Have local climate pseudosceptics come to the end of the road?

Posted on November 12, 2013 | 5 Comments

This from Radio New Zealand today:

Climate deniers ordered to pay court costs

A group of climate-change sceptics has been forced to pay court costs over their unsuccessful legal challenge against the National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research (Niwa).

The New Zealand Climate Science Education Trust took Niwa to court saying its science was faulty and that was unacceptable because its findings guided national policymaking.

The case was abandoned when judges ruled scientific argument was not appropriate for determination by a court of law.

The High Court awarded costs of about $80,000 against the trust, which then asked the Court of Appeal for a discount arguing its members had acted in the public interest.

But the court has concluded the trust was mounting a crusade against Niwa and was not acting reasonably.

via Radio New Zealand : News : National : Climate deniers ordered to pay court costs.

Similar articles

This entry was posted in climate, SciBlogs, science, Science and Society and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 responses to “Have local climate pseudosceptics come to the end of the road?”

  1. Steve Slott | November 12, 2013 at 2:24 pm |

    Fortunately, courts are far more intelligent than deniers seem to think.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  2. Andy | November 12, 2013 at 5:36 pm |

    Another great day for unaccountability in the nz public sector.

    Like

  3. Ken | November 12, 2013 at 10:03 pm |

    Over at Hot Topic Ron Taylor quotes from the current judgment on the costs:

    “[11] The Judge declined NIWA a further uplift. He also refused the trust a discount, rejecting the submission that it was serving a public interest as a disinterested citizen seeking to hold a public body to account.

    The Judge held that the public interest exception to the normal rule that costs follow the event is available where the case concerns a matter of genuine public interest beyond the interests of the immediate litigant, the case has merit, and the litigant concerned has acted reasonably.

    He accepted that climate change may be seen as a matter of public debate, but the case could not resolve that issue, which is a scientific problem not suitable for determination by a court. Further, the proceedings were pursued by the trust to advance its own interest in challenging NIWA’s records.

    [12] On appeal, (NZCSET) again invoked the “watchdog principle”, contending that the proceeding was properly brought in the public interest and was not merely vexatious; further, the trust sought no pecuniary gain. In the circumstances, he submitted, the principle that it is appropriate for responsible lobby groups to test decisions taken by government agencies was applicable.

    [13] We accept the principle, which is well established… We are prepared to assume too that the trust did not act for pecuniary gain. The question is whether it has acted reasonably.

    [14] As to that, we observe that only after the late intervention of former counsel was the case sensibly articulated in the High Court.

    Even then, it had no prospect of success, both because of the inherent difficulty of challenging a decision of this kind and because the challenge turned on disputed facts which were not susceptible to determination on judicial review.

    By way of illustration, we observe that the trust initially characterised NIWA’s temperature records as the official New Zealand record, but that allegation was abandoned in the High Court. It was also open to the Judge to conclude that the trust has mounted something of a crusade against NIWA’s records.

    [15] In the circumstances, we are not persuaded that the Judge was wrong to refuse the trust a reduction in its liability for costs on public interest grounds. On the contrary, we agree with him that the trust did not act reasonably.“

    Like

  4. Richard Christie | November 12, 2013 at 10:14 pm |

    Absolute silence at Treadgold’s blog.

    Kin of a “It didn’t happen” moment

    Famous denialist moments in History:

    Hy Brasil is sinking

    Like

Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.