We have been offered, dear reader, an outstanding opportunity to engage in climate activism.
A reader, Huub Bakker, commented yesterday on What’s left of the NIWA case, saying:
Where does all this leave the Government legally? Should all the previous conclusions be re-evaluated? Will the plastering job of the new NZTR be sufficient? Any thoughts from Rodney Hide, who I know reads this blog?
And this afternoon Rodney responded:
Amazing! And very disturbing about the state of science at NIWA.
What next? I am not sure.
Perhaps readers could suggest questions for the Minister Responsible for Climate Change Issues, Nick Smith, and the Minister of Research, Science and Technology (in Charge of NIWA), Wayne Mapp?
No other country can do this
That’s a remarkable offer, Rodney, and we’ll take you up on that, thank you.
Folks: let’s not underestimate either the significance of Rodney’s suggestion or the power of our questions. For overseas readers: Ministers of the Crown are under an obligation to answer correctly-phrased questions in the Parliament; they cannot decline. The difficulty is that you need to be a member of the House to ask the questions. Hence the importance of Rodney’s suggestion. Let us use it wisely.
Overseas readers included
I don’t know of any other country where the citizens can get questions before their government so easily. Be thankful for the Internet! Since it’s impossible to tell overseas visitors apart from citizens anyway, let me make it clear that our overseas visitors, perhaps newly arrived from WUWT or elsewhere, are equally welcome to suggest questions for our Ministers.
Take advantage of this amazing offer
So, team, let’s send in our questions and the best of them could be aired in the Parliament. I’ll list them here and Rodney can take his pick.
Don’t let’s make the nice Minister ask twice, now!
Views: 303
OK, I’ve got one:
“When NIWA assembled the 7-station and 11-station graphs, why did they exclude Te Aroha? It runs from the years 1888 to 2000, and was specifically mentioned by Dr Jim Hessell of the Met Service as a site unaffected by urbanisation, screen changes or sheltering, unlike many of those included in the 7SS and 11SS. Is it perhaps because this long-standing rural station shows a warming of less than 0.3ºC per century?”
Just a couple of questions from an Australian. I haven’t yet had time to peruse NIWA’s Defence other than quickly but as I understand it NIWA has denied that there is a NZ National Temperature database; this denial seems to me to be simply a matter of semantics,
for example what records did it use to form the database behind its SSS and the 2007 graph showing that New Zealand had already warmed by an amount far in excess of global averages.
Also is it correct that the Government has directed and funded a 6-month project to produce a new national temperature record, with published data and transparent processes and if so what records are NIWA using and at what stage is that work – for example has any data been published and what data is NIWA using for that work.
“I understand it NIWA has denied that there is a NZ National Temperature database”
Not quite Val.
NIWA denies that there is an official New Zealand Temperature Record (NZTR) and that the NZTR (7SS and 11SS) is a “record” and a “public” record” in terms of the Public Records Act 2005. The 7SS and 11SS are essentially spreadsheets and that is where the adjustment occurs – not in CliFlo..
The supposedly unofficial NZTR is derived from CLiFlo which is a “high quality” “database” in terns of the Act and NIWA’s asset register. It is the CliFlo data that goes to CRU to be integrated into the global record (I think).
So a question to Parliament IMO (couched concisely, communicates explicitly and leaves no wriggle room) would address the answer I received from Tony Cox at JoNova to a questions I posed in response to his reaction to Jo’s query
Tony’s observation.
“The Defence, parts 7 and 8 are novel; the SOC is basically asserting either nonfeasance [not doing something which had to be done] or malfeasance [doing something wrong which had to be done]; the Defence is saying that nothing had to be done and wasn’t done.
This is extraordinarily stupid. Anyone who has paid, been levied, fined or taxed on the basis of this [non-existent] record because a government, statutory body or private firm which charged the fee did so on the basis of this [non-existent] record could now sue for the recovery of the fee[s] they have paid. Class actions anyone?:”
My first question to Tony.
“Could Tony Cox clarify the legality please?
Is what he described here, the result of economic tort?”
Second question for Tony Cox.
“Can the fact that NIWA is displaying the NZTR (7SS and 11SS) on its website in support of its claims “that NZ has warmed during the past century”, be construed as a “passing off” of the NZTR as a “record” and even as a “high quality database”?”
From Tony in reply:
“RichardC @ 5 & 7; the possible tort actions you describe have been largely superseded in most Western nations by the legislative equivalents of Fair Trading and Trade Practice Acts ; basically they codify misrepresentation.”
Your question.
“Also is it correct that the Government has directed and funded a 6-month project to produce a new national temperature record, with published data and transparent processes?
Basically yes. But whether the “new” NZTR will be “official”, a “record” and a “public record” is at this [point I think. unesolved (others here are better able to answer this).
Your question.
“and if so what records are NIWA using and at what stage is that work – for example has any data been published and what data is NIWA using for that work.?”
I think they are using raw data from CliFlo, Whether its a 7SS or 11SS or new combination I don’t know (again, others here are better able to answer). But I do know we are still waiting for the results that will be peer reviewed by BOM (another as yet unresolved issue i.e that peer review will also come under intense scrutiny).
Sorry in regard to the database I’ve checked the Defence and it does admit that the NZTR Database is a public record and that It is a controlling public office in respect of the Database; (para 8) and in para 9 that the public and the Crown may rely on the information on the Defendant‟s website or Database, including information on the page titled NZTR; and in 9 (b) admits It provides scientific assessments and reports relating to climate change to Ministries, Departments and other entities as required on a consultancy basis
So it’s using the NZTR database for things upon which the Crown and the public may rely so in my view it still comes down to whether it has used the database in an improper scientific and statistical methodology manner so surely notwithstanding what it says about SSS etc it comes down to the content of the database (hopefully unadjusted) in which case the declarations sought as each applies to the database are appropriate
here are the declarations sought just for interest and if each is confined to the database then they are appropriate :
A declaration that the New Zealand Temperature Record is not a full
and accurate record of changes in the average surface temperatures
recorded in New Zealand since 1900;
B. An order setting aside NIWA’s decision to base the New Zealand
Temperature Record on the Seven-Station Temperature Series;
C. An order preventing NIWA from using the NZTR (or information
originally derived from the NZTR) for the purposes of advice to any
governmental authority or to the public until it has been
scientifically re-determined and independently peer reviewed.
D. An order requiring NIWA to publish a full and accurate climate
record of changes in the average surface temperatures recorded in
New Zealand since 1908.
What do others think? Is that too simplistic; am I misunderstanding something?
“am I misunderstanding something?”
Yes.
“if each is confined to the database”
Each is confined to the NZTR.
This:
“the public and the Crown may rely on the information on the Defendant‟s website or Database, including information on the page titled NZTR”
Is pertinent to the case and a question to Parliament. See my October 12, 2010 at 9:34 am in
that regard. The “Database” referred to is CliFlo.
“So it’s using the NZTR database for things upon which the Crown and the public may rely so in my view it still comes down to whether it has used the database in an improper scientific and statistical methodology manner so surely notwithstanding what it says about SSS etc it comes down to the content of the database (hopefully unadjusted) in which case the declarations sought as each applies to the database are appropriate”
You’ve got it right here but substitute the word “database” with “spreadsheet”. It is the NZTR spreadsheet that is adjusted.
Remember also that in this post we are attempting to arrive at the best question to be put to Parliament.
See my October 12, 2010 at 9:34 am comment in that regard – Bah!
sorry don’t know how that smiley got in there; it should be the number 9
I would ask (and I have no idea how to phrase this ccorrectly) for the validated scientific rationale for imposing ETS, which, as a Kiwi who intends returning home after most of a decade in the UK, is of huge importance to me and my family.
Thanks, and go for it!.
My understanding is that the scientific rationale for imposing ETS is the UNFCCC, IPCC series of reports, the last of which was AR4.
The ETS and IPCC however are not the crux of the issue to be addressed in a question to Parliament.
“The ETS and IPCC however are not the crux of the issue to be addressed in a question to Parliament.”
I’m wrong here. When I wrote that I was thinking in terms of the Court Case and missed the significance of this guy
“Minister Responsible for Climate Change Issues, Nick Smith”
I’d vote for Bob D’s question (first comment)
Short, succinct, and little wriggle room.
Questions about the ETS will deflected by the usual IPCC arm waving, and to be fair, the 7SS isn’t the rationale behind the ETS.
Agree to your sentiment but not that Bob D’s is best (there are other angles).
This:
“Short, succinct, and little wriggle room.”
is as I said to Val.
“couched concisely, communicates explicitly and leaves no wriggle room”
That’s the essence.
And yup, the ETS and IPCC ain’t the issue here.
Agreed. Having thought about it a bit overnight, I think it’s best to focus on the way the 7SS was used, rather than on details of the record itself. Why, if it wasn’t in fact an official record, and couldn’t be verified, was it featured so prominently?
Bob, please see my compromise suggestion @ October 12, 2010 at 2:43 pm
“And yup, the ETS and IPCC ain’t the issue here.”
I’m wrong. As for my reply to Alexander K up-thread, when I wrote that, I was thinking in terms of the Court Case and missed the significance of the climate change avenue of questions. That being
“Minister Responsible for Climate Change Issues, Nick Smith”
Some snippets from my October 12, 2010 at 9:34 am comment to Val that are best highlighted.
The Defence, parts 7 and 8 are novel; the SOC is basically asserting either nonfeasance [not doing something which had to be done] or malfeasance [doing something wrong which had to be done]; the Defence is saying that nothing had to be done and wasn’t done.
This is extraordinarily stupid. Anyone who has paid, been levied, fined or taxed on the basis of this [non-existent] record because a government, statutory body or private firm which charged the fee did so on the basis of this [non-existent] record could now sue for the recovery of the fee[s] they have paid. Class actions anyone?
Could Tony Cox clarify the legality please?
Is what he described here, the result of economic tort?
Second question for Tony Cox.
Can the fact that NIWA is displaying the NZTR (7SS and 11SS) on its website in support of its claims “that NZ has warmed during the past century”, be construed as a “passing off” of the NZTR as a “record” and even as a “high quality database”?
RichardC @ 5 & 7; the possible tort actions you describe have been largely superseded in most Western nations by the legislative equivalents of Fair Trading and Trade Practice Acts ; basically they codify misrepresentation.
Just to refresh every-ones perspective.
Parliament is the supreme legislative authority in New Zealand.
Therefore, a question to Parliament would be better pitched and couched in terms of legalities rather than scientific technicalities, IMHO.
Or perhaps, a compromise.
Part A. (or 1.) Legality – address misrepresentation.
Part B. (or 2.) Scientific – address disparity
i.e. for B. Statement of Defence (SOD) – “There is no material statistical difference between the trend in the 7SS and the global trend”
But NZTR (7SS) is Southern Hemisphere only (SH extratropics shows NO trend)
There’s a place for both – both have been asked. Please don’t agonise over the exact wording, concentrate just on vigorous, innovative new angles. ACT have the most amazing people skilled in framing questions that get past the Clerk’s office.
RT, you missed this in the comment below that comment.
“Or perhaps, a compromise.
Part A. (or 1.) Legality – address misrepresentation.
Part B. (or 2.) Scientific – address disparity”
Things have moved on somewhat, please see my formal question submission (and the additional “And if not why not?” for Nick Smith here:
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/10/world-of-sceptical-questions-unfolds%E2%80%A6/#comment-25468
Who’s Tony Cox? You may well ask.
Anthony Cox is a lawyer and secretary of The Climate Sceptics.
He has degrees in law and climatology and is a regular contributor to science blogs and the media.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/anthony-cox-39612.html
Get that?
“degrees in law and climatology”
Wayne Mapp is my MP. I can write to him direct and he should have to answer
off topic but may interest you Australian Senator calling for a Royal Commission
http://www.corybernardi.com/2010/10/climate-science-credibility-shredded.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+CoryBernardi+Cory+
I’ve been calling for one for some time now but he’s got far more influence
a couple of paras to wet your appetites:
“…the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists… It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.” (quoting from Prof Lewis)
The fact that I am not a physicist should be enough to determine that the words above are not mine. Although they clearly express my view that Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) alarmism is an industry that has built layer upon layer of falsehoods on a kernel of truth.
Now I will get back to topic; I’ve printed out the two relevant statements and hopefully later today I’ll get some time
(end of quote)
I suggest all Aussies of like opinion support his call
Excellent – a reply (October 12, 2010 at 3:26 pm) down-thread to this that should have been appended (but wasn’t) plus I managed to port it straight to moderation. Well done me!
You’re a star Val
CSIRO getting serious stick in comments.
I did a CSIRO Bureau of Meteorology google search – very interesting, they’re joined at the hip.
Got
State of the Climate http://www.csiro.au/files/files/pvfo.pdf (joint effort)
Joint Bureau of Meteorology/CSIRO High Performance Computing and Communications Centre. http://reg.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/hpccc.shtml
And
“Bureau of Meteorology, CSIRO weigh into climate change debate to counter sceptics such as Lord Christopher Monckton”
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/bureau-csiro-weigh-into-debate/story-e6frf7l6-1225840652856
Excerpt
SOME of Australia’s leading scientists have hit back at climate-change sceptics, abandoning their apolitical stance to confirm humans are warming the planet.
Today the CSIRO and weather bureau will release a State of the Climate document, a snapshot of Australia’s climate data, observations and predictions.
The traditionally apolitical organisations have weighed into the debate on the basis that Australians are not being given correct information about temperatures, rainfall, ocean levels and atmospheric changes.
[So the “new” NZTR will be peer reviewed by an organisation that has ABANDONED “their apolitical stance”]
And
[ BOTH organisations are NO LONGER “traditionally apolitical”]
Des Moore says it better than I could
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/03/climate-inquiry-now
and David Archibald
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/06/scientists-got-it-wrong
Quadrant Online has a search capacity http://www.quadrant.org.au/search and if you type in CSIRO you can get a lot of stuff about that State of the Climate Report
Des Moore on State of the Climate
First, on temperatures it starts by saying that temperatures in Australia have increased by 0.7 of a degree since 1960 and claims “the long term trend is clear”. But no evidence is adduced to support a clear long term trend and no qualifications are made to the 0.7 increase since 1960.
As to the latter, the increase of about 0.6 of a degree in 1976-77 from the Great Pacific Climate Shift is generally acknowledged as a naturally induced change. And any claim that the 0.7 increase reflects increased CO2 emissions would have to explain why published Australian temperatures show no increase before 1960 (from 1910) whereas global temperatures and emissions do; and related to that whether there is a warmist bias in the “adjustments” made to raw temperature data to produce what the Bureau claims to be “high quality” results. An examination of adjustments made by the Bureau to Darwin temperatures, with help from an Australian IPCC lead author, certainly suggest a marked bias. An adjustment that took account only of the change in location of the weather station in 1940 would show very little increase in the Darwin temperature from 1910 to today whereas the “high quality” data shows a distinct warming trend. There is reason to believe that “warmism” may also be reflected in other “high quality” data published by the Bureau.
In short, it cannot be ruled out that the temperatures published for Australia are too low in the early part of last century and that the resultant warming “trend” is at the least overstated. What is needed is a published paper by the BOM explaining the basis on which adjustments have been made to the raw data in Australia.
[1. “the increase of about 0.6 of a degree in 1976-77 from the Great Pacific Climate Shift is generally acknowledged as a naturally induced change” and relevant to NZ temperature trends]
[2. “whether there is a warmist bias in the “adjustments” made to raw temperature data to produce what the Bureau claims to be “high quality” results” i.e. The BOM may be misrepresenting adjusted data as “high quality” data just as NIWA is]
[3. “What is needed is a published paper by the BOM explaining the basis on which adjustments have been made to the raw data in Australia.” So the organisation that is peer reviewing the “new” NZTR is exhibiting the same science deficiencies re adjusted data as NIWA is]
So the question to Parliament becomes:
Part A. Legality – address misrepresentation.
(i) Does the Minister concede that NIWA may be misrepresenting the NZTR as high quality data? And does he concede that NIWA is leaving itself exposed to possible litigation in this regard?
(ii) Does the Minister concede that the selection of BOM to peer review the “new” NZTR was inappropriate given the possibility of BOM’s own misrepresentation of adjusted data.
Part B. Scientific – address disparity
(i) NIWA states that: “There is no material statistical difference between the trend in the 7SS and the global trend”. But the NZTR (7SS) is Southern Hemisphere only and Southern Hemisphere extratropics shows NO trend. Does NIWA acknowledge this? And if not, why not?
(ii) The increase of about 0.6 of a degree in 1976-77 from the Great Pacific Climate Shift is generally acknowledged as a naturally induced change. Does NIWA acknowledge this? And if not why not?
My formal submissions to the “Questions to Parliament” competition.
To the Minister Responsible for Climate Change Issues, Nick Smith:
Question 1, Does the Minister concede that the case for an ETS has completely unravelled given the overwhelming body of scientific literature that has been presented since the beginning of the 21st century that is contrary to the consensus established by the IPCC that is its basis?
Question 2. Does the Minister concede that recent revelations of the increasing levels of uncertainty in the conclusions of the IPCC with particular reference to climate models are sufficient for the repeal of the Climate Change Response Act 2002 and the December 2009 amendment?
To the Minister of Research, Science and Technology (in Charge of NIWA), Wayne Mapp:
Part A. Legal
(i) Does the Minister concede that NIWA may be misrepresenting the NZTR as high quality data? And does he concede that NIWA is leaving itself exposed to possible litigation in this regard?
(ii) Does the Minister concede that the selection of BOM to peer review NIWA’s “new” NZTR was inappropriate given the possibility of BOM’s own misrepresentation of adjusted data.
Part B. Science
(i) NIWA states that: “There is no material statistical difference between the trend in the 7SS and the global trend”. But the NZTR (7SS) is Southern Hemisphere only and Southern Hemisphere extratropics shows NO trend. Does NIWA acknowledge this? And if not, why not?
(ii) The increase of about 0.6 of a degree in 1976-77 from the Great Pacific Climate Shift is generally acknowledged as a naturally induced change. Does NIWA acknowledge this? And if not why not?
Forgot to append the obligatory “And if not, why not? to the questions for Nick Smith.
too technical Richard
My strategy was to load the questions to the hilt and give a little wriggle room, in the interests of inducing squirming.
okay; I understand; I’ve sent an e mail to John O’Sullivan asking if he has time to become involved in this discussion;
Richard I don’t have any experience in the areas of misfeasance and non feasance in regard to Govt Dept’s but John does have; and his contribution would be very valuable
He sure does!
Val, thinking about your approach to John O’Sullivan.
A case in New Zealand that even setting something of an international precedent as it does, is probably only of peripheral interest to John (if that).
We have to keep in mind that what seems vitally important to us downunda, probably doesn’t rate in the equivalent USA battle (satellites and such).
Our mind-set is a condition that we NZ locals refer to as “World famous in New Zealand”.
here’s a very interesting comment at WUWT http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/08/hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society
Steve Allen Says:
October 11, 2010 at 7:28 pm
Sorta interesting that many, but not all, of the skeptics of AGW are the retired or near retirement scientists and those with the status of emeritus. On one hand, you could conclude retired scientists can say what they really think, now that they have little to no personal finances at risk. Unlike those scientists that still need to make a living, i.e., are employed by an organization that has publicly supported the hypothesis of catastrophic, human induced climate change.
On the other hand, you could conclude, as those who support the hypothesis of AGW, that guys like Harold Lewis, Fred Singer & Richard Lindzen are “old geezers” and they don’t understand the current climate models, or they once consulted with an evil energy company, and therefore can not be trusted.
Regardless of how one may interpret Lewis’ resignation letter, what I find most curious is the statement of “trillions of dollars” at stake. Lewis is not the first published scientist, nor likely the last, to make this claim. Ironically, it is the AGW alarmist crowd that has historically tried to paint energy corporations, certain politicians and skeptical scientists as having self interest, financial motivations for resisting legislation designed to curb carbon dioxide emissions, for example, or for being skeptical of the AGW hypothesis.
According to Wikipedia, USA’s GDP in 2009 was $14.3 trillion dollars and 100 quadrillon BTU’s were generated/consumed, with 8.4% due to renewable energy. According to American Petroleum Institute, the energy sector comprised 7.5% of our GDP.
Non-renewable Energy Industry $ in 2009 = $14.3 trillion x 0.075 x (1- 0.084) = $982.4 billion
Just for a very rough estimate, for example, a new 10% energy tax on non-renewable energy could raise $98.2 billion in new tax revenue a single year.
In 10 years, assuming 3%, annual growth, the new tax would generate a total sum of $1.1 trillion (assuming the new tax didn’t have the unintended consequence of retarding economic activity). This I believe is a very low estimate, as governments almost never tax a taxable activity only once!
As estimated in an Missoulian State Bureau article, the initial years of a national carbon trading system market in the U.S. is $150 billion/year (depends largely on the specifics of the legislation). I think I saw estimates of brokerage commissions ranging between 2.75% and 5.5%. So, another rough estimate, assuming a 3.7% brokerage commission and a 3% annual growth in the U.S. carbon trading market, the carbon traders could generate $63.6 billion over 10 years, just in commission fees alone. The New Energy Finance, a Britain-based research firm, said in a June 2009 report that the world’s carbon trading market could reach 3.5 trillion U.S. dollars by 2020 (assuming documented fraudulent trading practices are either shut-down or legitimized). This would equate to $130 billion in commissions per year worldwide.
So are “trillions” at stake if the AGW bubble bursts? Common sense and back-of-the-hand estimates says “yes”, certainly hundreds of billions and probably trillions are indeed at stake. Both the Washington and Wall Street stand to lose. According to Lewis, university careers are at stake as well.
Is the corrupting influence of money now more on the LEFT foot, perhaps?
Obama won’t tell. I don’t believe you will find the answer to these questions at websites like “Real Climate”, or in the New York Times, Washington Post, NPR, MSNBC, CNN or PBS. Hell, I haven’t seen it on FOX either. Implementation of a cap and trade scheme will not “tell” either, simply because if the globe’s climate cools or stabilizes naturally, it will be claimed due to carbon emission reductions and if the climate warms, it will be claimed that it was worse than we thought, and we haven’t done enough!
Is AGW morphed into a greed driven scam? I don’t know for sure, but it sure is starting to smell like one.
The only chance for finding the truth is for complete, open and transparent public discussion of ALL the physical evidence for and against catastrophic, human-induced global warming. Until that is reasonably accomplished, the “science” of AGW is really not a science. It appears to me to have too much in common with a religious autocracy.
Val, Richard Treadgold’s (the blog owner’s) suggestion is for us to give a synopsis or excerpt for long posts and provide a link to the source (trust me I know, I got a slap for the same thing).
Also, this should have been placed in the previous “Hal Lewis resigns from the APS in protest” post comments.
Sorry Richard I’m a bit short of time but I do appreciate categorisation but a synopsis as opposed to a cut and post when it’s a long post; well my view is that the original words are best; but I accept what you say
Val, also, use the “Reply” button (bottom left-hand corner to continue a thread rather than start a new thread.
It’s the way this blog is designed and this way the comments are not all over the shop.
If you link, we’ll get to the original words.
Getting back to the topic; I see the next stage is a Case Management Hearing; and will your Solicitor be seeking a time period for the issuing of interrogatorities and replies (sorry it’s a legal term meaning further questions); that and the answers are probably the next stage before any questions in Parliament
“I see the next stage is a Case Management Hearing; and will your Solicitor be seeking a time period for the issuing of interrogatorities and replies (sorry it’s a legal term meaning further questions)”
Can’t answer for the CSC on this but that has crossed my mind also. It’s an opportunity to append further positions to the SOC now that everyone else has thought about it including a Climate Lawyer across the ditch and the ramifications have emerged.
What say you CSC, RT anyone?
“that and the answers are probably the next stage before any questions in Parliament”
There’s no time like the present to ask questions in Parliament.
Yes, I think the legal team will be considering this among their strategies. Certainly, they will want to acknowledge any developments or considerations since the SOC was filed.
Richard I’ve also asked Ken Stewart if he could comment on your 7.41 pm reply; but he does not read e mail often
Ken Stewart is probably busy frying his own fish, but I would be very interested in his observations if he did turn up here.
Ken Stewart’s response
Sorry I’m just getting to my emails, I’ve been busy!
My comments:
1. I can’t see in raw or adjusted daya a climate shift in 1976-77. Maybe 77 -78 -79, but there is a more distinct step up in 1957 (probably due to drop out of temperature records at this time). Until 1957 there is a distinct cooling trend.
2. Definitely! A very large warming bias in HQ data of at least 40%.
3. Definitely! Of course they will point to these:
Della-Marta, P., Collins, D., Braganza, K. “Updating Australia’s high-quality annual temperature dataset” Australian Meteorological Magazine Vol. 53, no. 2, June 2004
Jones, D.A. and Trewin, B.C. 2000. The spatial structure of monthly temperature anomalies over Australia. Australian Meteorological Magazine, 49, 261-276.
Jones, D.A. and Trewin, B.C. 2002. On the adequacy of digitised historical Australian daily temperature data for climate monitoring. Australian Meteorological Magazine, 51, 237-250.
Torok, S.J. and Nicholls, N. 1996. A historical annual temperature dataset for Australia. Australian Meteorological Magazine, 45, 251-260.
but what is really needed is a scientific enquiry into the methods used eg. a quality control check. The adjustments were manual and subjective.
Thank you Val.
And please thank Ken profusely on my behalf – I really appreciate the time he took to vet those three points. I’m stunned.
Worrisome though because he contradicts Des Moore in 1 (and Hare-Mantua, 2000).
I hope (respectfully) that Ken understands the Pacific Climate Shift phenomenon. Here’s the evidence as I understand it, complete with supporting paper:
Pacific Regime Shifts
Hare and Mantua, 2000 (“Empirical evidence for North Pacific regime shifts in 1977 and 1989”): “It is now widely accepted that a climatic regime shift transpired in the North Pacific Ocean in the winter of 1976–77. This regime shift has had far reaching consequences for the large marine ecosystems of the North Pacific. Despite the strength and scope of the changes initiated by the shift, it was 10–15 years before it was fully recognized. Subsequent research has suggested that this event was not unique in the historical record but merely the latest in a succession of climatic regime shifts. In this study, we assembled 100 environmental time series, 31 climatic and 69 biological, to determine if there is evidence for common regime signals in the 1965–1997 period of record. Our analysis reproduces previously documented features of the 1977 regime shift, and identifies a further shift in 1989 in some components of the North Pacific ecosystem. The 1989 changes were neither as pervasive as the 1977 changes nor did they signal a simple return to pre-1977 conditions.”
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/ClimateRegimeShift.htm
As you can see, not temperature specific, so it may not be apparent. As he says “I can’t see in raw or adjusted daya a climate shift in 1976-77. Maybe 77 -78 -79”.
I’ll stick with my question though, because I can point to the supporting evidence (Hare-Mantua 2000), the relevant potion being this:
Part B. Science
(ii) The increase of about 0.6 of a degree in 1976-77 from the Great Pacific Climate Shift is generally acknowledged as a naturally induced change. Does NIWA acknowledge this? And if not why not?
But good to see 2. and 3. are OK.
The four papers are a BIG heads-up – thanks Ken. I’m sure THEY will come back to bite.
Glad to help you. Sorry I’m not glued to the computer everyday. My analyses have so far been restricted to land and sea surface temperatures (with all their faults) of Australia and near waters. I have long been perplexed by the “1976 climate shift” – either the PDO shift outlined in the paper has no correlation with south west Pacific SSTs or I’m looking in the wrong place. I would be glad if someone could point me in the right direction. Does the raw data from the 7 NZ sites show a shift from 1976?
Best wishes.
Ken
Ken I know how much work you have done’ I don’t have your expertise and I hope other experts here call upon your knowledge
It’s nice to see you here, Ken, thanks for your information. Your reputation precedes you and we’re impressed. Anyone investigating their nation’s temperature history has earned our support!
The raw data from our famous 7SS (Seven Stations Series) is available here. If you want the data the spreadsheet is available somewhere.
Thanks Richard; Ken will appreicate what you say and he deserves it
Thanks Richard
Could you please send me the raw data? It will be greatly appreciated.
More info re BOM and CSIRO- they have a joint research arm called (I think) Centre for Australian Climate and Weather Research
with loads of archived research papers and other info at http://www.cawcr.gov.au/
Ken
The Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research
Linked here:
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/open-threads/climate/controversy-and-scandal/#comment-26371
The best I can do is this additional page from Global Warming Science
“The Late 20th Century Warming Resulted From a 1970s Climate Shift (Not CO2)”
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/The1976-78ClimateShift.htm
With this Graph of 1977 temp rise +1.5 at 40 Deg S Lat
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/the1976-78climateshift_files/image009.jpg
And “The ENSO Driver” from Climate Change:
http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/2008/11/21/the-enso-driver/
With the best graph:
SST – SOI
http://climatechange1.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/soi-and-temp-0-10c2b0n.jpg
The plot is for 10 Deg N Lat
My suggestion…. keep it simple. (Politicians are simple folk). To plagiarise Richard T:
To the Minister of Research, Science and Technology (in Charge of NIWA), Wayne Mapp:
1. “NIWA has formally stated that, in their opinion, they are not required to use the best available information nor to apply the best scientific practices and techniques available at any given time. Would you endorse this statement? If so, how does this position align with NIWA’s statutory obligation to pursue “excellence”?
2. NIWA denies there is any such thing as an “official” NZ Temperature Record, although they’re happy to create an acronym for it (NZTR). The famous “Seven-station series” (7SS) is completely unofficial and strictly for internal research purposes. Nobody else should rely on it. Do you endorse this position? If so, is it your understanding that there is currently no official NZ Temperature Record and therefore we officially have no local temperature data upon which to formulate policy?
Ouch, nasty – get’s my vote
Mike, don’t forget your opportunity to impose maximum embarrassment.
i.e. You may wish to pose a question to the Minister Responsible for Climate Change Issues, Nick Smith:
I’m not sure if it is relevant to this topic (NIWA’s mismanagement of the NZTS) to involve Nick Smith, as he is not NIWA’s boss. There may be a way to rope him in, but he may simply deny that his department’s policy is based on NIWA data and assert major influence from IPCC and the Great Consensus. In getting such a rare opportunity to pursue NIWA’s accountability in Parliament we should keep on topic and target the main man at who’s desk the buck should stop.
…. imho
Mike, see my reply below @ October 13, 2010 at 10:52 am. (Finger Fault)
To the Minister Responsible for Climate Change Issues, Hon. Dr. Nick Smith
In light of your assertion that “Long term temperature records show a clear underlying upward trend in both global and local temperature records”*, are you concerned that the local temperature records are not acknowledged as either official or accurate by the government-funded body responsible for those records? If you are concerned, will you be taking the matter further, by perhaps questioning NIWA, or revising your reasoning for being among the first nations to implement an ETS?
*From a letter Dr Smith wrote to me in June 2010
Initially I was with you on this as my focus was on as you say “the main man at who’s desk the buck should stop”. But then I re-read RT’s post and realised that Rodney Hyde had suggested questions to BOTH Ministers – what a golden opportunity!
From the post:
And this afternoon Rodney responded:
Amazing! And very disturbing about the state of science at NIWA.
What next? I am not sure.
Perhaps readers could suggest questions for the Minister Responsible for Climate Change Issues, Nick Smith, and the Minister of Research, Science and Technology (in Charge of NIWA), Wayne Mapp?
Given the needle in your submission for the Wayne Mapp question, I am sure that you could come up with something equally prickly for Nick Smith,
What could be more On Topic than ruffling the feathers of a brace of Ministers?
Sorry, this comment should have been appended to Mike Jowsey says:October 13, 2010 at 9:37 am
Please be patient everyone, some of us are accustomed to a large variety of Blog debate mechanisms and jumping between them inevitably results in bad etiquette at one and coming un-stuck in the thread morass at another.
Testing new system
<blockquote)
What could be more On Topic than ruffling the feathers of a brace of Ministers?
Disappointing that that there’s not a reply here along the lines of:
What a foul thought!
Richard T (Oh wise one)
Is there a WordShine facility that enables comment ID #’s so that the “Reply” mechanism could be abandoned and the Name @ # convention employed?
Sub-threads are easily accommodated that way e.g. JoNova
It also means that people tend to be more aware of the sub-threads that are going on around them.without having to scroll up and down (that gets tiresome when there’s 100 plus comments)
It could be worse e,g, Hot Topic where the reply mechanism is used along with comment # but the comment # is reset when a new comment is inserted mid-thread – Duh!.
If one of your posts got huge (say 400 comments), the morass would take some wading through e.g. the “What can we learn from models?” post at Climate Etc.
I’ve debated at some length at Climate Change Dispatch with the incumbent troll (DereChou06 – a formidable opponent) using the same mechanism as here at Climate Conversations and the thread gets narrower and narrower and longer and longer until you’re down to 2 words a line and 20 lines long.
What say others?
Also, afterthoughts can simply be referenced to a comment up-thread by using Re #
And, multiple up-thread comments from different sub-threads can be referenced in-comment by using (See #,#,#)
I am aware that different mechanisms have their place for different purposes e.g. Climate Audit. The Climate Etc system does work but in that case (as here) it is not possible to easily address multiple sub-threads i.e. a comment is confined to the particular sub-thread in which it is embedded, this makes technical discussion limited to a degree.
I note that at Climate Audit there is a complex system where all conventions are used for intense technical debate using @ Name, @ #, Permalink, Reply, you name it, but note that the comment ID # is not reset (Replies stay in a box). This is illustrated by discussion at this post;
Conflicted Reviewers Distort Literature
http://climateaudit.org/2010/08/10/conflicted-reviewers-distort-literature/
WUWT on the other hand is laissez faire i.e. rather loose, but it works there and I am not advocating that for CCG . This is illustrated here by this (startling) post:
Peer Reviewed Study: CO2 warming effect cut by 65%, climate sensitivity impossible to accurately determine
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/12/peer-reviewed-study-co2-warming-effect-cut-by-65-climate-sensitivity-impossible-to-accurately-determine/#comment-505817
But what I note is that it is THE POST that is where it happens not the comments and that is probably the theme of WUWT and why it is popular whereas the action happens in comments at Climate Audit.
Relax everyone, I’ll get over this soon.
Commenting about commenting systems?
Is this what we call metacommenting ? 🙂
Ha!
Metacommenting is Housekeeping.
Who wooda thunkit!
Housekeeping is Tips?
Who wooda thunk that?
O/T Excerpts from the WUWT article liked above:
It is at present impossible to accurately determine climate sensitivity (defined as the equilibrium warming in response to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations) from past records, partly because carbon dioxide and short-lived species have increased together over the industrial era. Warming over the past 100 years is consistent with high climate sensitivity to atmospheric carbon dioxide combined with a large cooling effect from short-lived aerosol pollutants, but it could equally be attributed to a low climate sensitivity coupled with a small effect from aerosols. These two possibilities lead to very different projections for future climate change.
Unfortunately, climate models neither accurately deal with local effects of these pollutants nor are the complex interactions among these substances understood. That not withstanding, the report is clear – CO2 does not account for even a majority of the warming seen over the past century. If other species accounted for 65% of historical warming that leaves only 35% for carbon dioxide. This, strangely enough, is in line with calculations based strictly on known atmospheric physics, calculations not biased by the IPCC’s hypothetical and bastardized “feedbacks.”
Of course, the real reason for the feedbacks was to allow almost all global warming to be attributed to CO2. This, in turn, would open the door for radical social and economic policies, allowing them to be enacted in the name of saving the world from global warming. The plain truth is that even climate scientists know that the IPCC case was a political witch’s brew concocted by UN bureaucrats, NGOs, grant money hungry scientists and fringe activists.
I think it’s worth taking a step back and asking the reason behind these questions. Is it to gather information, to cause embarassment/discredit organisations, to be disruptive, or to heighten public awareness to these issues?
I ask this somewhat rhetorically, because the course of action needs to be looked at through the eyes of those who would chose to attack us for our motives.
As they say, “know thine enemy”
I like “to heighten public awareness to these issues?”
So if the issues are encapsulated in the questions, there’s a whole lotta communication going on.
The opposition have been trying (with some success) to characterize investigations of shonky climate science as an attack on climate science per se for some time now, so if they squeak, it’ll be nothing new.
The key is (thinking ahead at your “course of action”): to be able to point to solid science and fight the info war simultaneously. The advantage here will be that their headlines will be reactionary.
I think some writers, bloggers and communicators (RT take note) underestimate the power of words (less is more) and headlines. In this age, we do not lack information but so many very well written articles pass by unread or part read because: A. the headline just does not stand out in the crowd (for one that did, remember Dellingpole’s “Climategate” headline); and, B. the article was just too long or not well presented (life is short – people are busy).
Also, un-polished articles have not been picked up and run with by bloggers – opportunity lost. Richard T, please accept some constructive criticism here (I’m mindful that lesson probably learned from Anthony Watts’ comment). James Dellingpole did not pick up your article “Observations on NIWA’s Statement of Defence” for this reason posted in comments at Bishop Hill:
“I just wish they would have spent a few minutes proofing the article. A nice polished article is so much easier to forward around to friends…”
James
Oct 8, 2010 at 12:45 AM | Unregistered CommenterJames
Opportunity lost. But a judicious (if I may say so myself) H/T gained valuable space on JD’s blog at Daily Telegraph UK when the NZCSET v NIWA story broke (can’t find the link).
So good point Andy, we have much to learn in the “public awareness” arena and it’s probably fair to say we are behind the opposition and when it comes to the all important headlines think Drudge:-
028,829,700 IN PAST 24 HOURS
777,508,145 IN PAST 31 DAYS
8,822,688,526 IN PAST YEAR
The aim then is for a headline to be picked up in the Google News, climate science section and until we do, we don’t rate..
And now I have contradicted myself by offering too much content, must stop.
You guys are going great guns, aren’t you? It’s really great to see climate sceptics getting stuck in to some practical issues. Not just the science, but the communication and discussion of it. Well done everybody.
I’ve been out, earning a living, etc., then noticed Richard C, I think, mentioned comment numbers, which help thread the conversations. Good idea, I echoed. Then I had to pick up the wife and her Aunty, help with the shopping, come home and start searching WordPress themes, I’m quite picky with appearance and usability. Then I check the blog and find the Delingpole comment, couldn’t they proof it, and Delingpole is one of my heroes, what an opportunity missed! How did that happen? I checked the article again and asked myself: “What’s wrong with that?”
So please tell me.
Meanwhile, I’m looking for suitable themes to replace the current theme.
PS: Andy, I love your metacommenting!
“What’s wrong with that?”
Nothing wrong, just a momentary loss of perspective. A long running saga that (initially) was only of local significance to you and CSC supporters, suddenly has international interest and the mind-set had not shifted into the new zone.
As evidenced by this post: “Whoops! Your interest is overwhelming”.
But you promptly rectified the situation with the WUWT article that was of the calibre that JD was looking for. Lesson learned, back in business, nothing lost but knowledge gained for the next foray.
Problem being that getting airtime on WUWT or Daily Telegraph is preaching to the converted.
Whether it’s questions to Parliament or blog articles, the key, IMO, is “hooks” (and contacts, connections and positions of influence and manipulation obviously – think Rudman, Gluckman, Walker et al).
The “hooks” in a blog article are the WORDS in the TITLE, CATEGORY, TAGS, and anything else (e.g. STICKY box checked) that a search engine ‘hooks” so that your article is presented alongside the opposition in the climate science section of Google News (or AP even – not out of the question). We are talking about the internet here; the most powerful information disseminator on the planet.
The “hooks” in the Parliamentary questions are the WORDS (Q and A) that capture MSM attention, those viewing live Parliament on TV (what channel?) and assembled politicians so that the news makes it to the outside world. If it doesn’t, the effort is to no avail.
So we need a metric to measure success. Some suggestions:-
1.TROLL INDEX – A sudden influx of trolls (where are they now?) at Climate Conversations would mean the questions had been wildly successful.
2. ALEXA RANKINGS – As employed by Anthony Watts in his Renowden slap-down.
3. MSM HITS – Did it make local and international News?
4, PUBLIC/POLITICIAN FEEDBACK – Was it a positive or an an adverse reaction?
So obviously WORDS must be chosen carefully for maximum effect (and what is that?).
[Andy, your thoughts?]
P.S. Re Metacomments. No rush RT but good to know you are looking into it. But if it works for you, don’t fix it.
For those who have not yet grasped the nature of the climate change info war, and think I’m over the top.
“the rules of the game” (linked below) was compiled by the PR firm futerra for the Climate Change Communications Working Group that includes/ed the BBC among others.
http://klimakatastrophe.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/rulesofthegame.pdf
Thus, UK govt propaganda is spread across the globe (10:10 part funded by the UK govt)
As Andy says, “know thine enemy”
Richard,
I don’t think you’re over the top. I follow Bishop Hill and Richard North and I have a very good idea of the propaganda war being waged.
A lot of the social engineering aspects of CC come out of the various Tyndall centres in the UK
e.g
The Social Simulation of the Public Perception of Weather Events and their Effect upon the Development of Belief in Anthropogenic Climate Change (2004)
http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/working_papers/wp58.pdf
This paper has a certain Orwellian feel to it. There’s discussion of “belief temperature” and the like.
“The Social Simulation of the Public Perception of Weather Events and their Effect upon the Development of Belief in Anthropogenic Climate Change (2004)”
Good Grief!
I haven’t seen that before. My connection times out at the moment so I’ll have to go back to it.
Deutsche Welle (DWTV), the German equivalent to BBC and CCTV, carried by provincial channel Central TV, is even more Gung Ho than BBC.
e.g. The programme “Global 3000”. Except that they get their story horribly wrong from time to time (i.e. they don’t know what they’re talking about).
They ran a story on a South African commercial refrigerator manufacturer that had replaced CFC refrigerant with CO2. The Global 3000 spin was that it was cutting CO2 emissions (Huh?), when really it was cutting CFC emissions and probably creating CO2 emissions (what a clanger).
Your thoughts on the questions, are we just putting Ministers on the spot or are doing that AND communicating with a wider audience?
The questions are being put up for Rodney Hide to consider putting them to a minister. of course, others see them too and start thinking.
Rather than putting ministers on the spot, though it’s not a bad aim, I think we’re aiming to fix things, don’t you?
On the subject of
propagandaPR in the climate wars, Dellers does a pretty good hatchet job of Bob Ward todayhttp://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058818/what-on-earth-is-bob-ward/
Arrrh, the BBC PR connection again, and OUCH!, and WOW!
BTW, thread developing on JD’s personal Blog (Not the DT one).
http://jamesdelingpole.com/blog/1010-who-are-you-going-to-kill-to-help-save-the-planet-1143/comment-page-1/#comment-5742
Yes that’s me.
(Check out Grimble’s diatribe)
There’s a pretty good hatchet job on climate PR guy Bob Ward written by Dellers today
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058818/what-on-earth-is-bob-ward/
Yes, the notion of “fixing things” crossed my mind too. We are trying to effect change so that there is a return to traditional scientific integrity and science work is presented to the public/pollies without manipulation and advocacy.
“others see them too and start thinking”- that’s the bonus.
The AU CSIRO BOM situation looks far worse – the Aussie MMCC sceptics have a big job ahead, good luck to them
I’m indulging in political games with my question submissions but I’ll leave as is and see what happens.
Don’t forget to append “And if not, why not?” to my questions to Nick Smith.
“I’m indulging in political games with my question submissions”
The analogy would be: sticking the knife in, AND twisting it.
and more on Bob Ward in attack mode on Aussie scientists from Jo Nova (h/t Bishop Hill)
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/10/robin-williams-shreds-the-tenets-of-science
Worth a read
The language of Propaganda at work (Joanne Nova)
New link to:
The Social Simulation of the Public Perception
of Weather Events and their Effect upon the
Development of Belief in Anthropogenic
Climate Change
http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/sites/default/files/wp58.pdf
There must be some sort of prize for that title.
As for the content:
What a load of post-normal, pseudo-science BS. Un-freaking-believeable!
O/ T More reading for you:
“Climate Change and the Death of Science”
http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/climate-change-and-the-death-of-science/
another O/T, sorry
Is it just me, but is today’s headline in the Dom completely vomit-inducing?
“Wellington Goes Green and Cuddly”
So which bit is cuddly, the new mayor, or the Green party, or the Green movement?
Like “we are really nice people, but if you don’t agree with us we will kill you” kind of cuddly?
Cuddly like a watermelon?
Okay, I’ve had a lie down after the Tyndall shock.
Now what’s in “Climate Change and the Death of Science“?
Quite a lot.
Ravetz, who described himself as a peacenik intellectual, was a political radical who drew on neo-Marxism, and was a stalwart in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), anti-nuclear lobbies, and the Anti-Concorde Project. He is well known for arguing that the pursuit of truth in science is an obsolete and dangerous concept. He declared
…the puzzle-solving approach of ‘normal science’ is obsolete. This is a drastic cultural change for science, which many scientists will find difficult to accept. But there is no turning back; we can understand post-normal science as the extension of democracy appropriate to the conditions of our age.
For us, quality is a replacement for truth in our methodology. We argue that this is quite enough for doing science, and that truth is a category with symbolic importance, which itself is historically and culturally conditioned.
To pursue truth is to make a category mistake, so pursue the nebulous concept of ‘quality’ instead. So much for facts: scientists need to learn how to serve the craft of rhetoric. Even though it was concealed from those who constructed the models, the purpose of climate models was to provide the power of metaphor to political rhetoric:
…climate change models are a form of “seduction”…advocates of the models…recruit possible supporters, and then keep them on board when the inadequacy of the models becomes apparent. This is what is understood as “seduction”; but it should be observed that the process may well be directed even more to the modelers themselves, to maintain their own sense of worth in the face of disillusioning experience.
…but if they are not predictors, then what on earth are they? The models can be rescued only by being explained as having a metaphorical function, designed to teach us about ourselves and our perspectives under the guise of describing or predicting the future states of the planet…A general recognition of models as metaphors will not come easily. As metaphors, computer models are too subtle…for easy detection. And those who created them may well have been prevented…from being aware of their essential character.
Scintillating reading indeed.
Oh dear I have started something here haven’t I?
Ravetz wrote quite a good piece on PNS on WUWT
“Climategate: Plausibility and the blogosphere in the post-normal age”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/09/climategate-plausibility-and-the-blogosphere-in-the-post-normal-age/
Several responses:
http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=ravetz+site%3Awattsupwiththat.com&hl=en&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images
Sorry for hijacking the thread RT – can we start an OT as suggested?
Andy, I think this is completely On Topic.
Remember Rodney Hyde in the post:
“Amazing! And very disturbing about the state of science at NIWA.”
Ravetz is talking about the climate model that NIWA has commissioned (among others) and their behavior in regard to the NZTR is in lock-step with “quality is a replacement for truth in our methodology”.
There is not 6 degrees of separation here.
Mike Hulme is apparently a proponent of PNS. I haven’t read his book “Why we disagree about climate change”, but apparently it is very good
http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521727327
There’s quite a lot in the synopsis of the book that is worth a read.
e.g How global warming has been transformed from a physical phenomenon that is measurable and observable by scientists into a social, cultural and political one, by a professor of climate change at the (now controversial) University of East Anglia. In the crowded and noisy world of climate-change publications, this book will stand out.’ Best Books of 2009, The Economist
I can think of a reason “Why we disagree about climate change” and it doesn’t require a book.
The disagreement is already codified in the definition that has been thrust upon us by the IPCC:
“Climate change refers to a statistically significant variation in either the mean state of the climate or in its variability, persisting for an extended period (typically decades or longer). Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use.”
But “persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use” has usurped the the original definition to become the predominate meaning.
“natural internal processes or external forcings” has been discounted out of existence in the pursuit of ideological goals.
Simple.
We MUST ALWAYS differentiate between Natural or Man-Made when the subject of climate change is raised.
Especially in surveys if the question is asked:
Do you believe in climate change?
Answer:
Natural or Man-Made.
BTW, came across this while looking for the definition:-
Moving towards the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)
http://www.ipcc.ch/
AR5 Outline and Reference Material
Key documents approved at the 31st Session of the IPCC, are provided in one compiled AR5 reference document (PDF).
It includes:
The outlines for the 3 IPCC Working Group Contributions to the AR5
Concept notes on Cross-Cutting issues, and
AR5 Expert Meetings and Workshops
AR5 Authors
On 23 June 2010, the IPCC announced that
831 highly qualified experts had been selected
from among 3000 nominations. Please
see more on the AR5 nomination process.
The composition of lead author teams reflects
a range of views, expertise and geographical
representation. Read Press Release (PDF)
“831 highly qualified experts” – Here we go again!
First on the list of AR4’s “2500 scientists”:
BERNSTEIN, Lenny
L.S. Bernstein & Associates, L.L.C.
USA
A Lawyer!
As a general question re. NIWA’s supercomputer, I would like to know what metrics will be used to determine the usefulness of the climate models.
After all, we are told that
The supercomputer will improve scientists’ ability to forecast the impact of severe weather events such as flooding, storm surge and inundation. It will also model climate change, river flow, ocean levels and wave patterns.
But principal scientist Michael Uddstrom said it would not make the daily weather forecast more reliable – yet. “We’re doing the research that will lead to improvement of forecasting.”
It would provide better predictions about severe weather events. The computer was like a “scientific laboratory” where complex mathematical problems could be worked out, he said.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/3943070/Predicting-success-with-Niwa-supercomputer
How do we know whether these models are providing any useful information?
A. “I would like to know what metrics will be used to determine the usefulness of the climate models”
B. “How do we know whether these models are providing any useful information?”
Now we’re talkin’ Andy.
[FYI, I am not am expert in this IT/Physics arena, but neither am I a novice. Hence this quote from #49 below: “It remains to be seen what the HPCF produces, but NIWA are on notice that we (the people) are not climate model illiterate and any black-box “trust us” pronouncements will be scrutinized intently with a background of the innermost workings of climate models and the latest relevant papers to refer to.”]
These are HUGE questions that many extremely expert minds (and my moderately knowledgeable nut) are addressing RIGHT NOW in a series of international forums at Judith Curry’s Blog Climate Etc. The first of which was “What can we learn from climate models?” so now is a good time to jump in.
Key word for A: UNCERTAINTY, addressed (to a degree) first post, here:
http://judithcurry.com/2010/10/03/what-can-we-learn-from-climate-models/
You will see my (pointed) contribution at the end of comments. Here’s a teaser:
“It is specious to be addressing model uncertainty, when the rest of the competition has not been evaluated, and does it even exist?”
I reproduced the entire comment at Climate Conversations:
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/10/hal-lewis-resigns-from-the-aps-in-protest/#comment-25304
Key word for B. ATTRIBUTION, will be addressed in the next post in the series. Possibly starting next week (I suggest you do some research first – very important).
Unfortunately you have some homework.
This post, comments #30, #39 (Note the CA 2008 link #30 – what started it all):
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/10/new-zealand-niwa/comment-page-1/#comment-102436
You may also wish to quickly scan part of my personal odyssey to guage the scope of my learning curve here (Takes a while to develop and at the end I’m the last man standing. Note my eternal indebtedness to the passing troll Not-Richo – trolls have their uses) :
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/08/head-of-australian-science-academy-issues-decree-from-pagan-chieftans-of-science/#comments
Now the NIWA connection:
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/10/hal-lewis-resigns-from-the-aps-in-protest/#comment-25336
Enjoy!
Also, did you catch this;
“The computer was like a “scientific laboratory””
The IPCC climate modeling community are pushing the meme that simulations (guesses) are “scientific laboratory” EXPERIMENTS!
Rubbish!
Michael Uddstrom is singing like a choir boy from the “consensus” song-sheet.
On my list of THINGS TO DO is a reminder to compile this list of model-centric (and AGW de-bunking) papers into Hotlink titles – it will happen but good things take time; this was the “Reading List”, remember:
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/09/new-unfccc-climate-chief-no-worse-than-the-old/#comment-24492
Wyant 2006
Bretherton 2006
Douglass 2007
Thorne 2007
Pincus 2008
Douglass-Christy 2008
Pennell-Reichler 2009
Christy 2010
Clark-2010
Spencer-Braswell 2010
McShane-Wyner 2010
MMH 2010
Zhang 2010
Knox-Douglass 2010
Commit the titles of these papers to memory (and in time, the contents). You will be buried in debate by a skillful troll if you don’t know this stuff. Note the difficulty the folks at JoNova are having with the present troll infestation – oh dear et al (I left them to it to concentrate on this thread):
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/10/the-scientific-world-is-fracturing/
You wait till thy find Climate Conversations, you wont know what’s hit you. CCG has been blissfully flying under the radar (except for Ken and he doesn’t count).
I cannot stress enough, the importance of these papers in the context of climate model uncertainty and the fallibility of the AGW hypothesis.
This zone, models/papers, is one of the key AGW proponent – AGW sceptic battlegrounds.
The IPCC ignored the first two papers on the list when authoring AR4. Those two papers, using super-parameterization of clouds (CRM), revealed the gross uncertainty in the previous generation of conventional models studied (NIWA UM included – it’s conventional).
The question now is: what will AR5 do? Ignore the next 12 papers?
And whatever other papers that are presented before AR5 is signed off?
This situation was MADE VERY CLEAR in “What can we learn from climate models” by Jeff Id (the Air Vent). I elaborate here (including Jeff’s comments):
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/10/whats-left-of-the-niwa-case/#comment-25393
Snippet:
“They found that modeled trends generally exceeded observed trends by 2 to 4 times. Not a small conclusion and it does deserve to be addressed.
If the gatekeepers would get out of the way, the main criticism would be in print. I’ve read the criticism and some of the reviews, which can only be described as insane.
But that is the politics of climate I suppose.”
To repeat from #30 referred to up-thread, Gareth Renowden is up to speed on this
“AR5 modeling will use the latest versions of the earth systems models available, and also use new “policy relevant” scenarios. This means that they will (of course) produce projections that differ from AR4. That’s a good thing, not a sign of failure.”
Are you?
Note Gareth’s obfuscation re AGW hard-wiring and the “good thing” spin (uncertainty has been increasing with each successive IPCC report).
An example of the “earth systems models” he is referring to is here:http://www.cim-earth.org/
which is an aforementioned climate-economic coupled model.
My tangle with Gareth is here (during the 10:10 debacle):
http://hot-topic.co.nz/no-pressure-1010-on-the-button/#comment-18280
I called a halt to hostilities because I decided not to waste energy in a 1:1 debate with Gareth (or Dr David Wratt, NIWA) when the real (international) debate was at Judith Curry’s Climate Etc.
BIG issues Andy – BIG issues, but as you can see, it’s been under your nose all the time at Climate Conversations!
A SIMULATION that is NOT SIMILAR to the observed condition is NOT a SIMULATION.
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/10/world-of-sceptical-questions-unfolds%E2%80%A6/
NIWA’s Supercomputer and UKMO UM Climate Model
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/09/new-unfccc-climate-chief-no-worse-than-the-old/#comment-24514
Wrong link sorry (finger fault)
A SIMULATION that is NOT SIMILAR to the observed condition is NOT a SIMULATION.
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/09/seventy-years-is-plenty/#comment-24665
Natural Forcings Only Simulations
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/09/seismic-shift-in-climate-thinking/#comment-24934
“On Climate Models, the Case For Living with Uncertainties” by fred pearce
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/on_climate_models_the_case_for_living_with_uncertainties/2325/
“The Effect of Clouds on Climate: A Key Mystery for Researchers” by michael d. lemonick
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/the_effect_of_clouds_on_climate_a_key_mystery_for_researchers/2313/
Climate Modeling Under Fire From Other Fields – nuclear, chemical,aeronautics etc
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/10/filmed-for-free-but-for-nothing/#comment-25129
Climate Model Uncertainty and Judith Curry’s (possible) Ulterior Motives
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/10/filmed-for-free-but-for-nothing/#comment-25247
My 2 Cents at “What can we learn from climate models”
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/10/hal-lewis-resigns-from-the-aps-in-protest/#comment-25304
My Communications With Dr David Wratt, Chief Scientist, NIWA
Re A hallenge to him in regard to natural forcings simulation
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/10/hal-lewis-resigns-from-the-aps-in-protest/#comment-25336
Re A challenge to him in regard to natural forcings simulation (obviously)
The Significance Of McKitrick-McIntyre-Herman 2010 (MMH10)
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/10/whats-left-of-the-niwa-case/#comment-25393
Dr Roy Clark’s Magnificent Reply at “What can we learn from climate models”
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/10/filmed-for-free-but-for-nothing/#comment-25103
The “Missing Heat”, Model Simulations, and Knox-Douglass 2010
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/09/seventy-years-is-plenty/#comment-24668
Climate Model Anthropogenic CO2 (ACO2) Forcings Datasets.
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/09/new-unfccc-climate-chief-no-worse-than-the-old/#comment-24527
Andy, you must (on the evidence), be the CCG,s UK-Agit-Prop-PR Guru (way ahead of me).
Have you researched Tyndall origens – persons, financial backing, Int. connections, reach (NZ, AU?), ulterior aims etc?
My interest is piqued.
There is a bit of background to Tyndall in Booker’s post at EuRef:
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/07/climategate-amazongate-bob-ward-and.html
Mr Ward’s employer, the Grantham Institute, is backed by significantly big money. It was set up in two parts, one under Lord Stern at the LSE, the other run by another committed warmist Sir Brian Hoskins at Imperial College, funded with £24 million from Jeremy Grantham, an investment fund billionaire. Its chief purpose is to advise governments, firms and investment funds on how to promote and invest in ways to “fight climate change” – which is now of course one of the fastest-growing and most lucrative industries in the world.
Follow the money
Sorry, that was Grantham, not Tyndall.
Mr Ward’s employer, the Grantham Institute, is backed by significantly big money. It was set up in two parts, one under Lord Stern at the LSE, the other run by another committed warmist Sir Brian Hoskins at Imperial College, funded with £24 million from Jeremy Grantham, an investment fund billionaire
The trans-disciplinary Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research undertakes integrated research into the long-term consequences of climate change for society and into the development of sustainable responses that governments, business-leaders and decision-makers can evaluate and implement. Achieving these objectives brings together UK climate scientists, social scientists, engineers and economists in a unique collaborative research effort.
The Tyndall Centre is a partnership of the following institutions:
University of East Anglia
UMIST
Southampton Oceanography Centre
University of Southampton
University of Cambridge
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology
SPRU – Science and Technology Policy Research (University of Sussex)
Institute for Transport Studies (University of Leeds)
Complex Systems Management Centre (Cranfield University)
Energy Research Unit (CLRC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory)
The Centre is core funded by the following organisations:
Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC)
Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC)
UK Government Department of Trade and Industry (DTI)
I’m guessing “Council” = UK Govt QUANGO ?
Tyndall Centre Funding (2002 – 2003)
The core funding of the Tyndall Centre (£10 million over 5 years) is composed of contributions of £5 million from NERC, £1.25 million from ESRC and £3.75 million from EPSRC.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmsctech/55/5505.htm
What’s their status with the new Govt?
i.e.Will we continue to reap the benefits of their groundbreaking research?
Whilst I am stirring the pot of trouble, here’s a couple of older articles from EURef that concern the money trail, and it involves a prominent NZ climate research, Reisinger.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/01/pachauri-money-laundering.html
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/01/pachauri-money-laundering-part-ii.html
More on TERI and the NZ links can be found here
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/01/pachauri-sunday-telegraph-part-1.html
With some very dubious accounting practices happening here, the announcement that Pachauri is staying on to see the IPCC reach its nemesis is filling some quarters with joy
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/10/pachy-stays.html
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2010/10/14/staying.html
[Andy: this was waiting for moderation because of the number of links; sorry I didn’t see it earlier!]
Connections
NIWA – Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
http://www.safecoast.org/editor/databank/File/Integrated%20analysis%20of%20risks%20Norfolk.pdf
NIWA – Grantham Institute
http://www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz/2009/12/09/warmest-decade-on-record-experts-respond/
I like the idea of an open thread – on WUWT it’s called Tips so why not have something like that going all the time; the Australian paper today has an article by Des Moore ‘No consensus among climate scientists after all’ http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/no-consensus-among-climate-scientists-after-all/story-e6frg6zo-1225938383591
and an editorial promoting climate debate and mentioning Prof Lewis
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/vigorous-climate-debate-a-plus/story-e6frg71x-1225938366537
“I like the idea of an open thread – on WUWT it’s called Tips”
Not quite.
Yes, “Tips” runs continuously – it keeps a lot of O/T stuff out of comments, GOOD IDEA.
But Anthony also posts “Open Thread” posts from time to time in the same manner as ‘World of sceptical questions unfolds…” has been posted.
As does Steve McIntyre (CA) and Jo Nova.
and Catallaxy Files has an ‘open forum’ every Sunday
I don’t see the difference between WUWT ‘tips’ and the proposed ‘open thread’ other than ‘tips’ runs continuously
Tips is a bulletin board, the purpose being to keep Anthony informed.
Open thread is discussion, musings, etc. the purpose being to give everyone the opportunity to discuss or pose anything they like i.e. there is no O/T within reason.
Well, I always enjoy coming back here but I’m going through a troubling time in my family at the moment; a terminal illness though not me; however I came back to see what wonderful questions are to be asked in Parliament to find you have gone off track; Richard C what about that prod about ‘keeping to the topic’ – I must say though that I quite like threads that wander as it were and I like John O’Sullivan’s description of NZ’s current climate disputes as ‘kiwigate’ so in my view any headline that mentions ‘climategate’ with any other ‘gate’ will grab headlines
Val, please accept our kindest hopes for your relative who is sick. That must be the hardest thing to deal with.
thanks Richard; but I love your discussions so don’t feel too sorry cos I’m feeling combative; by the way my copy of Prof Carter’s book arrived today so looking forward to reading that and do you guys know Malcolm Roberts? Malcolm is the author of ‘Thriving with Humanity” which I note is linked to on the NZ Climate Science Coalition website; he has recently appeared on stage in a debate with others including Greens (the rabid climate believers in Aust) and is very happy with his public reception
Richard T
1. I did a test by inserting a reply to #47 but the system reset all the comment ID’s from (the old) #49 onwards – just like Hot Topic (and we can’t have that)
2. I find the bolder font a bit easier to read.
3. The quote system is VERY clunky, but the HTML tags are all on display so maybe with practice.
4. I see Val prefers wandering threads
5. Thanks for trying a new scheme, If it’s no good then you can always go back to normal or another.
To all here.
I have only just found the 2 “Housekeeping” buttons (Top of “Hot off the press” and bottom left of post) – they are VERY useful.
If I had known about them before I would not have placed my metacomments on this page but would have placed them in “Housekeeping”.
My sincere apologies for cluttering up comments on this post with what is essentially “Housekeeping”.
Click on any post title. Scroll down to the end of the article. Above the first comment, if any, is a cacky-coloured horizontal line. On the left-hand end of that line is a link to the next post. On the right-hand end is a link to the previous post. If the next or previous post is entitled “Housekeeping”, that’s what will appear at one end of the line. Cheers.
Richard T.
We’ll need Hansard for the answers, perhaps on a new post – your call obviously.
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/Debates/
The CSC liaises closely with ACT on the PQs (Parliamentary Questions) and their Wellington staff advise us of questions relating to climate change or NIWA and the answers. So you’re right, we need Hansard, but it arrives in the mail painlessly.
Does the Minister realise how much public opinion has turned against the theory of global warming since CLIMATEGATE, and does he worry about getting re-elected now we have our own KIWIGATE? What are the implications for our ETS scheme?
===========
I would like to hear both words mentioned on Radio New Zealand National.
Very good point Steve Netwriter. and I also think it’s worth pointing out how many people are getting themselves educated on climate change in all its guises.
Anthony Watts pointed out that his site gets 7 times the traffic of “Hot Topic”, that’s NZ figures alone.
That should tell us something.
“I would like to hear both words mentioned on Radio New Zealand National.”
Crickets…….Birds chirping……..white space
Similar noises in Japan.
memumemu says:
October 12, 2010 at 11:29 pm
I have joined one of Japanese serious bulletin board that tries to figure out what is real as one of writer from this April.
In Japan, unfortunately, some of tips like this have never been reported, because Japanese mass communication companies have been protective of the established interest.
I was very happy to get James reply, which said “go ahead, carry on” even I asked my poor English.
So, from now on, I really would like to spread out his tips with our good folks as much as “we” can!
Many thanks!
http://jamesdelingpole.com/blog/us-physics-professor-global-warming-is-the-greatest-and-most-successful-pseudoscientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life-1141/
[i.e. It,s Global]
Richard Cumming says:
October 13, 2010 at 11:51 pm
memumemu says:
October 12, 2010 at 11:29 pm
“Japanese mass communication companies have been protective of the established interest.”
That could be restated as:
” ……………mass communication companies have been protective of the established interest.”
Where …………… , is any mass communication company you can think of, except Fox and the odd Brit newspaper.
[Have omitted to use the word “fishwrap” so as not to cause offence to interested parties]
Just in the last day or two The Australian has stressed the uncertainties in “consensus” climate science to a much greater extent and criticized the Age for its slavish adherence to the PC AGW line in an editorial. Maybe Murdoch sees which way the wind is blowing.
Although Andy linked to a Booker post that told a different story in Britain – weird.
Climategate, Amazongate, Bob Ward and the Murdoch empire
“If you mention to anyone in North America that the Murdoch empire might these days be moving towards rather active promotion of the warmist cause, they will only laugh, pointing out that, in the US, Fox News and the Wall Street Journal are two of the very few pillars of climate scepticism in America’s media establishment.
But at the British end of the Murdoch empire, there have recently been signs that this is far from being the case. For the past two years, for instance, its television arm, Sky, has been teamed up with the world’s richest environmental lobby group WWF (income £400 million a year), in a bid to “help combat climate change” by saving the CO2-rich Amazon rainforest.”
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/07/climategate-amazongate-bob-ward-and.html
I’m still catching up with all the things you’ve been writing about and I’m still looking for an appropriate theme; the most annoying glitch is the comment numbers being reset, but I still don’t know how the numbers should be handled. The numbers have to be reset in some way.
I’ll put in a couple of “plain vanilla” posts that let people chat endlessly. But not tonight, so please be patient. I appreciate the experimentation you’ve all been doing.
“but I still don’t know how the numbers should be handled. The numbers have to be reset in some way”
RT, I’ve addressed this in Housekeeping (comprehensively, if I may say so).
“please be patient.” – No rush.
Meanwhile we’re at comment #99 so the new theme can’t be too bad – works for me (but see housekeeping)
Now that this post has past the #100 mark, the title (in view of the comments), seems entirely appropriate, topical, etc Kudos RT.
“World of sceptical questions unfolds…”
[Helped along by metacommenting, finger faults et al]
NZTR in Canada Free Press
Climate Science’s Worst Week in History
“A protege of the flawed UK Climate Research Unit and a lead author of the IPCC reports was recognized to have tampered with the New Zealand temperature records. This prompted the following statement from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research: “There is no ‘official’ or formal New Zealand temperature record.”?
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/28735
May I recommend to all here this bigger picture point/counter-point discussion going on at JoNova.
A good example of experts (on both sides) at work.
Snippet from #67 (Pete Ridley)
“It is all so confusing for a layperson like me. I need an expert like you to explain it so go ahead. BTW, please do so without depending upon those damned computer models, which are based upon unfounded assumptions made to fill in the knowledge gaps about those poorly understood processes and drivers of global climates. When I read things like “Substantial uncertainties in reconstructions and past forcings are unlikely to lead to a spurious agreement between temperature reconstructions and forcing reconstructions as they are derived from independent proxies” I lose confidence in those models. Is there any wonder that I believe that I’m being conned by the UN and its followers?”
[Hint: Make a “watching from across the Tasman, very interesting” comment. Check the “Notify me of followup comments via e-mail” Box. Much easier and you won’t be deluged – it’s on-going intermittantly.]
And the link was
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/10/shock-climate-models-cant-even-predict-linear-rise/
Hmm looks like our helpers at the Oz BOM may now be doing adjustment tricks with rainfall figures:
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/10/bom-loses-rainfall
The last sentence is a great quote:
Polish radio announcement of Soviet times:
“The future is certain only the past is unpredictable”
“Hmm looks like our helpers at the Oz BOM may now be doing adjustment tricks with rainfall figures:”
Val is on to this too. See:
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/10/whats-left-of-the-niwa-case/#comment-25716
“The future is certain only the past is unpredictable”
Yes, but since when does the IPCC have a monopoly on knowledge of the future?
(We know they can’t predict the past)
More on that here (Manuel says: October 13, 2010 at 10:54 am onwards)
http://jamesdelingpole.com/blog/1010-who-are-you-going-to-kill-to-help-save-the-planet-1143/
sorry, didn’t notice it had been already mentioned, hard to keep track!
a bit OT but I see that Kim Hill is interviewing Oz alarmist Tim Flannery tomorrow. It will be interesting to see if she asks incisive questions or gives him a platform to rant like ABC did with Bob Ward. I wonder why he was chosen.
RadioNZ, The Listener etc are all AGW cheerleaders
Not a single functioning braincell between them.Andy, this must be classified as ad hominem, do you think? I appreciate just how good it feels sometimes to say things like this, but we cannot allow them to be published here. Unless you can provide a reference, of course. -RT
Yes, apologies, I’ll try to be more moderate in future.
RadioNZ not so bad, but the Listener are appalling.
The latter recently quoted UK MP Caroline Spelman on the story about hospitals needing to be built on hills to escape the effects of sea level rise.
I don’t think even Al Gore’s predictions are this dire. It is ludicrous.
When Monckton appeared on TV Breakfast show a while back, they mocked him and made fun of his eyes (a congenital condition)
The only decent TVOne interview with a sceptic I have seen is one with Doug Edmeades (ironically Paul Henry was the interviewer).
(I have links to both on Youtube if interested)
FYI, I posted this on an another thread here, but I’ll repeat it as it is relevent to the discussion on media
Richard North did a radio interview here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p00bg9r3/Louisa_Hannan_14_10_2010/
Starts about 10 mins in after the music.
He discussed climate change with a UK Green candidate ( and 10-10er) Chris Goodall
The remarkable thing is that Goodall AGREES WITH NORTH that climate change is a political issue, and that it is polarised between the left and right for this reason.
(North brings up UN Agenda 21 which I hadn’t heard of before)
I have never heard a Green/Leftist say this before. It’s always appeals to authority and “science is settled” stuff.
Pingback: Climate Conversation Group » Open threads as promised
An opportunity to test that theory:
Tim Flannery at 9:05am Saturday
http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/saturday/20101016
Although of course it would be necessary to test every brain.
I’m not sure it’s a matter of functioning braincells, as I hear very intelligent stuff on there. Maybe it’s a natural tendency to adhere to “orthodox” opinion.
RT are you prepared to be interviewed by Kim Hill? If so, I will email her and recommend that, just to add some balance, which I’m sure she would want.
I missed it but the podcast will be available before long
http://www.radionz.co.nz/podcasts/saturday.rss
get ready to write those emails !
I am just about to email this:
Is Radio New Zealand National going to follow the BBC example and ensure balance on climate change? by Steve Netwriter
http://neuralnetwriter.cylo42.com/node/3694
Comments from the good folks on here are welcome.
By the way, my single man “campaign” slogan has been “keep up the pressure” 😉
“” but now the record is up to 138 recorded on “World of sceptical questions unfolds…“. Rodney take note: see what you started?”
Trouble is guys, I can count the actual questions we have posed here on one hand. 95% of comments on this thread are entirely o/t. Do we expect Rodney to wade through all this to try and find a few parliamentary questions? Perhaps someone should collate the questions and we could comment on them, instead of burying them under an avalanche of o/t comments. I think this requires a new post, as this one is polluted beyond repair.
Are we serious about putting questions to parliament?
Right, thanks, Mike.
Yes, and this clutch of comments marks a turning point in this world-leading site: the moment when it appeared there may be a useful new way to contribute to the global warming/climate change controversy. That is, to build a resource of information about all parts of the complex debate.
No, this was never the literal expectation, though no doubt he’s keeping up with the conversation.
Absolutely.
A new post will be just the ticket to tidy things up and invite reflections. We should treat the parliamentary questions seriously because their results are undeniable. Without them, I doubt that we would have seen NIWA recreate the 7SS.
Just a little patience. And we still want suggestions for questions.
Cheers RT.
I apologise for my tardiness. I have been busy finishing the last of the work before handing the keys across to the new Auckland Council on Monday. Here’s my shot at the questions you have suggested.
These may stimulate further questions.
Thank you for your work and comments.
I will get these in this week as written questions. The Minister has five days to reply.
Rodney
NIWA assembled the seven station series and eleven station series graphs, was Te Aroha station included, if not, why not?
What records did NIWA use to form the database behind its seven station series and the 2007 graph showing that New Zealand had already warmed by an amount far in excess of global averages?
Is NIWA undertaking a project to produce a new national temperature record with published data and transparent processes, and if so, what records are NIWA using, and when will the project be completed and released?
Does the Minister believe that NIWA’s NZTR is based on high quality data, and if so, why?
Does NIWA acknowledge that the increase of about 0.6 of a degree in 1976-77 from the Great Pacific Climate Shift is a naturally induced change, and if not, why not?
Does he agree with NIWA’s statement that they are not required to use the best available information nor to apply the best scientific practices and techniques available at any given time, if so, why, and if not, why not [authentication required]?
Does he agree with NIWA that the NZTR is not an official temperature record, if so, why, and if not, why not [authentication]?
Does he agree with NIWA that the seven station series is completely unofficial and strictly for internal research purposes, if so, why, and if not, why not [authentication]?
Rodney,
You might want to introduce yourself to Graham Stringer MP in the UK if you haven’t already done so.
stringerg@parliament.uk
Mr Stringer was asking Phil Jones difficult questions during the parliamentary enquiry into the CRU emails, and seems to have openly sided with the sceptics.
Great questions Rodney – that should stir things up nicely. I assume these will be directed at Wayne Mapp rather than Nick Smith?
Yes. For Wayne.
Pingback: Climate Conversation Group » No answer was the stern reply