MandM header image 2

Auckland Public Meeting: Climategate, NIWA and the ETS

December 4th, 2009 by Madeleine

In the wake of climategate, the NIWA contraversy and public concern over the effect of the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) legislation a public meeting will be held in Auckland on Monday featuring Richard Treadgold, convenor of the Climate Conversation Group, who collated the paper Are we Feeling Warmer Yet? that Matt drew from in NIWA, Climategate and Evasive Fallacious Answers. This data originated from a combined research project undertaken by members of the Climate Conversation Group and the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.

Richard will present the findings of the research project and explain why, since New Zealand’s warming comes entirely from the adjustments, they are concerned that the figures have been published without mentioning the adjustments and that they have been used repeatedly to influence national policy, the ETS being case in point. He will also reveal their latest discovery of a contradiction between this official NIWA graph of the past and official predictions for the future.

The event is free to the public and will also feature member of parliament John Boscawen, ACT Party spokesperson on Climate Change who will speak on the ETS and what he thinks its effects might be on the cost of living for everyday New Zealanders.

Where: Royal Akarana Yacht Club, 10 Tamaki Drive, Okahu Bay, Auckland
When: Monday 7 December, 7.30 pm

For more information
email karen.bridgman@parliament.govt.nz
or call 09 531 5531

Having attended these sorts of meetings organised by John Boscawen’s office previously, I am confident that the organisers would be more than willing to give floor space to a scientist who wishes to speak in defence of NIWA’s graphs, the greater climategate controversy and the theories in support of anthropogenic climate change. I for one would be most interested to hear all sides and as such I will attend the meeting and take this opportunity to encourage any such scientist to contact Karen Bridgman as above.

Tags:   · · · · · · · 23 Comments

Leave a Comment


4 × = twenty four


23 responses so far ↓

  • Everything interesting happens up there! Here’s hoping something happens to propel us in that direction. :)

  • [...] more extreme opponents of the findings of climate scientists are still campaigning (see for example Auckland Public Meeting: Climategate, NIWA and the ETS). And well know local climate change denier Ian Wishart managed to get international reporting of [...]

  • Lets hope we now have serious and open discussion instead of silly comments like ‘the science is settled’. Lets hope the MSM (mainstream media) can now do serious research and publish without being called ‘deniers’ or other such emotional terms. Free and open speech is the basis of a free and open society.

  • If Ken is representative of science New Zealand then going by his carry on on this blog and the title of the trackback above I think evasive emotive dismissals is about the best we can hope for.
    .-= My last blog-post ..Anna’s Last Post =-.

  • “If Ken is representative of science New Zealand…”

    Say it aint so!

  • [...] Even the ACT party is trying to get in on the act (Auckland Public Meeting: Climategate, NIWA and the ETS). [...]

  • [...] more extreme opponents of the findings of climate scientists are still campaigning (see for example Auckland Public Meeting: Climategate, NIWA and the ETS). And well know local climate change denier Ian Wishart managed to get international reporting of [...]

  • NIWA needs to do more to respond to issues such as these. Although there surely comes a point where the effort required to debunk such claims detracts from their actual work.

    Moreover, public meetings like this will accomplish nothing in a scientific or productivity sense. They’re typically just a cesspool of sensationalism driven by appeals to public ignorance. This is, of course, what the organises want to generate public awareness.

    I wish groups like the Climate Science Coalition would actually contribute something meaningful to the issue instead of dodgy and misleading hacks at NIWA’s data. E.g. there seems to be so many issues with their resent press release/report thing – if they clarified their analyses it would make their case much stronger.

  • “They’re typically just a cesspool of sensationalism driven by appeals to public ignorance.”

    You’ll be aware, of course, that this is precisely how so-called “deniers” view much of what goes on in the name of climate change (does Al Gore ring any bells here?).

  • Glenn,

    I’m as much against Gore as I am against the ‘deniers’…

    He’s said stupid things, he’s said straight up wrong things, has clear vested interests, and plays the sensationalism card at any opportunity.

  • Simon, I referred earlier to the problems that scientists in CRIs have in responding to the sorts of claims made by the Climate Conversation Group, Wishart,. etc. Very often (and for sure in this sort of situation) this is controlled by the bureaucrats, not the scientists.

    However, one thing that interests me (as a psychological issue) is the reason for all the negative assessment of NIWA (their data doesn’t give any grounds for this and the denier claims have been discredited internationally) and very few people bother to cast a critical eye over the denier’s report used in Wishart’s press release.

    Here is just 2 issues where questions should be asked of the Climate Conversation group and the Climate science Coalition;

    1: The state in their report: “the station histories are unremarkable. There are no reasons for any large corrections.” On this basis they went ahead and combined data form the different stations without adjustment.

    Now any competent scientist would have checked their assertion. They would have done simple statistical tests on the raw data to detect any station site effect. Straightforward. If the analysis showed no effect then their combination method was justified. If not then it was unjustified. (Just a simple glance at the plots for Wellington surely shows there is a significant station effect)

    Now they do not appear to have done that analysis (if they had – and found no effect – they would be shouting about it). If that is so this is very poor science. Actually not science, just confirmation bias.

    2: Any competent scientist producing a report like this (especially as it will be making controversial claims) gets it reviewed for scientific accuracy. Colleagues and other qualified people (probably at least 3) would read and prepare a review report for the author who would then adjust her report accordingly.

    If I had reviewed this document one of the first questions I would ask is for the statistical analysis backing up the statement quoted. If their reply was that it hadn’t been done – I would tell them to go a away and stop wasting everybody’s time. If it had been done I would ask to see it, and request that the results be summarised in the report.

    I am surprised at the time it is taking for these denier groups to back up their claim with this simple statistical analysis. One can only come to the conclusion they didn’t bother to do it.

    These 2 questions get right to the heart of the credibility of this report and of the sponsoring organisations and Ian Wishart.

    So, what about someone who goes to this meeting putting questions on these two points to the speakers.

    No one has found any problems with the NIWA data or analysis. Isn’t it about time we started casting a critic and scientific eye on the claims made by Wishart, The Climate Conversation group and the Climate science Coalition?
    .-= My last blog-post ..The global warming conspiracy? =-.

  • Like I said before, if the AGW deniers want to cede science and rationality to the left, then be my guest.

    All that will happen is that the left will get its way with little opposition, either now, or in 10 years time when the effects of climate change are more apparent. You’d think the right would be a little more rational, and do more to promote its favoured solutions. Instead, the left have been given a more or less free run at the solutions.

    In any case, democracy won’t matter that much, since governments will eventually find themselves having to act, whatever the wishes of the voters. I just hope they do it now, when the cost will only be a few cents more on petrol and some bruised egos.

  • “Although there surely comes a point where the effort required to debunk such claims detracts from their actual work.”

    They must be doing very little if debunking such claims is that big effort. They just have to be more transparent about any data they use for any report/graph that affect public policy/tax/law.

  • “I just hope they do it now, when the cost will only be a few cents more on petrol and some bruised egos”.

    Maybe you should start living in the real world, L. PriceWaterhouseCoopers analysed the impact of the ETS on NZ businesses and households in the document, ‘Emission Critical 9′.

    http://www.pwc.com/nz/en/climate-change/emission-critical.jhtml

    They stated that petrol costs will rise between 2.5-14% between now and 2013, and that wholesale electricity prices will rise between 9-37%, based on the future international price of carbon. This impact of course will be in addition to any increases in these prices that might normally occur due to shenanigans by oil producing countries, and from our own electricity companies, which are frequent based on current trends.

    Under the worst case scenario, your $300 per month power bill may go up to $411, and your $80 per week petrol bill may go up to $91 by 2013. Is that alright by you, L? Is it alright for the majority of NZers? Get real! Get real Ken as well! The political party that did this will not be in government in the next term, or will have a hell of a lot less seats, and for good reason.

  • “Very often (and for sure in this sort of situation) this is controlled by the bureaucrats, not the scientists. ”

    Ken, are you talking about the likes of Gordon Brown?

  • [...] Just in from the Auckland Public Meeting: Climategate, NIWA and the ETS [...]

  • Like I said before, if the AGW deniers want to cede science and rationality to the left, then be my guest.

    There is so much in this comment, first you talk about AGW deniers, some people however do not deny it or affirm it they simply are agnostic or skeptics that’s not the same thing. Second, after conflating skepticism with denial, you go on to conflate denying a particular scientific theory with denying science, this is an erroneous inference, I know of some scientists who do not accept big bang theory instead they support the minority steady state view, does it follow that these people deny science. Third and finally you equate denying science with denying rationality as those science and rationality are the same thing. This also is mistaken, after all ethics is not science does it follow ethics is irrational, if so then I take it we can dismiss all the arguments about what governments “should” do to stop AGW must be irrational nonsense.

    In any case, democracy won’t matter that much, since governments will eventually find themselves having to act, whatever the wishes of the voters. I just hope they do it now, when the cost will only be a few cents more on petrol and some bruised egos.

    I see so what you state is that we should suspend democracy now immediately before its to late. We need to get rid of that horrible thing called democracy and simply follow the recommendations of the majority of the scientific elite. Glad we are clear.
    .-= My last blog-post ..Three Questions for NIWA =-.

  • [...] confess I now believe in manmade Global Warming, Three Questions for NIWA, Auckland Public Meeting: Climategate, NIWA and the ETS NIWA, Climategate and Evasive Fallacious Answers The NIWA Emails NIWA ClimateGate link hits MSM in [...]

  • http://www.petitionproject.org/
    .-= My last blog-post ..A posthumous acquaintance with the work of an eco-theologian leaves one roundly disappointed =-.

  • A few people are starting to cast a critical eye over the document (claimed to be a “research paper) produced by the Climate Science Coalition and the Climate Conversation group.

    As well as my own analysis (see New Zealand’s denier-gate) there is now one, applying some statistical analysis to some of the data at the Atavism Peer Review for the Climate “Science” Coalition and Original Post).

    Turns our to be a very shoddy piece of work. Doesn’t take much to see through it.

  • well at least SOMEONE is addressing these leaked documents and their importance in the relative big picture. here in the US these issues are all but being completely ignored by all media and instead we are being told repeatedly the lie about rising sea levels.

    I sure hope you folks get to hold your discussions without interruption.

  • Anyone noticed what just been said on TV? Apparently Nick Smiths said Copenhagen is probably the biggest gathering of world leaders in the history of human kind… no kidding! big scandal, big gathering?