Did climate case judge get ETS credits?

The Sunday Star-Times claims the NZ Climate Science Coalition has “formed an unlikely alliance” with “the losers of an infamous tax-dodging trial.”

Ha, ha, very funny. The Coalition isn’t even part of the Court case – it’s being brought by the NZ Climate Science Education Trust (NZCSET, or the Trust). Nor has any “alliance” been formed – the only losers are the innocent readers being fed this arrant nonsense. Where does that paper find its material?

If only the reporter had interviewed our chairman. Oh, wait, he did.

Having established those two quite spectacularly incorrect factoids, the doughty environmental reporter continues with three more inaccuracies:

1. That the Coalition doesn’t believe that people cause “climate change”.
2. That NIWA has been awarded costs.
3. That the Trust asked about the judge’s forestry interests as part of its appeal against the Court’s decision on our request for a judicial review.

Um, actually…

    1. We do believe that humans cause changes to the climate. Those changes are easily detectable at local level, so it’s perfectly reasonable to expect they are detectable at the global scale, too. It’s just that nobody has done so yet (please correct me if I’m wrong). The climate debate is not so much about whether we have an influence, it is more about the size of that influence, which appears to be very small.

    2. The judge said that NIWA is “entitled” to the costs of its legal defence but has not actually awarded costs, as the parties must try to agree. So the Trust and NIWA are in discussion. Or firing memos at each other, or something.

    3. The Coalition has appealed against the decision in the substantive matter, but (and let me stress this point) the question of Justice Venning’s partiality on the basis of his forestry investments forms no part of that appeal.

After the astonishing “pecuniary interest” memorandum was lodged I asked Coalition chairman Barry Brill for an official backgrounder, which you can read here. So now we wait to learn whether Justice Venning was still collecting credits under the Climate Change Response Act at the time he was considering the case against NIWA.

Huge implications for policy

But I’m not completely convinced that’s the right question. The real issue is whether the judge was genuinely able to keep an open mind (even subconsciously) in a case which might undermine the whole wide subject of New Zealand climate change.

Catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) – or, in everyday language, dangerous human-caused climate change – is a very, very polarising issue.

In the years I’ve been blogging on the subject, I’ve found that most people either buy most of the hype or don’t accept it at all. About a third of the population take the future risks very seriously and many of them are caught up in a near-religious fervour about the immorality of carbon emissions. About half the population think it’s all grossly exaggerated and many of those are convinced that government climate scientists are prone to gilding the lily.

There are not many New Zealanders who are still completely open-minded about it all. And I don’t know of any big ETS beneficiaries who are among that select group. It’s perfectly understandable that people tend to favour viewpoints and policies that earn them money.

What if you developed strong views over the years when you had a sizeable financial stake in climate policy, and then you cashed in your investment? Would you reset your mind? Open your mind back up? What might a “fair-minded lay observer” think about that?

So my question is still centre stage, even if turns out the judge has now sold his carbon farming interests. Would an ex-carbon-farmer bring an impartial mind to an ETS issue?

Warm fuzzies for income

Fifty hectares of Southland radiata pine makes quite a lucrative carbon farm, according to MAF’s LOOK-UP TABLES (page 38). NZU entitlements began in 2008 and increase each year until they just about double by the time the forest is 30 years old in 2022.

If Justice Venning did quit his carbon farming interests in early 2008, he would have been selling an income stream for about 15 years into the future. Now, wouldn’t the proceeds of that windfall give rise to some warm and fuzzy thoughts about the Government’s climate policy?

Judge’s disqualification rules are tight. The test is whether a fair-minded observer MIGHT reasonably think there is a real POSSIBILITY that the judge MIGHT not bring an impartial mind to the case.

Those two “mights” and a “possibility”, working in concert, build up to quite a hurdle. There has to be virtually zero concern that the public could have any doubt at all about the judge having an open mind. Even a whiff of doubt has to be avoided. The judge has to be like Caesar’s wife.

Judges are good – but perfect?

The Law Commission report is interesting. It presumes that judges would always declare any interest they were aware of, and the real danger is that the judge might be affected at the sub-conscious level. For example, a judge might be influenced in favour of climate policy because it has been good to him, even if he has never actively thought about the subject.

The observer has to see a connection between the NIWA temperature records and the ETS. This is a two-step process:

The first point is that there is a clear connection between the “hindcasts” and “forecasts” of computer models. There’s nothing unusual about that and future predictions about anything are generally based on actual past experience. It’s NIWA’s job to calibrate those climate models and to project New Zealand’s future warming.

Secondly, there is little chance that New Zealand would have a costly ETS if this country wasn’t expected to incur any significant warming over the next 100 years.

The “NZ Herald” leading article welcomed Justice Venning’s judgment, because:

“If the coalition had managed to discredit Niwa’s methods, it would also have discredited the evidence for climate change, and the part played by human activities.”

That’s the actual view of a fair-minded lay observer. There’s no “might” or “possibility” in the eyes of that Herald leader writer – he sees the case as directly relevant to government policy. End of story.

53 Thoughts on “Did climate case judge get ETS credits?

  1. I can’t believe that this major dispute on climate change science has been decided by a carbon farmer!

    This judge was effectively deciding whether to take a large cut in his own future income. He decided not to. Surprise!

    What would his wife have said if he’d instead decided to carve up the superannuation fund just a few years before retirement? And he wouldn’t have been too welcome at future meetings of the Forest Owners Association. But all of that could have been avoided by simply declaring an interest and letting some other judge handle the case.

    His subconscious might have told him that an even better option was to take the case and say no.

    Just imagine if Tahakopa was a coal miner or an investor in oil wells. The warmists would have a fit. They would insist that no ‘polluter’ could possibly be objective in deciding (even indirectly) whether he himself was liable to pay a carbon levy.

    • Exactly.

      I like:

      Just imagine if Tahakopa was a coal miner or an investor in oil wells. The warmists would have a fit.

    • Brandoch Daha on November 13, 2012 at 7:44 pm said:

      What interesting mind games you play, boys, but what if the good judge actually does have shares in a NZ oil prospecting company or a coal mine?

      By your “logic”, does that mean that NIWA should appeal the judgement / costs order as potentially too lenient on NZCSET??

    • Good point. Does anyone honestly think that the Judge would be biased against NIWA if he owned a large number of Contact Energy shares?

    • Richard C (NZ) on November 14, 2012 at 4:45 pm said:

      Tahakopa NZUs are the issue in question.

    • BD,

      That’s simple: it would tend to support his impartiality. Your question on NIWA appealing is of course nonsense.

      Do you have evidence to offer on a dangerous human contribution to the climate? If not, do you agree that it follows necessarily that there’s no cause for alarm?

    • Brandoch Daha on November 15, 2012 at 3:28 am said:

      Do you have evidence to offer on a dangerous human contribution to the climate? If not, do you agree that it follows necessarily that there’s no cause for alarm?

      Your question itself is a cause for alarm, RT, as it reveals a dangerous ignorance of the real world and a willful refusal to face the facts.

      You are in the same class as all those poor hoodwinked Republicans who actually believed that Romney was going to win the US elections in a landslide.

      Why did they get it so wrong? Because the corporate propagandists at Fox News told them so, despite all the warnings from professional statisticians that such an outcome was unlikely.

      they were living in a fantasy land that did not reflect the reality of the election or the citizens of this country.

      http://www.alternet.org/media/how-right-wing-medias-fantasy-world-caused-republican-meltdown-election-night

      Sound familiar? It should.

    • I never, ever heard that the Republicans would win by a landslide.

      Most “media pundits” were telling us that it was “too close to call”

    • Which is the point Andy. The statisticians who had looked at the problem were confident that Obama was going to win and by how much. Only Florida was too close to call. Unfortunately the media doesn’t talk to the experts. Bit like climate change really, its all Bayesian statistics :-)

    • Brandoch Daha on November 15, 2012 at 7:20 am said:

      Andy, here are some of the right-wing pundits who predicted a Romney landslide;

      http://www.theblaze.com/stories/romney-landslide-here-are-the-biggest-names-predicting-it-how-it-will-happen/

      By an amazing coincidence, many of the same people also claim that global warming is a hoax….

    • BD,

      I believe you have not answered my question. Do you have evidence to offer?

      Your question itself is a cause for alarm, RT, as it reveals a dangerous ignorance of the real world

      It reveals no such thing; it’s only a question. I asked what you know – the thing that reveals considerable ignorance is your blatant refusal to answer me. Of course, you have no evidence and so you cannot answer.

      and a willful refusal to face the facts.

      Difficult to do when you offer no facts.

      You are in the same class as all those poor hoodwinked Republicans who actually believed that Romney was going to win the US elections in a landslide.

      I don’t care what class I’m in; you’re avoiding my question.

    • Richard C (NZ) on November 15, 2012 at 7:25 am said:

      Popular-vote: Obama 50.57 percent of the total, Romney 47.84 percent (ignoring dodgy Ohio returns for the moment).

      Hardly an overwhelming mandate. But I’m wondering Brando, why do you conflate election voting with the question of the human factor in climate change. Do you consider the latter to be an issue to be voted on too in order to determine the proof or otherwise of any societal danger?

    • I agree with you Simon, the media doesn’t talk to scientists, as we saw with the BBC so called 28gate affair.

      They only talk to lobbyists that share their world view.

    • Richard C (NZ) on November 15, 2012 at 8:04 am said:

      Brando the Amazing Logician – Obama won the US presidential election therefore man-made climate change is a real and present danger.

      Probably been watching too much BBC.

    • Richard C (NZ) on November 16, 2012 at 7:37 am said:

      Visualizing The Obama Mandate

      Posted on November 15, 2012 by stevengoddard

      County by county map of the 2012 presidential election.

      Obama won a mandate from the people in the blue areas to take lots of money from the people in the red areas.

      http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/11/15/visualizing-the-obama-mandate/

  2. The article actually says “The coalition, in seeking leave to appeal the decision, also tabled a memorandum asking the judge to disclose his interest in a forest registered under the emissions trading scheme“. Is this incorrect?
    The Coalition has appealed against the decision in the substantive matter“. Does that mean that a formal appeal has been lodged?
    The Coalition isn’t even part of the Court case – it’s being brought by the NZ Climate Science Education Trust (NZCSET, or the Trust)“. Aren’t the trustees for NZCSET also the organisers of the NZCSC?
    Surely NIWA have been awarded costs, the negotiation is over how much?

    • Richard C (NZ) on November 13, 2012 at 9:28 am said:

      RT will answer in full probably but just to point out that there are 2 avenues of recourse-

      1) Appeal

      2) Complaint to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner under the Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004

      http://www.jcc.govt.nz/

      If the reply to the memorandum is such that Geoffrey Venning or family has a pecuniary interest in the ETS via Tahakopa then recourse for that is 2) (or should be) NOT 1) because it is an issue of conduct not of legality.

    • Simon,

      The article actually says “The coalition, in seeking leave to appeal the decision, also tabled a memorandum asking the judge to disclose his interest in a forest registered under the emissions trading scheme“. Is this incorrect?

      It is correct, but it’s misleading. Though it’s written as a single event, the statement actually describes two events as connected, so it misleads. It’s true that we appealed the decision and it’s true that we tabled the memorandum, but those two events are not connected, as implied by the connection between “in seeking leave” and “also tabled”.

      “The Coalition has appealed against the decision in the substantive matter“. Does that mean that a formal appeal has been lodged?

      Yes.

      “The Coalition isn’t even part of the Court case – it’s being brought by the NZ Climate Science Education Trust (NZCSET, or the Trust)“. Aren’t the trustees for NZCSET also the organisers of the NZCSC?

      They are leading members of the NZCSC, but hardly its organisers! The NZCSC is a collection of unruly individuals with strong egos and is impossible to organise.

      Surely NIWA have been awarded costs, the negotiation is over how much?

      Yes, my very point – if poorly expressed. I only pedantically suggest that no “award” of costs is possible until the amount is settled.

  3. Richard C (NZ) on November 14, 2012 at 4:01 pm said:

    Geoffrey Venning ceased to be a director of Tahakopa Forest Trust Ltd on 1 April 2008:-

    http://www.societies.govt.nz/scanned-images/85/BC10056311285.pdf

    Companies Office filings (includes above linked document 28 Jul 2008 12:06) implies a sale of 25 shares (see constitution below) by G, Venning to M. Dermott (possibly via director pre-emption) between Jan 2008 and Jan 2009:-

    http://www.business.govt.nz/companies/app/ui/pages/companies/552192/detail

    13 Jan 2009 11:17

    Directors
    HEDGES, Gregory Watson
    162 Ilam Road, Christchurch
    JANETT, David
    33 Bryndwr Road, Fendalton, Christchurch
    MARTIN, Dermot Hamilton
    39 Panorama Road, Clifton, Christchurch 8081

    Share Parcels
    Number of Shares 25
    Shareholder(s) HEDGES, Gregory Watson 162 Ilam Road, Christchurch
    Number of Shares 25
    Shareholder(s) AUSTIN, Julie Paddy Marie 97 Fendalton Road, Christchurch
    Number of Shares 25
    Shareholder(s) JANETT, DAVID 9 Broadfell Avenue, Avonhead, Christchurch
    Number of Shares 25
    Shareholder(s) DERMOT, Martin 39 Panorama Road Clifton Hill, Christchurch

    16 Jan 2008 23:28

    Directors
    HEDGES, Gregory Watson
    162 Ilam Road, Christchurch
    JANETT, David
    33 Bryndwr Road, Fendalton, Christchurch
    VENNING, Geoffrey
    19A Milford Road, Milford

    Share Parcels
    Number of Shares 25
    Shareholder(s) HEDGES, Gregory Watson 162 Ilam Road, Christchurch
    Number of Shares 25
    Shareholder(s) AUSTIN, Julie Paddy Marie 97 Fendalton Road, Christchurch
    Number of Shares 25
    Shareholder(s) JANETT, DAVID 9 Broadfell Avenue, Avonhead, Christchurch
    Number of Shares 25
    Shareholder(s) VENNING, GEOFFREY 4 Malloray Place, Christchurch

    31 Jan 2007 10:13

    Directors
    HEDGES, Gregory Watson
    162 Ilam Road, Christchurch
    JANETT, David
    33 Bryndwr Road, Fendalton, Christchurch
    VENNING, Geoffrey
    19A Milford Road, Milford

    Share Parcels
    Number of Shares 25
    Shareholder(s) HEDGES, Gregory Watson 162 Ilam Road, Christchurch
    Number of Shares 25
    Shareholder(s) AUSTIN, Julie Paddy Marie 97 Fendalton Road, Christchurch
    Number of Shares 25
    Shareholder(s) JANETT, DAVID 9 Broadfell Avenue, Avonhead, Christchurch
    Number of Shares 25
    Shareholder(s) VENNING, GEOFFREY 4 Malloray Place, Christchurch

    19 Jan 2006 00:07

    Directors
    HEDGES, Gregory Watson
    162 Ilam Road, Christchurch
    JANETT, David
    33 Bryndwr Road, Fendalton, Christchurch
    VENNING, Geoffrey
    19A Milford Road, Milford

    Share Parcels
    Number of Shares 25
    Shareholder(s) HEDGES, Gregory Watson 162 Ilam Road, Christchurch
    Number of Shares 25
    Shareholder(s) AUSTIN, Julie Paddy Marie 97 Fendalton Road, Christchurch
    Number of Shares 25
    Shareholder(s) JANETT, DAVID 9 Broadfell Avenue, Avonhead, Christchurch
    Number of Shares 25
    Shareholder(s) VENNING, GEOFFREY 4 Malloray Place, Christchurch

    14 Jan 2005 07:57

    Directors
    HEDGES, Gregory Watson
    162 Ilam Road, Christchurch
    JANETT, David
    33 Bryndwr Road, Fendalton, Christchurch
    VENNING, Geoffrey
    4 Malloray Place, Christchurch

    Share Parcels
    Number of Shares 25
    Shareholder(s) HEDGES, Gregory Watson 162 Ilam Road, Christchurch
    Number of Shares 25
    Shareholder(s) AUSTIN, Julie Paddy Marie 97 Fendalton Road, Christchurch
    Number of Shares 25
    Shareholder(s) JANETT, DAVID 9 Broadfell Avenue, Avonhead, Christchurch
    Number of Shares 25
    Shareholder(s) VENNING, GEOFFREY 4 Malloray Place, Christchurch

    06 May 2004 10:44

    Directors
    HEDGES, Gregory Watson
    162 Ilam Road, Christchurch
    JANETT, David
    9 Broadfell Avenue, Avonhead, Christchurch
    VENNING, Geoffrey
    4 Malloray Place, Christchurch

    Share Parcels
    Number of Shares 25
    Shareholder(s) HEDGES, Gregory Watson 162 Ilam Road, Christchurch
    Number of Shares 25
    Shareholder(s) AUSTIN, Julie Paddy Marie 97 Fendalton Road, Christchurch
    Number of Shares 25
    Shareholder(s) JANETT, DAVID 9 Broadfell Avenue, Avonhead, Christchurch
    Number of Shares 25
    Shareholder(s) VENNING, GEOFFREY 4 Malloray Place, Christchurch

    17 Feb 2003 09:58

    Directors
    HEDGES, Gregory Watson
    162 Ilam Road, Christchurch
    JANETT, David
    9 Broadfell Avenue, Avonhead, Christchurch
    VENNING, Geoffrey
    4 Malloray Place, Christchurch

    Share Parcels
    Number of Shares 25
    Shareholder(s) HEDGES, Gregory Watson 162 Ilam Road, Christchurch
    Number of Shares 25
    Shareholder(s) AUSTIN, Julie Paddy Marie 97 Fendalton Road, Christchurch
    Number of Shares 25
    Shareholder(s) JANETT, DAVID 9 Broadfell Avenue, Avonhead, Christchurch
    Number of Shares 25
    Shareholder(s) VENNING, GEOFFREY 4 Malloray Place, Christchurch

    26 Feb 2002 11:36

    Directors

    David JANETT
    9 Broadfell Avenue, Avonhead, Christchurch
    Gregory Watson HEDGES
    162 Ilam Road, Christchurch
    Geoffrey VENNING
    4 Malloray Place, Christchurch

    Shareholders (as at incorporation or last annual return if any.)
    Number of shares 100
    Name No. of Shares
    AUSTIN, Julie Paddy Marie 25
    97 Fendalton Road, Christchurch
    HEDGES, Gregory Watson 25
    162 Ilam Road, Christchurch
    JANETT, David 25
    9 Broadfell Avenue, Avonhead, Christchurch
    VENNING, Geoffrey 25
    4 Malloray Place, Christchurch

    23 Jun 1997 09:04 Adoption of Constitution on rereg (pdf)

    2. Transfer of Shares

    # # #

    1) What were the proceeds of the sale of 25 shares held by Geoffrey Venning (the director and shareholder) from at least 26 Feb 2002 to some time in 2008 or beginning of 2009 (about 6 – 7 years)?

    2) After such a long association and the payout from 1), would Geoffrey Venning (the judge) have been able to revert to complete impartiality in court proceedings to the potential disadvantage of his former associates and the purchaser of his shares?

    • Richard C (NZ) on November 14, 2012 at 4:53 pm said:

      Claiming NZUs

      Participants submit emissions returns that quantify the change in carbon stocks in their forests. Annual returns are voluntary. A mandatory return is required at the end of each 5-year period from 1 January 2008.

      There are two ways of determining carbon: more owners with less than 100 hectares in the either the ETS or PFSI, by using standard look-up tables (PDF, 335 KB) ; for owners of 100 hectares or more in either the ETS or PFSI, using the field measurement approach.

      Each area of forest land is assigned to a unique Carbon Accounting Area (CAA). CAAs can not be less than one hectare in size, there are no limits on the number an applicant may specify, and they need not comprise contiguous forest areas.

      A permanent carbon accounting record for each CAA is kept by MPI. It records the change in carbon stocks over time, and the NZUs issued or surrendered for each area. A running balance is kept – called a unit balance.

      http://www.mpi.govt.nz/forestry/forestry-in-the-ets/post-1989-forest-land-voluntary-participation

      # # #

      How is the permanent carbon accounting record accessed? Online transactions are via i-govt logon:-

      http://www.mpi.govt.nz/forestry/forestry-in-the-ets/online-transactions-for-forestry-ets

      But is there a browser to view the record or is it top secret?

    • Therefore Justice Venning sold all of his shares prior to the end of the first year of Kyoto Commitment Period 1. That is a spectacular own goal and is probably why RT has been so unusually quiet.

    • Richard C (NZ) on November 14, 2012 at 6:29 pm said:

      >”Therefore Justice Venning sold all of his shares prior to the end of the first year of Kyoto Commitment Period 1″

      So what? The Climate Change (Forestry Sector) Regulations 2008 were pursuant to sections 163, 167, and 168 of the Climate Change Response Act 2002, the year (or possibly soon after) Geoffrey Venning began his directorship of Tahakopa. He, along with the two other directors at the time, positioned the company to take advantage of the ETS i.e. for profit potential (why else?). He then sold out but obviously there was value created for Dermot Martin to want to buy in and we can assume that Geoffrey Venning gained from the transaction. That is what gives rise to the questions:-

      1) What were the proceeds of the sale of 25 shares held by Geoffrey Venning (the director and shareholder) from at least 26 Feb 2002 to some time in 2008 or beginning of 2009 (about 6 – 7 years)?

      2) After such a long association and the payout from 1), would Geoffrey Venning (the judge) have been able to revert to complete impartiality in court proceedings to the potential disadvantage of his former associates and the purchaser of his shares?

      I think you will agree that the answer to 2) is no.

      I would add, if I had access to the information, the number of NZUs Tahakopa Forest Trust Ltd has claimed i.e. the running balance of NZUs issued or surrendered by Tahakopa since inception of the carbon accounting record but that information does not appear to be in the public domain. Why not I can’t fathom if the scheme is in the public interest.

    • The trees would have been planted prior to any consideration of an ETS and for timber production. Seven year old trees aren’t very valuable, maybe $2000-3000/ha. The current price is $2.55/NZU; I hardly think that is an incentive to do anything. Accounts in the NZEUR are bound by pretty much the same legislation as a bank account. Are you seriously advocating that you should have the right to snoop into other people’s accounts without their permission?

    • Simon,

      This matter of pecuniary interest is nothing to do with “people” but only judges. It’s part of the rules they sign up to on becoming a judge. And you’re way ahead of yourself, because the questions we asked him haven’t been answered yet. There is not (yet) any reason to suspect anything!!!

    • Richard C (NZ) on November 14, 2012 at 8:24 pm said:

      >”The trees would have been planted prior to any consideration of an ETS and for timber production. Seven year old trees aren’t very valuable, maybe $2000-3000/ha.”

      See down-thread, the value of Geoffrey Venning’s shareholding (it is not clear that he is no longer a shareholder) was projected to be in the order of $2m by 2018.

      >”The current price is $2.55/NZU; I hardly think that is an incentive to do anything.”

      The current price is irrelevant (that situation is what is known as “sovereign risk”). It is the intent and positioning of the company by Geoffrey Venning as co-director and co-manager to take advantage of the ETS and his continued association with it e.g. Dermot Martin appears to be a friend from way back (and possibly holding Venning’s shares as custodian). Venning is hardly likely to diss his mates or himself if he is still owner of his shares i.e. in the event that there was never actually a sale to Martin.

      >”Accounts in the NZEUR are bound by pretty much the same legislation as a bank account.”

      It is purported to be so but why? The purpose of this scheme is to save the planet; a very public undertaking. What possible reason is there for confidentiality in an amount of CO2e? I would have thought that it was information that would be shouted from the rooftops as a successful planet-saving operation. It is hardly private.

      >”Are you seriously advocating that you should have the right to snoop into other people’s accounts without their permission?”

      NZU accounts? Yes, definitely. It is no different to sharemarket transactions.

    • Richard C (NZ) on November 14, 2012 at 8:36 pm said:

      >”The trees would have been planted prior to any consideration of an ETS and for timber production.”

      Yes they were but the ETS came along circa 2002 and the directors went with that option.

    • Richard C (NZ) on November 14, 2012 at 8:06 pm said:

      Trinity documents (see Venning declaration in appendix) show Geoffrey Venning was a director of Tahakopa Forest Trust Limited from at least 1993:-

      http://trinityscheme.com/wp-content/uploads/annexure-1-to-complaint-affidavit-pt-1.pdf

      And was part of the management committee (page 36):-

      RESTATEMENT OF COMPLAINTS TO JUDUCIAL CONDUCT
      COMMISSIONER INCORPORATING MATERIAL PROVIDED BY
      VENNING J. AND HIS SOLICITOR1
      Dated 14 February 2011

      http://www.kiwisfirst.co.nz/files/Restatement_of_Complaints_140211%5B1%5D.pdf

      Page 33:-

      “[73] It is necessary to intrude further facts at this point. Since its time of
      incorporation on 21 July 1992 the Judge or his interests have been an investor in
      a forestry investment — Tahakopa Forest Trust Ltd — which owns a 220 hectare
      forestry block in Southland. This forest is approximately 15 years old. The Judge
      initially held 16 out of 100 shares in the company. That is, about one sixth of the
      shares. In 1999 his shareholding in Tahakopa increased from 16 to 25 shares, or
      25% of the company.

      The value of the 25% shareholding was projected in the Restatement to be in the order of $2m by 2018 (page 26, 40) but G. Venning did not necessarily “sell out”. Quoting from the Restatement (page 15):-

      19 According to Companies Office records:

      (i) Venning J resigned as a director with effect from 1 April 2008 with his position being taken by
      his friend Dermot Martin;

      (ii) Venning J transferred all his shares in Tahakopa to Dermot Martin on 13 January 2009.

      20 The Judge does not disclose whether or not he is still:

      (i) a member of the partnership;
      (ii) a member of the management committee.

      A transfer is not necessarily a sale. If there was no consideration it wasn’t a sale contract (I don’t think). In what capacity then was – and possibly still is – Dermot Martin acting? Purchaser? Trustee? Custodian?

      If custodian, Geoffrey Venning never actually relinquished his shareholding in toto.

    • Richard C (NZ) on November 14, 2012 at 10:04 pm said:

      >”If custodian, Geoffrey Venning never actually relinquished his shareholding in toto.”

      The relevant questions are asked in section 8. of the Memorandum in relation to costs-only and the possibility of Venning J recusing himself from costs issues:-

      http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/docs/judrev/memo-re-disclosure-nov-2012.pdf

      I would have thought that answers indicating interests that “might not bring an impartial mind” (section 6.) to the issue of costs would not have taken an impartial mind to the initial hearing either.

    • So Tahakopa is only 220 ha? Even if Justice Venning owned an interest (which he doesn’t) and if the existence of the ETS depended upon the trial outcome (which it didn’t) and if the sell price of NZU >= future surrender price (which it almost certainly won’t) the time value of those carbon credits would be stuff all. On this basis you are trying to besmirch the credibility and integrity of a High Court Judge. I really hope you get the outcome you deserve.

    • Richard C (NZ) on November 16, 2012 at 11:22 am said:

      >”So Tahakopa is only 220 ha?”

      Projected to be worth $8.8m by 2018

      >”Even if Justice Venning owned an interest (which he doesn’t)”

      That Memorandum question has yet to be answered by Venning J. He “transferred” his shareholding to Dermot Martin but was it a sale? Dermot Martin may just be custodian or suchlike. That is why the Memorandum questions are being asked.

      >”and if the existence of the ETS depended upon the trial outcome (which it didn’t)”

      No it didn’t but the hearing was definitely to determine the statistical validity or otherwise of the linear warming trend in the NIWA 7SS. That has not been resolved legally but the ‘Statistical Audit’ (NZCSET 7SS) still stands on its merits statistically irrespective of the case, NIWA’s does not. Without significant warming, the case for an NZ ETS diminishes somewhat in conjunction with the lack of warming in the global metrics this century. Having a judge preside over such a case with even a history of shareholding, directorship and management of forestry in the ETS is unacceptable in terms of impartiality.

      >”and if the sell price of NZU >= future surrender price (which it almost certainly won’t) the time value of those carbon credits would be stuff all.”

      It is the historical involvement, the as yet unresolved question of current involvement, and associates in continued involvement e.g. Dermot Martin that is relevant. The current situation may also be a factor if it turns out that it is in the best interest of TFTL if the NZU price is revived.

      >”On this basis you are trying to besmirch the credibility and integrity of a High Court Judge. I really hope you get the outcome you deserve.”

      NZCSET has every right to appeal, a request for the judge to recuse himself from costs consideration if his response to the Memorandum questions indicates such, and judicial complaints if conduct is in question. The basis for recourse are those rights Simon. Venning J has demonstrated poor judgment in the past (Trinity), is it not prudent for the appellant to be cognizant of that and to be sure that justice has been served in their case be appropriate recourse?

    • $8.8 million is the value of the timber. The value of carbon credits would be pretty close to zero and selling them would expose the investors to potentially significant uncertain liability.
      The only people who showed poor judgement in the Trinity case were those who were prosecuted.
      This is typical crank behaviour. Attack the reputation of the messenger who conflicts with your world view rather than the underlying facts. It is not dissimiliar to the defamation case of Michael E Mann.

    • Richard C (NZ) on November 16, 2012 at 2:45 pm said:

      >”The value of carbon credits would be pretty close to zero and selling them would expose the investors to potentially significant uncertain liability.”

      Unless by some stroke of good fortune (or political action, change of govt etc) the NZU price is revived. Stamping on any fires that might inflame public opposition to that is an obvious choice for anyone with skin in the game.

      >”The only people who showed poor judgement in the Trinity case were those who were prosecuted.”

      And Venning J. That is on the record Simpon, no getting around that.

      >”This is typical crank behaviour.”

      And now the vindictiveness.

      >”Attack the reputation of the messenger who conflicts with your world view”

      Geoffrey Venning has a message for me that conflicts with my world view? Get a grip Simon.

      >”…rather than the underlying facts.”

      What were those exactly? Were they the statistical rigour of the NZCSET 7SS? The review of it by professional reviewers but ignored by Venning J? The reticence of NIWA to divulge their methodology? What?

    • Richard C (NZ) on November 16, 2012 at 11:27 am said:

      I’m inclined to think you have a vested interest in ETS forestry yourself Simon (you protest too much). Do you?

    • Absolutely no financial interest. I find it ironic that the ETS as it currently stands encourages behaviour the exact opposite of what it was originally designed to do.

  4. Brandoch Daha on November 16, 2012 at 2:51 am said:

    Do you have evidence to offer on a dangerous human contribution to the climate? If not, do you agree that it follows necessarily that there’s no cause for alarm?

    Jesus wept, RT, you can find such evidence in any basic text, such as “Global Warming for Dummies”, or you can visit the NASA, NOAA, IPCC or Royal Society web pages, or this one:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

    But you won’t, of course, because you already “know” that it’s all just a hoax that only you, and your fellow geniuses can see through.

    This psychological phenomenon is known as “denial”, but it is really no different from a child with their fingers in their ears, shouting “La la la la, I can’t hear you!”.

    • The word is “dangerous”, in case you missed it.

      The evidence one looks for is “dangerous”, or “catastrophic”.

    • Richard C (NZ) on November 16, 2012 at 6:47 am said:

      SkS “Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming”:-

      1) We’re raising CO2 levels

      Why are CO2 levels higher over non-industrial areas e.g. tropical West Africa or northern India/Bangladesh than they they are over industrial areas as observed by GOSAT?

      2) CO2 traps heat

      And then it re-emits i.e. it is a heat transfer medium (a coolant as used in refrigeration). The posited “trapped heat” has not been observed empirically. Neither does CO2 radiant heat absorption increase beyond 200ppm:-

      http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/eggert-co2.png

      3) The planet is accumulating heat [predominantly in the ocean as per SKS graph].

      Solar mechanism, not anthropogenic.

    • Brandoch Daha on November 16, 2012 at 7:54 am said:

      You prove my point quite nicely with your nonsense, Richard.

      Same old zombie denier tropes, trotted out to confuse the uneducated and ideologically blinded.

    • Richard C (NZ) on November 16, 2012 at 8:45 am said:

      >”You prove my point quite nicely with your nonsense, Richard. Same old zombie denier tropes….”

      But you don’t offer any refutation of same Brando. Got nothing?

    • Richard C (NZ) on November 16, 2012 at 8:11 am said:

      >”Neither does CO2 radiant heat absorption increase beyond 200ppm”

      Verified here:-

      EVALUATION OF EMISSIVITY CORRELATIONS FOR H20-C02-N2/AIR MIXTURES AND COUPLING WITH SOLUTION METHODS OF THE RADIATIVE TRANSFER EQUATION

      N. Lallemant*, A. Sayret and R. Weber
      1996

      http://www.ewp.rpi.edu/hartford/users/papers/engr/ernesto/brazw/Project/Other/Research/Soot/Lallemant_EmissivityCorrelations.pdf

      3. CORRELATIONS FOR PREDICTING THE TOTAL EMISSIVITY AND ABSORPTIVITY OF COMBUSTION GASES

      Emissivity correlations are usually limited to calculations of the CO, and H20 total emissivity. Mathematically, these models appear either in the form of the weighted sum of gray gases model (WSGGM)4-‘5 or in the form of polynomials.‘-3 Existing WSGGM are somewhat less general than the polynomial correlations since coefficients for the WSGGM have to be recalculated for each H20/ CO1 partial pressure ratio. Polynomial correlations such as those of Leckner2 and Modak3 do not feature such shortcomings; they involve many more fitted coefficients (e.g. 48 for each species in Modak’s model) but retain all the generality required to model total emissivity of gas mixtures. Both types of correlations are accurate enough and simple to use in engineering calculations. However, they are often limited to total emissivity calculations in volumes of gas with a mean beam length greater than 1 cm. This section surveys the total emissivity correlations presented in Table 2. Only the models which have been widely applied in CFD modeling of flames and engineering combustion problems are described.

      3.2. Polynomial Approximations
      The two most well-known and general total emissivity correlations using polynomials are those developed by L.eckner2 and Modak.3 Prior to these publications, Hadvig’ derived polynomial expressions to calculate the total emissivity of HzO-CO2 gas mixtures for pW/pC = 1 and pW/pC = 2. However, in view of the limited range of applicability of this model, it is excluded from the assessment in Section 4.

      4. ASSESSMENT OF THE ACCURACY OF SEVERAL TOTAL EMISSIVITY CORRELATIONS (HOMOGENOUS CALCULATIONS)

      4.1. Generalities
      In this section, the exponential wide band model (EWBM)25,26 is used to provide benchmark data to validate the total emissivity models developed by Johnson6 Leckner,2 Taylor and Foster,’ Modak,3 Smith et a1.,13 Coppale and Vervish14 and Steward and Kocaefe” (see Table 2).

    • Richard C (NZ) on November 16, 2012 at 3:54 pm said:

      >”3) The planet is accumulating heat [predominantly in the ocean as per SKS graph]. Solar mechanism, not anthropogenic.”

      Isaac Held’s 2-box model: another failed ocean-equilibration excuse for dismissing solar warming

      by Alec Rawls

      [...] Dr. Isaac Held, who models fluid dynamics at NOAA, dismisses a solar explanation for late 20th century warming by invoking a 2-box model of ocean equilibration. In his model an upper upper ocean layer (100m or so deep) exhibits a rapid temperature response to any increase in radiative forcing (about 4 years), as has been observed for this part of the ocean. So far so good.

      Below sits Held’s second box: the entire rest of the oceans, all modeled as having the same temperature. To see the effect of this highly unrealistic simplification, look at what would happen if an intermediate ocean layer were also modeled, say from 100 to 500 meters in depth. Following a step-up in forcing the rapid temperature response of the upper ocean layer would commence to warm the intermediate ocean layer on some intermediate time scale—from a few decades to a century perhaps—and the decreasing temperature differential between these two layers would decrease the rate of heat loss from the upper layer to the ocean below, causing the upper ocean layer to continue to warm on the decades-to-century time scale.

      This is exactly what Held and others are saying will not happen. Their claim is that the 20th century’s persistent high levels of solar forcing could not have caused continued warming and hence cannot be responsible for late 20th century warming. But these claims always rest on unreliable and often unstated assumptions about ocean equilibration. Held’s assumptions are stated, making his example particularly revealing. His argument against solar warming hinges directly on what is unrealistic about his model.

      [...] Do these people actually think that it is the rate of change in the level of a temperature forcing rather than the level of the forcing that does the forcing?

      [...] This makes FOUR off-the-cuff attempts to support the claim that persistent forcing can’t cause continued warming, all now dead and buried

      1. Mike Lockwood cites Stephen Schwartz’ even more unrealistic one-box model of ocean equilibration.

      2. Solanki and Schuessler argue that, since the solar-temperature correlations they have found are strongest with short time lags, rapid temperature responses are all they have evidence for and need to consider. Wrong. Rapid temperature responses of imply longer period responses (just as the solar warming of the day is evidence that the lengthening of the day will warm the season), especially in a system with large heat sinks.

      3. Muscheler, Schmidt and others point to the pattern of warming. Since temperatures dipped between 1940 and 1970, the oceans must have equilibrated to the high level of solar forcing that began in the 1920s by at least 1940 they suggest, as if the mid-century wiggle in GMAST means there was a similar wiggle in ocean heat content, despite the apparent domination of GMAST by ocean oscillations.

      It is perfectly possible that ocean heat content continued to rise when GMAST dipped and this is what the little heat-content data we have from the mid-20th-century suggests. There was no fall-off in the rate of sea level rise over this period and since surface temperatures were slightly down the melt-rate should not have increased, suggesting that thermal expansion remained steady.

      4. Now add Isaac Held’s 2-box fail.

      [...] GCMs are multi-thousand box models

      If going from 2 to 3 ocean layers changes model behavior so that persistent forcing does cause continued warming on intermediate time scales then a fortiori models with “as many as 30 [ocean] layers” will also exhibit this continued-warming behavior. In full-fledged GCMs convection, ocean currents and even ocean oscillations are all modeled. Heat that gets poured into the oceans for extended periods of time will come back out on similar time scales.

      Have GCM tests with enhanced solar effects been run? There are some strong indications that they have not. In particular, if such tests had been run, and if they supported the claim that that continued strong solar forcing would not cause continued warming, then surely these tests would have been cited by the many scientists who make this claim, but no such citations are ever offered.

      I’m trying to verify now whether these tests have been run and will do a full post on the subject in the future. In the meantime, if anyone has any information about whether GCM models with enhanced solar forcing have been tested and where any results might be found, please email me (alec-at-rawls-dot-org) or leave a note in the comments.

      Conceptually there is no obstacle. Svensmark, for instance, hypothesizes that solar variance might be responsible for a 1% or 2% variation in low cloud cover. Adding this solar response to existing GCMs would be easy. To get the best fit for a given level of cloud effect climate sensitivity would have to be reduced an offsetting amount (which at the same time would reduce the warming effect of CO2). It’s just a matter of actually running the tests.

      It the tests have been run, the lack of citations suggests that the results do not support the “consensus” position. There are three scandalous possibilities. 1) That contrary results were found and are being kept secret. 2) That contrary results were found and are available but are going un-cited because they contradict the statements that many scientists are making. 3) That despite over $100b in public funding for climate research the “consensus” never bothered to test the alternate hypothesis (in the “post-normal science” sense of seeing how well the hypothesis performs in model runs).

      The only innocent possibility is that the IPCC has simply neglected to cite model-tests that support its otherwise unsupported claims that late 20th century warming cannot have been caused by the sun, but that really isn’t possible, not just because the “consensus” doesn’t behave this way, but because no legitimate GCM would behave this way. Persistent high levels of forcing must tend to create continued surface warming on intermediate time scales, and it must take quite some doing for a scientist to convince himself otherwise.

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/15/isaac-helds-2-box-model-another-failed-ocean-equilibration-excuse-for-dismissing-solar-warming/#more-74267

      The inconvenient Alec Rawls.

    • Richard C (NZ) on November 16, 2012 at 7:30 am said:

      Geoscientist explains why man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warming

      Dr. Ole Humlum, Professor of Geosciences at the University of Oslo, has published a summary and reply to comments on his groundbreaking paper demonstrating why man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warming [hotlinked]. Dr. Humlum summarizes the main findings of his paper at a Norwegian website for geologists:

      1. [Observations show] The temperature rise begins at sea level and spreads gradually to the land and atmosphere several months later. This is contrary to the IPCC CO2 hypothesis that atmospheric CO2 controls land and ocean temperature.

      2. The geographical distribution of a CO2 increase doesn’t start at 30-50 degrees North latitude, which one would expect if the source were mainly created by the fossil fuel industry and transport in the Northern Hemisphere. Instead, the increase of CO2 starts just south of the equator. This is contrary to the IPCC hypothesis that use of fossil fuels is the primary cause of increased CO2 levels.

      >>>>>>>>

      http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2012/11/geoscientist-explains-why-man-made-co2.html

    • Brandoch Daha on November 16, 2012 at 7:52 am said:

      Ole Humlum? Give me a break, this is just more typical denier pseudoscience – here’s what real climate scientists have to say about his bovine effluvia:

      Are the rising atmospheric CO2-levels a result of oceans warming up? And does that mean that CO2 has little role in the global warming? Moreover, are the rising levels of CO2 at all related to human activity?

      These are claims made in a fresh publication by Humlum et al. (2012). However, when seeing them in the context of their analysis, they seem to be on par with the misguided notion that the rain from clouds cannot come from the oceans because the clouds are intermittent and highly variable whereas the oceans are just there all the time. I think that the analysis presented in Humlum et al. (2012) is weak on four important accounts: the analysis, the physics, reviewing past literature, and logic.

      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/09/el-ninos-effect-onco2-causes-confusion/

    • Richard C (NZ) on November 16, 2012 at 8:35 am said:

      >”Ole Humlum? Give me a break, this is just more typical denier pseudoscience”

      Pseudoscience?

      The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature

      * Ole Humluma, b,
      * Kjell Stordahlc,
      * Jan-Erik Solheimd

      * a Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1047 Blindern, N-0316 Oslo, Norway
      * b Department of Geology, University Centre in Svalbard (UNIS), P.O. Box 156, N-9171 Longyearbyen, Svalbard, Norway
      * c Telenor Norway, Finance, N-1331 Fornebu, Norway
      * d Department of Physics and Technology, University of Tromsø, N-9037 Tromsø, Norway

      * http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2012.08.008,
      *

      Abstract

      Using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures we investigate the phase relation (leads/lags) between these for the period January 1980 to December 2011. Ice cores show atmospheric CO2 variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millennium scale, but modern temperature is expected to lag changes in atmospheric CO2, as the atmospheric temperature increase since about 1975 generally is assumed to be caused by the modern increase in CO2. In our analysis we use eight well-known datasets; 1) globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO2 data, 2) HadCRUT3 surface air temperature data, 3) GISS surface air temperature data, 4) NCDC surface air temperature data, 5) HadSST2 sea surface data, 6) UAH lower troposphere temperature data series, 7) CDIAC data on release of anthropogene CO2 and [Eight] GWP data on volcanic eruptions. Annual cycles are present in all datasets except 7) and 8), and to remove the influence of these we analyze 12-month averaged data. We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and, 8), but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5-10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes.

      The highlights of the paper are:

      ► The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.

      ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

      ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

      ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

      ► Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

      ► CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

      Figure 1: Annual temperature change of global ocean temperatures, global surface temperature and atmospheric CO2 December 1981 – December 2011. (Blue is the sea surface, red is the global surface temperature, green is CO2 level in the atmosphere). We see that the change in ocean temperatures (blue) occur systematically before changes in CO2 (green).

      http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-C82u1szPSP4/UEAOMpOzYiI/AAAAAAAACp0/yWzxmZPymhg/s400/fig+1.jpg

      Clearer Graph of Figure 1: Global Changes in Atmospheric CO2 Levels Lag Global temperatures

      http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0177447d843a970d-pi

      BTW, I see RC doesn’t address this:-

      2. The geographical distribution of a CO2 increase doesn’t start at 30-50 degrees North latitude, which one would expect if the source were mainly created by the fossil fuel industry and transport in the Northern Hemisphere. Instead, the increase of CO2 starts just south of the equator. This is contrary to the IPCC hypothesis that use of fossil fuels is the primary cause of increased CO2 levels.

    • All you have to show is the positive feedback from water vapour Brandoch. If the evidence for AGW is so ‘overwhelming’ then it shouldn’t be hard. C’mon Brandoch, where is this evidence?

      The fact you call others ‘deniers’ is absolutely hilarious, I can’t help but laugh every time you run away from the debate because you’re too scared that people will find out you, or anyone else for that matter, have no evidence. The truth is we all know you have no evidence already and think your attempts to avoid the truth are hilarious. You come across like the village idiot choking on a chicken bone in your attempts to avoid the issue, and then run away like a little girl when your bluff is called.

      Where’s your evidence Brandoch, you do have some don’t you? Maybe the SkS, NASA, NOAA, IPCC or Royal Society web pages might show evidence of positive water vapour feedback. Maybe ‘Global Warming for Dummies’.

    • Brandoch Daha on November 16, 2012 at 11:37 am said:

      I really have to hand it to you, RC, RT and Magoo, you have turned studied ignorance into an art form.

      Pity about your grandkids, though, as you are effectively defecating onto their little heads.

      Anyway, moving along, where’s Bob D. these days?

      He’s so quiet, maybe he’s finally realised his arithmetic was mistaken ?

    • Richard C (NZ) on November 16, 2012 at 11:41 am said:

      >”…he’s finally realised his arithmetic was mistaken ?”

      You haven’t got the foggiest clue what you’re talking about have you Brando?

      Why don’t lay out the detail of Bob’s “mistaken” “arithmetic” for all the world to see?

      But you can’t can you?

    • Richard C (NZ) on November 16, 2012 at 11:38 am said:

      >”All you have to show is the positive feedback from water vapour Brandoch.”

      He will of course have to indulge in denial to do so Magoo, what with papers like this coming out:-

      Damped summer warming accompanied with cloud cover increase over Eurasia from 1982 to 2009

      Qiuhong Tang and Guoyong Leng 2012 Environ. Res. Lett. 7 014004 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/1/014004

      http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2012/11/new-paper-finds-clouds-cool-climate.html

      Finds that total cloud cover acts as a net negative feedback to cool the climate but when Brando goes to his font of knowledge (SKS) he finds this:-

      What is the net feedback from clouds?

      What the science says…

      Evidence is building that net cloud feedback is likely positive and unlikely to be strongly negative.

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/clouds-negative-feedback.htm

      Hence the dichotomy that Brando is faced with.

    • Brandoch Daha on November 16, 2012 at 11:49 am said:

      Ah, Richard, I think your medication may be wearing off… time to press the button for Nursie!

    • Richard C (NZ) on November 16, 2012 at 11:56 am said:

      Still got nuthin Brando? It would appear so since you’re reverting to irrelevancy and ad hom as usual.

    • Running away again Brandoch? Where’s your evidence, we’re all waiting. Maybe that’s what they do in the country, run away like little girls. C’mon Brandoch, be a man and face up to your challenges and stand by your convictions, or are you going to run away squealing insults like a little girl again? It’s hilarious to watch, all talk with no substance.

    • Mike Jowsey on November 16, 2012 at 5:10 pm said:

      Brando you are a hollow gong. You talk like a clueless twenty-something. I admire you coming here, if only to hurl insults, but I would admire you a lot more if you actually stepped down from your ideological ivory tower and engaged your brain with other questioning minds here. To do otherwise is hollow. I won’t hold my breath though. I would propose that unless you present some evidence of positive feedback materially affecting CO2 sensitivity, then you should go away. Take a holiday. A long one. You won’t be missed. Hollow gongs seldom are.

    • BD,

      Jesus wept, RT, you can find such evidence in any basic text, such as “Global Warming for Dummies”, or you can visit the NASA, NOAA, IPCC or Royal Society web pages, or this one [link to Sceptical Science - wahoo].

      If you’re asserting a man-made cause of global warming, it’s up to you to justify it, not up to us to argue somehow against an unexpressed argument. Do you see what I mean?

      But actually, I’ve read the relevant IPCC sections and their evidence of anthropogenic attribution is weak to derisory. I’ve also examined the Sceptical Science posting and it’s unpersuasive. They say:

      Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity.

      That’s probably right.

      Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths.

      No, that’s problematic. Data is too sparse and the conclusion is strongly disputed.

      Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat.

      No, quite wrong. Oceanic surface heat content rose somewhat for about 16 years to 2004, but for 8 years has been static. Nobody knows the heat content trend of the entire ocean and alarmists who claim it’s rising are just arm-waving. Global surface temperatures display no trend since about 1997 — for 15 years global temperatures have not risen. Please justify your statement.

      So, overall, the IPCC view doesn’t prove either increasing temperatures or increased heat content. It shows a correlation between increasing CO2 levels and increasing global surface temperature towards the end of the last century, but a correlation does not, never did, and never will prove causation.

      As a curious piece of confirmation for this, there’s an interesting graph from Jo Nova showing quite good correlation between global warming and US postal prices over the last hundred and thirty years. But nobody seriously thinks they’re actually related.

      You don’t think I’ll even try to investigate your claims, since you deny there’s evidence for our assertions. You say:

      But you won’t, of course, because you already “know” that it’s all just a hoax that only you, and your fellow geniuses can see through.

      This psychological phenomenon is known as “denial”, but it is really no different from a child with their fingers in their ears, shouting “La la la la, I can’t hear you!”.

      Yet, where is your evidence?

      Hoax? No, there’s been no warming, and that’s enough to argue your claims. To present this as your argument in an adult forum is more peurile than I can describe. Your incompetence is breathtaking. Play elsewhere, sir.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Post Navigation