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)