I made a few points re the premature pre-appeal (if any) pronouncement and this:-

“Justice Venning said Niwa had applied “internationally recognised and credible scientific methodology”"

Apart from that my comment (not posted yet) was that there was so much garbage in the article that it wasn’t worth wasting time analyzing.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10834470

They also go onto say:

Part of the reason for this outcome is the professional communications approach employed by the climate sceptics. Scientists have not been able to compete with this

This is pure, unadulterated drivel. NIWA had Network PR working for them (at the taxpayers expense). Which PR company was working for the NZCSC?

Furthermore, the PR/propaganda for the “consensus” is huge. Sceptics are largely self-funded.

The Herald is either delusional or deliberately lying to its readership.