Awards costs to NIWA
Mr Justice Venning has released his judgement in the case between the NZ Climate Science Education Trust (NZCSET) and NIWA.
All three of NZCSET’s requests to the Court were declined. Costs were awarded to NIWA.
I’ll have more to say when I’ve read the judgement in full. In the meantime, Scoop has a story with a number of links.
James Renwick has been admirably quick with a press release from a small group of scientists but he entirely mischaracterises our suit:
Scientific analysis and discussion is carried out through the peer-reviewed literature. The basic science of climate change (global warming) has been established for well over a century, and almost all scientists active in climate research agree that human activity is causing the climate to change. For a small group of scientists to appeal to a court of law to find otherwise is bizarre.
I have evidence, having corresponded with him, that James can read, but did he read what was clearly stated in the judgement? The facts are that our three causes of action concerned the New Zealand temperature record, not any global record, and we discussed only the New Zealand climate, not the global climate. We never discussed the causes, magnitude or future course of global warming.
In repeating this lie about what we said he makes it well-nigh impossible for even a well-informed member of the public to assemble anything but a wrong-headed view of our actual intentions.
In doing so Professor Renwick corrupts his position of influence.
UPDATE 8 Sep 2012
Jo Nova comments on the decision.
Are there grounds for appeal?
Let’s wait for the legal team to review the decision and confer. None of the judge’s comments are a surprise, though some are of course disappointing.
Don’t worry. We have lost a battle but we will win the war. The solution to NIWA is, and always has been , political.
Keep up the good work.
Thanks, David.
James Renwick of Victoria University said, “Scientific analysis and discussion is carried out through the peer-reviewed literature…..”
Some points:-
►J Venning didn’t set aside, disallow, or nullify the NZCSET Statistical Audit in any legal way. It still stands scientifically, is reviewed by 3 professional statisticians, and rigourously applies peer reviewed and cited methodology (R&S93).
►NIWA will have to refute the Statistical Audit in a scientifically credible way but not only that, they will also have to justify their own 7SS method as being of superior scientific rigour to the Statistical Audit. That is impossible at present in view of NIWA’s lack of citation of any supporting literature detailing their methodology except for a students thesis that they can’t supply.
►The Statistical Audit will forever be attendant to NIWA’s 7SS, it will not go away. NIWA will have to contend with it whenever they advance their 7SS series.
►The NZCSET 7SS now has equal standing with NIWA’s 7SS unless NIWA can prove scientifically that R&S93 methodology should NOT be applied. All NIWA did in the courtroom was convince the judge that their method was valid, it didn’t go so far as to state that the NZCSET method was NOT valid (See [78], [82] and [83]) and in fact state that they use the same R&S93 method as NZCSET but applied by their own interpretation (as did NZCSET).
►The linear trend of the NZ 7SS is therefore 0.34 C/century or 0.91 C/century – the public has the option as to which to adopt.
>The NZCSET 7SS now has equal standing with NIWA’s 7SS
Actually, the NZCSET 7SS has higher standing than NIWA’s 7SS. It is based on internationally published peer-reviewed techniques, unlike the NIWA 7SS, which is based on nothing beyond a student’s thesis written in the late seventies.
On top of that, NIWA can’t even claim theirs is a better record by virtue of being an “official” record, because they have stated under oath that ‘… there is no “official New Zealand temperature record (NZTR)”‘.
What happened was the judge applied the standard that the scientific work be ‘tenable’. That is, being capable of arguing for the work. This is a lower standard than being ‘valid’, which implies correct, effective or authoritative. So the judge declined to decide the higher standard, but decided the lower one. This is like the ‘due diligence’ standard. Its not necessary to have made the right decision, only to have demonstrated duty of care.
So the judge has ruled on the science, but its a low bar, because opposing, even contradictory arguments can be ‘tenable’ when only one could be valid.
Thanks for all your effort. I think if anything it has informed the debate as to where the legal axe would fall.
this is a curious portion of the judgment (page 47)
NIWA refers to eight lines of evidence that indicate New Zealand has warmed significantly over the period 1909 to 2009:
the consistent results of the recalculated 7SS following the review, which was consistent with the results recorded in the original 7SS series based on the Salinger 1992 work, plus subsequent annual updates;
peer review for the pre-2010 versions of 7SS, including by the editors of International Journal of Climatology; the analysis and calculation of the trends using the Salinger post-1992 7SS by a separate set of scientists within NIWA;
trends from the independent 11SS, which disclosed that with no homogenisation the warming trend was 1.0 degrees Centigrade for 1931 to 2008; results from the 21+3 station series;
trends from ship measurements and surrounding oceans;
52 retreat of New Zealand glaciers; observed global climate changes.
The IPCC 2007 assessment concludes warming of the climate system is unequivocal. It reports the 100 year linear trend (1906 to 2005) and global surface temperature is +.74 degrees Centigrade ±0.18.
It seems to me from my reading that the Judge accepted those criteria in their entirety (though it is not entirely apparent from the judgment) which is essentially written in a summary form
and the BOM review did get a mention
Together these reports comprised the review which
NIWA carried out of the 7SS. NIWA also approached the Bureau of Meteorology in
Australia which agreed to undertake an independent external peer review of the
methodology and documentation of the 7SS. [141] Dr Wratt was responsible for overseeing the review which was led by Dr
Mullan. The review involved independently recalculating the site temperature
adjustments based on considerations of the underlying data and metadata (records
about instruments, site conditions and changes). It led to an updated and revised
edition of the 7SS. The results were published by NIWA in December 2010 in a
publicly available report (Mullan et al 2010). The Mullan et al 2010 report was
placed on NIWA’s website on 16 December 2010 (the review decision) along with a
letter of support from the Bureau of Meteorology.
50
I think the Judge mischaracterised the BOM’s letter
is anyone considering trying to get the NZCSET Statistical Audit published
The Statistical Audit is published as a statistical report in my view. It is in turn reviewed by 3 professional statisticians.
And it’s addressable by anyone who cares to do so (NIWA will have to).
What more could anyone want from a statistical audit?
If the Trust disappears without paying costs, it will reveal a lot about the character of those who instigated this law suit. An awful lot of peoples’ time and tax-payers’ money went into defending this case and they should be compensated.
As someone who has worked on government IT projects and watched millions of public money being urinated against the wall on vanity projects from day one with no hope of success, I can assure you that this case is a mere drop in the ocean of public funds.
Simon you are merely speculating with the intention of slur – that says a lot about your character does it not?
NZCSET had every right to seek a judicial review, it’s not their fault that the judge was unable to perform as a mediator and instead decided to be “less intensive” and “more tolerant” towards NIWA.
I repeat, J Venning gave NIWA an easy out:-
[45] I consider this Court should be cautious about interfering with decisions made and conclusions drawn by a specialist body, such as NIWA, acting within its own sphere of expertise. In such circumstances a less intensive or, to put it another way, a more tolerant review is appropriate.
By his example, don’t look too closely at NIWA’s work (certainly not to the extent that NZCSET did), and tolerate anything questionable (cease human critique, become mechanically robotic in response to instruction sets). That’s the limp legal approach of this High Court judgment by this single person (not a jury of peers verdict ).
BTW, I work with 2 robots that could have made a similar decision to J Venning given the right instruction set – who needs judges in that case if the judge just sidesteps?
The funniest part is that you guys are left looking stupid while the ACT party take off their puppeteer gloves and walk off whistling.
The ACT party?!
Good grief.
We don’t look stupid. Long before the court case, we caused NIWA to reconstruct the national temperature record because NIWA couldn’t scientifically justify it. Whatever side you’re on, you must agree that resulted in a temperature series everyone could have more confidence in. No group of warmers have rendered similar assistance to their national weather scientists.
What’s ACT got to do with it? You imply they’ve been directing us, but in fact they’ve been helping us, taking climate advice from us and not telling us what to do. Your attempted insult arises from non-awareness of the facts. Anyway, they’ve since passed on Rodney and passed right away.
What we are left with is this
http://i54.tinypic.com/27xjm0k.png
Take your pick Richard Christie, they’re both NZ 7SS
But please tell us, what is the justification for the choice you make?
carrying on regarding the judgment
Unreasonableness
[183] Finally, the plaintiff alleges that in deciding to publish the review without
following recognised scientific opinion and without an independent peer review
NIWA acted unreasonably. The plaintiff cannot make out this allegation. The
review was in accordance with recognised scientific opinion. The review was peer
reviewed
Is it correct that the review was ‘peer reviewed’; I think there is mention of an internal review and a BOM letter of support but ‘peer review’ …. ?
Well, yes, but NIWA said it was peer-reviewed…
I should of course want to offer you my condolences on your loss, Richard. However, to you this is not a loss, is it – it is yet another victory. It is yet further confirmation that you are on to something. As I said to Mike, on unkowispeaksense:
Sadly, Carter et al. will just add the judiciary in NZ to the long list of people they believe to have been duped by the Establishment (UN/WMO/IPCC) conspiracy that has foisted environmental “alarmism” upon a credulous World… Thus [they] can never be proven wrong; they can only be proven right (by exposing the extent of the insidious conspiracy they are faced with).
No, it’s not a loss, Martin, but neither is it a victory – I haven’t said that. As to being on to something: try to remember that this is about the accuracy of the NZ temperature record, no more and no less. Questions have been raised over NIWA’s methodology. Those questions remain unanswered. Would anyone walk away from unanswered questions? Their importance is not confirmed by this legal action, you ninny, it’s the very reason for it. I still want to know the answers, don’t you? Is the methodology really and truly from a student’s thesis, unpublished, unverified and unadopted anywhere else in the world? Aren’t you interested? Plenty of people are.
Wishing you many more non-losses of this magnitude, Richard.
You guys are doing well..
Sorry about the accusation of association with the ACT party , I agree, they had nothing to do with the case
..[snort]
dang, there goes my coffee.
Of course it’s a loss, Richard, but in saying he’s not adjudicating the science (for good reasons) he leaves those matters for another day – so neither we nor NIWA have “won” nor suffered a “defeat” on those grounds. And that’s the area we’re most concerned with. So I remain optimistic.
“No, it’s not a loss, Martin, but neither is it a victory ”
What part of:
“The plaintiff does not succeed on any of its challenges to the three decisions of NIWA in issue.”
or:
“The defendant is entitled to costs. Given the time involved and the steps taken, costs on a category 2 time band C would seem appropriate. However, if the parties are unable to agree I will receive memoranda and deal with the issue of costs on the basis of such memoranda.”
Arent you getting here?? Unless you guys win an appeal, well, i think when you get costs awarded against you, most people would call that a loss mate?
Just remind me, Richard: How many weeks did the Court spend listening to the evidence? How many weeks did the judge spend assessing it and producing a judgement? And yet, you want me to believe, in spite of everything, that the judge has “declined to intervene”…?
I think the most obvious reading of the judgement (requiring no contingencies and/or conspiracies for which there is no evidence) is the right one – your scientific arguments proved groundless.
The hearing took four days; since then seven weeks have passed, during which the judge had other cases to hear (I don’t know how much time he could spend on this one). The decision says: “The application for judicial review is dismissed” In my lexicon, that means no judicial review occurred. There was no intervention in the actions or decisions NIWA took. As for the scientific arguments proving groundless – the judge said: “I consider this Court should be cautious about interfering with decisions made and conclusions drawn by a specialist body, such as NIWA, acting within its own sphere of expertise. In such circumstances a less intensive or, to put it another way, a more tolerant review is appropriate,” and several other such statements. Although in places he appears to, he steered away from determining scientific questions, even though he acknowledged several times: “There is a stark difference between the parties.” So the scientific matters remain undecided by the court. As for the rest of your comments – one thing at a time, old chap. – RT
However, if despite it all, Carter et al should decide to launch a similar case in Australia, it will be fun to watch that fail also. Where will they go after that? Will they take on the Met Office in the UK; or the NOAA in the USA?
At what point will it be decided: “Hey, you know what, even allowing for UHI and TOBS errors, I think the Earth is warming up and the ice is melting – maybe it’s time we stopped arguing about the nature of the problem and started trying to solve it”…..?
The Earth is warming up? It has been, not so much now. But that, as you know, is not the argument, so don’t pretend it is. We can’t solve a problem if we didn’t cause it. There’s no proof it’s our problem, Martin, for all the hand-waving, nor any evidence that CO2 might even accomplish the problem. – RT
“The application for judicial review is dismissed”. In my lexicon, that means it was ajudged that there was no case to answer.
In order to dismiss the generally-accepted (amongst genuine climate scientists at least) explanation for the ongoing warming, you need to have, at very least, an alternative workable hypothesis. This you quite simply do not have. Decades of warming cannot be explained by cyclical solar activity. However, such activity can and does explain variations in the rate of warming (as does the cooling effect of other forms of pollution including volcanic eruptions).
http://lackofenvironment.wordpress.com/2012/09/03/uncomfortably-numb-is-no-good/
http://lackofenvironment.wordpress.com/2011/11/07/unstoppable-global-warming-by-singer-and-avery/
I found Peter Taylor’s book “Chill” quite a good read in terms of trying to understand what drives our climate. It’s quite a long read and very technical, but well-referenced.
“……you need to have, at very least, an alternative workable hypothesis. This you quite simply do not have”
What a load of rubbish Martin, that’s not what the case was about. Even so, here’s the “alternative workable hypothesis” to NIWA’s 7SS:-
‘Statistical Audit of the NIWA 7-Station Review’
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/docs/Statistical%20Audit%20of%20the%20NIWA%207-Station%20Review%20Aug%202011.pdf
It’s reviewed by 3 independent professional statisticians (NIWA’s series isn’t) and its methodology is cited (NIWA’s series method isn’t). This makes the NZCSET 7SS at least equal to NIWA’s and superior in rigour. Both series are plotted together here:-
http://i54.tinypic.com/27xjm0k.png
Take your pick (the NZ public can from now on). Respective liner per century trends – rigourous 0.34, sloppy 0.91.
J Venning chose to turn a blind eye to the Statistical Review (not acknowledged in his judgment) and therefore ignored 3 experts that more than made up for Bob Dedelind’s lack of expertise (in the eyes of J Venning). The NZ public is not so blind Martin.
BTW the NZCSET 7SS stands scientifically and statistically irrespective of whether the Statistical Audit is published or not.
Richard C – I think that Martin’s “alternative hypothesis” is referring to the AGW theory rather than the 7SS issues in particular.
However, the court case is being hailed as a “victory for science”
I am still trying to figure that one out
Andy, you may have got the Reader feed before I edited it slightly
As for “victory for science” – escapes me too.
The NIWA fan club protest that science has been taken to court. Then when the Judge whimps out and proffers their boys that’s a “victory for science”. They’re a weird mob.
The problem for the NIWA fan club is that now it WILL be a scientific contest.
That hasn’t happened yet, they seem to forget that the ‘Statistical Audit of the NIWA 7-Station Review’ is a scientific and statistical riposte.
The scientific choice now is: rigour, or sloppy.
Not sure where their “victory for science” will come out of that.
I’m wrong, J Venning DID acknowledge the Statistical Audit but didn’t refer to it by its title. But he DIDN’T acknowledge the review of it by 3 professional statisticians instead uses the word “”purported”:-
[143] The Coalition produced a critique of the review accompanied by its own audit. The audit purported to apply the statistical techniques used in RS93 while leaving the remainder of NIWA’s methodology unchanged.
[144] In response to the critique Dr Mullan recalculated most of the sites changed temperature adjustments applying the RS93 methodology. He concluded that the Coalition had incorrectly calculated the adjustments and if the RS93 methodology was applied correctly it resulted in adjustments close to those calculated in the review using the alternative method that NIWA had employed.
Note that [144] is NOT a judgment, just NIWA’s response. I’ve seen at least one commenter on an AGW forum construe [144] as fact e.g. http://forum.weatherzone.com.au/ubbthreads.php/topics/1125573/__PG__#Post1125573
But why “purported”? The statistical professional reviewers had no qualms that NZCSET did IN FACT apply ” the statistical techniques used in RS93″. Why did J Venning accept the word of Dr Mullen (NOT a professional statistician) against the expertise of 3 professional statistical experts?
More grounds for appeal I think.
Andy is correct. I am not interested in the specifics of your argument with NIWA. Indeed, I am trying to point out to you that they (i.e. the specifics of your argument about what NIWA may or may not have done) are utterly irrelevant given what is actually happening to our climate; and our inability to explain it unless CO2 is the primary cause. This recent post of mine explains what I mean:
http://lackofenvironment.wordpress.com/2012/09/03/uncomfortably-numb-is-no-good/
Martin,
The inability to explain something is no reason to completely change our way of life. Only if we were completely confident that we could explain the entirety of the current climate,and all past climate variations (including all ice ages and inter-glacials) would our inability to explain a few tenths of a degree warming over 150 years make sense.
On top of that, there has been no warming over the past 15 years. We are also unable to explain that, since, as you state, the extra CO2 in the atmosphere should have caused about 0.3°C warming over the same period.
The logical fallacy you are committing is called argumentum ad ignorantium.
With the greatest of respect, Bob, I think you are talking complete rubbish (and you clearly did not bother to take a look at my blog). We can explain all natural changes in the Earth’s climatic past – Snowball Earth, the PETM, and Ice Ages included. We can explain why warming didn’t really take off until after WW2. We can also explain all the pauses in an otherwise relentless warming trend in the last 60 years or so. Global warming did not stop in 1998 (or at any other time), which is why the sea ice in the Arctic has continued to melt; the tundra has continued to thaw; and the glaciers have continued to retreat.
A post-Carbon age is coming; and we cannot stop it. We can either embrace it (and make an orderly transition to it); or we can cling to the past (and make a very disorderly transition to it).
http://lackofenvironment.wordpress.com/2012/09/07/entropy-an-unauthorised-biography/
This is news to me
“This is news to me”… If so, can I suggest that you widen the scope of your reading and/or viewing? However, I may be able to save you a lot of effort, with my own humble attempt to explain all of the above in less than 1000 words (with a summary of just 104 words if you’re really short of time)…
http://lackofenvironment.wordpress.com/2012/02/06/climate-science-in-a-nut-fragment/
“I am trying to point out to you that they (i.e. the specifics of your argument about what NIWA may or may not have done) are utterly irrelevant given what is actually happening to our climate”
Huh? What we are trying to discover is “what is actually happening to our [NZ] climate” Now we have 2 alternatives as a result of the Statistical Audit (that still stands scientifically and statistically irrespective of the Venning decision BTW):-
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/pics/nztr1909-2009-niwa-vrands-520.gif
As RT points out they can’t both be right. Given that the Rhoades and Salinger 1993 version is the only one with a basis in scientific literature then it must be the most valid at present.
“…and our inability to explain it unless CO2 is the primary cause”
CO2 doesn’t explain it as John Christie evidenced in his EPW testimony with this graph:-
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/christy-fig.jpg?w=808&h=622
Natural variability has currently gazumped CO2 as some in climate science concede e.g. Easterting and Wehner (2009). Although they can’t accept that warming has actually ceased. That would be just too much of leap for them being the obvious funding killer and ostracizer move that it would be.
“….which is why the sea ice in the Arctic has continued to melt”
Care to provide the anthropogenic attribution from the literature for that?
Something to chew on, Walsh and Chapman (2001) ascribe NAO and AO attribution.
“A post-Carbon age is coming”
That’ll be a hoot – Amish style.
Martin – your summary of climate science is a summary of James Hansen’s view of climate science
Nice work though
This is an incredibly arrogant statement, and is also notably wrong. If this was true, why are papers coming out monthly that seek to determine causes for this or that era or phenomenon in the distant past?
Let’s look at the more recent past – you are unable to explain the Minoan Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm Period, or the Little Ice Age using CO2-driven/aerosol models.
Indeed, even in Hansen (2005) you’ll notice the complete lack of ENSO, he even states it explicitly. Any modelling of the global atmospheric temperature that ignores ENSO cycles, yet hopes to determine temperatures down to a tenth of a degree is doomed. And so it’s proved to be.
Richard C – Re: attribution of arctic sea ice melting: I believe the latest study (2012) says we are responsible for at least 70% of it.
However, responses to my comments now appear to be falling into an all-too-familiar pattern:
1. You deny global warming is happening and I provide evidence that it is.
2. You deny we are responsible and I provide evidence that we are.
If we continue down this road, I would therefore expect:
3. You deny that warming is significant and I provide evidence that it is.
4. You deny that warming is necessarily bad and I provide evidence that it is.
5. You deny that warming is a problem and I provide evidence that it is.
6. You deny that warming is worth trying to fix and I provide evidence that it is.
Shall we therefore stop now, before either of us becomes too bored?
http://lackofenvironment.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/pythagoras-and-plate-spinning-for-fake-sceptics/
Another perfect example of argumetum ad ignorantium.
Uhh, I think you have yet to provide evidence of anything other than that you are an arm-waver deluxe. By the way, this may come as a shock to you, but models aren’t evidence.
“I believe the latest study (2012) says we are responsible for at least 70% of it”
I believe it doesn’t Martin. Please quote the relevant passage that supports your claim.
The paper actually corroborates Walsh and Chapman (2001) and my claim re ocean oscillations even though it is merely analyzing model simulation runs (they’re not reality BTW Martin).
As for your “you deny” list I only actually deny once and once only.
#1 I deny that CO2 has a more than negligible effect above about 200 ppm.
Read the reasons for that here:-
An Unsettling Look at the Settled Science of Global Warming
Part 1: Scientific Discussion
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/agw-an-alternate-look-part-1-details-c.pdf
And here,
An Unsettling Look at the Settled Science of Global Warming
Part 2: Layman’s Discussion
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/agw-an-alternate-look-part-2-for-laymen.pdf
And here,
An Unsettling Look at the Settled Science of Global Warming
Part 3: Policy Maker’s Summary
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/agw-an-alternate-look-part-3-summary.pdf
The key point being the bogus “oversimplification” by the IPCC. Quoting Part 2:-
“The short summary of what it means is: CO2 increases will not increase the greenhouse effect. Full stop. That is it. CO2 is not a pollutant, it will not change the weather or climate. There is no basis whatsoever for trying to control the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The IPCC equation assumes a “logarithmic” or log relation between forcing and CO2. The path length curve more closely resembles a „log log‟ relation between forcing and CO2. That is the IPCC model is an oversimplification that results in overestimating the impact of CO2 at higher concentrations”
Game, set, and match.
“Think of the atmosphere as a pane of glass and CO2 as a black marker.”
And you accuse the IPCC of over-simplification…
Read the rest Simon, otherwise your understanding is gross oversimplification to start with.
And study Figure 2 Emissivity at 0°C, After Leckner (Part 1) intently.
If you can explain to us why the ΔF = αln(C/Co) {IPCC Curve} is more valid than the ΔF =q-q0where q0 =q(278) {path length curve} then you might get some traction.
But if you can’t?
just relooking at the judgment with regard to ‘peer review’ there is a footnote that NIWA does not rely on the BOM’s work in these proceedings so I think it is incorrect to say the review was peer reviewed
Yes, true enough. But though NIWA places no reliance on the BOM’s peer review in answering our claim, a review still took place. Whether it was a good and sufficient review is another matter. I mean, it’s probably sufficient for the court that NIWA claim it was a peer review.
It would seem one of your biggest errors was to put forward a paleontologist, a retired journalist and an IT guy with no experience in climate modelling as your “experts”. What’s the problem? Find it hard to find any climate experts that actually agree with you? [ad hom remarks removed]
Don’t call us by offensive names, Mike; we haven’t insulted you. Defeat? The judge declined to review NIWA’s decisions. A defeat would have been for the judge to review NIWA’s decisions and find they were right and proper. Our witnesses did not lack a high level of skill, but of course you’re right – the judge found it possible to deny them the status of experts, which was quite important in the context. You’re wrong about paleontologists, as they study the climate in enormous detail. That’s why they drill into the ocean, to see what was happening in the far past. Our journalist has extensive knowledge of climate change and our “IT guy” is a physicist deeply informed about climate change. You expose a certain prejudice by claiming we needed a climate “modelling” expert – we didn’t. Did you know that the statistical work was reviewed by three independent expert statisticians? The judge must have forgotten that. There are thousands of scientists who doubt the IPCC but only 60 or so who wrote the key material blaming human emissions in the last report, the AR4. – Richard Treadgold
Don’t get too cocky Mike [Severe criticism of the judge deleted. RC - I cannot let unconfirmed slander stand. - Richard Treadgold]
H/t Joe V. at JoNova http://joannenova.com.au/2012/09/nz-justice-shows-courts-are-useless-in-a-science-debate/
So Mike, how do you propose that climate science outsiders question climate science if (as Venning puts it) “interest in the area” – even with transferrable skill such as Bob D’s – “does not sufficiently qualify …..as an expert”?
[Heavy criticism of the High Court deleted. RC - criticise the judgement, by all means, but the judge and the Court are out of bounds. - RT]
“Fearless promoter of Crown interests” (etc.,) [Richard C, this is savage criticism without evidence and I'm having none of it. It's irrelevant what the mongrel commenters are saying on Jo Nova's site, since they don't live in our jurisdiction, nor are they likely to be applying to our High Court for a judgement. - Richard Treadgold]
Good grief, so now I’m a “mongrel commenter” since I am one of those to whom you direct this descriptive to at JoNova?
A bit over the top RT.
I wouldn’t call you a mongrel. – RT
I suppose you don’t think this is relevant either RT:-
kiwisfirst: Restatement of complaints to Judicial Conduct Commissioner incorporating material provided by Venning J and his aolicitor
Dated 14 February 2011
(c) Venning J excluded evidence of the value of carbon credits from the Trinity land as irrelevant to whether there would be a profit from the forest, but his own forest company, Tahakopa, has registered under the Emission Trading Scheme for the purpose of selling carbon credits for profit from its forests;
http://www.kiwisfirst.co.nz/files/Restatement_of_Complaints_1402111.pdf
H/t Pat at JoNova http://joannenova.com.au/2012/09/nz-justice-shows-courts-are-useless-in-a-science-debate/#comment-1123465
If that’s not a vested and partial interest contrary to the ideals of the Judicial Oath in the context of this case, I’d like to know what is.
You draw a long bow to connect any of that with the current case. This argument is a distraction from the topic. Please let it go. – RT
This Stuff article has been in the public domain since at least 25/03/2011. Are you going to delete this too RT?
Impugned judge steps aside from Trinity case
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/4807136/Impugned-judge-steps-aside-from-Trinity-case
H/t Pat at JN again
Richard C,
Trinity was an extremely cynical tax evasion scheme. Muir & Bradbury tried to have Venning removed from the Trinity case as a delaying tactic. Many NZers have a forestry block as part of a retirement scheme and any investor with post-1990 forest should register for the ETS. To infer bias from Justice Venning is way out of line.
“To infer bias from Justice Venning is way out of line”
Not everyone thinks that Simon. From RT’s “friends like this who needs enemies” we’re getting:-
Carbon Trader Judge Taints Bizarre High Court Climate Ruling
http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/09/08/carbon-trader-judge-taints-bizarre-high-court-climate-ruling/
Stuff like this circulates rather rapidly in the information age Simon, whether you agree with it or not.
RC,
Yes, I saw that, and (who knows?) it might even come to something substantial, but I’m uncomfortable encouraging that topic on this blog. I don’t want to fall out with you, our most prolific commenter, but neither do I want to risk contempt of court proceedings. I’ve no way to judge the legality of the accusations that were being made. I do hope you understand.
I do understand but as I point out at JN #4.1.1.3.1 there’s a difference between respect for the NZ legal process and justice served by the NZ legal process:-
When questions arise over the performance of the Judge then that is in respect to justice served by the NZ legal process but NOT in terms of respect for it. Respect for it means making the questions a basis for appeal and accepting that outcome either way IF justice is served. But if justice isn’t served, how can there be respect?
The decision is being touted all over the blogosphere RT, stamping on a fire here wont stop discussion of that elsewhere in whatever terms. Take this thread for example:-
http://forum.weatherzone.com.au/ubbthreads.php/topics/1125573/
Any appeal Judge is not going to round up EVERY word written on the topic of the J Venning decision from all parts of the blogosphere then sort them into acceptable and unacceptable categories and use the unacceptable categories to quash an appeal.
“Severe criticism of the judge deleted. RC”
Getting “thumbs up” in Australia though
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/09/nz-justice-shows-courts-are-useless-in-a-science-debate/#comment-1123349
Richard C – with respect and tugging of forelocks – it would be better to direct your attention to the judgment
“it would be better to direct your attention to the judgment”
Already done so Val, starting here http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2012/09/pick-a-topic-any-topic/#comment-115505
But I don’t see why we should turn a blind eye to the Judicial Oath, or doesn’t that count for anything?
The oath is fine – just stop impugning the judge. -RT
The Oath and the judge are inseparable, if you allow one you must allow the other. Also IMO the grounds for appeal are the conduct of the Judge in the case in the context of the Oath.
The Oath was posted here July 23, 2012 at 9:02 am http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2012/07/nz-sceptics-v-niwa-summary-of-case/#comment-106698
It’s still there (it gets deleted now, why not then?) and states:-
18. Judicial Oath—The oath in this Act referred to as the Judicial
Oath shall be in the form following, that is to say:
I, , swear that I will well and truly serve Her [or His] Majesty
[specify as above], Her [or His] heirs and successors, according to law,
in the office of ; and I will do right to all manner of people
after the laws and usages of New Zealand without fear or favour,
affection or ill will. So help me God.
Cf. 1908, No. 151, s. 4
http://legislation.knowledge-basket.co.nz/gpacts/reprint/text/1957/se/088se18.html
Note “without fear or favour”
In [45], first the Judge exhibits fear “I consider this Court should be cautious about interfering with decisions made and conclusions drawn by a specialist body, such as NIWA, acting within its own sphere of expertise”
Then favour “In such circumstances a less intensive or, to put it another way, a more tolerant review is appropriate”
In a just society that and nothing else would be grounds for appeal, but is NZ the just society we think it is?
Richard C, once only, let me address this attack on Venning, J. You say:
To express caution in this context is not fear but a reluctance to interfere without proper knowledge and is good and sensible. But the fear mentioned in the oath means fear of another power, such as a strong man, a public official or a government body. These powers are well known for making an ordinary man so fearful that he slants his judgement to avoid retribution. A good judge avoids this.
How can you see this as favour? It’s not to give the other party some advantage, but, again, to avoid causing a wrong where one’s knowledge is inadequate. Perhaps this might be used to mask a favour, but you haven’t given us reason to believe it in this case.
If it were grounds for appeal, do you believe a judge with no knowledge of, say, medicine, should make medical judgements, say, on the dosage for a particular medicine? Nobody else would say so. Yet, according to you, expressing a reluctance to do so is equivalent to admitting bias.
You are much mistaken. When the court requires to know a technical matter, it summons (or the parties summon) appropriate experts for the purpose. In their absence, the judge does not arrogate to himself the right to decide on matters outside his expertise. Which is reasonable.
“Mistaken” I may be in your opinion – but not in mine.
Now, why did you send me over to Jo Nova’s? All that conspiracy theory nonsense does my head in. To answer your question, outsiders need to go and get qualified, use those transferrable skills working for a number of years in that discipline in an official capacity, publish some papers on the subject in relevant journals and then they will likely be considered experts. That’s the way it works. Here’s an analogy. If I work for a number of years hammering nails as a builder, can I be considered an expert cabinet maker? I might have read lots of instruction manuals on how to build a duchesse or a wall unit and might have even had a go at building one. Does that make me qualified enough to tell expert cabinet makers that they are doing it wrong? Here’s a question for you. Would you let a vascular surgeon perform brain surgery on you? With that I am being generous. It might be more accurate to ask you if you would let a retired dentist or vet perform brain surgery on you? That is precisely what this court case was doing. The arrogance to think that a paleontologist, a retired journalist and a …..physicist/ IT guy were suitably qualified experts is astounding. This should have been laughed out of court.
And yet it wasn’t. In fact, NIWA had to do some pretty nifty footwork to avoid some difficult questions.
For instance, where was the evidence that RS93 had ever been used on the 7SS from 1853-2009? Absent. We were asked to believe Dr Wratt’s assertion that it had (in 1992), but ALL evidence had apparently disappeared. Not only that, but the adjustments coincidentally all matched the thesis adjustments, which all ended in 1975. And no new adjustments were made between 1975 and 1992. Hmm.
Another question: Why, when NIWA performed their Review at taxpayers’ expense in 2010, did they NOT use RS93? They kept referring to it whenever the 7SS adjustment method was discussed, and it was a prime opportunity to re-do their missing work, yet instead they used an unpublished, untested method from a student’s thesis written in 1981.
Please understand this: the method used in the NIWA Review in 2010 has no international peer-reviewed scientific standing. None. It is mentioned nowhere, outside of Salinger’s thesis. NIWA have never yet provided a journal or text-book reference to their technique.
Yet a few people were able to do (at zero cost to the taxpayer) what NIWA should have done in the first place – produce a sensible 7SS using the same peer-reviewed technique NIWA kept referencing repeatedly, viz: RS93. In fact, one of NIWA’s complaints during the court case was that we applied the RS93 method “too rigorously”! In other words, when we did the job properly using an internationally-accepted method, we got a different result to NIWA’s, and they didn’t like it. In fact, the actual trend over the last 100 years is only a third of NIWA’s trend.
Their only response to date has been a desperate effort to try to show that the RS93 method as published is “unstable”. Why then did they trumpet it all this time? And why did they never challenge it in the literature between 1993 and 2010?
NIWA got away with it in the end, but only because the judge decided that he shouldn’t intervene in a scientific dispute, and our credentials (not the work we did) were not impressive enough.
Nice analysis, thanks. I noticed NIWA’s objection to your “too-rigorous” application and I like your response to it. You did it too well! – RT
working for a number of years in that discipline in an official capacity, publish some papers on the subject in relevant journals and then they will likely be considered experts.
Remind me again how old Michael Mann was when his Hockey Stick paper was published in AR3?
Perhaps a perusal of “delinquent teenager” might shed some light on the tenure of these so-called “experts”.
Those who are qualified need to justify their adjustments to the data, something they still haven’t done. Who knows how they arrived at their conclusions.
AGC, NIWA have fully described the adjustments made to the newly-constructed series, published in December 2010. So, now that we finally knew what they had done and why they had done it, after years of asking them, we could set about examining it. This was the first time an independent audit was possible. The result was the graph available here comparing NIWA’s reconstruction with Bob’s audit results. I don’t know how we can move it forward, but clearly the discrepancies between the two methods must be resolved. They cannot both be correct.
With all due respect RT, if you don’t like the D word and felt the need to snip it, that is one thing, however, to remove the rest of my comment that followed on from that point, was uncalled for.
Perhaps, but I delete sarcasm when it’s free of insight.
You are the one reminding commentators in here that it only applies to New Zealand. I recognised that, so my suggestion that you try it on in Australia, the USA, Great Brittain and other major centres against their weather institutions is a valid point. If you went in to bat with the same calibre of “experts” as you did in New Zealand, you would be equally unsuccessful. How you can look at this as though it isn’t a humiliating defeat is astounding, reminiscent of Iraq’s foreign minister in the first Gulf War. “Nothing to see here.” Kaboom!
As I’ve explained elsewhere, the judge didn’t decide scientific questions, hence they haven’t been heard. I remain optimistic.
I don’t buy all this “expert” stuff. One of the findings from the climategate enquiries was that they could have done with more input from professional statisticians. Besides, HarryReadMe.txt didn’t exactly put their data management skills in a good light either
IT people like myself, and Bob too presumably, often have a very steep learning curve at the start of a project getting to grips with a new problem domain. It’s part of the job.
Basically, I regard the argument that person X is not an expert therefore their opinion is not valid a variant on the ad hominem theme, in its true meaning.
I thought the statistical work had been audited by independent statisticians anyway.
“I thought the statistical work had been audited by independent statisticians anyway”
Exactly, 3 professionals no less. Why didn’t the Judge acknowledge that?
If the Statistical Audit was deficient statistically, the professional statisticians would have picked that up but there wasn’t anything amiss. The NZCSET 7SS is a valid series statistically by virtue of the professional review of it irrespective of the relative expertise of the author.
“There are thousands of scientists who doubt the IPCC…”
Richard, there are thousands of people that doubt Pearl Harbour was a surprise to FDR, or that the Moon Landings were real, or that 9/11 was an Arabic terrorist outrage… but that does not make them right, does it?
Where on Earth do you get the idea that the modern scientific consensus regarding the dangers of anthropogenic climate disruption can be reduced to the questionable opinions of 60 scientists? Do you really think the World’s governments are that stupid?
I would like to see you try and prove that ACD is a false alarm manufactured by 60 rogue scientists in a Court of Law; and/or that our governments are all going along with it as an excuse to tax people more heavily. Compared to that, your NIWA case looks eminently sensible and entirely justified; and your failure to win looks like a travesty.
Good luck with the legal expenses.
I don’t believe I said that. Only a very few climate scientists (I forget the number claimed, but not scientists in other disciplines and bureaucrats) contributed to the AR4 chapter on attribution. It’s a fact that thousands of scientists disagree with it. Everyone is familiar with the propaganda that “thousands” of “climate scientists” write the IPCC reports. But it’s not true.
Please don’t tempt me like this. Do you think governments are intelligent?
Do I think our governments are intelligent? No, Richard they are clearly not. Yes, they are foolish enough to be duped into believing industry propaganda that we can carry on burning fossil fuels even though we know doing so is damaging our environment. But, no, they are not so stupid as to pick a fight with the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the principle of Entropy.
http://lackofenvironment.wordpress.com/2012/05/21/it-doesnt-have-to-be-like-this/
http://lackofenvironment.wordpress.com/2012/09/07/entropy-an-unauthorised-biography/
Yes Richard but on the one hand you can’t rely on the BOM review and on the other footnote 50 says NIWA does not seek to rely on the Bureau of Meteorology’s peer review for the purposes of the proceeding.
That looks to me like NIWA is saying it should be disregarded
you can’t both regard and disregard it
Val, the more I think about this, the unhappier I become at the judge’s empty assertion in saying he won’t rule on the science because he then goes ahead and rules on the science anyway. Would that make it unappealable or the opposite?
Richard the Judge relies upon precedents – broadly as he says ‘Unless the decision maker has followed a clearly improper process, the Court will be reluctant to adjudicate on matters of science and substitute its own inexpert view of the science if there is a tenable expert opinion’.
So that leaves him to decide whether there is tenable expert opinion on the relevant issues taking into account the ‘more tolerant’ view or as the Judge says ‘I consider this Court should be cautious about interfering with decisions made and conclusions drawn by a specialist body, such as NIWA, acting within its own sphere of expertise. In such circumstances a less intensive or, to put it another way, a more tolerant review is appropriate.’
The word ‘tenable’ according to the on line dictionary means ‘rationally defensible’
So the Judge had to decide whether NIWA had a ‘tenable scientific opinion’ in respect to the relevant issues- that’s more an evidentiary issue rather than a scientific issue – although in some respects they are combined
That’s my reading anyway
Talk to your legal experts about appeals and I’ll send you a private e mail
I’ve sent Barry Brill an e mail forwarded through Warwick
RichardC the judgment raises an interesting point – can a court comprised of a legal expert (the Judge) adjudicate on questions of science
This Judge relying on precedent decided not in this case or in the Judge’s words ‘unless it could be shown the decision maker has followed a clearly improper process, the Court will be reluctant to adjudicate on matters of science’
So that started me looking on google and I found this interesting article: (a bit of cut and paste)
Scientific disputes must be adjudicated in the knowledge that all scientific assertions are subject to the possibility of being discarded should they prove to be false.40 This dedication to empiricism is a signature feature of scientific method. Today’s ‘minority science’ could become tomorrow’s ‘mainstream science’.41 Further, science is profoundly social.42 What we know as an ‘invulnerable core of scientific knowledge’ ultimately consists of scientific claims that no scientist any longer challenges.43 This is important in the context of scientific disputes. The interface between science and law generates changes in the dynamics of what will pass for scientific knowledge and expertise. All involved need to be aware of the social and legal construction of scientific knowledge and scientific expertise, as well as their fragility in sceptical legal contexts.44
The ‘systematic and formulated knowledge’ on which we rely to interpret the natural world is recognised within the discipline in which it is developed as contingent. Scientific hypotheses and assertions are formulated and adopted in the light of focused observations, measurements and modelling. The design and execution of the studies on which they are based, and the quality of their analyses, are subject to vigorous peer review. These hypotheses and assertions are then permitted to prevail, based on their merits and the understanding that they could later be superceded by alternative hypotheses and assertions. However, differences of view among scientists as to the validity of hypotheses and assertions can be expected to remain indefinitely in varying degrees. Differences may be due to numerous specific factors, such as the ways in which samples are selected, variables chosen, methods of measurement employed, models adopted and causal inferences drawn.45
http://www.cambridge.org/aus/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9781139073103&ss=exc
I like it because it does recognise that scientific assertions may change and carrying on from that how hard and fast can any judgment where science is in question be
“…..can a court comprised of a legal expert (the Judge) adjudicate on questions of science”
“….how hard and fast can any judgment where science is in question be”
There’s this US guide:-
Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence:
Third Edition
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13163
Second Edition freely available here:-
http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/sciman00.pdf/$file/sciman00.pdf
9 The Supreme Court’s Trilogy on the Admissibility of Expert
Testimony, Margaret A. Berger
39 Management of Expert Evidence,
William W Schwarzer & Joe S. Cecil
67 How Science Works,
David Goodstein
83 Reference Guide on Statistics,
David H. Kaye & David A. Freedman
179 Reference Guide on Multiple Regression,
Daniel L. Rubinfeld
229 Reference Guide on Survey Research,
Shari Seidman Diamond
277 Reference Guide on Estimation of Economic Losses in Damages
Awards, Robert E. Hall & Victoria A. Lazear
333 Reference Guide on Epidemiology,
Michael D. Green, D. Mical Freedman & Leon Gordis
401 Reference Guide on Toxicology,
Bernard D. Goldstein & Mary Sue Henifin
439 Reference Guide on Medical Testimony,
Mary Sue Henifin, Howard M. Kipen & Susan R. Poulter
485 Reference Guide on DNA Evidence,
David H. Kaye & George F. Sensabaugh, Jr.
577 Reference Guide on Engineering Practice and Methods,
Henry Petroski
Having read the judgement.
Plaintiffs : Totally pwned and on the evidence as referred to, had a very weak case to begin with.
Will be interesting to see if they can come up with grounds for appeal?
Strong case, weak judgment.
This is terribly disappointing. I’m sorry for all your time and effort. You were doing the world, not just the world of skeptics, a big job but the legal point of not looking to solve the problem but merely answer the question did the job in.
Of course the point is not that the world has warmed, but how much it has warmed. The 0.9C could be “an” answer if you could see specifically what was done, and in light of the dispute, seeing what the Australian BOM thought (having gone through the process) could have left the skeptic side without a real, future arguing point. But NIWA doesn’t want to drop its drawers, and the judge has said they don’t have to. That’s all he really said.
As I first intimated, there is solving the problem and answering the question. Here the problem is that we don’t believe the appropriateness of what was done, but cannot audit what was done without NIWA releasing data. The question is, does NIWA have to provide the additional data. Different fish.
Like the FOIA situation: they have to release something, but maybe not what you want, and don’t have to do it in a timely fashion (’cause you can game the system).
People are interested in the spirit of the law being maintained. Lawyers are interested in the letter of the law being upheld. As I said, different fish.
Thanks, Doug. There’s another point, too. We’ve done an analysis, using the method NIWA was giving lip service to, but NIWA responded only when we went to court. Till then, they had said precisely nil about the astonishing differences between the two temperature series. We’ll have to find another way to make them answer our questions, and unfortunately the judge hasn’t helped our chances by effectively agreeing that NIWA aren’t bound by normal expectations that they’ll seek out the excellent way of doing things. They will instead seek out their own way of doing things.
Now, actually, I prefer my public (or any!) scientists to be totally free to take the path that seems best to them. But there’s a fine line we must tread, because what recourse do we have as interested members of the public when public servant scientists go off in the wrong direction? How do we then make them accountable?
One way to make them accountable is for us to write to the scientists who signed the following Press Release and ask them to justify NIWAs methodology.
The names listed on the press release are:
Associate Professor James Renwick, School of Geography, Environment and Earth Sciences, Victoria University of Wellington
Professor Jim Salinger, currently visiting Stanford University
Professor Martin Manning, Climate Change Research Institute, Victoria University of Wellington
Professor Peter Barrett, Antarctic Research Centre, Victoria University of Wellington
Professor (Emeritus) Blair Fitzharris, University of Otago
Professor Keith Hunter, Pro-Vice Chancellor Science, University of Otago
From the above Press Release
Did the NZCSET ever claim that NIWA acted “fraudulently”?
No, the word fraud and its derivatives don’t appear in our statement of claim.
No, the word fraud and its derivatives don’t appear in our statement of claim.
Perhaps there are grounds for complaint on this basis?
I wouldn’t worry about it too much guys. The climate change establishment still have no evidence beyond the initial tiny warming attributes of CO2. There’s no evidence of positive feedback from water vapour, no tropospheric hotspot, and the climate models are all a dismal failure. More & more peer reviewed scientific papers are being published showing how wrong the AGW hypothesis is.
The public are onto the climate change con and more people are deserting it every day as they find out the real truth of how the AGW hypothesis has failed. Even the AGW scientists are giving up on AGW as their beliefs are outweighed by a complete lack of any evidence.
The AGW establishment is starting to show signs of desperation and are definitely losing the battle. The outcome is inevitable so everyone just has to keep spreading the word. The AGW establishment can’t justify their beliefs so their only options are to avoid any relevant questions & try to destroy those asking the questions. If the evidence was so ‘overwhelming’ they’d provide it and debate it. All they have is abuse and lies.
Congratulations, you get to be my “…….. comment of the day” over at my blog. Out of respect for Richard’s blog, because it could be a bit off-topic, feel free to respond at my blog.
See below Mike.
It’s not up to me to supply evidence. What the climate establishment needs to show is evidence of positive feedbacks from water vapour – the tropospheric hotspot would go a long way. Now guys, where is it?
Page 13 sums it up:
http://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/mmh_asl2010.pdf
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hot-spot/hot-spot-model-predicted.gif
Before you start quoting the papers that Cook puts up on his SKS site, I suggest you try looking at the papers that debunk his ones (I’m sure you’re capable of looking them up yourselves). Funny he doesn’t mention them.
Interesting story about the JUDGE and his investments in the FORESTRY INDUSTRY. Whether he still has these interests is another matter, but I suspect it might be of interest to some..
http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2012/09/venning-j-wont-throw-out-those-carbon-credits/
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/4807136/Impugned-judge-steps-aside-from-Trinity-case
There’s at least 2 reasons I can see that this judgment is void – conflict of interest (carbon credits) and dereliction of duty (in respect to the Judicial Oath).
Void judgment definition from Blacks Law Dictionary here:-
Twenty Reasons to Vacate a Judgment
http://void-judgments.com/twenty_reasons.html
Jurisdiction and Due Process seem to be the relevant categories.
The NBR seems to have turned into gutter press on this one
“Climate change deniers swamped in NIWA court challenge ”
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/climate-change-deniers-shot-down-high-court-challenge-niwa-bd-127869
“Doctors Welcome Decision On Treacherous Temperature Case”
The New Zealand Climate and Health Council welcomes Justice Geoffrey Venning’s rejection of the New Zealand Climate Science Education Trust’s (NZCSET) case against the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA).
Spokesperson Dr George Laking says the medical profession recognises human-induced climate change as the number one threat to health this century. Health risks of climate change start with injury from heatwaves and storms, more tropical illnesses, and ultimately threaten collapse of food supplies and political insecurity from crop failure, coastal inundation and ocean acidification. Global food prices are already rising with the extreme drought affecting half of the United States.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1209/S00012/doctors-welcome-decision-on-treacherous-temperature-case.htm
So that’s it folks. No, not cancer, heart disease, obesity, diabetes, the biggest threat to our health is “climate change”
What utter tosh
I’ve spent a portion of the afternoon trying to understand what His Honour was talking about when he said ‘In New Zealand Public Service Association Inc v Hamilton City Council Hammond J accepted that a less intensive review can be appropriate for a number of reasons.’
In the NZCSC & NIWA case the Judge accepted that ‘A less intensive review is particularly apposite where the Court is not in a position to definitively adjudicate on scientific opinions.’
There’s been in NZ a differing of legal and judicial opinion in relation to the Court’s supervisory jurisdiction through judicial review. Anxious scrutiny or ‘the hard look’ approach is the opposite to the standard of scrutiny His Honour applied in this case. The ‘less intensive review’ option was the option His Honour adopted in this case. There has been at least one NZ case I’ve found which does not accept this is the appropriate standard in all cases.
for legal enthusiasts a bit of reading:
http://www.vuw.ac.nz/staff/dean_knight/Knight_Standards2.pdf A Murky Methodology: Standards of Review in Administrative Law
Dean R Knight*
and Hard Look Review by Charlotte Mizcek Univ of Auckland 2006 http://www.freilaw.de/journal/de/ausgabe%202/2_Miczek%20-%20Hard%20Look%20Review.pdf
The law is in a state of flux in NZ and seems to be discretionary on a case to case basis but there has been a 2010 refugee case in which the Court was prepared to look at a higher or closer to ‘hard look’ basis
Pingback: Denier comment of the day September 8, 2012 | uknowispeaksense
It’s not up to me to supply evidence. What the climate establishment needs to show is evidence of positive feedbacks from water vapour – the tropospheric hotspot would go a long way. Now guys, where is it?
Page 13 sums it up:
http://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/mmh_asl2010.pdf
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hot-spot/hot-spot-model-predicted.gif
Before you start quoting the papers that Cook puts up on his SKS site, I suggest you try looking at the papers that debunk his ones (I’m sure you’re capable of looking them up yourselves). Funny he doesn’t mention them.
There’s a good analysis of the judgment at http://joannenova.com.au/2012/09/nz-justice-shows-courts-are-useless-in-a-science-debate/#comment-1123439
…. and there is a lively discussion going on here:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2012/09/sceptics_close_niwa_lawsuit.html
Warwick Hughes who had a mention in the judgment has his first post up http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=1739
Some interesting impressions being formed from J Venning’s carbon credit interests:-
“As an outside observer I can only conclude that NZ is truly a banana republic”
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/09/nz-justice-shows-courts-are-useless-in-a-science-debate/#comment-1124170
Quoting the rest will incur immediate deletion so I’m not risking it but suffice to say that “Sean” is particularly scornful of performance and process in several comments along with the one quoted from.
“scornful” [and accusatory] I should add.
I want to make it clear that I don’t condone that type of accusation but if others take that approach in the public domain that’s their prerogative.
My view (FWIW) is that the form of questioning of the decision should be criticism couched as potential grounds for appeal and even vacation, whether an appeal goes ahead or not.
That’s the (safe) difference I see between free legitimate speech and contempt or scandalizing of court. No point in twisting the tigers tail but no harm in discussing its stripes.in a civil manner.
an article for RichardC
http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1255&context=hss_pubs&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com.au%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3D%27scandalising%2520a%2520judge%27%2520nz%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CCEQFjAA%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fepublications.bond.edu.au%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1255%2526context%253Dhss_pubs%26ei%3DiRZMUJ2lJ-2QiQegqoHQAQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNGiwaiPp9E40mxpxvkx7QtD6Z4dbw#search=%22scandalising%20judge%20nz%22
A momentous presentation Val. I’ll have to read in full focus later but in my first skim I see:-
“Litaba questioned whether under the existing law truth as a defence applied, despite the High Court’s statements on the matter in…………a disturbing possibility given that part of the democratic process should surely be the right to make legitimate, well founded, criticism of the judicial process”
[Criticism and scandalising are not one and the same, where's the line? The line shouldn't be arbitrary to let a Judge off the hook but how do you test where the line is without criticising?]
“The slim risk of being charged with scandalising the court should not prevent journalists
partaking in fair, well-reasoned criticism of the administration of justice. It is only when
the criticism is personal, scurrilous abuse of a judge, which brings the judicial system into
disrepute, or when it implies some improper motive on the part of the judiciary that it is
more likely to overstep the mark”
[But what when a Judge puts them self in a position of having that former criticism leveled? J Venning has already had to step aside in those circumstances, No "scandalising the court" charge ensued. No problem with the latter situation OTOH]
“Media groups, such as Australia’s Right to Know lobby, and the press councils in both
countries, should press for greater clarity in the law of scandalising. It would have the
advantage of allowing reasoned public criticism of judges and the court system and sound
investigative reporting of suspicious judicial practices without fear of reprisal from an
irate judge wielding summary powers. Media freedom should not be held to ransom by
impudent little men in horsehair, microcosms of conceit and empty-headedness nor, for
that matter, by snoring wigs curled up under their judicial sombreros.”
[Let's continue to criticise without fear so that the criticism/scandalising line is determined fairly]
This case is a useful guide (my bolding):-
Those comments were made not as grounds for appeal but as public discourse (I assume). Judge Wall has set the criticism/scandalising line in a very unbalanced way in favour of criticism in this case, certainly not to the advantage of the court.
I do wonder though, how he can say “…they don’t always get it right” is “wrong and mistaken”. If that we so, there would never ever be a successful appeal. I suppose by “as the present is” he means in terms of that case only, but he would say that given it was his own decision in question.
Be careful what you say guys. If the parties can’t agree on costs, the Justice will adjudicate. Trustees are personally responsible for those costs. Maybe the Trustees could ask Alan Gibbs for financial assistance, he is sympathetic to the cause and has bagloads of money.
Simon, totally agree
I don’t think RichardC gets it
Costs have nothing to do with what is said out of the courtroom, any scandalising the court charge is a separate issue. There’s a case in the paper you presented that I quote from up-thread that sets out some limits by example and precedent:-
Mills & Ors v. Townsville City Council & Ano
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2012/09/judge-declines-to-intervene/#comment-115935
Anyone incurring a scandalising the court charge (apart from MSM, they seem to get special attention) would have to overstep a line that is tilted in extreme favour of criticism by Judge Wall’s limits. Incurring a scandalising the court charge on his terms would mean a vituperous outburst of scurrilous proportions. I don’t think I’ve seen that yet although “Sean” at JN is testing the limits unnecessarily I think and very likely overstepped in doing so..
Please specify Val, where you think I’ve crossed the line from criticism to scandalising if indeed you think I have (and see my “I don’t condone that type of accusation” wrt Sean’s accusation comment up-thread), Otherwise you’re whistling in the wind.
Costs and fines as a result of a scandalising the court charge are two entirely different concepts. NZCSET has NOT been fined and a successful appeal would overturn costs. Costs are expenses incurred, NiWA does NOT have a (hypothetical) NZCSET fine added to their costs because it wasn’t their expense. The court receives the fine on the other hand.
And fines are graduated. Take a look at this case from your paper Val:-
• Solicitor-General v. Smith (2004)
“MP Nick Smith was fined $5000, TV3 $25,000 and Radio New Zealand $5000 by the New Zealand High Court over comments he made about a Family Court custody case which were broadcast on the television and radio stations. The comments were inaccurate, applied pressure on the court, undermined confidence in the judicial process and had the potential to interfere with the administration of justice, the court held.”
That was a fine payable to the court, NOT costs. And TV3 was fined 5x more than Nick Smith for reporting what Smith said. The key unacceptable elements (criteria) of what Smith said were that they were inaccurate, inflammatory, undermined confidence in and had the potential to interfere with the judicial process, and applied pressure:-
“The High Court found MP Nick Smith had made several inflammatory media statements about a custody dispute before the Family Court which undermined public confidence in the court and had the potential to interfere with the administration of justice by placing public pressure upon the court. As Burrows and Cheer (2005, p. 386) noted, ‘whichever way the Family Court judge decided the case, the public perception would be affected by seeing the pressure that had been so publicly applied’.”
Note the media gets special attention and that the initial criteria for incurring a fine are clearly more than speculation on grounds for appeal.
Martin,
NASA explains that this was caused by winds and weather patterns. It wasn’t caused by general warming, unless you accept that general (regional) warming can be caused by weather patterns moving warmer air into an area or holding it in place.
Please provide data on the global temperature increase since 1998.
Pingback: High Court ruled on integrity – not science | Secular News Daily
The Register has a piece on the court case
Chris de Freitas has a piece in today’s Herald on the scientific issues around this case
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10833106
“Argument from authority has no place in science. This was the basis of NZCSET’s case. Argument on the scientific facts and methods used in analyses must now take place. The question is: will it?”
As I said in Quo vadis?:-
“At this juncture, that (Barry’s #7) leaves the NZCSET 7SS to be the valid series scientifically (where NIWA supporters say the contest should be).”
NIWA and their supporters have a lot of work to do before they can even engage in the argument.
FWIW I’ve done my own research into NZ case law and found a novel strategy NZCSET could pursue to compel the court to give just relief for NIWA’s bad faith withholding of the BoM review. Read more here:
http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/09/11/new-courtroom-strategy-for-climate-data-kiwigate-skeptics/
In the heat of battle
By Catherine Masters
A judge has thrown out a legal challenge by climate change sceptics, which accused Government scientists of manipulating data. Catherine Masters examines the fallout
Niwa’s chief scientist David Wratt just hopes they’ll go away now.
But he’s realistic. For around three years the climatologist and some of his staff have been sidetracked from their real jobs by climate change/global warming sceptics.
>>>>>>>>
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/environment/news/article.cfm?c_id=39&objectid=10834154
No, not going away, sorry David
The Stupid just keeps on giving.
No, not going away, sorry David
Since you’re trumpeting this sentiment and with a bit of luck, or a heads-up to this website, Venning J will become aware of this attitude and intransigence when determining the level of costs.
Richard Christie, what a timely entry. I was commenting this morning that I was looking forward to your next appearance. I have a challenge for you.
But first your comment:-
“Venning J will become aware of this attitude and intransigence when determining the level of costs”
Costs are NIWA expenses, what is said on this blog has nothing to do with that. This has been covered extensively here already. It is a “scandalising the court” charge that attracts a penalty if proven. The leeway in precedent for that is very much in favour of the accused so don’t get too fizzed up about this. Besides, we don’t know what the appeal situation is yet.
Now the challenge.
I’ve started a list of those who cannot (or will not i.e. default) offer a rebuttal of substance (validity and therefore success) to the following series and I challenge you with it:-
An Unsettling Look at the Settled Science of Global Warming
Part 1: Scientific Discussion
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/agw-an-alternate-look-part-1-details-c.pdf
And here,
An Unsettling Look at the Settled Science of Global Warming
Part 2: Layman’s Discussion
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/agw-an-alternate-look-part-2-for-laymen.pdf
And here,
An Unsettling Look at the Settled Science of Global Warming
Part 3: Policy Maker’s Summary
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/agw-an-alternate-look-part-3-summary.pdf
The key point being the bogus “oversimplification” by the IPCC. Quoting Part 2:-
“The IPCC equation assumes a “logarithmic” or log relation between forcing and CO2. The path length curve more closely resembles a „log log‟ relation between forcing and CO2. That is the IPCC model is an oversimplification that results in overestimating the impact of CO2 at higher concentrations”
The Defaulter List so far is:-
Martin Lack
Simon
Rob Taylor
Ken Perrott
andy (Not Andy)
Note that the paper is in the form of a hypothesis for which you will have to provide a credible null. Do I add your name to the Defaulters List Richard Christie? Or have you got something that upholds the IPCC RF science?
LOL`
Please add me to your defaulter list, I’m happy to be in such good company.
(along with NASA, the Royal Society and every major scientific institution on the planet).
“Please add me to your defaulter list” – OK, the Defaulters List to date is now:-
Martin Lack
Simon
Rob Taylor
Ken Perrott
andy (Not Andy)
Richard Christie
BTW Richard, NASA uses the bogus IPCC CO2 forcing simplification courtesy of Hansen so they probably haven’t even heard of the Hottel/Leckner curves. The Royal Society and “every major scientific institution on the planet” are equally in the dark to the science of radiant heat transfer and the engineering solutions that have developed from it and been widely implemented.
But in their case I don’t think ignorance is an excuse.
The contest (in terms of scientific and engineering validity) is this (from J Eggert’s references):-
Eggert/Leckner/Hottel
i Schumann, Reinhardt, Metallurgical Engineering, Volume 1, Addison-Wesley, 1952 (Hottel’s curves –>> note the year.)
ii Bejan, Adrian; Kraus, Allan D. Heat Transfer Handbook. John Wiley & Sons., 2003 Page 618 (Leckner’s curves, available in electronic form from http://www.knovel.com)
Versus IPCC
v http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/ IPCC equation for “forcing”. This equation is also quoted in the fourth assessment report along with two other curves of similar shape and magnitude.
Note the word “simplified” in NOAA/IPCC Table 1 ‘Expressions for Calculating Radiative Forcing’. Note also the lack of recourse to any heat transfer texts or papers in the NOAA reference.
Here’s the Leckner vs IPCC graph that by your default you fail to address
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/eggert-co2.png
Note that even prominent sceptic David Archibald mistakenly presents Willis Eshenbach’s graph of the “logarithmic” effect of CO2 (the IPCC version) as the definitive CO2 forcing curve at WUWT here:-
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/
Problem being, it’s not a logarithmic effect at all as John Eggert explains in Part 2 of ‘An Unsettling Look at the Settled Science of Global Warming’:-
This is the primary issue of the CAGW/CC debate Richard, all other issues are subordinate to it including temperature records. If it’s not resolved satisfactorily in favour of the IPCC (a null to Eggert’s hypothesis) then the entire “climate change” edifice crumbles.
But you default in the face of the challenge – doesn’t bode well for “the cause” does it?
But you default in the face of the challenge – doesn’t bode well for “the cause” does it?
Again, LOL.
I’m not a climate scientist. Are you?
I do what most intelligent people do in regard to matters outside my expertise, I go to the experts for their consensus conclusions.
On climate change that means the IPCC, no matter how hard you wish it were otherwise. If, or when, the IPCC and the world’s leading scientific institutions change their stance I’ll be happy to go with them.
You, on the other hand, trawl the internet for argument to confirm your a priori bias.
Now, you’ve lost this recent court case, lost it resoundingly.
In the words of M Cullen, eat that.
Or, make my day and continue with your ranting against Venning and the judgement, let every body know how you haven’t learnt a thing from the process and are dead set to have another go and again waste everybody’s time, money and patience. Carry on doing this before Venning determines costs.
“I do what most intelligent people do in regard to matters outside my expertise, I go to the experts for their consensus conclusions………..On climate change that means the IPCC”
“On climate change”? That’s the problem Richard, the IPCC are NOT the experts in radiative heat transfer so how can they be experts in climate change? You’ve made the incorrect attribution and subscribed to the invalid CO2 forcing methodology.
Didn’t you see the following in my last comment?
***********************************************************************************************************
The contest (in terms of scientific and engineering validity) is this (from J Eggert’s references):-
Eggert/Leckner/Hottel
i Schumann, Reinhardt, Metallurgical Engineering, Volume 1, Addison-Wesley, 1952 (Hottel’s curves –>> note the year.)
ii Bejan, Adrian; Kraus, Allan D. Heat Transfer Handbook. John Wiley & Sons., 2003 Page 618 (Leckner’s curves, available in electronic form from http://www.knovel.com)
Versus IPCC
v http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/ IPCC equation for “forcing”. This equation is also quoted in the fourth assessment report along with two other curves of similar shape and magnitude.
Note the word “simplified” in NOAA/IPCC Table 1 ‘Expressions for Calculating Radiative Forcing’. Note also the lack of recourse to any heat transfer texts or papers in the NOAA reference.
*************************************************************************************************************
Climate scientists, by huddling in their blinkered cocoon, have failed to defer to the experts in radiative heat transfer and consequently the world’s govt’s and their populace have had the wool pulled over their eyes. But there’s a whole other world operating outside climate science and the real experts are gradually coming out of the woodwork. An engineering design for a furnace for example using IPCC RF methodology would be a substandard solution.
The appropriate expertise will win out in the end but it wont be generalist climate science, it will be specialist heat technologists.
BTW, you STILL don’t understand costs even after my explanation? Was I not clear enough?
Costs, correct me if I’m wrong in this respect but I expect that NIWA will submit their expenses to the court.
The court will then approve or otherwise and make the final order.
“Costs, correct me if I’m wrong in this respect but I expect that NIWA will submit their expenses to the court.
The court will then approve or otherwise and make the final order”
Exactly (depending on an appeal), this negates your previous comments about what is being said about the judgment outside the courtroom because it has nothing to do with NIWA’s costs (expenses). Costs are recieved by NIWA, a scandalizing the court penalty (extremely remote) is received by Courts of New Zealand – NIWA don’t get a whiff of that.
Well then, as I said, fine by me if you just carry on dissing the competence of the authority that will ultimately determine the level of costs the plaintiff will pay.
Good grief you STILL don’t get it Richard. I can see by you haven’t taken up the challenge, your critiquing ability is abysmal.
Costs are SOLEY NIWA expenses – nothing else, no penalties, no bonus for judgment criticism, and even then depending on appeal.
I’m not a physicist but I suspect that assuming that CO2 is a static black body is not valid. In matters outside of my expertise I am happy to give more weight to the experts in the field over a lay-person with a spreadsheet. The High Court usually does too.
“I’m not a physicist” – Neither are climate scientists unfortunately
“but I suspect that assuming that CO2 is a static black body is not valid” – Thank you Simon, you see John Eggert’s thrust then and that the IPCC’s methodology is invalid
“In matters outside of my expertise I am happy to give more weight to the experts in the field over a lay-person…” – May I point out that John Eggert is hardly a “lay” person, just Google John Eggert, P.Eng, Eggert Engineering Ltd. Scroll down to Quality Assurance and NI 43-101 Compliance in this report for example:-
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/capstone-completes-minto-mine-phase-vi-pre-feasibility-study-159401425.html
“but I suspect that assuming that CO2 is a static black body is not valid” – Thank you Simon, you see John Eggert’s thrust then and that the IPCC’s methodology is invalid
Actually I’m not quite correct here, that is the thrust of Norm Kalmanovitch, P Geophysics Calgary Alberta Canada in his paper ‘HANSEN MARS CHALLENGE’ A challenge to Hansen et al 1988:-
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/HANSENMARSCHALLENGE.pdf
Just another case for the IPCC CO2 forcing parameter being invalid. They’re lining up to challenge the IPCC orthodoxy, these guys.
Climate scientists, by huddling in their blinkered cocoon, have failed to defer to the experts in radiative heat transfer and consequently the world’s govt’s and their populace have had the wool pulled over their eyes. But there’s a whole other world operating outside climate science and the real experts are gradually coming out of the woodwork. An engineering design for a furnace for example using IPCC RF methodology would be a substandard solution.
The appropriate expertise will win out in the end but it wont be generalist climate science, it will be specialist heat technologists.
Well , you be sure to get back to us when this all comes to pass.
But there’s a whole other world operating outside climate science
Of course, for years people have been making the observation about the alternative reality you guys inhabit. Tell us something new.
“Well , you be sure to get back to us when this all comes to pass” – Happening now Richard – that’s the challenge i.e. the cat is out of the bag.
“But there’s a whole other world operating outside climate science” [you quoting me] “Of course, for years people have been making the observation about the alternative reality you guys inhabit” [your response] – You don’t consider heat engineering and the science that underpins it to be actual reality then Richard?
Found that tropospheric hot spot yet Richard?
On another thread I discussed what an ad hominem logical fallacy was. Richard Christie’s post above is a perfect example of such an argument. It is flawed because it never addresses someone’s argument, but attacks the person who made it.
It is always assumed that a person resorting to an ad hominem has automatically lost the argument, because they are simply unable to counter the other person’s position.
Now I have no idea who AGC is, nor would it matter if all of the ad homs above were true (after all, we all have our own political views, and these should be irrelevant in this debate, and none of the links Richard Christie mention are in any way unusual).
The issue at hand is the tropospheric hotspot, lack of. Richard Christie just lost that argument.
Richard Christie:
Are you saying that nobody has ever asked you that question? It certainly is addressed to you: “Found that tropospheric hot spot yet Richard?”
So let me be the first to ask you then.
How do you, Richard Christie, explain the lack of the predicted tropospheric hotspot?
How do you, Richard Christie, explain the lack of the predicted tropospheric hotspot
Dunno. I haven’t the foggiest.
I’m not a climate scientist. I’m not even a scientist.
I go with the IPCC and the world’s leading scientific institutions, they do or at least interpret the science. But I’ve been through this already.
Since we’re on the question thing, here are some interesting ones.
Who’s paying the bill for the total failure in court?
What are the chances that the big money backers, if any, will cut the expendable front line adrift and won’t cough up?
Can you trust Barry Brill?
Who is on the Trust Deed?
This commenter has been banned from the CCG for persistent ad hominem attacks against his fellow conversationalists and for disregarding online anonymity. Richard Christie, if you want to say anything, email me privately. I’ve removed the worst of Christie’s abusive remarks and what seems to be personal material and I’ll remove any more that comes to my attention. I’ve left the more thoughtful remarks and questions that, though they reveal his attitudes, hurt nobody. Christie is the first commenter on the CCG who refused to respond to polite requests to avoid abuse and was thus banned, so I guess it’s an historic day. But it doesn’t make me proud. When conversation descends to the peurile hurling of insults does it mean intelligence predominates? Is a civilised society wise to value the routine practice of hatred, small-minded bigotry and a refusal even to listen? – RT
I see that Arctic sea ice is now out at 6σ from the mean. That’s Black Swan territory, except that it was predicted.
And I see that BEST corroborates a NH sunspot/temperature correlation that blows away CO2:-
http://climatechangedispatch.com/home/10457-tattoo-this-its-the-sun-stupid
Hi Richard C,
Your link shows that the suns irradiance is at it’s lowest point in 20 years. Could you please clarify the point you are trying to make?
“Your link shows that the suns irradiance” – Nope, SUNSPOT/temperature correlation
But timely of you to turn up Nick, I have a challenge for you that I’ve made to several others recently but no-one has risen to it (although Simon’s interest seems piqued, he may yet come up with something but his reasoning so far actually supports the hypothesis).
I’ve started a list of those who cannot (or will not i.e. default) offer a rebuttal of substance (validity and therefore success) to the following series and I challenge you with it:-
An Unsettling Look at the Settled Science of Global Warming
Part 1: Scientific Discussion
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/agw-an-alternate-look-part-1-details-c.pdf
And here,
An Unsettling Look at the Settled Science of Global Warming
Part 2: Layman’s Discussion
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/agw-an-alternate-look-part-2-for-laymen.pdf
And here,
An Unsettling Look at the Settled Science of Global Warming
Part 3: Policy Maker’s Summary
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/agw-an-alternate-look-part-3-summary.pdf
The key point being the bogus “oversimplification” by the IPCC (actually a simplification of a simplification). Quoting Part 2:-
“The IPCC equation assumes a “logarithmic” or log relation between forcing and CO2. The path length curve more closely resembles a „log log‟ relation between forcing and CO2. That is the IPCC model is an oversimplification that results in overestimating the impact of CO2 at higher concentrations”
The Defaulter List so far is:-
Martin Lack
Simon
Rob Taylor
Ken Perrott
andy (Not Andy)
Richard Christie
Note that the paper is in the form of a hypothesis for which you will have to provide a credible null. Do I add your name to the Defaulters List Nick? Or have you got something that upholds the IPCC RF science?
All other climate change issues are subordinate to this one Nick (including Arctic issues). Unless some-one comes up with a credible null, the climate change edifice crumbles. The hypothesis you have to address is now, by default of AGW, the climate change hypothesis-of-right.
The Defaulter List so far is:-
Martin Lack
Simon
Rob Taylor
Ken Perrott
andy (Not Andy)
Richard Christie
Richard C, you surely must be deranged.
Richard C,
I would prefer it if you stuck to peer reviewed literature but this is clearly important to you so lets have a look. From the first pdf:
“Note that the area below 273K is a projection beyond Leckner’s curves and
may be in error.”
Since most of the atmosphere is below 273K I suggest that Leckner’s curves are not applicable, which means Eggert’s analysis is not credible.
Also your claimed sunspot/temperature correlation is a misrepresentation as it only deals with daytime highs. This is not the same as global temperature. It is well understood that the increased greenhouse effect predominantly increases temperatures at night. Choosing to only look at day time highs is cherry picking.
“Richard C, you surely must be deranged” – Nick doesn’t think so, he’s taking on the challenge you defaulted on Richard Christie. Only he and Simon have done so (poor Ken couldn’t (or wouldn’t) understand the challenge – do you?
“I would prefer it if you stuck to peer reviewed literature” – Bzzzt wrong. The point of a hypothesis is that someone posits it (Eggert has) and YOU provide the null (if you can) – that’s the review Nick. Besides, the AGW hypothesis was never peer-reviewed because there never was one.
“Since most of the atmosphere is below 273K I suggest that Leckner’s curves are not applicable, which means Eggert’s analysis is not credible” – Wrong again, The Eggert rationale is this (from Part 1):-
So 273 is a proxy for the atmospheric range 293K to 216K that takes account of pressure and suffices. Eggert then goes on to apply the curves to the atmosphere in Atmospheric Path Length.
Eggert could have presented “thousands” of curves (from Part 2):-
But one is sufficient for the purpose of exposing the IPCC oversimplification of these curves (a simplification of a simplification). Worse, the IPCC make NO recourse to the literature of the radiant heat transfer work of Hottell and Leckner, which is (from Eggert’s references):-
i Schumann, Reinhardt, Metallurgical Engineering, Volume 1, Addison-Wesley, 1952 (Hottel’s curves –>> note the year.)
ii Bejan, Adrian; Kraus, Allan D. Heat Transfer Handbook. John Wiley & Sons., 2003 Page 618 (Leckner’s curves, available in electronic form from http://www.knovel.com)
And as Eggert puts it in Part 1:-
The IPCC does not defer to that mature science.
Nice try Nick (kudos for your attempt) but not even close to upholding the IPCC RF methodology (providing a null to Eggert’s hypothesis). Until you can come up with something substantial, you’re on the list Nick:
The Defaulter List to date is now:-
Martin Lack
Simon
Rob Taylor
Ken Perrott
andy (Not Andy)
Richard Christie
Nick
Eggert:-
“….the science of radiant heat transfer has matured to the point where engineering solutions have been developed and widely implemented”
See:-
RADIATION HEAT TRANSFER IN COMBUSTION SYSTEMS
R. VISKANTA and M. P. MENGO, 1987
Abstract An adequate treatment of thermal radiation heat transfer is essential to a mathematical model of the combustion process or to a design of a combustion system. This paper reviews the fundamentals of radiation heat transfer and some recent progress in its modeling in combustion systems. Topics covered include radiative properties of combustion products and their modeling and methods of solving the radiative transfer equations. Examples of sample combustion systems in which radiation has been accounted for in the analysis are presented. In several technologically important, practical combustion systems coupling of radiation to other modes of heat transfer is discussed. Research needs are identified and potentially promising research topics are also suggested.
http://www.engr.uky.edu/rtl/Papers/Viskanta_Menguc_1987.pdf
[Warning: 64 pages and 334 references]
“An in-depth review of the world literature on the thermal radiation properties of gaseous combustion products (H20, CO2, CO, SO2, NO and N20 ) has recently been prepared. 4″
4. BLOKH, A. G., Heat TransJer in Steam Boiler Furnaces,
Energoatomizdat, Leningrad (1984) (in Russian) (to be
published by Hemisphere Publishing Corp., Washington,
D.C.).
“Detailed reviews of radiation heat transfer in pulverized coal-fired furnaces are available. 4″272″299 Radiation heat transfer in furnaces is due to gaseous and particulate contributions. Emissivity data for the major emitting gaseous species CO2 and H20 are generally adequate. 4.64″
64. SAROFIM, A. F. and HOTTEL, H. C., Heat Transfer–
1978, Vol. 6, pp. 199-217, Hemisphere Publishing
Corp., Washington, D.C. 11978).
“The expressions for the total emissivity and absorptivity of a gas in terms of the weighted sum of gray gases are useful especially for the zonal method of analysis of radiative transfer.
There are several curve-fitted expressions available in the literature for use in computer codes. Some of them are given in terms of polynomials 48- 50 and the others are expressed in terms of the weighted sum-of-gray gases. 51~-54″
48. LECKNER, B., Combust. Flame 19, 33 (1972).
49. MODAK, A. T., Fire Res. I, 339 11979).
50. STEWARD, F R. and KOCAEFE, Y. S., Heat TronsJer–
1986, C. L. Tien, V. P. Carey, and J. K. Ferrell (Eds),
Vol. 2, pp. 735-740, Hemisphere Publishing Corp.,
Washington, D.C. (1986).
51. TAYLOR, P. B. and FOSTER, P. J., Int. J. Heat Mass
TransJer 17, 1591 11974).
52. SMrm, T. F., SHEN, Z. F. and FRIEDMAN, J. N., J. Heot
Transfer 104. 602 (1982[
53. FARAG, I. H., Heat Transfer 1982, U. Grigull, E.
Hahne, K. Stephan and J. Straub (Eds), VoL 2. pp.
489-492. Hemisphere, Washington, D.C. (1982).
54. COPALLE, A. and VERVlSCH, P., Combust. Flame 49. 101
11983).
“Radiation accounts for about 40 % of the total heat transferred to the cylinder, but the radiation from gases (CO2 and H20 ) is only 20 % of the total radiation, with the rest being soot radiation”
Amazing to find what the IPCC DOESN’T defer to when you start digging.
“…your claimed sunspot/temperature correlation” – it’s an apparent correlation Nick, just like CO2 but better. Show me a better CO2/temperature correlation
“…is a misrepresentation as it only deals with daytime highs. This is not the same as global temperature” – Soon and Briggs are just following the lead of Meehl and van Loon at NCAR. From the article:-
“It is well understood that the increased greenhouse effect predominantly increases temperatures at night. Choosing to only look at day time highs is cherry picking” – Not according to the scientists active in this area.
I was merely countering Simon’s alarm which I assume from his position he attributes to CO2. If he is only going by apparent correlations, he has to look at the best (Ha!).
In my view the court should have been presented with and considered evidence that 25.5% of temperatures in the Seven Station series and 16.2% of temps in the 11 Station series recorded before Celsius metrication in 1971 were logged as whole Fahrenheit degrees (i.e. x.0F).
Combined, they averaged 22% of New Zealand Fahrenheit temps recorded as .0, and this compares with 30% in Australia’s ACORN series and 31% in its HQ dataset.
The .0F raw data findings, which have been ignored, suggest consistent rounding with a probable downward bias that raises questions about the validity of the NIWA record before 1971 … http://www.waclimate.net/round/new-zealand-temperatures.html