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.