“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'.