Because the podcast is about providing commentary on science-related issues, so people commenting on the news rather than the news makers themselves (though we do interview scientists about their research). I think Gareth Renowden did a pretty thorough job summing up the issues, don’t you think?

“At least 4 C warming looking likely this century”

It better get a move on, we haven’t had any yet.

You may find the show notes links interesting

http://sciblogs.co.nz/tosp/2012/07/20/podcast-science-on-trial/

Who was there? Leads me to think…

Sorry, don’t take it literally, RC. Justice Venning was sitting alone (although who knows which insiders might be taking an interest in perusing the transcripts behind the scenes). No, I meant the invisible intellectual debating chamber within the court, where numerous highly interesting legal topics are indicated by key words and phrases and the main concern is the development of the law, high above the issue of the moment.

Who was there? Leads me to think that the judge may have enlisted observers e.g. retired or practicing QCs or Judges, maybe legal researchers with whom to consult and provide assistance.

The High Court is (among other things) set up to deal with complexity and the above arrangement would be one way to deal with it. Having only one judge is asking a great deal IMO. For example the US EPA case (not necessarily more complex, possibly less so) was presided over by three judges of which one was Chief Judge and the other two were District Court judges.

It’s possible too that Justice Venning was Chief Judge and as in the EPA case, there were two other High/District Court judges presiding in some secondary way..

I’m sure that will get an airing in court one day and a NZCSET v NIWA precedent would have bearing on that.

“to show that you don’t have to look very far”

Fair enough. There were many remarks from both learned counsel clearly aimed “off stage” as it were, into a part of the debating chamber visible only to the judge and the QCs. I don’t know how important this little battle might have been in the overall conflict.

“it would be good for someone who really does know to chip in.”

It would also be interesting to know how liberal we (or I, as the nominal publisher) can be with our public comments on a matter which is obviously sub judice. I’m pretty sure the judge indicated he wasn’t a fan of the climate discussion one way or the other, so he won’t be visiting here and we’re not likely to influence his opinion. But there might be other considerations. Anyone?