Recently I commented on the High Court rejection of the climate change deniers/contrarians/sceptics arguments against NIWA’s New Zealand temperature record. I said that those attacking NIWA were “getting all falsely indignant because others have pointed out that in effect they were charging that NIWA had acted fraudulently and this had been rejected (see “Leading climate scientists” make false allegation).”
I argued that, in fact, these groups have for several years have accused NIWA scientists of fraud, even if the specific F word had not been used. It is disingenuous of these people to now claim “We never said it was fraud” and limit themselves to the literal words used in the High Court submissions.
The writer of that blog post, the well-known local climate change denier Richard Treadgold, indignantly claimed:
“the Trust did not claim fraud in its Statement of Claim to the High Court, which nowhere uses any derivative of the word fraud. The Coalition never accused NIWA of fraud.”
Come on Richard – enough of the porkies. You are just relying on reader’s ignorance of the statement. (While at the same time avoiding the long history of aggressive accusations of scientific fraud your organisations have made against NIWA scientists).
Someone from NIWA who participated in the High Court case, and therefore is familiar with the statements, sent me these comments:
“here are some accusations in the NZCSET’s statements of claim:
Paragraph 20 in NZCSET’s First Statement of Claim (July 2010), repeated in First Amended Statement of Claim (July 2011):
20. In making the 1999 decision NIWA was influenced by the expectation that significant NZTR warming would encourage funding for additional climate change research.
If this isn’t accusing us of fraud, I don’t know what is.
Also, from NZCSET’s First Amended Statement of Claim (July 2011):
45. Given the differences in data and calculations utilised by NIWA in producing the 7SS and the NZT7 there is no known scientific basis upon which it could have arrived at the coincidence between the results of the two series. The defendant must therefore have been affected by bias or actuated by some ulterior and/or irrelevant purpose, including:
(a) The advantages of finding a warming trend broadly consistent with the advice on climate matters that NIWA has been offering to judicial, administrative and
legislative bodies during the past decade;
(b) The avoidance of political embarrassment, or reduction in public confidence in NIWA’s scientific advice on climate matters, which might arise if the NZT7 failed to align with the warming trend shown in the 7SS.
Again, this is surely accusing us of fraud, by any other name. The explicit use of the ‘F’ word is not necessary.
Treadgold pretends “deep distress” at Dr Renwick’s comment referring to “the claim by the New Zealand Climate Science Education Trust (CSET, a small group of climate change “sceptics”) that NIWA had acted fraudulently in putting together its ‘7-station’ temperature series.” Treadgold goes as far as to pretend “to those devoted to the even-handed, practical pursuit of truth this accusation is deeply distressing.” (sic). And he calls for Dr Renwick to “man up and admit their mistake, apologise and withdraw the press statement.”
What hypocrisy!
Given the long history of the unfounded attacks by Treadgold and his mates on NIWA’s scientists, that again and again their claims have been exposed as unfounded and NIWA’s position vindicated, and now finally the rejection of these denier claims by the High Court, let me repeat my suggest from 2 years ago in Painted into a corner?
Isn’t it long past the time that Treadgold and his mates “man up”, apologise and withdraw their claims?
There is a lot of local internet debate about the High Court decision on the Judicial Review of NIWA’s New Zealand temperature record. Some of it is poorly informed as it assumes that the Judge ruled on the correctness of the science. That the ruling confirmed that the scientific consensus on global warming is “legally” correct. This would be silly and deplorable, if true, because it’s hardly the place for the High Court to decide scientific truth.
Justice Venning saw no reason to review the science – he found the appellant’s arguments inadequate or false.
In fact the ruling was not on the science – but on the scientific integrity of NIWA scientists who produced the science. The appellants (the NZ Climate Education Trust) could not prove their effective claim that NIWA’s scientists were guilty of fraud. That the methods used to get the temperature record were faulty or jerry rigged. That being the case the request for a judicial review of the science was rejected.
Justice Venning did decide that “in principle, the remedy of judicial review is potentially available” to the appellants. But:
“Unless the decision maker has followed a clearly improper process, the Court will be reluctant to adjudicate on matters of science and substitute its own inexpert view of the science if there is a tenable expert opinion.” And “unless the Trust can point to some defect in NIWA’s decision-making process or show that the decision was clearly wrong in principle or in law, this Court will not intervene. This Court should not seek to determine or resolve scientific questions demanding the evaluation of contentious expert opinion.”
Clearly the trust were unable to give any acceptable or convincing evidence of defects in NIWA’s work. Therefore the “application for judicial review is dismissed and judgment entered for the defendant.” And he awarded costs to NIWA.
NIWA’s reaction
NIWA also clearly interpret the judgement as endorsing their integrity. Their official comment (see Endorsement of NIWA’s science welcome) states “High Court Judge Justice Venning was unequivocal in his findings, reinforcing NIWA’s professionalism and credibility in this important area. “ And “NIWA Chairman, Chris Mace, said, “High Court Judge, Justice Venning’s ruling is a comprehensive reinforcement of the professionalism and credibility of NIWA’s science and scientists.”
The emotions of loss
Of course, those in denial are now trying to claim victory because no ruling was made on the temperature record itself (it wasn’t considered so couldn’t be ruled on) and getting all falsely indignant because others have pointed out that in effect they were charging that NIWA had acted fraudulently and this had been rejected (see “Leading climate scientists” make false allegation).
I can appreciate these local climate change deniers are a bit emotional at the moment. They have fallen to arguing amongst themselves. They are busy smearing Judge Justice Venning (which I would think has its own legal dangers) and blaming everyone else for their defeat. But a simple glance at the history of this dispute shows that they have, in effect, been accusing NIWA scientists of fraud and justifying that accusation with untenable claims, which, in the end, were not seen as credible by the High Court.
A brief history
The Judgement illustrates the start of this sorry saga with:
[118] On 26 November 2009 members of the Coalition published on their website a paper entitled “Are We Feeling Warmer Yet”? The paper claimed that “New Zealand’s temperature had been remarkably stable for a century and a half” and that the Coalition had “discovered that the warming in New Zealand over the past 156 years was indeed manmade, but had nothing to do with the emissions of CO2 – it was created by manmade adjustments of the temperature. It’s a disgrace.” The Coalition advanced the theory that the trend shown by the 7SS disagreed with historical temperature measurements recorded in NIWA’s climate data base.
Avoiding the F word but dog whistling fraud.
This is the only real reference to that document and the quote is significant as it illustrates that these groups were really accusing the NIWA scientists of manipulating adjustments to obtain a warming trend (seeNew Zealand’s denier-gate). In this document they also claimed that scientists:
“created a warming effect where none existed.” . . . “the shocking truth is that the oldest readings were cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming.” (My emphasis).
Although they have been careful to avoid the word “fraud” in their public pronouncements, their claims and charges have really just been dog whistling the same message. As has the tone of their supporters in on-line discussions.
Subsequently the authors of this document changed their story. This came after NIWA reviewed the work, carried out an independent analysis and produced a temperature record basically the same as the previous one (seePainted into a corner?). Without in any way acknowledging the incorrectness of their claim that no adjustments were necessary for site changes of the weather stations the climate change deniers/contrarians/sceptics then started to argue about the nature of these adjustments. And they later produced another analysis where they did use adjustments.
This is a weird situation – they still stand by both reports yet they are effectively saying two different things – (a) no site adjustments are necessary and (b) site adjustments are necessary but NIWA is doing it wrong! No wonder Justice Venning concluded they had no expertise in the subject.
Anonymous “science team” becomes “expert” witness
The authors of this first report were Richard Treadgold and Manfred Otto Dedekind. The latter author was originally kept anonymous (Richard Treadgold claimed they had a “scientific team” which wished to remain anonymous see my email correspondence with Richard on this) but turns up as one of the “expert” witnesses in the High Court action (seeShy climate denier in “science team” reveals himself). He claimed to be an expert in statistical analysis – yet a simple statistical analysis of the data he presented in “Are we getting warmer yet?” would have clearly shown site effects which required adjustments! (Bugger me – a simple glance at plots for the different stations would have shown that fact! – See below for Wellington).
“Are we getting warmer yet?” declared no adjustments were required in merging data from these three stations!
The judgement called attention to the “limited nature of his expertise” (as also for one of their other witnesses, Terry Dunleavy), rejected their claims of “impartiality,” and found “substantial passages” of their evidence inadmissable because their comments and opinions on “NIWA’s application of statistical techniques . . . is of little assistance to the Court.”
What were the trust’s claims?
The Trust had attempted to show “a clearly improper process,” incompetence, scientific fraud, or whatever you wish to call it, by making three accusations:
Breach of statutory duty:
“[180] The plaintiff alleges that by departing from recognised scientific opinion NIWA breached its statutory obligations, including its obligation to pursue excellence.”
Failure to consider mandatory considerations and Mistake of fact:
“[181] Next, the Trust says that NIWA failed to consider mandatory relevant considerations in departing from recognised scientific opinions.”
“[182] For the same reasons the allegation of a mistake of fact based on departure from recognised scientific opinion” or the “alternative proposition, that the decision to publish the review was based on mistaken belief it had been compiled using internationally recognised scientific methodology.”
Unreasonableness
“[183] Finally, the plaintiff alleges that in deciding to publish the review without following recognised scientific opinion and without an independent peer review NIWA acted unreasonably.”
The Climate Education Trust and its “expert” witnesses were unable to support either claim and they were all rejected.
“Recognised scientific opinion”
A lot of the appellant’s arguments relied on their interpretation of “recognised scientific opinion.” They claimed NIWA, in its review of the temperature record did not use the methodology described in a 1993 paper. NIWA agreed and countered the “recognised scientific opinion” argument with:
[80] NIWA does not accept that there is such a concept as an “officially recognised scientific opinion”. Dr Wratt accepts that the science community has well developed processes for addressing debates about scientific methods and interpretation through scientific conferences, and publications in the scientific literature. Dr Wratt does not consider however that there is one absolutely standard global methodology for calculating adjustments in temperature series to account for site shifts that is immutable. He supports that opinion by reference to Petersen et al (1998) which describes various methodologies. He says, as a matter of logic that must be so otherwise there would be no development. Dr Trenberth is also supportive of Dr Wratt’s approach. In his opinion: There is no one ‘correct’ way to calculate the specific adjustments which need to be made. …
NIWA’s position is surely the same any credible research scientist would hold. The Trusts claim of an infallible, for all time and all situations method, is extremely naive and opportunistic. It’s not surprising that Justice Venning concluded they did not have the expertise to be taken simply on the word as the source of a “recognised scientific opinion”. Indeed, Professor Carter, a geologist appearing as an expert witness for the trust did “not directly support the Trust’s definition of recognised scientific opinion.” In his evidence he argued that:
“Applied science in any field must take into account the current state of knowledge as attested by the peer-reviewed literature.”
It’s no wonder the Climate Education Trust lost this case. They were unable to support their arguments. In fact their arguments were extremely naive and opportunist.
The question of costs
It remains only for the costs to be calculated (surely these characters are not silly enough to seriously consider an appeal?). These will be substantial and morally legitimate considering the cost of this case, and the ongoing public attacks on the integrity of climate scientists by these people. Costs which otherwise fall on the public.
I find interesting the fact that the Climate Education Trust when it was first formed registered as a charity. The implication was that they would rely on public donations to cover their costs (the Trust was formed purely as a front group for the legal action). However, the registration seems to have been withdrawn. One can only assume that they envisage covering their costs through corporate donations, and not through public charity. Or that they wish to avoid the finial accountability that comes with charity registration.
Yes, I know. Bit of a cheap shot and these Hitler videos are getting a bit tiresome. However, when I first saw this I thought it might illustrate the emotional bickering in the local climate change denial/contrarian/sceptic community when they lost their High Court case against NIWA.
Some readers may be unaware that New Zealand SciBlogs produces a weekly podcast (usually available Friday afternoon). It’s worth listening to as it provides a Kiwi angle on current science news.
The latest podcast (Episode 37 – Science on trial) will interest everyone concerned about climate change, and particularly the recent High court case taken by a climate change denial group against NIWA. There is a long interview with Gareth Renowden, a SciBlogger who writes for Hot Topic. Gareth has published a book on climate change (Hot Topic) and is a mine of information on the science and politics of the issue. He provides an in-depth analysis of the High Court case and the people behind it. Well worth catching up with.
Also on this last podcast is an interview with James Renwick, a climate scientist working at School of Geography, Environment and Earth Sciences, Victoria University. He comments on the current scientific and political situation regarding climate change.
Non-consensual religious ceremony has always offended me so I am pleased to see this victory for human rights – unfortunately, in the UK, not NZ. But the case is relevant. The UK National Secular Society (NSS) challenged prayers in local council meetings in December 2010. The case in the High Court was taken against the Bideford Town council – Mr Clive Bone, a former councillor who objected to these imposed prayers was also a claimant. (See British Humanists welcome High Court ruling against council prayers).
Although this was a limited case the ruling will apply to the formal meetings of all councils in England and Wales, the majority of which are thought to conduct prayers as part of their meetings. Furthermore, the Judge recognised that there could be even wider implications and for this reason granted the defendants right of appeal.
No disadvantage to religious belief
The NSS welcomed the verdict - executive director Keith Porteous Wood said prayers had been “the cause of tension in a number of local councils”. He added:
“This judgment is an important victory for everyone who wants a secular society, one that neither advantages nor disadvantages people because of their religion or lack of it.”
And:
“The NSS is not seeking to deprive those who wish to pray the opportunity to do so; indeed, we fight to retain freedom of religion and belief. The judgement clearly states that religious freedoms are not hindered, as councillors who wish to do so are free to say prayers before council meetings.”
The judge made the same point. But once the meeting had become official one group could not impose its ceremonies on all:
“I do not think the 1972 Act [...] should be interpreted as permitting the religious views of one group of councillors, however sincere or large in number, to exclude, or even to a modest extent, to impose burdens on or even to mark out those who do not share their views and do not wish to participate in their expression of them. They are all equally elected councillors”.
He compared the imposition of prayers to bringing a “potentially divisive ceremony, such as the singing of a political party’s song into a meeting.”
Whining by the privileged
On the other hand former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey interpreted the result as “the gradual marginalisation of the Christian faith, being pushed to the outskirts.”
He said religious freedom no longer seemed to be a priority: “Equalities seem to trump all other kinds of freedom. This is a time for Christians to stand up and be counted.”
And:
“These legal rulings may also mean army chaplains could no longer serve, and that the Coronation Oath, in which the King or Queen pledges to maintain the laws of God and the lessons contained in the Gospels, would need to be abolished.
“This is a truly terrifying prospect.”
Critics of the ruling are painting themselves out as the victims. One blogger claimed : “here is a concentrated drive by progressive secularists to drive Christianity from the public square, and especially the body politic.”
This is the same attitude as the expressed by conservative religionists who have been opposing anti-discrimination laws. They see them as a violation of religious freedom because it prevents them from discriminating in the business and jobs on religious grounds.
So, the snuggle for human rights in a pluralist society continues.
Whanganui City Council
The Bideford situation closely parallels the local situation where the Whanganui City Council has rejected Councillor Clive Solomon’s complaint about imposed prayers at Council meetings.
Perhaps local secular organisations should consider taking similar action against the Whanganui City Councillor. After all one cannot over-ride legal human rights by a majority vote within a group. As Mr Justice Ouseley said in the Bideford case such votes by a council “does not give it power to do what it has no power to do.”
On the way to theocracy?
I really loved this section of the High Court ruling because it does sum up the situation we face with such imposed religious ceremonies. It’s a quote from a previous judgement and says:
“The precepts of any one religion, and belief system, cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of another. If they did, those out in the cold would be less than citizens and our constitution would be on the way to a theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic. The law of a theocracy is dictated without option to the people, not made by their judges and governments. The individual conscience is free to accept such dictated law, but the State, if its people are to be free, has the burdensome duty of thinking for itself.
So it is that the law must firmly safeguard the right to hold and express religious beliefs. Equally firmly, it must eschew any protection for such a belief’s content in the name only of its religious credentials. Both principles are necessary conditions for a free and rational regime.”
The 
Subscribe to Open Parachute
Subscribe by Email
