Climate change deniers shot down in High Court challenge to NIWA

Friday 7th September 2012 3 Comments

A lobby group set up to challenge claims that humans are causing climate change has lost a High Court challenge to National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research data showing rising temperatures in New Zealand between 1909 and 2009.

Judge Geoffrey Venning threw out claims by the NZ Climate Science Education Trust that the Crown Research Institute known as NIWA breached its statutory duties, were mistaken in fact, failed to consider mandatory considerations and acted unreasonably in publishing its work.

NIWA will be entitled to costs as a result of the case, which are yet to be set, Venning's judgment says.

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

Some evidence in the case was ruled inadmissible, including that of Terry Dunleavy, a former journalist who is a founding member of the trust and secretary of the associated NZ Climate Science Coalition.

Venning says Dunleavy "has no applicable qualifications" and "his interest in the area does not sufficiently qualify him as an expert." Venning also questioned the credentials of Bob Dedekind, a computer modeling and statistical analyst whose "general expertise in basic statistical techniques does not extend to any particular specialised experience of qualifications in the specific field of applying statistical techniques in the field of climate science."

The trust's case stems back to the publication in 1999 by NIWA of a statistical trend series of nationally averaged annual mean surface temperature trends in New Zealand since 1853, known as the Seven Station Temperature Series, or 7SS, which indicates a warming trend of about 0.9 degrees Centigrade from 1909 to 2009. The work relied on research compiled by climate scientist Jim Salinger.

The coalition criticised the accuracy of 7SS and in response NIWA published an 11 Station Temperature Series, or 11SS, in late 2009. A year later, NIWA published a review of 7SS. All the work supported the conclusion that New Zealand's climate warmed in the 100 years to 2009.

It was this body of work that the trust challenged in seeking a judicial review in proceedings started in July 2010.

"I am satisfied that the methodology applied by NIWA was in accordance with internationally recognised and credible scientific methodology," Venning says.

According to the coalition's nzclimatescience.net website, the group's aim is to "represent accurately, and without prejudice, facts regarding climate change; to provide considered opinion on matters related to both natural and human-caused climate effects; and to comment on the economic and socio-political consequences of climate change."

It includes links to articles such as 'Why The 'Warmists' Are Wrong About Climate Change'.

A wikipedia entry on the coalition cites an article published on the hot-topic.co.nz global warming blog that says the Heartland Institute, a US body "that plays a key role in organised climate denial" made a US$25,000 grant to the NZ Climate Science Coalition.

BusinessDesk.co.nz

Comments from our readers

On 10 September 2012 at 2:14 pm Anon7 said:

Your headline is factually incorrect, and does nothing to further this debate. No sane person claims there isn't any climate change going on, it is rather a question of whether mankind can affect the earth's climate. If the rotational axis of the world changes, can we do anything about it? What about all the well documented climate change periods in the past when evolutionists claim mankind did not even exist? What caused those? By gauging out the eyes of Galileo, did the consensus view of the high and mighty world experts change anything? Shooting the messenger who tries to expose apparent lax and arrogant use of taxpayers money does nothing to further the true debate, and just destroys your headline writers credibility.

On 10 September 2012 at 2:29 pm Anon7 said:

On 11 September 2012 at 4:59 pm Mark5 said:

It is generally accepted in Earth Science circles that there have been no polar ice caps for 80% of the Earth's history, so maybe the deniers have a point after all? Not to mention that temperatures are now taken by automated weather stations and if the temperature is hottest for the day at 11.42am then that is the day's high. But when I was a boy, the day's highs were generally measured manually at 3pm (which was not necessarily the hottest part of the day). Nevertheless - behold, temperatures have increased over the last 30 years since we started measuring them differently... Just as well Venning J knows best.