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.

Leave a Reply

41 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
4 Comment authors
Notify of

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

Richard C (NZ)

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.

Richard C (NZ)

>”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: SCIENTIFIC FRAUD ”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: REPORT 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… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

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


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… Read more »


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)


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*

Richard C (NZ)

>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.


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)

Richard C (NZ)

>”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… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”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… Read more »


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

Richard C (NZ)

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.


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


The ten minute presentation by CCRU to council is here


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

Richard C (NZ)

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.


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


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.


Let’s wait and see what eventuates.

Mike Jowsey

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.

Mike Jowsey

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?


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

Mike Jowsey

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


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


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


Christchurch Coastal Residents United.


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


[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:

Post Navigation