NZ climate change “sceptics” abandon appeal


Credit: Rod Quantock: global warming’s just not funny

Most of us by now have moved on and forgotten the NZ High Court ruling which rejected attempts by local climate change “sceptics” to get a judicial review of the climate change data held by the National Insitute of Water and Atmospheric Research  (NIWA) (see High Court ruled on integrity – not science). But these “sceptics” were persistent and the “New Zealand Climate Science Education Trust” had decided  to challenge the ruling in the Court of Appeal

But this week the group withdrew the appeal:

“Barry Brill, who acted as solicitor for the trust, said his clients could not see a way forward after coming upon a procedural issue. The judges had noted two scientists involved in the reports were not cross-examined – something his clients were unaware could be done during the earlier court process.”

Sounds like sour grapes, or the group had gone into the original court case unprepared.

I guess they didn’t want to throw good money after bad. Although there will be further costs related to the aborted appeal (see Sceptics bail on climate court case).

Similar articles

About these ads

47 responses to “NZ climate change “sceptics” abandon appeal

  1. This is a great result for unaccountability in the public sector and a victory for low-quality work by NIWA


  2. More legal failure.
    I’m shocked.
    I wonder how much the total costs will be this time and who actually pays?

  3. The hearing didn’t take that long. It was dismissed on some legal technicalities. It seems that the NZ legal system isn’t really set up for this kind of case

    That was how I read it, anyway

  4. Andy, are you saying that the appeal was dismissed? The news report say they withdrew.

  5. Yes that is what I meant, but it was around some legal issues on challenging the conclusions
    Hopefully someone will clarify this at some stage

  6. Barry Brill’s response is here

  7. From the report one gets the idea that Brill didn’t understand the law.

  8. Which report?

  9. According to Brill’s account they withdrew. Nothing about dismissal at all.

    The trust did withdraw the appeal shortly…
    …and eventually told Grant that the appeal should be withdrawn.

    How did this “dismissal” rumor get started? Hmm.

    I’ve told the NZHerald that the Coalition would probably now consider another forum, perhaps the Minister or the Auditor-General…

    That’s the spirit. Victory is only just around the corner. You’re doing Perry Mason proud.

  10. The report I linked to.

  11. I said that I meant withdrawn, not dismissed. It was a mistake.

    If you want to make a big song and dance about it, go ahead…

  12. The report I linked to.

    Oh the Herald article, I see.

  13. It was a mistake.
    If you want to make a big song and dance about it, go ahead…

    Not really possible now since you’ve frankly admitted that it was a mistake.

    Personally, I’m surprised that they took the judge’s advice and stopped digging the hole bigger.

    In any case, the appeal was really interesting while it lasted.
    A real tussle.
    Plenty of stuff for the internet lawyers to re-visit again and again.
    “We wuz robbed” etc.

    The Intelligent Design folks still haven’t managed to let go of Dover.

  14. They did actually create a statistical analysis that was audited by three separate statisticians, but hey,

  15. But what?
    Either shit or get off the pot.
    Either appeal or not. Just spare us the whinging.

  16. Yet no-one knows who these “statistician” reviewers are or have seen their report? It was not an issue for their High Court case and my impression is that climate scientists have really just laughed at it. Perhaps you guys should publish it a somewhere.


  17. Yet no-one knows who these “statistician” reviewers are

    Wasn’t one of them Bob D?
    Supplied an affidavit in the case.

  18. Bob D is Manfred, the main anonymous author of the original “Are we getting Warmer yet?” And also one of the people behind the later document. But who were the statistician reviewers.


  19. Manfred reveals himself

  20. Yet no-one knows who these “statistician” reviewers are or have seen their report?

    Anonymous statisticians.
    (…awkward silence…)
    Unseen reports.
    (…more awkward silence…)
    I’m sure that played out well in court.

    Perhaps you guys should publish it a somewhere.

    Now there’s a thought. Only I think we all know why that’s not going to happen. Right, boys and girls?

    Claim CA325:
    Creationists cannot get their views accepted by mainstream science because they are prevented from publishing in mainstream scientific journals.
    Source:Morris, Henry M. 1998. Bigotry in science. Back To Genesis 114a (June).

  21. Bob did the original work. The reviewers were someone else.

  22. Who were the reviewers of the NIWA work?
    Didn’t the BoM do a “secret” audit which they were not prepared to release the details of?

    The plot thickens. All we need now is a Len Brown, Kim Dotcom and John Banks involvement and we have a mini-series or even a Hollywood movie

  23. Diversion, Andy. The anonymous statisticians are just like Treadgold’s anonymous “science team” – didn’t put their name to the work because they were scared of getting a brick thorough their window.

    Yeah, right.


  24. Stupid fools. I hope their court costs are a hefty sum. Yet, they’ll probably weasel out of it somehow leaving the taxpayer holding the bag.

  25. They might have preferred to stay anonymous because criticising the consensus is worse than child abuse

  26. Yeah, right, Andy. That and bricks throughout their window? What happened to Manfred then? Did he suddenly lies his fear of bricks and accusations of child abuse, then?


  27. Personally it doesn’t bother me. I probably would have tried publishing a paper first.
    Anyway, it is a side issue. They didn’t pay much attention to the work and said it was ” too rigorous”

    I don’t know why anyone bothers really.

  28. NIWA – National Institute of Weather Adjustments

  29. I probably would have tried publishing a paper first.

    Such brave recklessness.

    Anyway, it is a side issue.

    Well, you did bring it up in the first place. But hey,

  30. Copied from a comment elsewhere
    ““The 7SS which appears on their website under the heading “New Zealand temperature record”, was adjusted by a method described by Jim Salinger in 1981. That method was jettisoned 12 years later by Salinger himself and has never been used since by any climatologist anywhere. “

    Yet NIWA claim they are using best practices.
    What a joke organization in a joke of a country

  31. Andy, how about attributing that claim? 

  32. Bob D endorsed that comment at CCG.

    I don’t do links remember, just my own words
    Tell it how it is, what is really happening

  33. Ken, you must know the details of this. You have been following it for years, a lot longer than me.

    Did you forget?

  34. Copied from a comment elsewhere…

    How mysterious.

  35. Manfred’s endorsement is the kiss of death, isn’t it?

    It is, anyway, a clearly very naive claim, scientifically.

  36. It is, anyway, a clearly very naive claim, scientifically

    It is not clear at all
    Maybe you’d like to tell us all why Ken, since you are an expert in the issue and have been following it for years

  37. Mysterious and vague.

  38. Yes, that is how it is. Always

  39. Looks like Andy won’t be sharing where he got the comment from.
    It’s from….”elsewhere”.

  40. Ah, so Clarence made the comment. Heavy.

    Behold, the denier echo chamber.

    BTW Andy over at HT ( they’ve are wondering if you have kept Bishop Hill up to date with the NZCET action against NIWA.
    Or has it gone the same way John Mashey describes as being the fate of so many warmist “scandals” – a blog storm in a teacup

  41. Yes actually I emailed Andrew Montford about the latest, but he hasn’t responded, maybe other things to do.

    I could respond at HT if I wasn’t banned from there. I would particularly have liked to respond directly to that odious piece of slime that goes by the name of “Beaker”, a rent seeking parasite that apparently works for the UK wind subsidy farming industry

  42. Those guys at Hot Topic seem to really get off on this. Are they doing a Len Brown with their pants at their ankles as they type, heavily breathing.
    Those images haunt me this week.

  43. Yes actually I emailed Andrew Montford about the latest, but he hasn’t responded, maybe other things to do.

    That will be the reason, other things to do.

  44. Possibly it’s not actually that interesting compared with the situation in the UK, like for example the skyrocketing cost of electricity thanks to green tariffs.

    Corruption in science is so last century.

  45. By the way, I think that Murray guy is the same as the FlatEarth2013 guy that just got banned from Hot Topic.
    At least, I would have a bet on it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s