Ethics breach by Renwick and Naish – shock Royal Society probe

NZ Climate Science Coalition announcement

The Royal Society of New Zealand has confirmed the commencement in accordance with its rules of a process to consider a complaint by several of its members that two Victoria University academics, Professors James Renwick and Tim Naish, have breached the society’s Code of Ethics in their public programme of lectures throughout the country entitled “Ten Things You Didn’t Know About Climate Change”.

In support of their complaint, the complainants forwarded a paper by a distinguished expatriate New Zealand scientist, Professor Michael J. Kelly, of Cambridge University. Professor Kelly had written: “This paper was prepared as a direct result of the ‘Ten things you didn’t know about climate change…’ initiative of the Royal Society of New Zealand and Victoria University, in order to provide some analysis of the real world data as opposed to climate projections.”  Professor Kelly, FRS, FREng, a physicist, who has been since 2002 the Prince Philip Professor of Technology at Cambridge University, sent the paper to the Ministry of the Environment on the understanding that the next steps were in their hands, and he shared it with the complainants as a matter of common concern to engineers.

Referring to the advertisement by Victoria University about the 10-point programme, showing a flooded Lambton Quay in Wellington, Professor Kelly wrote: “The recent pictures of waters lapping at Parliament Building are meretricious and arguably actionable if not explicitly accompanied by a reality statement of qualification. To the extent that people think that urgent actions now will prevent such a future (which in itself is very highly unlikely), and commit resources that could be better used elsewhere to improve the lot of mankind, let alone New Zealanders, that is being disloyal to New Zealand. Any consequent harm from such actions could form the basis of a claim of treason: ‘In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more extreme acts against one’s nation or sovereign.’”

The New Zealand members’ complaint points out that, under the code, members of the Royal Society of New Zealand are obliged to present facts and interpretations in an objective and open manner and to be scrupulously honest in the application of findings from research.  The complainants say: “The presentation that Renwick and Naish have made gives only one side of the debate on man-made global warming and ignores large amounts of evidence – some of it from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – that indicate that there are major uncertainties underlying the predictions.  We have chosen to quote from the recent paper by Dr Kelly because it reinforces our complaint about misleading and selective quotation by Renwick and Naish of well-known and well-established research on the causes of climate change.

“It is hoped that the Royal Society will treat the complaint seriously and have it adjudicated by a panel made up of people with expertise in ethical matters.”


Complaint and Professor Kelly’s paper: http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1370&Itemid=1

This is a welcome development, and having the support of the considerable intellect of Michael Kelly is especially agreeable. He has a long record of service to scientific research and engineering at the highest level. It’s intensely invigorating, after ten years battling climate ignorance, to have this high-level challenge to the activist orthodoxy.

Will the Royal Society struggle to defend its celebrity climate figures? We think they will, and we will watch with intense interest. Coming on top of the threat of citizens in Christchurch to challenge climate orthodoxy in court, this new initiative strikes me as little short of extraordinary.

UPDATE 28 Aug 2016 1900 NZST

An early email to the Coalition this afternoon:

Message: Congratulations on the complaint to the Royal Society about
>Renwick and Naish. They have been misleading people for too long. Well
>done!

Well, that’s encouraging!

UPDATE 29 Aug 2016 1115 NZST

To be clear, this complaint has been laid by members of the Royal Society, not by the NZ Climate Science Coalition, although the complainants are all members or friends of the Coalition.

76 Thoughts on “Ethics breach by Renwick and Naish – shock Royal Society probe

  1. So many climate felons, so little time. Half the politicians in America (all of the Democrats, including the President) need to be impeached and thrown out, for their many ongoing high crimes and misdemeanors over “climate change/global warming”. It’s a whole generation of actually-criminal authorities. (“Expert authority” itself–in all of our now-suborned institutions–has lost its credibility on account of this, and properly so.)

  2. Richard C (NZ) on August 29, 2016 at 9:37 am said:

    >”In support of their complaint, the complainants forwarded a paper by a distinguished expatriate New Zealand scientist, Professor Michael J. Kelly”

    The complaint letter, which also has “supporting information” at the bottom e.g. Auckland MSL, is better than the support paper. The Kelly paper doesn’t add much in terms of content. Is actually very limp compared to the complaint letter..

    I hope the complainants followed the previous thread on this blog, otherwise they wont know the worst of Naish and Renwick’s claims. This for example:

    Naish and Renwick are saying the bulk (93%) of human-caused ENHANCED greenhouse effect is now in the ocean. The IPCC do not actually state this “93%” factor. If you look at AR5 Technical Summary TFE.4 Figure 1 (a) and (b) below it is obviously not 93% in the IPCC’s case.

    TS TFE.4-1 (a) (b)
    https://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Reports/AR5%20-%20WG1/Technical%20Summary/FigTS_TFE.4-1.jpg

    For period 1970 – 2011.

    In TS TFE.4-1 (a):

    Theoretical GHG forcing is 1200 ZetaJoules. 93% of 1200 is 1116 ZetaJoules.

    In TS TFE.4-1 (b):

    Storage (ocean, land, atmosphere, and ice) is almost 300 ZetaJoules.

    Measured ocean heat storage in the 0 – 2000m layer was 250 ZetaJoules

    0-2000m Ocean Heat Content
    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content2000m.png

    Obviously storage in the atmosphere is a minor component of total storage given ocean is 83.3% of the total (250/300).

    The IPCC then, have ocean storage at 20.8% of theoretical GHG forcing (250/1200) over the 1970 – 2011 period. Naish and Renwick say 93%. in 2016.

    For period 1970 – 2016.

    The percentage has only increased to 21.4% at 2016 because theoretical GHG forcing is around 1400 ZetaJoules 1970 – 2016 and ocean heat storage is 300 ZetaJoules (300/1400 = 21.4%).

    For period 1950 – 2016.

    Going back to 1950 and assuming total GHG forcing from TS TFE.4-1 (a) at say 1850 ZetaJoules and ocean storage at the measured 300 ZetaJoules (same as 1970), the percentage is only 16.2% (300/1850 = 16.2%).

    Naish and Renwick are wildly at odds with IPCC and OHC values, 93% vs 16.2%.

    https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2016/08/your-doubts-about-climate-change-are-created-by-the-lying-oil-industry/comment-page-1/#comment-1509634

    I would add here that the IPCC attribute ocean warming to human cause but do not substantiate their speculation. They have no supporting science or documented and quantified mechanism after 25 years and 5 assessment reports.

    The IPCC must have that attribution in order to account for the massive excess of theoretical GHG-forced energy their theory generates (1200 ZetaJoules in just 1970 – 2011 in TS TFE.4-1).

    Also the comment following that link:

    Worth noting too that for period 1970 – 2011 in TS TFE.4-1 (b), between 200 and 900 ZetaJoules has simply dissipated to space by “radiative response”.

    In other words, between 16.7% and 75% of total theoretical GHG-forced energy is out of the earth’s system i.e. completely ineffective even within the IPCC’s paradigm and values (200/1200 and 900/1200).

    That’s a 700 ZetaJoule range of energy dissipation that the IPCC can’t make their mind up on because they only “infer” “radiative response” (OLR) instead of deferring to “highly precise” satellite measurements.

    700 ZJ is 58% (700/1200) of their total theoretical GHG-forced energy that the IPCC cannot tie down.

    The complaint talks about “uncertainty”. Well, isn’t 58% (700 ZJ), of the IPCC’s theoretical GHG-forced energy the greatest uncertainty in the entire IPCC AR5 report?

  3. Richard C (NZ) on August 29, 2016 at 9:44 am said:

    >”Naish and Renwick are saying the bulk (93%) of human-caused ENHANCED greenhouse effect is now in the ocean.”

    This is in respect to this statement by them:

    “5 Ninety-three per cent of the heat ………….from humankind’s use of fossil fuels has gone into the ocean”

    James Renwick, Tim Naish, Royal Society Ten by Ten series
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11669116

    I would have thought this statement would have been the FIRST item that Royal Society members would want to dissociate from, but no mention of it.

  4. Richard Treadgold on August 29, 2016 at 9:57 am said:

    RC,

    I would have thought this statement would have been the FIRST item that Royal Society members would want to dissociate from, but no mention of it.

    Do you mean there’s no mention in the letter of complaint? But it’s being brought on grounds of ethics, not global warming. What are you saying?

  5. Richard C (NZ) on August 29, 2016 at 10:31 am said:

    RT

    >”Do you mean there’s no mention in the letter of complaint?”

    Yes. The greatest uncertainty in the entire AR5 report (that I can find) has no mention in the complaint.

    >”But it’s being brought on grounds of ethics, not global warming. What are you saying?””

    Ethics is the basis yes, but the ethics case is then developed. Scroll down to page 2 pdf and you come to this section:

    Nature of complaint
    The complaint refers to the public presentation “Ten by Ten” made by Professors Naish and Renwick
    at a number of locations around New Zealand. As it is clear that they regard themselves as
    experts in the field they should be familiar with all the evidence. In this presentation, they have
    been extremely selective with what evidence they present. In their presentation they fail to indicate
    that there are, as the IPCC and many other sources make clear and we illustrate below, huge uncertainties
    in much of the data and serious problems with the climate model predictions.

    http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/rsnz%20ethics%20complaint.final.pdf

    So, “huge uncertainties” are being neglected, unethically.

    Scroll down further to page 4 and there’s this:

    According to the technical reports associated with the IPCC 2015 report, many uncertainties exist.

    Examples
    Here are some examples that Naish and Renwick must be aware of:

    1 [linear trends in obs less than expected]
    2 [models vs obs, 111 of 114 models wrong]
    3 [model forcing factor over estimation]
    4 [IPCC reasons for differenced between models and obs]

    Those examples don’t get to the crux of the IPCC’s problem of accounting for their massive excess of theoretical GHG-forced energy. We are talking astronomical numbers. This is even before model implementation of theory. Examples 3 and 4 come closest to the critical issue but those 2 examples are in respect to models. TS TFE.4-1 has nothing to do with models.

    The uncertainty in TS TFE.4-1 closure accounting is by far the greatest uncertainty I can find in the AR5 assessment. I challenge anyone to find greater.

  6. Richard C (NZ) on August 29, 2016 at 10:43 am said:

    RT

    >”Do you mean there’s no mention in the letter of complaint?”

    Specifically in regard to Naish and Renwicks “Ninety-three per cent of the heat ………….from humankind’s use of fossil fuels has gone into the ocean” claim, no mention of that or the IPCC’s unethical attribution-by-speculation of ocean warming by human cause.

    See previous comments as to why this is THE critical issue now.

  7. Richard C (NZ) on August 29, 2016 at 10:47 am said:

    >”We are talking astronomical numbers”

    Just from 1970 to 2011, 1200 ZetaJoules of theoretical GHG-forced energy. Probably now in the order of 2000 ZetaJoules 1750 – 2016.

    Thar’s 2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Joules.

  8. Richard Treadgold on August 29, 2016 at 10:52 am said:

    RC,
    Yes, I see what you’re saying, and it’s a grand point. However, the complaint has been prepared, sent and accepted, and it adequately sets out the grounds of a breach of scientific ethics. Hopefully we’ll have a chance during the investigation to elaborate and expand on the science behind it. If we don’t get that opportunity, the investigation would have been fatally flawed and it wouldn’t really matter that important points were lacking. But destroying the AGW theory, though welcome, is not necessary to our complaint. Enough evidence is known to exist that has gone unmentioned by these two rapscallions as already to condemn them both. We scarcely need more.

  9. Maggy Wassilieff on August 29, 2016 at 11:20 am said:

    If the RSNZ wishes to retain the slightest scrap of integrity, they will need to investigate each of the 10 points Naish and Renwick are presenting to the public. If they fail to query N & R’s assertion that 93% of fossil fuel heat is in the ocean, then they will have demonstrated how ineffective they are.

    I think it is a pity that Professor Kelly has mentioned treason. Naish and Renwick’s alarmist presentations may lead Councils, Government Departments, etc into profligate spending on unnecessary mitigation against sea-level rise and climate warming – economically damaging, but not treasonous.
    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM328520.html

  10. Richard C (NZ) on August 29, 2016 at 11:25 am said:

    RT

    >”Hopefully we’ll have a chance during the investigation to elaborate and expand on the science behind it”

    Yes, work in progress. It has taken me 3 years to get to the critical issues in AR5. The more I dig the more I find.

    However, the complainants have missed addressing the most unethical statement by Naish and Renwick that is staring them in the face. And they miss addressing the most unethical attribution by the IPCC that is staring them in the face too.

    There’s no excuse for that at this juncture. I can excuse them missing the massive uncertainty in TS TFE.4-1 because that’s been hidden in plain sight. I’ve only got into it just recently.

    There are so many graphs and charts in AR5 WG1 and that makes sifting through to get to the most important a bit of a mission (to say the least). Having done that a lot of chaff can be discarded but you have to know what to look for in the first instance. Problem with AR5 is that you can download a graph but you don’t get the description of it. For that you have to download Megabytes of the entire Chapter or Summary. AR4 was much easier in that respect (and still is a good resource to go to).

  11. Richard Treadgold on August 29, 2016 at 11:30 am said:

    Maggy,

    I think it is a pity that Professor Kelly has mentioned treason.

    Yes, it overstates what they’ve done and has the effect of belittling a “mere” breach of ethics. The purpose was surely attention-getting. Bear in mind this is a draft, and Prof Kelly plans to publish a second draft when he reaches Wellington later this year.

  12. Richard C (NZ) on August 29, 2016 at 11:35 am said:

    ‘Climate science debates find their place in the Sun’

    Robert Matthews August 28, 2016

    […]

    Publishing in a scientific journal, the researchers [Zharkova et al] saw their work as simply part of the quest to understand the Sun.

    But when the team publicised their work through the UK Royal Astronomical Society, some academics decided to step in. Prof Zharkova this month told the Global Warming Policy Forum that the society came under pressure to withdraw a press release describing the findings.

    The society refused. But attempts at such censorship should worry anyone who thinks the real goal of science is to uncover the truth, rather than follow a party line.

    Evidence is the most powerful guide we have in the science of climate change. But if that evidence is censored or twisted, the science becomes mere sound and fury, signifying nothing.

    http://www.thenational.ae/uae/science/climate-science-debates-find-their-place-in-the-sun

    # # #

    >”The society refused”

    Royal Society – Nullius in verba (“on the word of no one”). Naish and Renwick cannot ride on the Royal Society’s membership or its foundations.

  13. Richard C (NZ) on August 29, 2016 at 12:17 pm said:

    >”Royal Society – Nullius in verba (“on the word of no one”). Naish and Renwick cannot ride on the Royal Society’s membership or its foundations.”

    The complaint addresses this on page 2:

    Slide entitled “Looking at the scientific literature”
    This slide breaches 2.1: 2a and 2b and 3.1: All2h.

    Quite clearly, this slide is intended to give the impression that most scientists believe that manmade
    greenhouse gases cause some global warming and this presumed majority amounts to convincing
    scientific evidence that man-made greenhouse gases cause (by implication, dangerous)
    global warming. This is, of course, not true. The motto of the Royal Society is “Nullis in verba” (by
    no man’s word): in other words, opinions do not count, only scientifically acceptable evidence
    counts.

    This claim is an example of “argument from authority”. It is best illustrated by the troop of monkeys
    in Kipling’s Jungle Book that chorused “We all say so, it must be true!”

    This is of course the “consensus” argument from authority. Has huge dumbed-down appeal and ease of use by the ignorant, hence its development and promotion. Even Tweeted by Obama’s White House.

    Scurrilous for Naish and Renwick to be promoting it on behalf of the Royal Society, contrary to the Royal Society motto. Scurrilous and unethical being synonymous.

  14. Richard C (NZ) on August 29, 2016 at 1:24 pm said:

    The complaint is titled:

    “Complaint about Royal Society members Renwick and Naish”

    However, the Royal Society website states the Ten by Ten: Climate Change series is an “event” run by the Royal Society:

    Events

    The Royal Society of New Zealand runs a variety of events and forums for public audiences on a wide range of topics related to science, technology and the humanities.

    Ten by Ten: Climate Change
    Ten things you didn’t know about climate change… with Tim Naish and James Renwick

    http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/events/

    The complaint should be against the Royal Society governance first and foremost. When I see Ten by Ten: Climate Change I see Royal Society first, Naish and Renwick second, Victoria University third..

    The governance is by the Council:

    Royal Society of New Zealand Council

    The Council has a governance role within the Society and consists of the President and Councillors elected, appointed or co-opted.

    In terms of Sec 43 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1997, the Council of the Society comprises:

    Professor Richard Bedford QSO FRSNZ President, Royal Society of New Zealand 2015-18
    Distinguished Professor Gaven Martin FRSNZ Vice President – Physical Sciences, Mathematical Sciences, Technology and Engineering 2014-17
    Professor Barry Scott FRSNZ Vice President – Biological and Life Sciences 2015-18
    Distinguished Professor Dame Anne Salmond CBE FRSNZ FNZAH Vice President – Humanities and Social Sciences 2016-19
    Professor Caroline Saunders ONZM MRSNZ Councillor 2015-18
    Professor Margaret Tennant FRSNZ FNZAH Councillor 2016-19
    Dr Siouxsie Wiles MRSNZ Councillor 2015-2018
    Associate Professor Christine Jasoni MRSNZ Regional Constituent Organisation Representative 2014-17
    Dr Liz Gordon MRSNZ Constituent Organisation Representative 2014-17
    Dr Giles Dodson MRSNZ Co-opted Councillor 2016-17
    Associate Professor Tahu Kukutai MRSNZ Co-opted Councillor 2016-17

    http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/organisation/council/

    It is the Royal Society that are promoting Ten by Ten: Climate Change. The Council are ultimately responsible. Not Naish and Renwick. They could have gone ahead without the Royal Society. In fact, they credit Victoria University:

    “We are very grateful for the support of Victoria University of Wellington for the 2016 Ten by Ten series”

    http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/events/ten-by-ten/ten-by-ten-climate-change/

    Victoria University also has much to answer for.

  15. Richard C (NZ) on August 29, 2016 at 3:24 pm said:

    >”The complaint should be against the Royal Society governance first and foremost.”
    >”Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1997″

    Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1997
    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/private/1997/0002/latest/DLM117652.html

    6 Functions

    For the purpose of the advancement and promotion in New Zealand of science, technology, and the humanities, the functions of the Society are—

    (a) to foster in the New Zealand community a culture that supports science, technology, and the humanities, including (without limitation)—

    (i) the promotion of public awareness, knowledge, and understanding of science, technology, and the humanities; and

    (ii) the advancement of science and technology education:

    (b) to encourage, promote, and recognise excellence in science, technology, and the humanities:

    (c) to provide infrastructure and other support for the professional needs and development of scientists, technologists, and humanities scholars:

    (d) to establish and administer for members a code of professional standards and ethics in science, technology, and the humanities:

    (e) to provide expert advice on important public issues to the Government and the community:

    (f) to do all other lawful things that the Council considers conducive to the advancement and promotion in New Zealand of science, technology, and the humanities.

    # # #

    The Royal Society of New Zealand Act is legislation i.e. “statutory law”.

    On the face of it, Ten by Ten: Climate Change violates 6(a)(i), 6(b), 6(d), 6(e) and 6(f).

  16. Maggy Wassilieff on August 29, 2016 at 3:27 pm said:

    Holy moly, not a physicist, chemist, meteorologist or earth scientist amongst that list. (Councillors of the RSNZ)

    I suspect some of them will be well out of their depth understanding the assumptions behind the climate models and their limits to predicting global climate.

  17. Richard Treadgold on August 29, 2016 at 3:42 pm said:

    I can see where you’re coming from, RC, but there’s no procedure for an organisation to investigate itself. It can investigate its members, who of course do all the acts of the organisation.

    Maggy, that is surprising, the leadership seems to lack qualifications in basic science. We’re hoping that for the investigation they choose members skilled in ethics, but I share your concern, as it must involve at least a cursory examination of climate science.

  18. Richard C (NZ) on August 29, 2016 at 4:07 pm said:

    >”Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1997″

    34 Code of professional standards and ethics

    (1) The Council must issue for members a code of professional standards and ethics in science, technology, and the humanities.

    (2) The Council may from time to time issue amendments to a code of professional standards and ethics issued under subsection (1).

    (3) The Council must make the code of professional standards and ethics, and any amendments to it, publicly available.

    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/private/1997/0002/latest/DLM118033.html

    Royal Society of New Zealand Code of Professional Standards and Ethics
    http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/organisation/about/code/

    Of relevance:

    Part 1: Preliminary Provisions
    1.3 Compliance with Code
    1. A member of the Royal Society of New Zealand must comply with this Code. A member whose conduct is considered to be in breach of the provisions of the Code will be asked to account to the Society for their actions.
    2. Breaches of the Code, and complaints about such breaches, may be dealt with by the Society under the Rules for Hearing and Determining Complaints of Breaches of the Royal Society’s Code of Professional Standards and Ethics.
    1.5 Fundamental principles

    Part 2: Principles
    2.1 Integrity and professionalism
    3.1 Honesty
    4.1 Compliance with the law and relevant standards
    11.1 Continuing education and communication of knowledge

    Rules for Hearing and Determining Complaints of Breaches of the Royal Society’s Code of Professional Standards and Ethics

    Part 3 Handling of complaints
    3.2 Complaint passes to Chair of Professional Standards and Ethics Panel

    Part 4 Proceedings of Professional Standards and Ethics Panel
    4.1 Powers of Professional Standards and Ethics Panel
    4.2 Professional Standards and Ethics Panel may explore alternative dispute resolution for complaints
    4.3 Process of Professional Standards and Ethics Panel
    4.4 How Professional Standards and Ethics Panel’s decision must be made

    Part 5 Disciplinary action
    5.1 Chief Executive must notify and implement decision of Panel
    5.2 Council must determine complaint or enquiry
    5.3 How Council’s decision must be made
    5.4 Chief Executive must notify and implement decision of Council
    5.5 Disclosure to interested parties

    # # #

    Given the Royal Society by promoting Ten by Ten: Climate Change is itself violating statutory law (on the face of it as laid out in previous comment), statutory law takes precedence over the Royal Society Code of professional standards and ethics which is simply an internal code.

    So there are 2 independent violations, the 1st internal, the 2nd external. The 1st is merely an internal breach of code by 2 members, the 2nd is illegal actions by the Royal Society (on the face of it as laid out in previous comment).

    The Royal Society is bound by external statutory law first and foremost. Their internal code of ethics polices are not law but are intended to be upheld to avoid violations of statutory law. They have failed to uphold their code in respect to their Ten by Ten: Climate Change series.

    That failure places the Royal Society outside the statutory law legislating its existence i.e. illegal.

    Thus their Handling of complaint, Process of Professional Standards and Ethics Panel, and Disciplinary action is all important if they don’t wish to remain in an illegal situation.

  19. Richard Treadgold on August 29, 2016 at 4:14 pm said:

    Thinking practically, how would you expect the RS itself to find that it has acted unlawfully? I don’t believe that’s possible, as it can only examine the acts of its members. I can tell you for a fact there’s no sign in the Coalition of wanting to apply for a judicial review of the RS. You can forget it, it won’t happen.

  20. Richard C (NZ) on August 29, 2016 at 4:28 pm said:

    RT

    >”I can see where you’re coming from, RC, but there’s no procedure for an organisation to investigate itself. It can investigate its members, who of course do all the acts of the organisation.”

    See my (exhaustive) comment following yours in respect to this RT. But I’ll address briefly and specifically:

    >”there’s no procedure for an organisation to investigate itself”

    The NZ Police investigate themselves.. But in this case there is statutory law – Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1997. The organization has no say in oversight of that except to defend itself. Off the top of my head oversight would be by the Attorney General but I’m just taking a stab without checking that out.

    >”It can investigate its members”

    I’ll repeat my bottom line from previous comment in response to this:

    Thus their Handling of complaint, Process of Professional Standards and Ethics Panel, and Disciplinary action is all important if they don’t wish to remain in an illegal situation.

    The law and legality is the primary issue here, their internal code of ethics investigation will (hopefully) go some way to putting an (on the face of it) illegal situation to rights.

  21. Richard C (NZ) on August 29, 2016 at 4:36 pm said:

    RT

    >”Thinking practically, how would you expect the RS itself to find that it has acted unlawfully?”

    Well, they could read the Act (law) that legislates them. This has been part of my corporate functions a while back, that and Regulations attached to the Acts.

    Again see my comment following yours on this. The Royal Society has no say whatsoever in respect to oversight of the statutory law legislating the Royal Society.

    I haven’t checked yet but I’m guessing that’s the domain of the Attorney General.

  22. Richard C (NZ) on August 29, 2016 at 4:38 pm said:

    Maggy

    2 succinct and incisive comments so far. I appreciate your contribution to this.

  23. Richard C (NZ) on August 29, 2016 at 4:55 pm said:

    >”The Royal Society has no say whatsoever in respect to oversight of the statutory law legislating the Royal Society. I haven’t checked yet but I’m guessing that’s the domain of the Attorney General.”

    Probably the Solicitor-General eventually but Attorney-General in the first instance, or either:

    ‘The role of the Attorney-General’

    Michael Cullen 21 July, 2006

    […]

    The Attorney-General has two roles in Government:

    ·He is the Minister of the Crown responsible for the Crown Law Office, the Serious Fraud Office and the Parliamentary Counsel Office. Traditionally in New Zealand the Attorney-General also has policy portfolio responsibilities not connected with those of the Attorney-General.

    ·And he is the Senior Law Officer of the Crown with principal responsibility for the Government’s administration of the law. This function is exercised in conjunction with the Solicitor-General, who is the junior Law Officer.

    In exercising the constitutional role the Attorney-General seeks to ensure that:

    ·the operations of executive Government are conducted lawfully and constitutionally; and

    ·the Government is not prevented through use of the legal process from lawfully implementing its chosen policies.

    These constitutional responsibilities, which support New Zealand’s commitment to democratic government under law, are sometimes referred to as “the Attorney-General’s values”.

    The Attorney-General role uniquely combines the obligation to act on some matters independently, free of political considerations, with the political partisanship that is associated with other Ministerial office.

    My fundamental responsibility, when acting as Attorney, is to act in the public interest. This inevitably gives rise to perceived conflicts of interest with respect to my other roles as a Cabinet Minister in a Labour-led government. This is managed through a clearly defined relationship with the Solicitor-General, who is a non-political law officer available to advise and assist on and, where appropriate, to discharge law officer functions.

    The Solicitor-General is generally authorised by statute to exercise the functions of the Attorney-General, thereby clearly isolating, when that is considered desirable, law officer decision-making from the appearance of political influences.

    Indeed most of the Attorney-General’s law officer functions, duties and powers can be exercised or performed by the Solicitor-General. There are some powers which can be exercised only by the Attorney-General, for example, the reclassification of special patients under the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003. Equally there are some functions which are specially vested by statute in the Solicitor-General. These include the power to appeal against sentence and powers under the Coroners Act 1988 to authorise an inquest into deaths occurring outside New Zealand and to authorise fresh inquests where there is new evidence.

    As to the substance of the role, the Attorney-General operates primarily in four spheres: the Cabinet, the Parliament, the Courts and the Judiciary.

    More>>>>>
    https://www.beehive.govt.nz/speech/role-attorney-general

    # # #

    >”[The Attorney-General is]….the Senior Law Officer of the Crown with principal responsibility for the Government’s administration of the law”

    That would include the Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1997.

    >”The Solicitor-General is generally authorised by statute to exercise the functions of the Attorney-General, thereby clearly isolating, when that is considered desirable, law officer decision-making from the appearance of political influences.”

    If the Royal Society is outside the law in respect to Ten by Ten: Climate Change, either the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General can intervene as I see it.

  24. Richard C (NZ) on August 29, 2016 at 5:09 pm said:

    Current Attorney General is Chris Finlayson. Solicitor General is Una Jagose QC.

  25. Richard C (NZ) on August 29, 2016 at 5:19 pm said:

    Maggy

    >”Holy moly, not a physicist, chemist, meteorologist or earth scientist amongst that list. (Councillors of the RSNZ)”

    There is Professor Gaven Martin:

    Distinguished Professor Gaven Martin FRSNZ Vice President – Physical Sciences, Mathematical Sciences, Technology and Engineering 2014-17

    Physical science is a broad discipline concerned with natural phenomena of the earth, atmosphere and space. It encompasses a variety of fields that include astronomy, chemistry, geology, physics, atmospheric science and oceanography. http://study.com/directory/category/Physical_Sciences.html

    Seems to be the exception though.

  26. Maggy Wassilieff on August 29, 2016 at 5:56 pm said:

    @Richard C

    I googled Prof Martin and from what I saw he was a theoretical mathematician
    http://nzmathsoc.org.nz/downloads/centrefolds/NZMScentrefold82_Gaven_Martin.pdf

    Seems quite removed from practical, experimental physics.

  27. Richard C (NZ) on August 29, 2016 at 6:08 pm said:

    Maggy

    >”I googled Prof Martin and from what I saw he was a theoretical mathematician”

    Yes, just been doing same. Turns out Physical Sciences, Mathematical Sciences, Technology and Engineering is the Royal Society “Discipline-based Forum” that Prof Martin comes under:

    Physical Sciences, Mathematical Sciences, Technology and Engineering Discipline-based Forum
    Provides advice on matters of concern to the physical sciences, mathematical sciences, technology and engineering community, and responds, on request, with advice on physical sciences, mathematics, technology and engineering issues to the Society.
    http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/organisation/panels/physical-maths-tech-engineering/

    So although Prof Martin can give advice on Mathematical Sciences, that does not convey expertise on Physical Sciences. “Seems quite removed from practical, experimental physics” as you say.

  28. Maggy Wassilieff on August 29, 2016 at 6:27 pm said:

    Of course the councillors can seek advice from experts if they so need. I don’t mean to imply that they will not be up to the task.
    But I do have a concern that the RSNZ and the complainants will end up talking past each other.

  29. Richard C (NZ) on August 29, 2016 at 6:35 pm said:

    Royal Society – Expert Advice
    We produce papers, convene panels and hold events [e.g. Ten by Ten: Climate Change] to provide expert advice to policy-makers and contribute to public debate.
    http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/expert-advice/

    Latest expert advice:

    Climate Change Mitigation Options for New Zealand [see next comment]
    Comments on New Zealand’s Climate Change Target discussion document [see next comment]

    Climate Change Implications for New Zealand
    http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/expert-advice/papers/yr2016/climate-change-implications-for-new-zealand/

    This report describes the changes in climate that are expected globally and nationally during the 21st century and six key areas of risk for New Zealand.

    Background and panel members

    Professor James Renwick (Chair): Physical Geography Professor, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington
    Dr Barbara Anderson: Rutherford Discovery Fellow, Landcare Research Manaaki Whenua, Dunedin
    Dr Alison Greenaway: Social Researcher, Landcare Research Manaaki Whenua, Auckland
    Darren King: Environmental Scientist, National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), Wellington
    Dr Sara Mikaloff-Fletcher: Atmosphere-Ocean Scientist, National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), Wellington
    Dr Andy Reisinger: Deputy Director (International), New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre, Wellington
    Dr Helen Rouse: Resource Management Scientist, National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), Christchurch

    http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/expert-advice/papers/yr2016/climate-change-implications-for-new-zealand/background-and-panel-members/

    # # #

    Seems to be a “panel” convened specifically for that report. None of those panel members are on the governance Council.

  30. Richard C (NZ) on August 29, 2016 at 6:47 pm said:

    Royal Society – Latest expert advice:

    Climate Change Mitigation Options for New Zealand Panel

    Professor Ralph Sims (Chair): School of Engineering and Advanced Technology, Massey University
    Professor Barry Barton: Te Piringa Faculty of Law, University of Waikato
    Dr Paul Bennett: Science Leader, Clean Technologies, Scion
    Dr Nigel Isaacs: Senior Lecturer, School of Architecture, Victoria University of Wellington
    Dr Suzi Kerr: Senior Fellow, Motu and Adjunct Professor, Victoria University of Wellington
    Associate Professor Jonathan Leaver: Associate Professor of Civil Engineering, Unitec
    Dr Janet Stephenson: Director of the Centre for Sustainability, University of Otago
    Dr Andy Reisinger: Deputy Director (International), New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre, Wellington

    http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/expert-advice/papers/yr2016/mitigation-options-for-new-zealand/background-and-annexes/

    Comments on New Zealand’s Climate Change Target discussion document
    Royal Society of New Zealand Climate Expert panel

    Professor James Renwick MRSNZ (Chair), School of Geography, Environment and Earth Sciences, Victoria University of Wellington
    Associate Professor Ralph Chapman, Director, Graduate Programme in Environmental Studies, School of Geography, Environment and Earth Sciences, Victoria University of Wellington
    Dr Julie Hall MRSNZ, Regional Manager, Wellington, NIWA
    Dr Gavin Kenny, Director, Earthwise Consulting Ltd
    Dr Andrew Matthews, former manager, NIWA
    Dr Brett Mullan, Principal Scientist, Climate, NIWA
    Dr Philip Sutton, Physical Oceanographer, NIWA

    http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/expert-advice/papers/yr2015/comments-on-new-zealands-climate-change-target-discussion-document/

    # # #

    Again, none of those panel members are on the governance Council.

    So where does the governance Council go for climate expertise to assess Naish and Renwick other than all these people including the Climate Change Implications for New Zealand panel previously?

  31. Richard C (NZ) on August 29, 2016 at 6:51 pm said:

    Maggy

    >”Of course the councillors can seek advice from experts if they so need. I don’t mean to imply that they will not be up to the task.”

    But that’s a problem as I’ve laid out in my previous 2 comments. Just about every climate scientist in New Zealand is on one of the Royal Society climate panels, 2 of them chaired by James Renwick.

  32. Richard C (NZ) on August 29, 2016 at 6:58 pm said:

    Maggy

    >”Of course the councillors can seek advice from experts if they so need. I don’t mean to imply that they will not be up to the task.”

    If they do, it will have to be outside the Royal Society, or at least outside the Royal Society’s climate panels.

  33. Maggy Wassilieff on August 29, 2016 at 7:20 pm said:

    But that’s a problem as I’ve laid out in my previous 2 comments. Just about every climate scientist in New Zealand is on one of the Royal Society climate panels, 2 of them chaired by James Renwick.

    Yes, but… The RSNZ espouses values of openness and trustworthiness
    http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/media/2015/11/2015-strategic-plan-web.png

    They will have to convince the general public that they are not engaging in mate review or group-think consensus.

    However, you could save yourself some angst… I ‘m pretty sure the response the RSNZ will deliver will be something along these lines:
    N& R were on a scoping survey of NZers’ knowledge of climate change
    The topic is very complicated and so key points only were made at the public talks
    Reference was given to reports where more detail was available for specialist interest.
    etc, etc)
    Thank you for bringing your concerns to our attention, but nothing to see, move on.

  34. Richard C (NZ) on August 29, 2016 at 7:28 pm said:

    >”If they do [seek advice from experts], it will have to be outside the Royal Society, or at least outside the Royal Society’s climate panels.”

    Climate Change Implications for New Zealand
    Background and panel members

    Dr David Wratt served on the panel from April – May 2015. David Wratt is Departmental Science Advisor, Ministry for the Environment; Emeritus Scientist (Climate) at NIWA; Adjunct Professor in the New Zealand Climate Change Research Institute at Victoria University; Adjunct Professor at the International Institute of Agri-Food Security at Curtin University, Perth.
    Reviewers

    The Royal Society of New Zealand would like to thank the following experts for the valuable input in commenting on and reviewing the paper: Professor Bruce Glavovic, Dr Paul Newton, and Professor Jean Palutikof.

    http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/expert-advice/papers/yr2016/climate-change-implications-for-new-zealand/background-and-panel-members/

    *******************************************************************************************

    Dr David Wratt was Vice Chair of IPCC AR5 WG1 The Physical Science Basis (Note Richard Bedford, Council Member below):

    Royal Society – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Stakeholder Workshop
    The Physical Science Basis

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment (AR5) Working Group I (WGI) Report ‘The Physical Science Basis‘ was finalised and approved in Stockholm, Sweden 23 – 26 September 2013. At the invitation of New Zealand Climate Change Centre (NZCCC), Director Dr David Wratt, WGI Co-chair Dr Thomas Stocker, together with other New Zealand WGI lead authors, participated in a Stakeholder Workshop in Wellington on 11 October 2013.

    Stakeholder Workshop

    This workshop was attended by researchers, scientists, central and government policymakers and planners, NGOs, members of the public and media.

    The workshop included:
    Welcome (Richard Bedford, Royal Society of New Zealand Council Member)
    IPCC overview (David Wratt, IPCC WGI Vice-chair)
    Key Working Group I report findings (Thomas Stocker, IPCC WGI Co-chair)
    Individual report chapter findings (Dave Frame, Tim Naish, James Renwick, IPCC WGI Lead Authors, Victoria University of Wellington)
    Stakeholder panel
    Discussion
    http://royalsociety.org.nz/events/intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change-stakeholder-workshop/the-physical-science-basis/

    # # #

    Tim Naish and James Renwick are in this up to their necks (RS + IPCC) but it is not as if the Council (e.g. Richard Bedford) or IPCC higher ups (e.g. David Wratt) or Victoria University (e.g. Dave Frame) are dissociated either.

    In other words, the Council has to go right outside the climate clique for any independence, maybe other Universities and Departments and other organizations, GNS or Law Society for example.

    Will they do this?

  35. Richard Treadgold on August 29, 2016 at 7:34 pm said:

    RC,

    Will they do this?

    Of course not, they’re all in it together, which is why they control the RS. Unless we can kick up such a stink others make noises too. But we have to take great care to avoid rancour.

  36. Richard C (NZ) on August 29, 2016 at 7:39 pm said:

    Maggy

    >”The RSNZ espouses values of openness and trustworthiness”
    http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/media/2015/11/2015-strategic-plan-web.png

    Interesting “Strategic Plan”. “Independent” apparently. “Relevant and influential expert advice”. but not necessarily accurate it seems.

    >”However, you could save yourself some angst… I ‘m pretty sure the response the RSNZ will deliver will be something along these lines:”

    Well yes, that’s the cynical outlook (shame on you Maggy).

  37. Richard C (NZ) on August 29, 2016 at 7:45 pm said:

    RT

    >”Will they do this? Of course not, they’re all in it together, which is why they control the RS”

    Hard to distinguish Royal Society from Victoria University from IPCC on climate issues.

  38. Richard C (NZ) on August 30, 2016 at 10:56 am said:

    >”The Royal Society of New Zealand Act is legislation i.e. “statutory law”. On the face of it, Ten by Ten: Climate Change violates 6(a)(i), 6(b), 6(d), 6(e) and 6(f).”

    To reiterate in respect to Ten by Ten: Climate Change item five (#5) as per Naish and Renwick:

    “5 Ninety-three per cent of the heat ………….from humankind’s use of fossil fuels has gone into the ocean”

    Tim Naish, James Renwick, Royal Society Ten by Ten: Climate Change series
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11669116

    Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1997 – Functions
    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/private/1997/0002/latest/DLM117652.html

    6(a)(i) the promotion of public awareness, knowledge, and understanding of science, technology, and the humanities

    Ten by Ten: Climate Change #5 promotes FALSE awareness, knowledge, and understanding.

    6(b) to encourage, promote, and recognise excellence in science, technology, and the humanities

    Ten by Ten: Climate Change #5 is NOT science. It is UNsupported speculation. It cannot therefore be “excellence in science”.

    6(d) to establish and administer for members a code of professional standards and ethics in science, technology, and the humanities

    Ten by Ten: Climate Change #5 is an UNethical promotion of a FALSITY.

    6(e) to provide expert advice on important public issues to the Government and the community

    Ten by Ten: Climate Change #5 is NOT expert advice. It is promotion of a FALSITY and UNethical.

    (f) to do all other lawful things that the Council considers conducive to the advancement and promotion in New Zealand of science, technology, and the humanities.

    Ten by Ten: Climate Change #5 promotion is NOT a “lawful thing” in view of 6(a)(i), 6(b), 6(d), 6(e).

  39. Dennis N Horne on August 30, 2016 at 11:38 am said:

    The engineer Kelly doesn’t know anything about climate science. The Royal Society ignores him and publicises the science.

    So now the “good” little Roman Catholic is going to have a go at the RSNZ.

    Denier, denier, pants on fire!

  40. Richard C (NZ) on August 30, 2016 at 12:02 pm said:

    Dennis

    >”The Royal Society………publicises the science”

    WRONG. Ten by Ten: Climate Change #5 is NOT science. It is speculation UNsupported by ANY science. I challenge you Dennis to provide the IPCC’ supporting evidence. They couldn’t find it in WG1 Chapter 3, perhaps you can help them?

    Ten by Ten: Climate Change #5 is also wildly at odds with the IPCC as upthread.

    >”So now the good little Roman Catholic is going to have a go at the RSNZ.”

    The ethics case is being put to the Royal Society by members – NOT Kelly Dennis. Read the complaint.

  41. Yes because Engineers who happen to be Professors at Cambridge University are morons

    Same with Freeman Dyson, who questions many aspects of climate science

    He was one of the creators of Quantum Field Theory, but still not qualified to discuss climate science

    Only climate scientists understand climate science

    Is the Catholic thing of any relevance? Are Muslims qualified to comment on climate science?

  42. Richard C (NZ) on August 30, 2016 at 12:19 pm said:

    Dennis

    >”So now the “good” little Roman Catholic is going to have a go at the RSNZ.”

    Not sure why being a ” “good” little Roman Catholic”, as you put it Dennis, is of any relevance (actually its discriminatory), but Michael Kelly is NOT a signatory to the complaint against Naish and Renwick.

    The signatories are:

    RSNZ Fellows:

    Duffy, Dr Geoff DEng, PhD, BSc, ASTC Dip.,FRSNZ, FIChemE, CEng Professor Emeritus – Chemical Engineering, Fellow of the Royal Society of NZ
    Kear, Dr David, PhD, B.Sc., B.Sc. (Eng.), ARSM, CMG, FRSNZ Ex-Director General NZ DSIR, Ex-Director NZ Geological Survey, Ex-Vice President RSNZ, Ex-President NZ Geological Society.

    RSNZ Members:

    Dunleavy, Terry MBE, JP Fellow Wine Institute of New Zealand
    Edmeades, Dr Doug ONZM Managing Director agKnowledge Ltd
    Muir, Ross, LFNZEI, MIEE, C Eng (UK) National President NZ EIectronivcs Institute

    Non-RSNZ Signatories:

    Dr Allison, Jock, MAgrSc, ONZM
    Esslemont, Don
    Kerkin, Gary BE(Hons) (Canterbury,NZ), MEngSc(Melbourne)

    http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/rsnz%20ethics%20complaint.final.pdf

  43. Dennis is just showing his bigoted Leftist colours

    I did try to offer some kind of dialogue but Dennis just resorts to the form of the Creed

    Endless sneering and appeals to authority

  44. Richard C (NZ) on August 30, 2016 at 1:06 pm said:

    Silly denigration by Dennis anyway given the Vatican’s scientifically inept Laudato Si.

    I think Mike Kelly would be very uncomfortable with the scientific errors in it e.g. “reflected” instead of “re-emitted”.

  45. Dennis N Horne on August 30, 2016 at 1:14 pm said:

    So, Michael Kelly FRS, where is the science that shows man’s CO2 emissions haven’t caused global warming and climate change? Where do you show Earth doesn’t respond to high levels of CO2 with high sea levels?

    Or is your “paper” just propaganda driven by your personal prejudices. And ignorance.

    Better men than you have tried an appeal to celebrity, Kelly. Freeman Dyson and Ivar Giaever. Silly old fools admit to knowing nothing about climate science.

    But you’re not a celebrity, Kelly. You’re not even an authority, Kelly. Stick to your knitting.

  46. Richard C (NZ) on August 30, 2016 at 1:19 pm said:

    Dennis

    >”The engineer Kelly doesn’t know anything about climate science”

    The Royal Society has three discipline-based forums:

    Biological and Life Sciences Discipline-based Forum
    Physical Sciences, Mathematical Sciences, Technology and Engineering Discipline-based Forum
    Te Whāinga Aronui o Te Apārangi Humanities and Social Sciences Discipline-based Forum

    Engineering science and climate science are included in this forum:

    Physical Sciences, Mathematical Sciences, Technology and Engineering Discipline-based Forum
    http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/organisation/panels/physical-maths-tech-engineering/

    Like medical and legal professionals, professional engineers are licensed to be accountable to the public for their work. Climate scientist aren’t.

    None of the governing Council that we can see are climate scientists either. But it is the governing Council that will decide on the ethics of Naish and Renwick.

  47. Dennis N Horne on August 30, 2016 at 1:22 pm said:

    http://www.climatescience.org.nz/images/PDFs/what%20are%20the%20truly%20wise%20actions%20that%20new%20zealand%20should%20take%20in%20response%20to%20a%20changing%20climate%5B1%5D.pdf

    “In the UK over 10% of all scientists in universities and in government agencies that are paid from the
    public purse concentrate on analysing this one problem, three times more than the number doing any
    research to alleviate the potential problem. A moment’s consideration shows that climate change
    must be clearly both a major and imminent problem to justify this level of expenditure, and even if it
    is such a problem, then there should be three times as many working on the solutions than on the
    analysis!”

    Schoolboy error here. What is it?

  48. Richard C (NZ) on August 30, 2016 at 1:26 pm said:

    Dennis

    >”So, Michael Kelly FRS, where is the science that shows man’s CO2 emissions haven’t caused global warming and climate change? Where do you show Earth doesn’t respond to high levels of CO2 with high sea levels?”

    The onus of proof is on the proponent Dennis. That mantle has been taken on by the IPCC. Their case is shot full of holes. Just go back up to the top of the thread for that.

    That’s what happens when you turn up late Dennis. You haven’t a clue what has already been laid out.

  49. Dennis N Horne on August 30, 2016 at 1:35 pm said:

    No. When there is a broad and profound scientific consensus the onus is on the cranks to show it wrong.

    Otherwise we would be stuck in bed, unable to start the day.

    Imagine not being able to put your feet on the ground for fear it might crumble under you, run the tap not knowing mercury might come out, open the fridge worrying a blast from a furnace might envelop you, eat a fresg egg not knowing it won’t poison you…

    Settle science enable us to live without constantly re-evaluating basic principles.

  50. Richard C (NZ) on August 30, 2016 at 1:41 pm said:

    Dennis

    >”That’s what happens when you turn up late Dennis. You haven’t a clue what has already been laid out.”

    If you back to the top of the thread you will see this:

    Richard C (NZ) on August 29, 2016 at 9:37 am said:
    “The complaint letter, which also has “supporting information” at the bottom e.g. Auckland MSL, is better than the support paper. The Kelly paper doesn’t add much in terms of content. Is actually very limp compared to the complaint letter..”

    Further down,

    Maggy Wassilieff on August 29, 2016 at 11:20 am said:
    “I think it is a pity that Professor Kelly has mentioned treason. Naish and Renwick’s alarmist presentations may lead Councils, Government Departments, etc into profligate spending on unnecessary mitigation against sea-level rise and climate warming – economically damaging, but not treasonous.

    And in reply,

    Richard Treadgold on August 29, 2016 at 11:30 am said:
    “Yes, it overstates what they’ve done and has the effect of belittling a “mere” breach of ethics. The purpose was surely attention-getting. Bear in mind this is a draft, and Prof Kelly plans to publish a second draft when he reaches Wellington later this year.”

    The Kelly paper is an inconsequential side issue. The ethics case against Naish and Renwick doesn’t rest on it. The letter of complaint already has “Supporting information” at the bottom:

    Complaint
    http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/rsnz%20ethics%20complaint.final.pdf

    You have yet to address the actual complaint Dennis.

  51. Richard C (NZ) on August 30, 2016 at 1:48 pm said:

    Dennis

    >”No. When there is a broad and profound scientific consensus the onus is on the cranks to show it wrong.”

    No, the burden of proof in on the proponent Dennis:

    The reversed responsibility response – switching the burden of proof
    https://scienceornot.net/2012/12/04/the-reversed-responsibility-response-switching-the-burden-of-proof/

    “Consensus” is not proof Dennis.

  52. Richard C (NZ) on August 30, 2016 at 2:49 pm said:

    Complaint:

    “In their presentation they [Naish & Renwick] fail to indicate that there are, as the IPCC and many other sources make clear and we illustrate below, huge uncertainties in much of the data”

    Near top of thread there’s a major uncertainty laid out that the complaint doesn’t even identify:

    Worth noting too that for period 1970 – 2011 in TS TFE.4-1 (b), between 200 and 900 ZetaJoules has simply dissipated to space by “radiative response”.

    In other words, between 16.7% and 75% of total theoretical GHG-forced energy is out of the earth’s system i.e. completely ineffective even within the IPCC’s paradigm and values (200/1200 and 900/1200).

    That’s a 700 ZetaJoule range of energy dissipation that the IPCC can’t make their mind up on because they only “infer” “radiative response” (OLR) instead of deferring to “highly precise” satellite measurements.

    700 ZJ is 58% (700/1200) of their total theoretical GHG-forced energy that the IPCC cannot tie down.

    700,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Joules of IPCC uncertainty just in the short period 1970 – 2011.

    I can’t think of greater IPCC uncertainty than this, of even if greater uncertainty is even possible.

  53. Dennis N Horne on August 30, 2016 at 2:56 pm said:

    There is no proof in science. There is evidence and the balance of informed opinion.

    Eventually a consensus.

    Sorry, but that’s the way it works.

    That’s why governments accept science from informed scientists, not cranks.

    Britain is moving to renewables. Kelly doesn’t like it.

    Well, Kelly [profane abuse deleted – RT].

  54. Dennis N Horne on August 30, 2016 at 3:03 pm said:

    “In the UK over 10% of all scientists in universities and in government agencies that are paid from the
    public purse concentrate on analysing this one problem, three times more than the number doing any
    research to alleviate the potential problem. A moment’s consideration shows that climate change
    must be clearly both a major and imminent problem to justify this level of expenditure, and even if it
    is such a problem, then there should be three times as many working on the solutions than on the
    analysis!”

    So. Where is the error? I mean a technical error, not just in logic (begging the question).

  55. Richard C (NZ) on August 30, 2016 at 3:25 pm said:

    RT

    Re Dennis. Discrimination by religion, obscenity.

    Ban the troll.

  56. Richard C (NZ) on August 30, 2016 at 3:43 pm said:

    For the record

    “Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

    Naish and Renwick’s (provably false) variation on (provably false) IPCC attribution is NEITHER science nor evidence:

    “5 Ninety-three per cent of the heat ………….from humankind’s use of fossil fuels has gone into the ocean”

    Tim Naish, James Renwick, Royal Society Ten by Ten: Climate Change series
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11669116

    This IPCC uncertainty in OLR is NOT “strength of scientific control”

    700,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Joules of IPCC uncertainty just in the short period 1970 – 2011

    So they have provably FALSE evidence and humongously WEAK scientific control.

    Neither of these supports AGW/MMCC theory, in fact, more counter than support.

  57. Richard C (NZ) on August 30, 2016 at 3:51 pm said:

    Without anthropogenic ocean warming attribution the IPCC’s AGW/MMCC theory is sunk.

    Their attribution has no scientific support (i.e. no “scientific evidence”) by their own tacit admission in WG1 Chapter 3. Their attribution is impossible by their own cited surface energy balance.

    The IPCC are lying therefore.

  58. Richard Treadgold on August 30, 2016 at 4:47 pm said:

    RC,

    Ban the troll.

    Not yet. It’s even more annoying that he simply ignores the good questions we’ve given him. You’re giving him a fair kick in the guts, Richard, so you’re going to get something back. If you don’t like talking to him, stop talking to him, but I really can’t ban him when I let you go on with your needling and patronising, can I? Refute his arguments (which you’re good at, after all) and ignore the irritations. Remember, we’ll survive long after those non-believers have drifted away on the next little ice age. Oops, that sounds a bit religious, doesn’t it? Not that it matters—the point is that truth will survive.

  59. Dennis N Horne on August 30, 2016 at 5:04 pm said:

    “In the UK over 10% of all scientists in universities and in government agencies that are paid from the
    public purse concentrate on analysing this one problem, three times more than the number doing any
    research to alleviate the potential problem. A moment’s consideration shows that climate change
    must be clearly both a major and imminent problem to justify this level of expenditure, and even if it
    is such a problem, then there should be three times as many working on the solutions than on the
    analysis!”

    Third time. Ignoring “begging the question”, where is the schoolboy technical error?

  60. Richard C (NZ) on August 30, 2016 at 5:06 pm said:

    RT

    >”I really can’t ban him when I let you go on with your needling and patronising, can I?”

    You are going to allow discrimination on the grounds of religion, hate speech, and obscenity.

    I’m out of here. This place has turned into a cess pit.

  61. Richard Treadgold on August 30, 2016 at 5:39 pm said:

    Dennis,

    Third time. Ignoring “begging the question”, where is the schoolboy technical error?

    Our questions came first. Answer them.

  62. Richard Treadgold on August 30, 2016 at 5:42 pm said:

    RC,

    You are going to allow discrimination on the grounds of religion, hate speech, and obscenity.

    Supporting free speech means allowing bias, hatred and obscenity. It applies to friends and enemies. It grants no favours to one it does not grant to all. So harden up, my friend.

  63. Dennis is a textbook full of logical fallacies

    Apparently, because governments spend huge amounts of money on climate change research, it must be a really big problem

  64. Maggy Wassilieff on August 30, 2016 at 8:30 pm said:

    @Richard C

    This site isn’t a cess pit, but some poop may get sprayed about at times.
    What to do? Step over it, walk around it, avoid it.

    If you leave, where will I (and others) find your answers / thoughts/views?

    I have been abused relentlessly for over two years on KiwiBlog because I post links to recent climate science publications. The abuse is directed at me personally; it is often defamatory , sometimes of a sexual nature and invariably nasty. It comes from one anonymous commenter in the main, but he sometimes attracts circling sharks. I no longer respond directly to this person, although I will address issues if I think it is worth putting new information into the debate/discussion.

    Stick to the science, forget the individuals raising questions.
    If you consider the questions worthy of an answer, provide one.
    If you consider the questions/comments are just a wind-up, ignore them.

  65. The abuse is directed at me personally; it is often defamatory , sometimes of a sexual nature and invariably nasty.

    and we wonder why more women don’t get involved in science!

    Good on you for being principled and strong, Maggie
    I hope Richard C comes back and heeds your advice.

  66. Richard Treadgold on August 30, 2016 at 8:44 pm said:

    Hear, hear, Andy! Sensible comments, Maggy, and I, too, hope we don’t lose the services of Richard C.

  67. Dennis N Horne on August 30, 2016 at 11:50 pm said:

    Maggy Wassilieff. Addressing Richard C (NZ): “If you leave, where will I (and others) find your answers / thoughts/views?”

    I’m glad you’ve clarified your position, Maggy.

  68. Dennis N Horne on August 31, 2016 at 12:01 am said:

    Still can’t spot the error, Andy?

    Why am I not surprised. [Ad hominem garbage deleted. You’re courting excommunication; short of a stage? – RT]

  69. Dennis,

    I’m just wondering regarding the consensus, does the consensus agree with the predictions of the computer models or the empirical data from multiple sources, because they contradict each other for some strange reason?

    http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig11-25.jpg
    Original source: (Figure TS.14, page 87, Technical Summary, Working Group I, IPCC AR5 report)

    It seems to me that the consensus of the temperature datasets show the computer models are falsified – by the IPCC no less. Can you ‘spot the error’ in the failed AGW theory? 😉

  70. Dennis N Horne on August 31, 2016 at 1:41 pm said:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXr5xzkFoZM
    “The 2016 Reines Lecture was delivered by Nobel Laureate Steven Chu on March 9, 2016. Dr. Chu is co-recipient of the 1997 Nobel Prize in Physics for his research in cooling and trapping of atoms with laser light. He served as the 12th United States Secretary of Energy from 2009-2013 and currently he is Professor of Physics and Molecular & Cellular Physiology at Stanford University.”

    Progress.

  71. Has Dr. Chu worked out a way of reconciling the falsified climate models with the empirical evidence from multiple sources published in the IPCC AR5 that falsifies them? No? Hmmm, not much progress on that front.

  72. Maggy Wassilieff on September 1, 2016 at 9:18 pm said:

    Here’s an interesting article by Bob Brockie about folks from the Humanities being stacked on the RSNZ Council.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/82333402/Brockie-Why-should-the-humanities-be-funded-by-the-Royal-Society

  73. Brett Keane on September 25, 2016 at 5:50 pm said:

    Blogging Trolls such as Dennis have a task set for them. It is to shut down contrary debate. Seems to be working here so far, but I know RT can beat it!. I saw it work on the RNZ blog, which was itself breaching their Charter because of being run by the CAGW crew. They closed it down after I challenged them legally, starting off in a similar manner to these Plaintiffs, but in a smaller way. Their own words condemned them, as usual.

    What has happened to RSNZ is mirrored around the world, done by hijacking the management of Scientific Associations, a known tactic of old by marxists and fascists. More power to the dissenting Members, Best Wishes from a semi-retired botanist.

  74. Richard Treadgold on September 25, 2016 at 6:05 pm said:

    Brett,

    Your botanical encouragement is most welcome, thank you. You’re absolutely right about enemy tactics, nothing mysterious about it, it’s just hard to combat when you don’t share their lack of integrity. So you’re saying the RNZ (do you mean the RSNZ?) had a blog which has been shut down? Is that why they use the SciBlogs site?

    Any time you can chip in with an argument, please feel free.

  75. Brett Keane on September 25, 2016 at 6:19 pm said:

    No, Radio NZ. Closure was their choice, as there remained nothing to argue about. Was a pity, but the CAGW tactics did close off an important public debating place….

  76. Richard Treadgold on September 25, 2016 at 6:23 pm said:

    Yes, I see. So that leaves… well, yes, the CCG as the only free and open New Zealand global warming forum that welcomes all comers! Hurrah!

Leave a Reply

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

Post Navigation