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
Leave a Reply

avatar
4 Comment threads
49 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
8 Comment authors
Mike JowseyMagooAndySimonRichard C (NZ) Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Stanley
Guest
Stanley

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.

Richard Treadgold
Guest

Exactly.

I like:

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

Simon
Guest
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?
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)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

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.

Brandoch Daha
Guest
Brandoch Daha

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??

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

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… Read more »

Simon
Guest
Simon

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)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Tahakopa NZUs are the issue in question.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

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?

Simon
Guest
Simon

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)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”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… Read more »

Richard Treadgold
Guest

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… Read more »

Richard Treadgold
Guest

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?

Simon
Guest
Simon

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?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

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… Read more »

Richard Treadgold
Guest

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)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”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… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”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)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”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:-

https://www.climateconversation.org.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.

Brandoch Daha
Guest
Brandoch Daha

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.

Andy
Guest
Andy

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”

Simon
Guest
Simon

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
Guest
Brandoch Daha

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….

Richard Treadgold
Guest

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)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

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?

Andy
Guest
Andy

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)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

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.

Brandoch Daha
Guest
Brandoch Daha

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!”.

Andy
Guest
Andy

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

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

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

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.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

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

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

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/

Brandoch Daha
Guest
Brandoch Daha

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/

Brandoch Daha
Guest
Brandoch Daha

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)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”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… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”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… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”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?

Simon
Guest
Simon

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.

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

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’.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”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… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

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

Brandoch Daha
Guest
Brandoch Daha

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)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”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.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”…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?

Brandoch Daha
Guest
Brandoch Daha

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

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

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

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

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.

Simon
Guest
Simon

$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.

Simon
Guest
Simon

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.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”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)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”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… Read more »

Mike Jowsey
Guest
Mike Jowsey

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.

Richard Treadgold
Guest

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… Read more »

Post Navigation