Comments on: A High Court forenoon

By: Mike Jowsey

Mike Jowsey — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 08:17:27 +0000

They’re addicts Richard! (/sarc… me pot – you kettle)

By: Mike Jowsey

Mike Jowsey — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 08:13:54 +0000

Sorry mate – wrong link. The edit function had timed out before I could fix it. Doh!

By: Richard Treadgold

Richard Treadgold — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 10:30:15 +0000

Thanks Val.

By: Andy

Andy — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 09:33:40 +0000

There is a short piece on WUWT

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/16/kiwi-weather-station-data-shenanigins-going-to-court/

By: Richard C (NZ)

Richard C (NZ) — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 09:02:13 +0000

That would be what Bob D outlines wouldn’t it Mike? You’ve linked to his Affidavit.

Something to ponder is that there are about 6 supporting references to peer-reviewed papers in Bob’s Affidavit and the same will also support the Audit I think. Those papers are not “Exhibits produced by the Plaintiff” from what I can gather so how does the court address them?

I doubt the judge would have looked them up and read them (although he may have) but they are an integral part of the NZCSET case. NIWA will also have to counter those papers somehow so they might be examined at some stage (esp R&S) but how? Bob sure knows his stuff when it comes to scientific references so if he got a grilling I guess he could come up with the goods.

I would have thought those papers would have been listed as evidence.

BTW Mike, sorry you had to take the heat (Ha!) – but it was worth it (for me anyway). Hopefully this comment will make intellectual recompense.

By: Richard Treadgold

Richard Treadgold — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 07:43:07 +0000

That was a general comment, Mike, not aimed at you. I’m writing the update now!!

By: Mike Jowsey

Mike Jowsey — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 07:38:53 +0000

OK fair comment, sorry I got caught in the front of the ruck….. But WHAT NEWS?

By: Richard Treadgold

Richard Treadgold — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 07:34:33 +0000

I encourage you to keep up the analysis of tenable comments on our court action, and it would be terrific to keep the conversation on an intellectual level. We should listen and comment where it’s worth our effort, but when they offer trivialities, we can decline to pick them up, so ownership is not transferred. Please!

By: Mike Jowsey

Mike Jowsey — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 07:32:27 +0000

I actually am wondering if Gareth has bothered to read the Statement or other background. He seems blissfully unaware of the arguments Barry Brill outlines. They are compelling prima facie and it will take the best, most highly (tax-) paid legal minds in the land to dispel the notions that NIWA have not followed best scientific practice, have not had the public's interest foremost, and cannot replicate the machinations of their NZ warming trend. But, Gareth is already casting aspersions on the whole game, as if it was completely frivolous - who needs to question the real scientists anyway - they know and love what they are doing. Let the rabble eat cake.

By: Richard Treadgold

Richard Treadgold — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 07:24:59 +0000

I’m sorry you had a problem, which I guess was caused by my service provider. I had some trouble with my emails, but not accessing the site. At least it’s gone away. Thanks for reporting it.