Kiwis threaten climate consensus with judicial review

Citizen group unafraid of so-called consensus

A group of pragmatic kiwis have threatened to test the Christchurch City Council’s belief in the IPCC dogma in court. In effect, they are daring the council to let a judge examine the consensus position that the sea level is about to soar dramatically higher and faster than it has for thousands of years.

The worm is turning

Residents aren’t afraid to call the council’s bluff—unless the council wipes erosion info off thousands of LIM reports, they will take it to court.

Coastal flooding and erosion information on Christchurch property records will be urgently reviewed, but it’s not soon enough for residents who have threatened legal action.

This will attract attention all over the world, from climate sceptics and warmist agitators alike. As more and more people, from scientists and politicians to scholars and ordinary people, take a little nibble here, have  a little chew there and slowly chip away at different aspects of the global warming scam, thousands are learning that the much-vaunted climate consensus has no science to stand on.

Almost every day we hear that the evidence for dangerous man-made warming is “overwhelming” and “unequivocal” but never what that evidence is. Now multitudes are adopting a confident position against that false view.

Views: 97

41 Thoughts on “Kiwis threaten climate consensus with judicial review

  1. Andy on 25/08/2016 at 4:48 pm said:

    Thanks Richard, nods head appreciatively and apologise for not writing this myself

  2. Richard Treadgold on 25/08/2016 at 5:05 pm said:

    You’re welcome, mate. This is really just to keep on topic all that good stuff that you and RC are posting.

  3. Richard C (NZ) on 25/08/2016 at 5:27 pm said:

    In the CCC situation it has gone beyond “consensus” or at least to the outer fringe of it. RCP8.5 is a worst case scenario.

    The CCC are in an untenable position but looks like they’ll only go down fighting, against their own ratepayers.

  4. Richard Treadgold on 25/08/2016 at 5:29 pm said:

    Yes, it’s hard to understand why they don’t accept the evidence from the review. Maybe Andy can offer some insight into the thinking behind their position.

  5. Richard C (NZ) on 25/08/2016 at 5:50 pm said:

    >”This is really just to keep on topic all that good stuff that you and RC are posting”

    That would be stuff like this maybe:

    ”By today’s standards, omission of data that inexplicably conflicts with other data or with a scientist’s proposed interpretation is considered scientific fraud”

    Mild case:

    Wellington City Council – Sea Level Rise Options Analysis
    Tonkin & Taylor Ltd

    2.2 Range of scenarios
    WCC recognises that sea level rise represents a long-term and dynamic risk, requiring new approaches to prepare and respond. WCC is following MfE guidance by focussing on sea level rise scenarios between 0.6 m to 1.1 m, understanding that a rise of around 1.0 m should be planned for over the coming 100 years.

    For this study no deduction in actual sea level rise from the 1980s to the present has been made.

    # # #

    At least T&T disclosed their omission. But the actual rate of SLR is the default scenario . Why omit it?

    Same for CCC. If a LIM tag is so vitally necessary the default scenario is the only basis for any memorandum until such time as a proven departure of the nature of whatever theory-based prediction appears. For IPCC theory that could be decades away – or never.

  6. Richard Treadgold on 25/08/2016 at 6:17 pm said:


    That would be stuff like this maybe:

    Yep, and it’s coming in far quicker than I can process and write it up. So I just have to hope I’m doing the right thing while you fill the comment threads. Though your own comments are like gold, because they make sense of naked columns of figures and tie together statements that aren’t immediately obviously linked, they’re as rare as hen’s teeth. You appear to have the ability to assimilate acres of material, even recalling items of interest from months ago. So I despair that anyone reads the screeds you post. I certainly don’t have time for more than a skim.

  7. Richard C (NZ) on 25/08/2016 at 6:24 pm said:

    Been perused extensively on this blog but worth bringing up given where CCRU is going.

    ‘The Legal Implications of Sea Level Rise in Washington’ – Erin Crisman-Glass, Attorney at Law

    2. Governing Legal Principles
    2.1 The Public Trust Doctrine
    2.2 The Law of Accretion and Erosion
    2.3 Unconstitutional Takings
    2.4 Substantive Due Process

  8. Andy on 25/08/2016 at 6:34 pm said:

    Our meeting this morning was scheduled for 9.30 and supposed to take 10 minutes, but things got pushed back and I didn’t get home until 2pm

    Other issues that were more pressing were a group of four women dressed as Fairies who were asking for a “Fairy Day” (they visit hospitals for sick kids so I am not demeaning them) and then several groups who were asking for funding for projects in Brighton, which is one of the coastal areas affected by the policies we are fighting. They got their funding and the council were very happy at all these positive community projects helping out the coastal suburbs…

    Then, after a very long tea break, we had our say, but the Mayor had to leave early for a prior engagement (she got to see the Fairies, phew!)

    Three councillors in particular were very supportive of our group and moved to have LIMs untagged asap, but this is not apparently in their power and is an executive decision down to the CEO

    There was quite a lot of tension felt between elected members and council staff. I think many of the latter have an agenda that is supported by the Mayor.

    Some links to press releases today

  9. Andy on 25/08/2016 at 6:57 pm said:

    These are the Christchurch “Faerie Circle” (sorry I got the spelling wrong) that bumped the coastal residents position in the meeting at the council

    Utterly charming, I might add. I might even be “away with the Faeries” if this carries on its current trajectory

    (some may argue that this is already the case)

  10. Andy on 25/08/2016 at 7:38 pm said:

    Tin foil hat time folks
    Web videos of CC meeting today is here

    Our item (14) is marked “private”. All other videos are viewable. The mayor had to rush out of our session for a “prior engagement” but then managed to appear for all the afternoon sessions

    *paging Alex Jones*

  11. Richard C (NZ) on 25/08/2016 at 8:04 pm said:

    >CCC Newsline.

    Council General Manager Strategy and Transformation Brendan Anstiss :

    “we are committed to completing all the recommendations of the panel”

    I’ll have to check, but removal of LIM tags wasn’t one of the recommendations as I recall. It’s more an ethical consequence (or something), comes under Governing Legal Principles by Crisman-Glass upthread.

    Not sure which without going through it again. Could be either: The Public Trust Doctrine; Unconstitutional Takings; or Substantive Due Process. Or some combination.

  12. Andy on 25/08/2016 at 8:17 pm said:

    The report said that is wasn’t appropriate for tagging LIMs and the process might be illegal (not the exact words – I need to check)

  13. Richard C (NZ) on 25/08/2016 at 9:39 pm said:

    >”Could be either: The Public Trust Doctrine; Unconstitutional Takings; or Substantive Due Process”

    The latter (in Washington USA),

    2.4. Substantive Due Process
    Alleging a deprivation of substantive due process rights is another way for property owners to challenge and potentially invalidate land-use regulations in Washington. It is possible for a regulatory action to survive a takings challenge, but nevertheless to violate substantive due process. The remedy in such a case is invalidation of the offending regulation; not payment of just compensation.

    The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment limits governments from using the police power in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner.xlvi To determine whether a regulation violates due process, the Washington Supreme Court employs a three-prong test.xlvii First, courts consider whether the regulation is aimed at a legitimate public interest. Then, courts determine whether the means used are reasonably necessary to achieve that purpose. Finally, courts assess whether the regulation is unduly oppressive
    on the landowner. Consideration of the unduly oppressive part of the test involves ad hoc balancing that is highly subjective. The Supreme Court has identified a set of nonexclusive factors to guide this analysis.

    These factors include: the seriousness of the public problem, the feasibility of less oppressive measures, the amount and percentage of lost property values, and the extent of investment-backed expectations.xlviii Whether a party could have anticipated the liability imposed by a regulation and whether they could have altered their behavior to avoid such liability is one of the more important factors to consider, especially when considering a statute that applies retroactively.xlix

    # # #

    Principle applies in NZ but whether the application to LIM tags would be as per the above criteria, I have no idea. Might even be a development of case law if the action proceeds.

  14. Richard C (NZ) on 25/08/2016 at 11:53 pm said:

    >”The report said that is wasn’t appropriate for tagging LIMs and the process might be illegal (not the exact words – I need to check)”

    I find,

    Page 34
    Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987
    15 Canterbury Regional Policy Statement 2013, p 88.

    This requires councils to put certain material relating to individual properties into a land information memorandum. Section 44A(2) states:

    The matters which shall be included … are –
    information identifying each (if any) special feature or characteristic of the land concerned, including but not limited to potential erosion … being a feature or characteristic that –
    is known to the territorial authority; but
    (ii) is not apparent from … a district plan …’

    Then way down to [220],

    [220] This is outside our exact brief but there are related issues which we consider worth identifying, and appreciate the opportunity to do so here. They are in note form:

    # CCC to require withdrawal of the hazard maps in the Report and put to one side until final mapping is agreed amongst all stakeholders in the second and third stages of adaptive management.

    # CCC to advise the LIM authority that the withdrawal is necessary until the legal requirements of the NZCPS are complete because the current mapping may be legally unsound.

    # # #

    Not specifically in respect to LIM tags or their removal but to the basis of what they disclose (mapping). But if the mapping is legally unsound, the LIM information based on it will also be legally unsound.

    It’s the status of each respective tag after mapping agreement that matters i.e. is the tag still required? If so, is the wording appropriate and not overreaching?

    So either: all tags removed immediately and readdress any requirement after mapping revision; or, tag wording modified and tags removed as appropriate after mapping revision. CCRU wants the former, council wants the latter. The end result SHOULD be the same either way but at present the LIM info is probably legally unsound so all tags should be removed and only reinstated as and where required.

    Legal action could be overcome by events but not if mapping revision takes months. Better the tags removed in that case.

    When the mapping is agreed, the tags must be changed appropriately and only left on properties effected by the revised mapping. Those no longer effected must have the tag removed. Seems to follow that if the mapping is to be agreed then the LIM information should be agreed also. Not according to the council:


    “Council staff, on Thursday, acknowledged the LIM notations needed to change, but they needed to discuss what they should be changed to. Edwards said the council had a statutory requirement to meet when changing the LIMs.”

    Only the CCC CEO can actually change the LIM wording and, I assume, direct for the removal of LIM tags where the revised mapping no longer effects a property.

    Legal action could only force temporary removal of all tags I would have thought because there’s a statutory requirement for them IF there is a real threat. The only removal that could be enforced, if necessary, is from properties no longer effected. Should not be necessary in an ideal world.

    I don’t think Substantive Due Process could be invoked now I’ve thought about it. I don’t even think legal action is necessary. I do think the timeframe is important. If it can all be wrapped up in weeks then it is just a matter of keeping a close eye on what changes council make. If it is going to take months then the tags have to be wiped and start again in due course.

  15. Andy on 26/08/2016 at 8:40 am said:

    Some points from the peer review

    (Downloadable from the resources page at )

    [221] Thus, for the time being, the conclusions in the first and second stages should not extend
    to firm hazard lines designed to go into the LIM reports or for inclusion in the CRDP as maps or

  16. Richard C (NZ) on 26/08/2016 at 9:12 am said:

    Forgot to carry on my pdf search for LIM past [220], missed [221].

    So if firm hazard lines are out of LIM reports or maps until after stage 1 & 2, then its going to be considerable time, months plus, until LIM wording can be decided and even a decision on whether a LIM should be tagged in each case can be made.

    The CCRU are right. The LIM tags have to be removed until then and start from scratch again. Owners can’t have them unjustifiably sitting there all that time with the wrong wording and possibly unjustifiably tagged in the first place.

  17. Andy on 26/08/2016 at 9:44 am said:

    The hazard notices were put on LIMS during the coastal hazards policy draft. The coastal hazards was dropped from the pRDP after the intervention of Nick Smith late last year

    The LIM notices remain.

    I never received any notification about the LIM tagging either

  18. Andy on 26/08/2016 at 9:58 am said:

    The ten minute presentation by CCRU to council is here

  19. Andy on 26/08/2016 at 2:14 pm said:

    I would add that this group (CCRU) was not set up to fight IPCC dogma, but rather the unfair and unjust way in which the coastal hazards policy was foisted on the unsuspecting public via a fast track District Plan process, with no consultation with the public at all

    In our dealings with the media, we have steered clear of issues around climate change, as we don’t want to be treated with the usual derision that the MSM give us lot

    In fact, people in the group have a wide range of views on the IPCC, though there are a fair number of sceptics

  20. Richard C (NZ) on 27/08/2016 at 9:27 am said:

    Tim Sintes

    “For the last year we’ve had cases where houses can’t sell, insurance has become an issue, no insurance, no mortgage, so it’s a big impact and it’s really affected a lot of people.”

    All because of council overreach. That could be rectified immediately.

    Problem is, the damage has already been done.

  21. Andy on 31/08/2016 at 3:46 pm said:

    The Tonkin and Taylor report and the CCC are basing their hazard mapping on an assumption of 0.4m SLR over 50 years and 1.0m over 100 years.

    By fitting a quadratic to these points, I calculate an initial SLR of 6mm a year (3 times the current rate) and a final SLR of 14mm/year after 100 years (7 times the current rate)

    s = 6t + 0.04t^2 where t in years and s in mm

    The MfE advises adopting 10mm a year beyond 2100

    If we use a mid point of 0.3 m at 50 years, the initial SLR is about correct (around 2mm/year) but the final SLR at 100 years becomes 18mm/year, 9 times the current rate

    s = 2t + 0.08t^2 where t in years and s in mm

    Strangely, no one seems to have asked these questions

  22. Andy on 01/09/2016 at 1:37 pm said:

    Apparently there is going to be a media release tomorrow by the CCC CEO. There has been no attempt to contact our group or enter into any discussions, so I assume that it will be bad news.

  23. Richard Treadgold on 01/09/2016 at 1:51 pm said:

    Does bad news mean you will be forced into legal action?

  24. Andy on 01/09/2016 at 6:25 pm said:

    Let’s wait and see what eventuates.

  25. Mike Jowsey on 04/09/2016 at 5:20 pm said:

    From the Stuff article, “He called for Prime Minister John Key to intervene on behalf of Christchurch ratepayers.” Cynical me says, “Yeah, right.”

    I think a march and hui should be organised. With Cr. East’s endorsement.

    Before the elections.

  26. Mike Jowsey on 04/09/2016 at 5:28 pm said:

    Andy – Is anybody engaging with Otautahi about this? Their take on it may be that, as custodians of the land, they are obliged to carefully consider the risks and thereby they must look at the science, or at least respect a peer review which recommends lowering the risk assessment. (Not to mention Ngai Tahu’s investment). Or are they simply ‘head in the sand’ about all of this?

  27. Andy on 04/09/2016 at 7:38 pm said:

    Mike – there was some discussion around getting Sir Tipene O Regan involved again

    As reported on this blog, he was a focal spokesman back in the early days about a year ago

    There is a lot more media coverage lined up.
    We are blessed to have a well connected PR guy on our side

  28. Mike Jowsey on 04/09/2016 at 8:21 pm said:

    Well I for one would march from The Pier to The Square

  29. Andy on 04/09/2016 at 11:00 pm said:

    I’m a bit more concerned about all the “community engagement” meetings I am being dragged into

    After this last thing from the council I am very reluctant to become “engaged” with anything especially if it becomes a matter of record

  30. Andy on 06/09/2016 at 10:38 am said:

    CCRU is meeting the Mayor this morning, who presumably wants a little less media attention on her council and staff

  31. Richard Treadgold on 06/09/2016 at 10:47 am said:

    Thanks for the links, helps to keep up with the play. Now: CCRU is the Christchurch Community Residents’ Union? The good guys? Huh? Something like that?

  32. Andy on 06/09/2016 at 11:01 am said:

    Christchurch Coastal Residents United.

  33. Richard Treadgold on 06/09/2016 at 11:06 am said:

    Close. Will you attend the meeting? Hang on, it must be on now.

  34. Andy on 06/09/2016 at 11:46 am said:

    The meeting has been delayed and I’m not going as I am out of town

  35. Andy on 30/09/2016 at 12:08 pm said:

    [CCC Ceo Karleen] Edwards on coastal hazards: ‘This is not a negotiation’

    Edwards agreed some information provided by the Tonkin & Taylor report about coastal hazards might not be accurate, but she would not update the LIMs until a further report had been completed around March next year.

    “Council has a statutory obligation to disclose information about potential hazards that it has, even if it has some doubts about the full accuracy of the information.”

    She said the report had not been discredited and the council could not “unknow” the information supplied.

    Read more:

Leave a Reply

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

Post Navigation