University-educated but doesn’t do science

This today from Barry Brill, who saw it on Scoop.

Law student sues climate minister over poor emissions targets

A 24-year-old Hamilton woman is suing the Government over its emissions reduction targets, saying they do not go far enough to tackle climate change.

Sarah Thomson, who just completed a law degree at the University of Waikato, has just filed judicial review proceedings against the Minister for Climate Change Issues. She claims that Tim Groser has failed his ministerial duties by not setting emissions targets that reflect the scientific consensus on climate change.

The High Court will now be asked to review the legality and reasonableness of New Zealand’s emissions targets.

Sarah, you’re poorly informed. Just two significant facts will spoil the case you want to bring.

  • The consensus does not exist.
  • All the emissions targets in the world won’t noticeably lower the temperature.

A recent study utilising the same computer tool used by the IPCC concluded:

All climate policies by the US, China, the EU and the rest of the world, implemented from the early 2000s to 2030 and sustained through the century, will likely reduce global temperature rise about 0.17°C in 2100.

There is much more than this. You should start studying the matter before the truth comes to ruin your crusade.

31 Thoughts on “University-educated but doesn’t do science

  1. At least she is not hiding behind a dodgy Trust that liquidates prior to paying court costs.

  2. Richard Treadgold on November 13, 2015 at 10:42 am said:

    Simon,

    Nobody was hiding and the trust was not dodgy but required by the judge. As I have explained to you before, the judge would have been extremely annoyed had a body with no legal existence brought a suit before his Court. We paid all our costs but the punitive award of the opposition’s costs against a group of citizen whistle-blowers was unprecedented and unpredicted. Please don’t tell falsehoods after you’ve been given the truth.

  3. Simon: So tell me, where do we all apply to get our money back when the climate change extortion finally comes to an end? Will you refund us, or will you run and hide?

  4. Richard C (NZ) on November 13, 2015 at 12:44 pm said:

    >”She [Sarah Thomson] claims that Tim Groser has failed his ministerial duties by not setting emissions targets that reflect the scientific consensus on climate change.”

    Should be:

    “the [political] consensus on climate change”

    The IPCC’s scientific conjecture that man moves the earth’s energy balance has not been observed in reality.

    Groser could set a target of eradicating human existence from New Zealand (including Sarah Thomson) and, if actioned, it would have no effect on climate change whatsoever.

  5. Richard C (NZ) on November 13, 2015 at 1:08 pm said:

    [NZ Herald] – Law expert: student’s case a strong one – partly

    University of Otago public law lecturer Marcelo Rodriguez-Ferrere said the first part of Ms Thomson’s argument was a strong one, although the second was much weaker.

    “She’s right in that section 225(3)(a) of the Climate Change Response Act 2002 appears to impose a mandatory duty on the Minister to review emissions targets every time the IPCC releases a report, and if the Minister hasn’t, then that’s a breach of this section and the Court could require the Minister to review the target,” he said.

    “I should note that the court does not have the ability to substitute its own view as to what the target should be, just the power to require the Minister to follow the appropriate process.”

    However, the second part did not appear to be as strong, he said. New Zealand’s INDC was a provisional commitment tabled with the UN, which would be submitted at the Paris negotiations.

    “This commitment is not governed by New Zealand domestic law and is instead part of New Zealand’s international relations, which the court is very, very reluctant to intervene in.”

    Essentially, he said, it was very similar to any international negotiations conducted by the Government.

    “The Government has a prerogative power to conduct and engage in those negotiations, and while Parliament has the final word in ratifying any subsequent agreement that arises from those negotiations, the negotiations themselves aren’s subject to any particular legal oversight.

    “Certainly, the Court cannot require the minister to set targets that are consistent with what the scientific consensus says needs to be done to avoid the disastrous consequences of climate change as there is no legal requirement on the Minister to do so.”

    Auckland University associate professor of law Ken Palmer was not aware of anything in the Climate Change Response Act that required a particular outcome from the Government.

    “Further, unlike the Dutch situation, there is nothing in the New Zealand Constitution requiring the government to take action on climate change or protect the environment or to commit itself and others to certain reductions in green house gas emissions.

    “Those targets are policy matters for the government, which could not be the subject of Court intervention on judicial review.

    “The action may be a strategy for placing pressure on the Government but I would expect that it would not succeed.”

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11544334

    # # #

    Gee, the Minister didn’t “review” emissions targets after AR5. He’s a bad man.

    AR5 was just a rehash of AR4. Critical TOA theory not applied to observations (“hiatus” and model discrepancy was addressed in Chapter 9 though), political override of deficiencies and uncertainties.

    What was there to review if the AR5 shortcomings were to be ignored?

  6. If she is not hiding behind a trust fund, as Simon outs it, how is paying for this?

    Furthermore, I hope she outlines what outcome she would like for NZ should she win her case. Do we all, as taxpayers, need to pay the costs to her? Do we all need to pay more for all products as a result of green taxes?

  7. Richard C (NZ) on November 14, 2015 at 9:49 am said:

    >”She [Sarah Thomson] claims that Tim Groser has failed his ministerial duties by not setting emissions targets that reflect the scientific consensus on climate change.”

    Going by this review of the science Groser’s Ministerial position is redundant, emissions targets not required:

    ‘Even the ‘lukewarmer’ position on global warming has become untenable on the basis of both observations & theory’

    THS, Thursday, November 5, 2015

    1. Lindzen & Choi papers based on ERBE satellite observations showed sensitivity (to doubled CO2 levels) of only ~0.18C

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/01/new-paper-confirms-findings-of-lindzen.html

    2. Dr. David Evans has shown, using the same flawed radiative model of the IPCC as the basis, that “The ECS might be almost zero, is likely less than 0.25 °C”

    http://joannenova.com.au/2015/11/new-science-18-finally-climate-sensitivity-calculated-at-just-one-tenth-of-official-estimates/

    3. Kimoto has shown climate sensitivity is ~.15-.2C due to the IPCC false assumptions of a fixed lapse rate and a mathematical error in calculating the Planck feedback parameter:

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/search?q=kimoto

    4 Volokin et al have shown that planetary surface temperatures are a function of solar insolation and surface pressure only, not greenhouse gas concentrations, on all 8 planets for which we have adequate data, including Earth & Venus.

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/search?q=volokin

    5. The surface temperature and tropospheric temperature profile can easily be derived from physical first principles including the 1st LoT, Ideal Gas Law, Poisson Equation, Newton’s 2nd Law, and Stefan-Boltzmann Law for solar forcing only, and without greenhouse gas “radiative forcing,” and perfectly replicates the verified 1976 US Standard Atmosphere. Thus, once again, sensitivity to CO2 is mathematically proven to be essentially zero.

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/search?q=greenhouse+equation

    6. Convection dominates radiative-convective equilibrium in the troposphere by a factor of ~8X, and increased greenhouse gases accelerate convection, thereby erasing any alleged cold-heats-hot greenhouse gas radiative effects on the surface.

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/08/why-greenhouse-gases-accelerate.html

    7. Many other climate sensitivity estimates have concluded climate sensitivity is effectively zero, or so close to zero as to be unmeasurable and negligible. [hotlink]

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/11/even-lukewarmer-position-on-global.html

    I would have another point which relegates all others, that is:

    1. The IPCC reports the earth’s energy balance at TOA, the primary criteria for climate change according to the IPCC, is 0.6 W.m-2 and trendless (AR5 Chap 2). Theoretical CO2 forcing is now 1.9 W.m-2 and increasing, net theoretical anthropogenic forcing is approaching 3 W.m-2. Clearly the man-made climate change theory is invalid.

    # # #

    Sarah Thomson would be clueless about all this of course, doesn’t do science.

  8. Richard C (NZ) on November 14, 2015 at 10:06 am said:

    Good news on sea level lunacy:

    ‘An Outbreak Of Sanity Down Under’

    Written by Dr. Benny Peiser, GWPF, guest post on 13 November 2015.

    The Australian is reporting that the New South Wales government has suddenly come over all sensible on the subject of sea-level rise. This is of course precisely the approach recommended by Carter and de Lange in their GWPF report on the subject. –Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill, 13 November 2015

    The NSW government will today unveil sweeping changes to how the state’s coastline is managed, building on its insistence that local councils look at the science and evidence of individual beaches rather than blindly adopting UN predictions of climate change. Planning Minister Rob Stokes will announce what he says are world-first strategies that treat the 2007km NSW coast not as static fixed geography but as a constantly changing and evolving phenomenon. The initiatives mark the second phase of the Coalition government’s demolition of the previous Labor government’s policy, which among other things directed local councils on the coast to enforce the climate change and sea level rise predictions of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. –Ean Higgins, The Australian, 13 November 2015

    So far as I am aware, this is the first time that a serving Western cabinet minister has ever publicly rejected the advice of the IPCC in such an abrupt fashion as this. The new and sensible policy of treating the coastal zone as a geomorphically active one and in insisting on the application of empirical data at specific locations (rather than generalized computer model projections) for planning and management purposes, the NSW government is following almost to the letter the advice contained in two [of our] reports. In the Australian context, this is also a major defeat for the CSIRO, whose consistently alarmist advice on sea-level change has entirely depended upon semi-empirical, homogenized-data-input computer projections that have now been flatly rejected. As this sea-level example shows, ultimately empiricism (and adaptation rather than “stop global warming”) is going to win through. –Bob Carter, Bishop Hill, 13 November 2015

    http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/an-outbreak-of-sanity-down-under.html

    ‘An outbreak of sanity’ – Bishop Hill

    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2015/11/13/an-outbreak-of-sanity.html/

  9. Richard C (NZ) on November 14, 2015 at 11:53 am said:

    >”All climate policies by the US, China, the EU and the rest of the world, implemented from the early 2000s to 2030 and sustained through the century, will likely reduce global temperature rise about 0.17°C in 2100.”

    ‘Lomborg: Paris climate pact will reduce temperature increase by the end of the century by a whopping 0.05°C’

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/10/lomborg-paris-climate-pact-will-reduce-temperature-increase-by-the-end-of-the-century-by-a-whopping-0-05c/

  10. Richard C (NZ) on November 14, 2015 at 12:08 pm said:

    13-YEAR-OLD FILES LAWSUIT OVER ‘CLIMATE CHANGE’ – SAYS GORE ‘INSANELY INSPIRED ME’

    The Raleigh teen wants North Carolina to commit to reducing carbon dioxide emissions by at least 4 percent each year.

    13-year old Hallie Turner: ‘I read Al Gore’s book, ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, and that just insanely inspired me and opened my eyes to how big of an issue it was.’ – ‘I was inspired me to take action because of that.’ – Turner has a ‘passion for climate justice.’

    Via Climate Depot http://abc11.com/1082955/

  11. Richard C (NZ) on November 14, 2015 at 12:10 pm said:

    ‘Kids Derail $900 Million Development Project in Cancún’

    Young environmentalists in Mexico have permanently suspended the development of a 69-hectare project in Cancún that would have cleared a large chunk of a mangrove forest, Quartz reports.

    In September, 113 kid activists filed a lawsuit to halt construction of the $900 million project that would have paved over a mangrove-covered area for homes, shops and a promenade.

    “If we cut everything down then we’re going to die,” Ana, a four-year-old plaintiff, told Quartz. “Trees help us breathe.”

    On Nov. 4, a judge ruled in favor of the group of children, but said they should pay a bond of 21 million pesos (about $1.2 million) to offset the developers’ losses. The group’s attorneys have argued that the bond should not apply to minors.

    http://ecowatch.com/2015/11/13/kids-derail-development-cancun/

  12. Richard C (NZ) on November 14, 2015 at 8:14 pm said:

    American Meteorological Society: Investigating NOAA’s Dodgy Scientists Is ‘Intimidation’

    by James Delingpole, 7 Nov 2015

    The American Meteorological Society has weighed into the debate on the climate fraud allegedly committed by scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    It thinks that NOAA’s dodgy, data-fudging, parti-pris scientists should be allowed to go on spending taxpayers’ money on green propaganda unimpeded by the scrutiny of pesky skeptics like Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX).

    Here’s how the AMS’s executive director, Keith L Seitter, puts it in an open letter to the congressman:

    “Singling out specific research studies, and implicitly questioning the integrity of the researchers conducting those studies, can be viewed as a form of intimidation that could deter scientists from freely carrying out research on important national challenges.”

    The reason for this, he goes on to “explain”, is that scientists who work for public institutions such as NOAA are a bit like a cross between Einstein, St Francis of Assisi and Joan of Arc, only, obviously more brilliant, saintly, self-sacrificial and nobly dedicated to the furtherance of human knowledge

    Continues (as only Dellingpole can)>>>>>>
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/07/american-meteorological-society-investigating-noaas-dodgy-scientists-intimidation/

  13. Richard C (NZ) on November 15, 2015 at 9:01 am said:

    French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius:

    “Climate change is a threat to peace” and a greater threat than terrorism [hotlink].

    “Terrorism is significant, but naked hunger is as significant as terrorism,” Fabius said in a speech last month. “And the relationship between terrorist activities and naked hunger are obvious. If you look at the vectors of recruitment into terrorist cells, most of the most vulnerable are hunger-prone areas.”

    http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/14/france-says-its-essential-to-fight-global-warming-in-wake-of-paris-terror-attacks/

    I was waiting for this wondering how the conflation would be twisted.

    Didn’t expect “naked hunger” though. Very inventive.

  14. COP21 should be a bundle of laughs. I’ve been in Europe for less than 48 hours and it feels like Western Civilization is ending.

  15. Richard C (NZ) on November 15, 2015 at 9:24 am said:

    Daily Caller:

    “[Islamic State] Gunmen yelling “Allahu Akbar” and “this is for Syria” attacked six locations across the city, using firearms and explosives to inflict destruction and chaos on unsuspecting innocents.”

    Salon Mag:

    “After Paris, let’s stop blaming Muslims and take a hard look at ourselves”

  16. Richard C (NZ) on November 15, 2015 at 9:36 am said:

    EPA ADMINISTRATOR GINA MCCARTHY:

    “I think if you go up to anybody in the military who’s been paying attention as well, they will tell you that one of the biggest challenges to national security is the challenge of climate change.”

    In comments at Climate Depot:

    Duke Silver • 6 hours ago

    That’s funny. I asked 3 soldiers yesterday – 1 on AD and 2 NG – they all admitted they had been briefed to say that CC is a threat. They also know it’s not true and constitutes indoctrination or political posturing. They all feel ISIS is the threat. If only our pres were as savvy as these 20 year old kids.
    I hope Gina isn’t believing that our soldiers are as dumb as the line she’s been feeding them…..

    http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/13/epa-chief-ask-any-u-s-soldier-and-they-will-tell-you-climate-change-is-major-national-security-threat/#comment-2359659990

  17. Richard Treadgold on November 15, 2015 at 10:27 am said:

    Andy,

    it feels like Western Civilization is ending.

    In some ways it’s carrying on as it has always done. Stay safe, my friend.

  18. Mike Jowsey on November 15, 2015 at 4:00 pm said:

    “After Paris, let’s stop blaming Muslims and take a hard look at ourselves” I’m sorry, WTF???? How about the muslims start globally condemning these medieval retards? The 500 Parisians murdered and injured by these neanderthals don’t need to take a hard look at themselves. The only thing we should be taking a hard look at is the open-door, no-questions-asked immigration policies of the EU.

  19. Alexander K on November 15, 2015 at 4:55 pm said:

    Simon, when I was a young agricultural worker I would have called someone such as yourself who makes nasty and groundless accusations a nasty bugger.
    Now I’m out the other end of the system and seen a few decades of life, I can only come to one conclusion – that you really are a nasty bugger; smearing others without any evidence whatsoever is unforgivably nasty.

  20. Salon Mag is one of these leftist self loathing moral relativist rags that I can’t read without spiking my blood pressure.

    Mike Jowsey is spot on above. I started reading “The Polically a Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades” by Robert Spencer, about 12 hours before the attacks.

    But off topic, sorry.

  21. The awarding of costs were very predictable (Category 2 Time Band C) and should have been expected. This level would only have compensated NIWA for direct legal costs and not the wasted time of internal staff.
    Everybody is entitled to their day in court, but if you lose, you pay your dues.

  22. Do you work for the government, Simon?

  23. Richard Treadgold on November 16, 2015 at 7:03 am said:

    Simon,

    The awarding of costs were [sic] very predictable (Category 2 Time Band C) and should have been expected.

    Where costs are to be awarded, the judge must follow certain prescribed and predictable levels, which, as you say, would be aimed to compensate only for direct legal costs. Staff time spent answering our queries was not wasted but put to its prime use. For what other reason does the department (these days we call it a state-owned enterprise but that’s only a name change) exist? But, as I said, this was the first time citizen whistle-blowers had been required to pay costs against a government department. Who could have predicted such a deep level of judicial prejudice? You seem intent on distorting the truth.

  24. Richard Treadgold on November 16, 2015 at 7:08 am said:

    Andy,

    But off topic, sorry.

    Never mind. Rules are meant to be broken. Such as the rule not to do any blogging with only a week to go before the truck arrives. Now, only three full days left. Back to the packing!

  25. Richard C (NZ) on November 16, 2015 at 9:26 am said:

    Simon

    >”if you lose, you pay your dues”

    The NZCSC’s Statistical Audit, ignored in court by Geoffrey Venning, is now in the scientific literature as de Freitas et al. (2015).

    NIWA cannot match this and has obstructed FOI requests to do so.

    Who lost in the long run? NiWA.

    Who is paying their dues? NIWA has lost all credibility, that’s a high price.

  26. Richard C (NZ) on November 16, 2015 at 10:37 am said:

    Probably insensitive at this time (not to mention off topic) but I think France has brought this on themselves over decades via colonization and resettlement, ISIS has just taken a path of least resistance. There are now 4.7 million Muslims in France, 7.5% of the population (4.8 million Muslims in Germany, 5.8%) and entire neighbourhoods for rebellion to fester,

    Now of course Leftist idiots and Eco nut-cases are linking the attacks to climate change, OPEC oil, and COP21:

    Bernie Sanders, US Dem candidate – “In fact, climate change is directly related to the rise of global terrorism”

    http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/14/sanders-doubles-down-climate-change-is-directly-related-to-the-rise-of-global-terrorism/

    Oliver Tickell of The Ecologist – “Were Paris attacks ‘in any way motivated by a desire to scupper a strong climate agreement at UN climate summit] COP21?’. ‘Failure to reach a strong climate agreement now looks more probable. And that’s an outcome that would suit ISIS – which makes $500m a year from oil sales – together with other oil producers.’ Tickell asked, is “ISIS Inc defending its corporate interests?”

    http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/14/climate-activists-suggest-paris-terror-attacks-linked-to-isis-opec-attempt-to-kill-un-climate-treaty-raise-oil-prices/

    # # #

    “You never let a serious crisis go to waste” – Rahm Emanuel

  27. Richard C (NZ) on November 16, 2015 at 11:52 am said:

    Reasons for the Paris attacks according to ISIS press release:

    #1 “In the name of Allah”

    #2 “[Paris] the capital abomination and perversion”

    #3 “[France] carrying the banner of the cross in Europe”

    #4 “idolaters” partying in “perversity”

    #5 “disbelievers”

    #6 “dared insult our Prophet”

    #7 “f!ghting Islam in France”

    #8 “[France] strike the land of the Caliphate Muslims with their planes”

    http://slumz.boxden.com/f5/nov-14-the-official-isis-press-release-regarding-the-paris-campagne-2282664/

    # # #

    I see nothing regarding climate change, oil prices, or COP21.

  28. Richard C (NZ) on November 17, 2015 at 8:44 am said:

    Update on Lamar Smith’s investigation of NOAA and Karl et al (2015).

    ‘Climate scientists to be grilled by congressional investigators, but their e-mails are still off-limits’

    “We are just trying to fully understand the full context of the decision-making process,” a Republican committee aide said of the demand for correspondence.

    “Smith has another card to play if he doesn’t get what he wants. He could hold Sullivan in contempt of Congress and ask the full House to vote on it.”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/11/16/climate-scientists-to-be-grilled-by-congressional-investigators-but-their-e-mails-are-still-off-limits/

  29. Richard C (NZ) on November 20, 2015 at 12:51 pm said:

    Whistleblowers Claim NOAA Rushed Contentious ‘Pause’ Buster Study Despite Reservations

    Links to Washington post article below.

    http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/19/whistleblowers-claim-noaa-rushed-contentious-pause-buster-study-despite-reservations/

    Congressman now threatens to subpoena commerce secretary over global warming report

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/11/18/congressional-climate-change-skeptic-threatens-to-subpoena-commerce-secretary-to-get-noaa-documents/

  30. James Hansen is now supporting our climate heroine

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/74385754/former-nasa-scientist-backs-kiwi-womans-climate-change-lawsuit-against-govt

    Good on them! Hopefully they will ban climate activists from flying to NZ.
    Or out of it, for that matter.

    Apparently Paris will host 40,000 delegates at a cost of 150 million Euros, approx. Hosted at a private jet airport too.

    Never heard of Skype, like us plebs?

  31. On ‘D12’, we will draw our red lines in Paris

    John Jordan writes on the climate justice movement’s call for mass disobedience in Paris on 12 December, and beyond
    http://www.redpepper.org.uk/on-d12-we-will-draw-our-red-lines-in-paris/

    “Mass civil disobedience” and “red lines” seem a little inappropriate after the Paris massacres, but obviously “climate change” trumps mere mass murder by Islamic supremacists.

Leave a Reply

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

Post Navigation