Comments on: Pick a topic, any topic

By: Anthropogenic Global Cooling

Anthropogenic Global Cooling — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 22:35:39 +0000

@ Bill. I do see what’s happening in the Arctic. What I don’t see is any evidence linking it to anthropogenic causes. All you need to prove it is the tropospheric hot spot but it hasn’t appeared for some reason.

By: Richard Treadgold

Richard Treadgold — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 09:00:05 +0000

That’s not what ‘rare’ means, is it?

The passage you quote expresses quite well the passion of the moment. Go to Jo Nova’s post linked there and see some of the deceitful statements that had just come to light from so-called leading climatologists. That’s what I was angry about.

Sure, there are warts here, and I don’t mind apologising for them, but you’re welcome to spend all the time you wish examining them if they interest you. Our intention is to conduct a reasonable conversation and enlighten each other. I won’t put up with vacuous nonsense for long.

Please say something useful.

By: Richard Treadgold

Richard Treadgold — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 08:31:54 +0000

Yes, Bill, very funny. But not gaining a judicial review doesn’t mean we were wrong to seek one, or that there’s nothing wrong with what NIWA did over the national temperature record. It just means there are good reasons for the judge not to perform a review on these decisions. As he explains quite carefully, he’s not touching scientific questions with a ten-foot barge pole. As I say elsewhere, he says virtually nothing about the science on either side.

By: bill

bill — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 08:01:42 +0000

Gee, ‘rare’, eh? You mean I won’t find any more like it if I go looking?

By: bill

bill — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 08:00:03 +0000

Yeah, that’s right, Dixie, you’re winning! You really, really are. No, seriously. You’ll wake up tomorrow morning and it will all have been a dream…

By: Richard Treadgold

Richard Treadgold — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 07:58:53 +0000

It was Richard Cumming who said that, not me. But he was right to draw attention to the kind of neutral result from the judge declining our application. It’s true he has offered some specific criticisms, but in saying we’re not entitled to a judicial review he’s explicitly deciding it on matters other than the science. The science remains our strength.

By: The Mole

The Mole — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 07:19:33 +0000

“NIWA has no high ground in this judgment.”

I suggest Mr Treadgold you and Mr Dunleavy have even less ‘high ground’.

By: Richard C (NZ)

Richard C (NZ) — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 06:22:31 +0000

A very hollow “victory” for NIWA. And by no means a “Complete and total vindication for NIWA” as cyclone at HT seems to think.

J Venning made a point of NOT investigating the questions with any intensity (less than normal according to [45]).

A victory by default of the Judge. NIWA has no high ground in this judgment.

By: Richard C (NZ)

Richard C (NZ) — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 06:13:07 +0000

J Venning effectively “walked away”.

I’m wondering if that was to leave it to someone else if there’s an appeal (if that’s possible).

I’ve lost track of what recourse there is now that the Privy Council door is closed.

By: Bob D

Bob D — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 06:06:56 +0000

>Enjoy the weekend
Thanks Andy, will do. I hope you get some joy regarding your house soon too.