They were? I must have missed it. Come on Ken, do tell ….. what was the reason they dropped the Rhoades & Salinger method, after all these years?

Where can I donate to help get things off the ground?

Can I book tickets in advance? I just love a good comedy…

Wait for the appeal process to run it’s course Ken – don’t get all preemptive and premature yourself.

Besides I’m not a member of NZCSC/ET so it’s not me that’s appealing. I’m just identifying the obvious grounds.

Ken. why don’t you actually read ‘Statistical Audit’ before making an idiot of yourself?

“And to cap it off there were faults in the way you tried to apply one method”

And those were specifically? Stop hand waving, bluffing and casting innuendo Ken – you’ve got nothing to back up your claims..

“Analysis, critique and scrutiny are turning up the grounds for appeal. Why would the Court system support an appeal process if every judicial decision was perfect?”

So you have already appealed, got support from the court and won your case? You are in denial aren’t you?

Pull the other one. I imagine all you will be appealing is the size of the costs awarded against you.

NIWA explained how they did their review independently – not just using exactly the same values as previously. You have done nothing to show thei8r methods are inappropriate – nothing at all – just presented your opinion (which is of no more value than mine). And to cap it off there were faults in the way you tried to apply one method.

No-one has dropped any method – just used what was appropriate and where necessary independent.

Treadgold still having a long lunch? some people are lucky.

Rubbish. Analysis, critique and scrutiny are turning up the grounds for appeal.

Why would the Court system support an appeal process if every judicial decision was perfect Ken?

In my experience researchers use the most appropriate methodology for their situation and time – there is a danger in a naive understanding of “official” “accredited” methodology which makes me suspect you have little experience of research in natural systems. NIWA was clear about why they used the methodology they did and the mistakes you made in your own analysis (just as well your document was not at issue, isn’t it?).

You’re really trying desperately to make a save here, but it’s not going to work.

You’re saying that the most appropriate methodology for the 7SS was RS93 (after all, that’s the method they used, no? – you said so yourself, back in 2009 and 2010), but now suddenly a better technique is an unpublished, untested, non peer-reviewed technique from a student’s thesis written in 1981?

What happened between 1999 and 2010 that caused them to reach that conclusion, Ken, and drop RS93?

And why did you not mention that back in 2009 when you were banging on about how everybody knew RS93 was NIWA’s technique, being internationally peer-reviewed and all?