Courtroom Chaos as New Zealand Skeptics Rout Government Climatists

New Zealand skeptics of man-made global warming score historic legal victory as discredited government climate scientists perform U-turn and refuse to allow a third party peer-review report of official temperature adjustments to be shown in court. Skeptic lawyers move for sanctions likely to prove fatal to government’s case.

New Zealand’s National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) are reeling after what may prove a fatally embarrassing admission that it is breaking a solemn undertaking given to parliament. NIWA had assured ministers that it would disclose a third party peer-reviewed report of its science for courtroom verification as part of its defense against a petition in the case of NZ Skeptics-v-NIWA.

NIWA’s decision renders an almighty self-inflicted wound to the government agency’s already dire credibility. But worse, the move will be regarded as contempt of court and thus permits the court to grant the plaintiff’s motions for punitive sanctions, including summary judgment. As such, this would bring a swift victory for skeptics with profound legal ramifications around the world. In the sparsely-measured southern hemisphere the New Zealand climate data is critical to claims about a verified global temperature record.

At a stroke this case may affirm that up to one quarter of our planet’s climate records have been fraudulently audited. As such this provides  compelling legal ammunition to other pending/ongoing lawsuits that have arisen in the aftermath of the Climategate scandal. Immediate ramifications will be felt in Canada where popular skeptic climatologist Dr. Tim Ball is defending two vexatious libel suits against IPCC climatologists. Of those cases the one most likely to be impacted is that of Andrew Weaver-v-Tim Ball currently underway in the British Columbia Supreme Court. Weaver was lead author of a chapter on Global Climate Projections in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change‘s report Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis . Weaver took exception to Ball’s  widely-published denouncements of cherry-picking models.

Last year NIWA gave an undertaking to the Kiwi Parliament that it would permit external peer-review by scientists from Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology (BoM). This evidence was to be presented to the court to help resolve a drawn out legal battle to prove whether or not NIWA had cooked the country’s climate books. Lawyers for the jubilant skeptics are to motion for an adverse inference against the defendants on the grounds that they intentionally have “spoliated” the evidence (spoliation is the withholding/destroying of evidence).

As with the Kiwi case,  over in Canada Tim Ball is having a hard time getting his court adversaries to be forthcoming in releasing their hidden data and records. As in any common law jurisdiction, when a litigant refuses to comply with the opposing party’s motions for disclosure then spoliation doctrine comes into play. Persistent refusal by any party in a lawsuit to hand over evidence on request renders them liable to severe sanctions. As with his Kiwi counterparts Ball will be hoping to win the adverse inference. If granted in these cases the jury will be directed to rule that the party withholding the evidence has done so “from a consciousness of guilt.” In other words, the juries will be directed to rule that climatologists refused to disclose the evidence because to do so would prove they intentionally falsified the climate records to get a predetermined outcome.

A jubilant Richard Treadgold, one of the skeptics involved in the case writes: ”This boils down to a confession to the Court that NIWA has no evidence to show that the BoM approves of NIWA’s review. NIWA does not even bother to present the ineffectual BoM covering letter at page 15 of the Review, for it expresses no approval of the report – though NIWA claims it does.”

But why is this victory in New Zealand so important in the world context?

Well, alarmists in the UN’s IPCC have touted the NIWA record, known widely as the Seven Station Series (7SS), Eleven Station Series (11SS), and NZTR, as proof of antipodean man-made climate warming. These number sets, along with the discredited Australian (BOM) records, represent the cornerstone of Australasia/South Pacific (Oceania) warming. That’s an area that constitutes two of our planet’s eight terrestrial ecozones; or, one quarter of the world’s ‘official’ climate record. In effect, this is a monumental blow to the legal validity of 25 percent of all the world’s climate records. Richard Treadgold has more of the details in ‘Affidavits are for ever’ (August 1, 2012)

more
http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/08/01/breaking-courtroom-chaos-as-new-zealand-skeptics-rout-government-climatists/

That certainly sets a new level of "most obscure blog referenced in a post"   award.

And no prizes who the OP was.

;D

Doctor Jolly wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2012 at 4:56pm:

That certainly sets a new level of "most obscure blog referenced in a post"   award. And no prizes who the OP was. ;D

Thank you, that means a lot to me. I would like to that my parents first and foremost, as without them .......

It is always pleasing to get such an award from AGW loons.

This account of proceedings is certainly telling and I look forward to reading the hearing transcripts.

"With all this evidence, the Coalition case is looking very good on the plain facts. The threat comes from the need to prove that NIWA has a duty to apply good science. They deny this, and effectively say that Parliament has given them a free hand to do what they like. They argue that the obligation to pursue excellence is merely “aspirational”, being un-measurable and unenforceable. They would normally take notice of the scientific literature if it came to their attention, but they have no need to follow it and are entitled to practise what they think best. They don’t need to apply internationally-accepted techniques or recognised scientific opinion and the best methods mightn’t be affordable.

They even say that there is no such thing as a “New Zealand Temperature Record” and the extent that warming is occurring is simply a matter for their judgement. Remarkably, they believe that they’re not accountable to the Court or anybody else for the accuracy of their science."

Such a rigorous application of scientific methodologies and high standards is to be subject of zero scrutiny?  You would think they would be falling over themselves to have the data tested. Oh what a tangled web we weave....

Here are the court's findings.

http://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/nz-climate-science-education-trust-v-niwa-ltd/at_download/fileDecision


I guess it's unimportant now, the story served it's purpose of creating doubt, time to move on to the next red herring.

namnugenot wrote on Aug 4^th, 2012 at 10:28pm:

This account of proceedings is certainly telling and I look forward to reading the hearing transcripts. "With all this evidence, the Coalition case is looking very good on the plain facts. The threat comes from the need to prove that NIWA has a duty to apply good science. They deny this, and effectively say that Parliament has given them a free hand to do what they like. They argue that the obligation to pursue excellence is merely “aspirational”, being un-measurable and unenforceable. They would normally take notice of the scientific literature if it came to their attention, but they have no need to follow it and are entitled to practise what they think best. They don’t need to apply internationally-accepted techniques or recognised scientific opinion and the best methods mightn’t be affordable. They even say that there is no such thing as a “New Zealand Temperature Record” and the extent that warming is occurring is simply a matter for their judgement. Remarkably, they believe that they’re not accountable to the Court or anybody else for the accuracy of their science." Such a rigorous application of scientific methodologies and high standards is to be subject of zero scrutiny?  You would think they would be falling over themselves to have the data tested. Oh what a tangled web we weave....

Ha ha ha!!!!  You can't be serious?!?!

Well MOTR has posted the details of the case.  Have fun!

I doubt this is over by a long shot.

But even so, it matters not. The information of adjustments made without disclosure, is all that is needed for people to quickly and easily make up their minds, unless they are already mind screwed and total believers no matter what.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/nz-niwa-adjustment.png

We know that most temperature records collected over many years need to be adjusted for well identified biases in the different ways the data was collected.

What is the point you are trying to make, progs? That these adjustments are unnecessary.

Carbon Trader Judge Taints Bizarre High Court Climate Ruling

Global warming skeptics lose key Kiwi courtroom battle. Ruling permits government climatologists to opt out of complying with freedom of information laws concerning their country’s cooked climate books. But the judge involved holds a substantial carbon trading interest which supports accusations of a conflict of interest precluding his participation.

Auckland High Court Justice Geoffrey J. Venning has triggered a fresh climate scandal after it was revealed he owns a forest company (Tahakopa) that is registered under the Emission Trading Scheme to sell carbon credits for profit. The judge had just given a shock ruling that “the methodology applied by NIWA was in accordance with internationally recognised and credible scientific methodology.”

http://johnosullivan.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/niwa-temp-adjustment-versus-raw-nz-temps.jpg

more
http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/09/08/carbon-trader-judge-taints-bizarre-high-court-climate-ruling/

--------
Not over by a long shot indeed.

Have you read the ruling, progs. Do you really think Carter and his mates are up for another pummelling. I'd love to see it again.

i just wanna know if progs can look his kids in the eye yet?????????????????