CO2 smashing extreme weather records

Originally posted by nippy: ↑

All,

The New Zealand climate mob got our BOM to do a report on the validity of their temperature data practices and got a rude shock.

The shock was so great that no one has ever seen this report. In fact when ordered to show this report to the court under threat of jail if they refused to do so they still refused to release the report.

It takes very little common sense to realise what that report would say. It also highlights that they are not acting as proper citizens let alone proper scientists. Data changes to the extent of fraud is the most likely explanation of their behaviour.

Political interference at the G7 level led to a change of heart by the judge ( we can only surmise ) as upon case resumption the judge no longer saw a need for the report to be presented.....

Now what does the G7 say they want to do...… they want to redistribute wealth from rich nations to poor nations.... to a degree. The climate lie is their method.

This is why we have rich countries hurting their economies while poorer countries go gang busters on coal power stations and help their economies.

Expand

NZ NIWA won that case in court and were awarded costs.

You seem to be living in a world of misinformation.

http://hot-topic.co.nz/cranks-lose-court-case-against-nz-temperature-record-niwa-awarded-costs/

And the two "experts" that your "mob" put forward were commented on by the judge as follows
"
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. I also accept Mr Smith’s further point that 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.
Similar issues (as to the limited nature of his expertise), apply to the evidence of Mr Dedekind.
[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.
"

Sorry bud, but you've been fed manure.