A High Court forenoon

A group of unknown people protested our case this morning at the High Court. Although they handed out copies of this amusing letter they remain unidentified. I wonder who they are?

They single out two leading members of the NZ Climate Science Coalition: Honorary Secretary Terry Dunleavy and Energy Spokesman Bryan Leyland.

Letter from Flat Earth Society

 

An Open Letter and Appeal to Lords Terence Dunleavy and Bryan Leyland of the Climate Science Education Trust

On this day 16 July in the year 2012 in the Northern Township of Auckland, Middle Earth

On the Occasion of the Lords’ Good Endeavours to Strike Down the temperature muddlings of the Dark Lords of the National Institution of Water and Atmosphere in the High Court of our Land

Hear Ye Honourable and Esteemed Lords of Middle Earth

We of the Flat Earth Society would like to extend to you a hand of friendship and solidarity… etc., etc.

Click for page two

 

 

It’s an attractive, fairly consistent piece of wordsmithing, almost worthy of former ages that valued speech for its beauty before its utility. In a sensible society, entirely the right way around.

But although they provided a moment of light relief it’s a great pity they’re under so many delusions, not least that the Coalition is intent on demolishing the notion of global warming under the persistent power of its denial of truth.

Pish-tosh: of course we’re not.

For one thing, the NZ temperature record says little about global warming other than claiming (under the influence of NIWA) that we had 50% more of it than the rest of the globe. Really?

For another, we’re asking for more accuracy, not less. We’re asking the judge to agree there are flaws in the national temperature record and to require NIWA to fix them.

Finally, if these protesters really are the Flat Earth Society as they claim, we are the intelligent minority pointing out to them its proper shape. They should give up their beloved, familiar flatness and embrace the cool new rotundity of the natural globe.


I spent just over two hours observing in court today and it was a fairly technical period so I won’t bore you with an account. Tomorrow morning should be more interesting, when Terry Sissons, counsel for the Climate Science Educational Trust (CSET), sums up and then NIWA’s counsel kicks off its defence.


To my knowledge, the court case has been mentioned at the following places:

NZ Herald
Radio NZ
Otago Daily Times

26 Thoughts on “A High Court forenoon

  1. Mike Jowsey on July 17, 2012 at 3:50 am said:

    Also mentioned at:
    GWPF
    and a good background article from Nov-2009 at Examiner.com
    A brief mention at Newstalk ZB
    A good coverage on Radio NZ (2min soundclip)

  2. Mike Jowsey on July 17, 2012 at 4:29 am said:

    For all the wailing and gnashing of teeth over this court case by the warmistas (e.g. over at Hot Topic), they fail to see that all this case demands is accuracy by the scientists. They might giggle and call us names for making such a demand, but they are blind to the benefits to everyone for the questioning of the accuracy that NZCSC is doing. From such questioning, the result should be a stronger confidence in the unbiased accuracy of NZ7SS.

  3. Alexander K on July 17, 2012 at 8:59 am said:

    OT I know, but I have have not been able to access this conversation for the last few days, but have been directed to an uninformative almost-blank page. Very frustrating, as reading CC is an important part of my daily mental exercise.

  4. Richard C (NZ) on July 17, 2012 at 10:15 am said:

    I just wish I had the time and resources the Flat Earth Society has then I could sit in on the hearing.

    The FHS could do themselves a favour by sitting in too if they’ve got time to burn.

    You wouldn’t bore me with the details RT, this is a landmark hearing and the more the better. I’m just wondering if the Statistical Audit is the central plank and whether the statistician that was engaged for it (as I understand) will give evidence and be examined?

  5. Alexander – I had a similar problem accessing this site. I think there was a configuration change (IP address maybe) on the server end. I ended up clearing all my cache and temporary files in Firefox and the problem went away

  6. Mike Jowsey on July 17, 2012 at 11:20 am said:

    I agree RC – a landmark case. Go for it RT! All the details please. There is a lot of interest world-wide in this.

  7. val majkus on July 17, 2012 at 2:50 pm said:

    We’re keeping a keen eye on the case in Aust Richard
    Good luck

  8. Richard C (NZ) on July 17, 2012 at 3:35 pm said:

    Answering my own question, it looks like it would be Bob D under the pump.

    From his Affidavit http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/dedekind%20affidavit%20scan.pdf

    Bob forwarded the Audit to THREE separate consulting statisticians for peer-review, all three responding that the documents were correct with minor adjustments (good move Bob).

    Also

    INDEX OF EXHIBITS PRODUCED BY THE PLAINTIFF

    http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/index%20of%20exhibits.pdf

    And

    FIRST AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM
    APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
    1 July 2011

    http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/amended%20soc.pdf

    Was this re-filed last minute?

    Can’t find ‘Statistical Audit of the NIWA 7-Station Review’ in all of this from NSCSC here:-

    http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=14&Itemid=47

    Nothing in the Revised SOC about it.

  9. Richard C (NZ) on July 17, 2012 at 3:40 pm said:

    Ah, ‘Statistical Audit of the NIWA 7-Station Review’ is Exhibit A67 from Bob’s Affidavit

    Titled,

    ‘Audit of NIWA review of 7SS’

  10. Richard C (NZ) on July 17, 2012 at 3:46 pm said:

    Gareth Renowden at Hot Topic is complaining NZCSET “….has made no discernible efforts to act as an “educational trust””.

    They’re educating NIWA Gareth.

  11. Richard C (NZ) on July 17, 2012 at 4:46 pm said:

    The guts of it (the Audit), last page 33:-

    Error Analysis

    The most significant error in the NIWA method is the failure to base each adjustment on the clearly-defined confidence levels as specified on page 904 of R&S (emphasis added):

    R&S Criteria in box

    In other words, one can only adjust a station record up or down if one has first demonstrated that the comparative difference in monthly values is significant at the 95% confidence level.

    NIWA have shown no indication that they have even performed error analyses on these adjustments to date, and they appear not to have used any technique whatsoever in determining whether an adjustment should or shouldn’t be made. This means the NIWA method appears to be 100% open to Type I (false positive) errors, since no attempt has been made to prevent them.

    Why is this important? In the 7-station series, the ‘noisiness’ of temperature values can cause apparent shifts at times when no site change occurred.

    To illustrate the point, we performed an R&S shift analysis for a period when we knew no site change occurred: Hokitika Aero on 1 June 1970 (chosen at random). We used the same neighbouring stations as the 1967 shift check.

    The result obtained for k=1 was 0.21 ± 0.50 °C, and for k=2 the result was 0.28 ± 0.35 °C. According to R&S, this result is not significant at the 95% confidence level, and so (correctly) no adjustment should be made.

    NIWA, on the other hand, would in this case have made the adjustment of (0.21 + 0.28)/2 = 0.25°C to all pre- June 1970 temperatures simply because they didn’t calculate the correct monthly comparison confidence limits, or use them to determine the validity of their adjustments. This of course would greatly influence the trend of the whole series.

    https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/docs/Statistical%20Audit%20of%20the%20NIWA%207-Station%20Review%20Aug%202011.pdf

  12. One of the ignorami at HT commented “A week?! What are they going to talk about for a week?” Looking over the Statement and Index of Exhibits, I am amazed that anybody thinks they can get through it in only a week. There has been some serious strategy and preparation put into this hearing. Richard T’s piece “Are we feeling wamer yet?” is one of the exhibits 😉

    I can’t wait for a daily despatch from RT….

    (Many thanks Richard C for digging this stuff out – brilliant!)

  13. Richard C (NZ) on July 17, 2012 at 6:26 pm said:

    Yes, I shook my head a little when I saw that. It was “billr” here

    Greenpeace cindy was full of questions, although somewhat contradictorally. Apparently she doubts Justice Venning’s expertise:-

    I don’t think NIWA ever moved to have the case struck out, did they? That would have been the most sensible thing to do in the first instance. Was there ever a case to answer?

    What expertise does Venning have to be able to adjudicate? This is a highly technical case – does he get scientific advice? How does he guage the veracity of Bob Carter’s affadavit, for example?

    More than a little contemptuous I would have thought.

    Amoeba did some sliming:-

    …but is there not a legitimate method to dismiss this as a frivolous and vexatious case?

    At least, here’s hoping. I would dearly like Treadgold and his associated societal parasites to be taken to the cleaners.

    Ouch.

    Cheers Mike.

  14. Mike Jowsey on July 17, 2012 at 6:53 pm said:

    LOL – and they are doing so to improve the trust!

  15. Richard C (NZ) on July 17, 2012 at 7:00 pm said:

    Gareth in legal mode:-

    The law does not concern itself with trifles, and the minutiae of the techniques used to homogenise temperature records to account for site moves and instrument changes is nothing if not trifling with respect to the climatological big picture.

    That would be Gareth’s law of course.

    Gareth in warm mode:-

    New Zealand and the world have warmed significantly over the last 150 years, of that there is no doubt, and no amount of legal action will make warming go away

    Yep, warming firmly fixed in his warmist mind.

  16. Mike Jowsey on July 17, 2012 at 7:11 pm said:

    They are total twits. I mean, the article itself conflates strawmen with unrelated strawmen. The title talks about asses, but the article omits attribution to a particular side. Or is it both sides? Or is the Law an ass? I dunno.

    “Since Richard Treadgold first launched his shonky assault on reasonable questions about the NZ temperature record, NIWA scientists have worked hard to explain conceal their methods.”
    – There, fixed.

  17. I’m sorry you had a problem, which I guess was caused by my service provider. I had some trouble with my emails, but not accessing the site. At least it’s gone away. Thanks for reporting it.

  18. Mike Jowsey on July 17, 2012 at 7:32 pm said:

    I actually am wondering if Gareth has bothered to read the Statement or other background. He seems blissfully unaware of the arguments Barry Brill outlines. They are compelling prima facie and it will take the best, most highly (tax-) paid legal minds in the land to dispel the notions that NIWA have not followed best scientific practice, have not had the public’s interest foremost, and cannot replicate the machinations of their NZ warming trend. But, Gareth is already casting aspersions on the whole game, as if it was completely frivolous – who needs to question the real scientists anyway – they know and love what they are doing. Let the rabble eat cake.

  19. I encourage you to keep up the analysis of tenable comments on our court action, and it would be terrific to keep the conversation on an intellectual level. We should listen and comment where it’s worth our effort, but when they offer trivialities, we can decline to pick them up, so ownership is not transferred. Please!

  20. Mike Jowsey on July 17, 2012 at 7:38 pm said:

    OK fair comment, sorry I got caught in the front of the ruck….. But WHAT NEWS?

  21. That was a general comment, Mike, not aimed at you. I’m writing the update now!! 🙂

  22. Richard C (NZ) on July 17, 2012 at 9:02 pm said:

    That would be what Bob D outlines wouldn’t it Mike? You’ve linked to his Affidavit.

    Something to ponder is that there are about 6 supporting references to peer-reviewed papers in Bob’s Affidavit and the same will also support the Audit I think. Those papers are not “Exhibits produced by the Plaintiff” from what I can gather so how does the court address them?

    I doubt the judge would have looked them up and read them (although he may have) but they are an integral part of the NZCSET case. NIWA will also have to counter those papers somehow so they might be examined at some stage (esp R&S) but how? Bob sure knows his stuff when it comes to scientific references so if he got a grilling I guess he could come up with the goods.

    I would have thought those papers would have been listed as evidence.

    BTW Mike, sorry you had to take the heat (Ha!) – but it was worth it (for me anyway). Hopefully this comment will make intellectual recompense.

  23. Mike Jowsey on July 18, 2012 at 8:13 pm said:

    Sorry mate – wrong link. The edit function had timed out before I could fix it. Doh!

  24. Mike Jowsey on July 18, 2012 at 8:17 pm said:

    They’re addicts Richard! (/sarc… me pot – you kettle)

Leave a Reply

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

Post Navigation