Thanks for reporting on this case, and the fact that the denialists lost( though you certainly didn't emphasize this).

To your statement "any questions raised..... from sources which the court does not recognise as being "officially recognised scientific opinion, is unlikely to have much credence given to it by judicial appraisal", I would substitute 'fact' for opinion and say 'of course'!

Denialist organizations such as yours specialize in opinion but the thousands of scientific bodies recognized by courts (including NASA, the one that has just put another spacecraft on Mars) specialize in facts.

The tenor of your article, Anthony (especially the strange little table, which in effect says someone said the experts'figures were overstated) is yet a another attempt to sow doubt about climate science. The method you use is well tried and documented ('Merchants of Doubt' by Oreskes et al); it was used to deny the harm caused by cigarettes, acid sulphur emissions from coal fired power stations and DDT, all of which have since been either banned or regulated to mitigate harm. As in these cases, your aim is to delay action for as long as possible to maximize the polluting corporations' profits.

Well said, Roses1,

My sentiments precisely!

@ Roses & f(r)iend,

<<Thanks for reporting on this case, and the fact that the denialists lost( though you certainly didn't emphasize this).>>

What are you talking about, Roses?

The very first line of the article says: “A court challenge to the validity of the New Zealand temperature record [NZTR] has concluded. The Judgement refused all 3 parts of the challenge to the NZTR.”

And you show your true colours (& it aint the purity and innocence of a white rose) with this:

“The method you use is well tried and documented ('Merchants of Doubt' by Oreskes et al); it was used to deny the harm caused by cigarettes, acid sulphur emissions from coal fired power stations and DDT…”

'Merchants of Doubt' is a very lopsided account which implies that anyone and everyone who opposes the IPCC version of AGW is in the pay of big tobacco or big oil-- and then has has the temerity to claim that the ‘denialists” are the conspiracy theorists!

Forever gracious in defeat...

I suspect this is Anthony's pre-emptive excuse as to why he won't be following his own legal challenge. He probably can't find an 'expert' with enough credibility to support it.

Roses and Poirot, the voice of the inner city elite and Milne commemorative womens' cooperative; our moral superiors.

Back in the real world, the Judgement turned on the dismissal of the Trust's expert witnesses. Once that occurred the testimony of NIWA was unchallenged and accepted as stated. All that means is when NIWA said they applied RS93 the Judge accepted that. And when NIWA said the Trust did not apply R93 correctly the judge accepted that; and when NIWA said they DID apply RS93 and got the same trend as before the judge accepted that; and when NIWA said the other methodologies they used to adjust data got the same trend the judge accepted that; and when NIWA said the other methodologies they used were best practice the judge accepted that; etc etc.

The judgement was a result of the fact that it was a dispute between PhDs at ten paces and the Trust forgot to bring their PhDs.

NIWA has yet to be properly challenged in respect of their temperature adjustment but as a result of this judgement organisations like NIWA now can be.

Drum roll ... call for a Royal Commission (again)

“A NZ court decision finds recording and maintaining temperature records is a subjective activity.”

Actually, the New Zealand High Court says this in its final judgement:

>> Breach of statutory duty <<

[180] The plaintiff (the Trust) alleges that by departing from recognised scientific opinion NIWA breached its statutory obligations, including its obligation to pursue excellence. I am satisfied on the evidence that NIWA applied credible scientific methodology and, as such, did not breach any obligation it may have had to pursue excellence. The first alleged breach is not made out.

>> Failure to consider mandatory considerations <<

[181] Next, the Trust says that NIWA failed to consider mandatory relevant considerations in departing from recognised scientific opinions. I am satisfied NIWA did apply tenable scientific methodology to the review process. This claim cannot be sustained.

>> Mistake of fact <<

[182] For the same reasons the allegation of a mistake of fact based on departure from recognised scientific opinion must fail. The Trust’s alternative proposition, that the decision to publish the review was based on mistaken belief it had been compiled using internationally recognised scientific methodology, is not made out. On the evidence I am satisfied that the methodology applied by NIWA was in accordance with internationally recognised and credible 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 plaintiff cannot make out this allegation. The review was in accordance with recognised scientific opinion. The review was peer reviewed.

[184] The Trust’s third cause of action fails.

Summary/Result

[185] The plaintiff does not succeed on any of its challenges to the three decisions of NIWA in issue. The application for judicial review is dismissed and judgment entered for the defendant.

Anthony Cox says this: “The challenge had been initiated by a group of climate researchers called (The) New Zealand Climate (Education) Trust”.

The High Court says this:

[2] The Trust and its members are interested in the issue of climate change in New Zealand.

My opinion: Seems to be a contagious affliction: “He (Anthony Cox) has an interest in oceanographic regime-shifts and climate change” (Stockwell).

Anyway, a few “climate researchers” get special mention:

[51] … Section 25 could only apply if Mr Dunleavy was an expert in the particular area of the science of meteorology and/or climate. He is not. He has no applicable qualifications. His interest in the area does not sufficiently qualify him as an expert … Mr Dunleavy’s views are not capable of offering substantial help to this Court on the issue that it has to determine. To that extent I agree that substantial passages of Mr Dunleavy’s evidence are inadmissible …

[54]… Mr Dedekind’s general expertise in basic statistical techniques does not extend to any particular specialised experience or qualifications in the specific field of applying statistical techniques in the field of climate science. To that extent, where Mr Dedekind purports to comment or give opinions as to NIWA’s application of statistical techniques in those fields, his evidence is of little assistance to the Court.

My opinion: Kinda reminds me of the Anthony’s self-proclaimed “climate expertise”.

As to the table:

[94] The Trust also relies on a table which purports to set out differences between the various adjustment methodologies. The table has been produced by Mr Dunleavy. It is an extended version of a table initially prepared by Dr Carter. Dr Wratt identified a number of errors in Dr Carter’s table, including that the length of the period used in the RS93 was not 1 – 2 years, it was substantially longer. But in any event, the table does not establish whether or not NIWA applied the RS93 methodology.

My opinion: I agree.

Good cutting and pasting bonmot; they are indeed the judicial conclusions; delve further and look at the reasons; take this point:

"The review was peer reviewed."

Who by?

CSIRO.

Did CSIRO release its peer review?

No.

Did the judge have access to the peer review?

No.

What the judge did was accept NIWA's assurances; he was entitled to do that because he had dismissed the contrary expert witnesses for the Trust.

As for the adjustment procedure being subjective, read paragraph 80. How is that not subjective in the sense that organisations like NIWA can choose what method of adjustment to use and because NIWA is part of the official "scientific community" that will mean that subjective choice by NIWA is scientifically valid.

This position of authority combined with the nontransparency of the "peer review" of NIWA means, as was implied in the article, that NIWA can do what it wants.

@ "contrary expert witnesses for the Trust" (sic)

Hmmm, must have missed this (cut and paste):

[51] … Section 25 could only apply if Mr Dunleavy was an expert in the particular area of the science of meteorology and/or climate. He is not. He has no applicable qualifications. His interest in the area does not sufficiently qualify him as an expert … Mr Dunleavy’s views are not capable of offering substantial help to this Court on the issue that it has to determine. To that extent I agree that substantial passages of Mr Dunleavy’s evidence are inadmissible …

[54]… Mr Dedekind’s general expertise in basic statistical techniques does not extend to any particular specialised experience or qualifications in the specific field of applying statistical techniques in the field of climate science. To that extent, where Mr Dedekind purports to comment or give opinions as to NIWA’s application of statistical techniques in those fields, his evidence is of little assistance to the Court.

My opinion: Kinda reminds me of the Anthony’s self-proclaimed “climate expertise”.

As to the table:

[94] The Trust also relies on a table which purports to set out differences between the various adjustment methodologies. The table has been produced by Mr Dunleavy. It is an extended version of a table initially prepared by Dr Carter. Dr Wratt identified a number of errors in Dr Carter’s table, including that the length of the period used in the RS93 was not 1 – 2 years, it was substantially longer. But in any event, the table does not establish whether or not NIWA applied the RS93 methodology.

My opinion: I agree.

Now, to those post limits ... c'est la vie!

CSIRO? Don't you mean the Australian Bureau of Meteorology?

Footnote 50:
"NIWA does not seek to rely on the Bureau of Meteorology’s peer review for the purposes of the
proceeding. NIWA’s position is that to produce the material sought by the Trust relating to the
peer review would be inimical to the future relations between NIWA and other international
agencies such as the Bureau of Meteorology if their candid exchanges were to be subject to
scrutiny and litigation. "

Yeah, I think these guys know who they're dealing with here. I'm betting the judge could have 'had access' to that BOM review if the defendants relied upon it. They didn't. Probably because they didn't want any of their colleagues candid comments reposted ad nauseum across teh interwebs.

to be a climate scientist one must give heed to the religous dogmas of the warmist (previously coolest). Any deviation puts ones funding at severe risk. One must ignore all clear evidence that contradicts warmest dogma and be willing to ignore the failed warmist prophecies that laugh in their face each time they open their mouth. Must however be very satisfying knowing that one believes in such myths and labels it 'science'.

Why thank you, runner.

It's all so much clearer now!

(fancy bonmot going to all that trouble when all we had to do was wait for you)

Poirot,

Stick to the faith Poirot, remember its the worlds greatest challenge. Just ask your heroes.

"CSIRO? Don't you mean the Australian Bureau of Meteorology?"

Yes I do Bugsy, thanks for the correction.

The involvement of BOM in the alleged "peer review" of the NIWA adjsutment methodology is instructive. NO details of that peer review have ever been released despite FOI applications. The FOI application to see BOM's "peer review" of NIWA was knocked back based on "confidentiality" of the "peer review" process. The only information released was a one page document from BOM which is on page 15 of the NIWA 'review';

http://www.niwa.co.nz/sites/default/files/import/attachments/Report-on-the-Review-of-NIWAas-Seven-Station-Temperature-Series_v3.pdf

A critique of that 1 page "peer review" is here:

http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/02/niwas-review-taking-a-hiding/#more-8892

The judge did not see more than this one page "peer review" if he saw anything at all.

Getting to bonmot who is in such a lather that he is repeating himself. What bonmot is repeating himself about is the judicial finding of a lack of relevant expertise by the Trust's experts.

We know that bonmot; that's why the Trust was not successful. I hope the next litigant against NIWA or some other equivalent body learns from that.

Runner this is about science and not about your fairies in the sky,and you really must think ahead, or are you only interested in your extreme religous beliefs, and not the future for your kids.

Somehow I get the feeling Anthony Cox is looking at a judgement different to the one I have seen. This judgement was as comprehensive a drubbing of the New Zealand Climate Science Education Trust as I think I have ever seen. They got none of their points accepted. Perhaps most embarrassingly, their experts turned out to be non-experts. In paragraph 51, the judge says of Dunleavy “Section 25 could only apply if Mr. Dunleavy was an expert in the particular area of the science of meteorology and/or climate. He is not. He has no applicable qualifications.” And then goes on in Paragraph 52. “Further, I note that Mr Dunleavy has, in any event, failed to comply with High Court Rule 9.42, and could not be regarded as an impartial expert.” Ouch.

And for another expert “Similar issues (as to the limited nature of his expertise), apply to the evidence of Mr. Dedekind.” Paragraph 53.

Perhaps the most revealing part of the whole document is the total lack of support it gives for Anthony Cox’s claim that in Paragraphs 148 and 149 “NIWA’s own expert witnesses stated it did not matter what criteria they used to adjust the raw temperature data…” The claim by Dr Watt was about the actual method used (not any criteria) and that it produced results that were the same as RS93 for the increase in trend per century to the second decimal place. Is Anthony Cox really arguing here that a difference at a third decimal place in a century long trend is important? Surely not. But that is what it looks like

Kipp

'Runner this is about science and not about your fairies in the sky,and you really must think ahead, or are you only interested in your extreme religous beliefs, and not the future for your kids. '

It is child abuse not to teach your children about their Maker and replace it with the idiotic something from nothing fairytale. Without peace with ones Maker their is no future for your kids or mine. Your random chance faith defies all logic just like your warmist faith. Please don't denigrate true scientist with your faith.

"The claim by Dr Watt was about the actual method used (not any criteria) and that it produced results that were the same as RS93 for the increase in trend per century to the second decimal place. Is Anthony Cox really arguing here that a difference at a third decimal place in a century long trend is important?"

It's Dr Wratt not Watt; method, criteria, the point is NIWA's experts do not say what method they used in the review and that there are any number of alternative methods which 'develope' over time which can be used according to NIWA [paragraph 80]. They further say that whatever methods they used all produce essentially the same trend.

The point is not the "third decimal place" difference in the results from the use of the different methodologies/criterias but that there is no public scrutiny of these methodologies/ criterias by NIWA.

As for your interpretation of paragraphs 148-149, tell me how many methodologies/criterias were used by NIWA in the various forms of the adjusted temperature; and can you provide a link to where those different methodologies/criterias are described.

That's what we need, a lawyer telling us about the shortcomings of science...

"That's what we need, a lawyer telling us about the shortcomings of science..."

I agree; those shortcomings are so obvious even an idiot could pick them up; what, you can't, oh dear.

@ "can you provide a link to where those different methodologies/criterias are described."

It's all there at the NIWA website. As a "lawyer" you would/should have known this - unless you're playing games.

Take Dunedin as an example:

http://www.niwa.co.nz/sites/default/files/import/attachments/Dunedin_CompositeTemperatureSeries_13Dec2010_FINAL.pdf

bonmot; the code for the methodology used in the site adjustments you have linked to, or indeed any of them, is not included; the adjustment therefore cannot be replicated.

The link at the beginning of the article, presumably to the code, does not work.

The article says this:

"In February 2010, NIWA documented the adjustments in use at that time (see web link above). These adjustments to the multiple sites comprising the ‘seven-station’ series were calculated by Salinger et al. (1992), using the methodology of Rhoades and Salinger (1993), which extended the early work on New Zealand temperatures by
Salinger (1981). Subsequent to 1992, the time series have been updated regularly, taking account of further site changes as circumstances required."

There is no evidence [codes, calculations etc] to verify RS93 was used on the 7 series adjustment, the 2009 conversion to 11 sites, or the 2010 review; or even what subsequent methods were used.

The detail in your linked article provides the results of the adjustments and a general description of the principles of the method of adjusting; but, as I say, without a code the process cannot be replicated.

This is the recurrent issue with AGW results; the code and detail of the adjustments are not provided; from Mann to NIWA to BOM the code is not provided; so we have to take on faith that the process is correct.

With NIWA the raw data and the RS93 code is available so to that extent that alleged adjustment can be replicated; but, of course, that is what the litigation was about and the court rejected the Trust alternative results because it said the 'experts' who did that alternative adjustment were not experts.

That stalemate will remain until NIWA releases its codes or the court accepts the legitimacy of alternative adjustment results.

25 minutes is not enough time for you to have done your homework.

All the information can be found at the NIWA website.

"All the information can be found at the NIWA website."

No it can't.

But it's your call; show me where the code is; not general principles or results.

If by 'code', you mean a list of what adjustments were made and what data they were made, then you only have to search the site, cohenite.

For instance, here's a list of adjustments detailing what was done to what data.

http://www.niwa.co.nz/sites/default/files/import/attachments/7-Station_Temperature-Series.pdf

They also say that the raw data is available (free!), you only have to register to get a username and password.

I have not bothered, but I'm sure you will want to.

By the way, using this information the results can certainly be 'replicated', what they will not be is 'duplicated' (i.e. make an exact copy). You can either replicate their results, or apply your own adjustments the raw data (make sure they are justified for the time series you are adjusting!), and then you too can replicate the trend!

Amaze your friends and co-workers! No deposit, 15 months interest free!

Or amaze the experts at NIWA:

enquiries(at)niwa.co.nz

Should be good for a chuckle over afternoon tea : )

Bugsy and bonmot; NIWA has NOT provided code which can be placed in a model to produce an adjusted temperature trend from the raw data; they haven't even described an algorithm.

What has fooled you guys are general descriptors; those descriptors will refer to "overlaps" with neighbouring sites "composite" data and "correlation".

NIWA even admits to a subjective process when it says:

"Comparison stations were chosen subjectively,"

More specifically Appendix 1 & 2 of bonmot's link shows that there is no actual code to replicate the process. Appendix 1 of the Dunedin site references the "technical" procedure described at Appendix 2 of the Masterson site:

https://www.niwa.co.nz/sites/default/files/import/attachments/Masterton_CompositeTemperatureSeries_13Dec2010_FINAL.pdf

The first line establishes that there is NO meaningful code to proceed with:

"First, climatologies and anomalies are calculated for maximum temperatures at Waingawa in each calendar month from 1943 to 1972."

Well brainiacs, HOW are they calculated?

Do some homework, start here: enquiries(at)niwa.co.nz

Hey Mr 'climate statistics expert', why don't you just download the raw unadjusted "as measured" data from http://www.cliflo.niwa.co.nz and determine the temperature trend yourself? You can even apply your own adjustments, whatever you think is reasonable.

That would be a true replication, using the same raw data. If you come up with something anomalous or majorly in error compared to the NIWA results, please let everyone know, especially NIWA?

Maybe you could even get this one published...

Bugsy says:

“Hey Mr 'climate statistics expert', why don't you just download the raw unadjusted "as measured" data from http://www.cliflo.niwa.co.nz and determine the temperature trend yourself? You can even apply your own adjustments, whatever you think is reasonable.”

I know the raw data is there and so is the RS93 methodology, code and all; anyone can come in and do a comparison with what NIWA allegedly produced with its 7 site series by applying RS93 to the raw data; in fact people with PhD’s after their names are doing that at this very moment as I waste my time discussing things with you.

What we don’t know Bugsy, is what NIWA has DONE with the raw data; whether they have used RS93, or if they have used RS93, how they have used it, or whether they have used any other adjustment method.

We don’t know these things Bugsy because NIWA hasn’t told us.

Bonmot has suggested I contact NIWA; he is just full of good ideas.

Actually cohenite, NIWA has explicitly told what they did with the raw data. They archived it without adjustment, just waiting for you to have a look at. The clue is in the first paragraph of the pdf I linked to earlier:

"NIWA’s “raw” climate data (as measured, no adjustments) can be downloaded for free from NIWA’s website, http://www.cliflo.niwa.co.nz "

Those tricky buggers eh? burying that sort of information in the first paragraph.

Yes Anthony, it is a good idea, you should try it (I bet you won't).

Word of warning though ... if you do, be nice (although on your track record I have my doubts, you wouldn't know how). You could even get brownie-points by admitting to being an interested amateur.

The info is on the website - you only want to see what you want to see.

Have you looked at the IJC recently?

cohenite, go on do it. You could even do a Chow test of whether the rate of increase had changed after the replacements were made.

This will be funto watch.

Anthony Cox (aka Cohenite) - seems you lost ... again.

Indeed, your silence is deafening. This speaks volumes to all that are watching.

Bye bye