World of sceptical questions unfolds…

Rodney Hide

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!

161 Thoughts on “World of sceptical questions unfolds…

  1. Richard C on October 15, 2010 at 1:55 pm said:

    “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/

  2. Richard C on October 15, 2010 at 1:58 pm said:

    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

  3. Richard C on October 15, 2010 at 2:02 pm said:

    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

  4. Richard C on October 15, 2010 at 2:12 pm said:

    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

  5. Richard C on October 15, 2010 at 2:13 pm said:

    Re A challenge to him in regard to natural forcings simulation (obviously)

  6. Richard C on October 15, 2010 at 2:19 pm said:

    The Significance Of McKitrick-McIntyre-Herman 2010 (MMH10)

    https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/10/whats-left-of-the-niwa-case/#comment-25393

  7. Richard C on October 15, 2010 at 2:29 pm said:

    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

  8. Richard C on October 15, 2010 at 2:40 pm said:

    The “Missing Heat”, Model Simulations, and Knox-Douglass 2010

    https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/09/seventy-years-is-plenty/#comment-24668

  9. 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.

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. Sorry, that was Grantham, not Tyndall.

  13. Richard C on October 15, 2010 at 7:57 pm said:

    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 ?

  14. Richard C on October 15, 2010 at 8:35 pm said:

    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?

  15. 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!]

  16. 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.

  17. Pingback: Climate Conversation Group » Open threads as promised

  18. Richard C on October 15, 2010 at 10:19 pm said:

    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

  19. 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.

  20. 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 !

  21. 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” 😉

  22. 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.

  23. Mike Jowsey on October 17, 2010 at 11:24 am said:

    “” 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?

  24. Right, thanks, Mike.

    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.

    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.

    Do we expect Rodney to wade through all this to try and find a few parliamentary questions?

    No, this was never the literal expectation, though no doubt he’s keeping up with the conversation.

    Perhaps someone should collate the questions and we could comment on them, instead of burying them under an avalanche of o/t comments.

    Absolutely.

    I think this requires a new post, as this one is polluted beyond repair. Are we serious about putting questions to parliament?

    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.

  25. Mike Jowsey on October 17, 2010 at 1:36 pm said:

    Cheers RT.

  26. 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

  27. val majkus on October 17, 2010 at 8:33 pm said:

    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

  28. 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.

  29. val majkus on October 17, 2010 at 9:07 pm said:

    Thanks Richard; Ken will appreicate what you say and he deserves it

  30. Richard C (NZ) on October 18, 2010 at 12:14 am said:

    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

  31. 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

  32. Richard C (NZ) on October 19, 2010 at 5:29 pm said:

    The Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research

    Linked here:

    https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/open-threads/climate/controversy-and-scandal/#comment-26371

  33. Rodney Hide on October 27, 2010 at 7:24 am said:

    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]?

  34. 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.

  35. Mike Jowsey on October 28, 2010 at 6:59 am said:

    Great questions Rodney – that should stir things up nicely. I assume these will be directed at Wayne Mapp rather than Nick Smith?

  36. Rodney Hide on October 28, 2010 at 8:30 pm said:

    Yes. For Wayne.

  37. Pingback: Climate Conversation Group » No answer was the stern reply

Comment navigation

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation