

      WUWT, on the other hand, generally just makes stuff up – notice how they repeatedly contradict themselves? They are a motley collection of wishful thinkers for whom the reality of global warming is just too much for their minds to accept. I don’t think any of us here, want all this stuff to be happening, but it is. Retreating into fantasy is not going to prevent the world from continuing to warm, nor the oceans from acidifying. The physical laws of nature do not care what humans think. We either do something about reducing fossil fuel emissions, or the future is going to be very bleak indeed.

  28. Less slander more referenced objections. Is WUWT right or wrong is stating the 97% excludes the majority of papers that don’t take a stance on human responsibility for climate change. If Exhibit 1 in my previous post is a lie, explain why.

    1. This was answered above, by Bill, here.

      If you can’t be bothered to read and understand the replies people make to your assertions, then you are not engaging in discussion, just spamming the thread with your misconceptions.

      WUWT is a propaganda site, that never saw an argument — however tenuous or stupid — against the reality of warming that it didn’t like.

    2. Less slander more referenced objections

      Agreed. We’d like to see a lot less slander at WUWT. In fact zero slander would be better. But when the scientific evidence in support of human-caused global is so overwhelming what else have they got?

  29. The survey is used to say 97% of papers support man made climate change when that is not the case. If you hot topicers check your own use of the research, nowhere will you find the disclaimer ‘of the papers that expressed a view’. The majority of papers do not conclude climate change is caused by humans, at least if we believe the Cook survey.

    1. So by your logic, at the last election we should have had an ACT government, because the 40% of people who didn’t vote all obviously must have wanted to vote for ACT.

  30. OK, Murray, what about the fact that more than half of the self-rated endorsement papers did not express a position on AGW in their abstracts?

    Following your “logic” are we then to assume that the authors of these papers lied when they endorsed man-made climate change, and they actually believe something else entirely?

    Clearly, you and your little friends are desperate for something – anything – to say that might blunt the fact that 97% of published climate scientists agree that human activities are the cause of global warming.

    Let me guess, you think Obama’s a Muslim Kenyan fascist Communist as well, right?

  31. Well one of your biggest cheerleaders Germany is not that convinced, they are still building coal power stations! Do they not realise they are dooming the planet? The exceptionally weak commitment countries show to decarbonisation demonstrates how little world leaders really fear climate change. Green policy is more about votes than survival.


    Date: 18/11/13 Julia Mengewein, Bloomberg
    Ten new hard-coal power stations, or 7,985 megawatts, are scheduled to start producing electricity in the next two years.

    1. Do they not realise they are dooming the planet?

      The planet will be fine. Our global civilization is unlikely to be if we continue down this path. Shame too about all the species we are probably going to see become extinct.

      The exceptionally weak commitment countries show to decarbonisation demonstrates how little world leaders really fear climate change.

      Probably what we need is a Martin Luther King-like figure to emerge. Current leaders lack the scientific literacy, allied to courage, that is necessary to pull our arses out of the fire.

      1. Murray,—scientists/tabid/419/articleID/130899/Default.aspx

        What about our glaciers? Is this natural, have you seen it all before?

        It’s certainly serious enough for John Key to stand up and take notice and then promptly sit on his arse and do nothing.

        Our glaciers are disappearing at a cracking pace, faster than anywhere else in the world.

        The trend is also accelerating, so the more ice lost the faster it goes. That means eventually our rivers and aquifers will disappear. Is that what you want for your children and grandchildren?

        I wonder when New Zealand will appeal to the global community to take action on climate change.

  32. ‘Murray’s’ performance puts me in mind of a former federal Immigration Minister here on the West Island, who was known by his staff as ‘The Minister Without Ears’ – because he never listened to a thing anyone else ever said.

  33. I’m trying to make a point here Bill. You all talk as though this climate change thing is a done deal and anyone who disagrees is an evil coal loving denier. Far from it. Out side the little climate change bubbles of here, Greenpeace and left wing political parties the world is happy to carry on as normal. You are welcome to think the debate is over but the rest of us know otherwise. You are welcome to think a typhoon is proof of climate change, the rest of us has seen it all before and know its a natural event. The global surface temperature has not increased in 16 years against all the scientists predictions, it’s time to relax and move on to a more pressing issue.

    1. Murray, you’re welcome to inhabit your own little fantasy world. All the wishful thinking of your fellow deniers has not stopped the world from warming. If anything global warming has accelerated in the last 16 years.

      You’re simply wasting your time here, the writers and regular commenters at Hot Topic understand too much of climate science for your myths to gain any traction. There’s probably some YouTube comment stream tailor-made for you. Maybe you should give that a go. Everyone else here is in for the longhaul.

    2. Uh oh… Murray too smart for us… 150 years of science must be wrong… NZ glaciers melt just ‘cos they want to, right?

      Since official records began in 1977, glaciers in the Southern Alps had lost 30 per cent of their ice.

      Temperature data shows since the early 1900s the regional temperature has warmed by about 1C, and this directly contributed to the ice cover melting.


      1. Don’t be silly. Only 37% of glaciers are monitored, and it’s only the glaciers that are monitored that are shrinking. All the unmonitored glaciers are actually growing. Obviously.

    3. “You all talk as though this climate change thing is a done deal”… that’s because it is a done deal. The debate at the moment is what are we sensibly going to do about it. You are welcome to join that debate if you are able to leave your fantasy world of denying that climate change is happening. Your harping on about ‘no warming for the last 16 years’ is proof that you understand nothing about the matter.
      Read this:

  34. You and the Guardian might think its a done deal but Japan, Australia, Canada, NZ and all the other countries bailing out of their climate commitments don’t think so. If climate change is such an issue for you move to Dunedin, nice and cool down there. Let the rest of us get on with our lives, advancing our economy and paying lots of tax to support our people. You are such a small minority than you have not right to demand how this country is run. When the Greens win the election then that is the will of the people. Till then try to keep in touch will reality please.

    1. That’s another irony meter exploded then!

      Anyway, Murray, as soon as you and the rest of the head-in-the-sand crowd vote in new laws of physics, your troubles will, indeed, be over. Until them, there’s a, what, 97% chance that you’re merely The Most Stupid People in History…

Leave a Reply