Document 1
1982
Act
information
Official
the
under
Released

•
He  states that the UN (presumably  meaning the IPCC) “abolished the
medieval warm period”.   The IPCC does  acknowledge  in its reports that the
climate was warmer during that period in the area around Europe.
•
He also claims that the medieval warm period was a global warming of the
earth when in fact there is actually very little good evidence that it was indeed
a globally warm period comparable to today.   Regionally, there may have
been places that did exhibit notable warmth but most of the various global
proxy reconstructions agree  that it is warmer now and the temperature is
rising faster than at any time in the last 650 thousand years.
•
1982
He  criticises the use of the so called ‘hockey stick’  graph  of global
temperature  and refers to the US Senate investigation (known as the
“Wegman Report”) into  the  statistics used to construct the  graph  of global
temperature trends over the last 1000 years.  There are serious limitations to
Act
the Wegman Report and its findings do not, in fact, affect the confidence that
can be placed in the ‘hockey stick’ graph.  Conclusions of the IPCC do not, in
any case, rely solely or even principally on such  surface temperature
reconstructions.    This  is merely  one of multiple lines of evidence supporting
the conclusion that the climate is  warming in response to human activities,
and they are not the primary evidence.
•
The author claims that the sun could have caused just about all of the entire
20th  Century warming.   A number of other factors are known to influence
climate and cause change, particularly volcanic eruptions, variations in the
energy from the sun and particles released into the atmosphere from both
information
natural sources and human activities.   The IPCC  found that the variations
over the 20th  Century  can only be understood by taking all factors, both
natural and  human, into account.  The IPCC concluded  that the dominant
influences on climate change in the early part of the 20th Century were likely
to be a small increase in solar output and a decrease in average volcanic
activity.    However, such natural factors cannot explain the warming in the
latter half of the 20th Century.  The report also pointed out that natural factors
Official
on their own would have actually produced an overall drop in global average
temperatures.
the
The government accepts the scientific evidence on  the risks of climate change and
we are committed to finding measures to reduce emissions and to adapt to the
impacts.  The government's  climate change work programmes have three main
objectives:
• to develop long-term solutions to climate change issues;
under
• to  take short-term measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that are
consistent with long-term approaches as we transition to a way of life that
reduces our greenhouse gas emissions and secures a prosperous future; and
• to adapt to the impacts of climate change.
We are now considering a wide range of policy responses to climate change,
including  transport policies, methods to encourage renewable energy and energy
efficiency,  mechanisms  to ensure appropriate investment decisions are made on
large energy developments, and approaches for reducing emissions in the land
Released
management sector.  More information on the climate change policy work
programmes can be found at: http://www.climatechange.govt.nz

I appreciate  your support for New Zealand’s emission reduction initiatives and as
such have attached a list of existing government initiatives with climate change
benefits, which may be of interest to you.  You can also access this on-line at:
http://www.climatechange.govt.nz/policy-initiatives/government-initiatives.html
As you recognise in your letter, actions that we are taking also have many significant
co-benefits beyond adaptation to climate change.  These include greater agricultural
and energy efficiency, reduced soil erosion, and greater resilience to flood and
storms.
1982
I trust that you are reassured that we are acting on the best scientific advice available
and I thank you for your strong interest in this important area.
Act
Yours sincerely
David Parker
MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE ISSUES
information
Official
the
under
Released

Document 2
From:
S9(2)(a)
To:
Warren Gray
Subject:
Re: CC hotspots vs. observations
Date:
Thursday, 10 April 2008 5:48:00 PM
A web link where you can get the pdf:
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/default htm
Sam
>>> S9(2)(a)
10/04/2008 3:40 p.m. >>>
Hi Warren:
1982
Sigh... this is somewhat related to Lindzen's (largely discredited) iris hypothesis. Not a lot of time right now, but see
attached paper from Roy Spencer et al, and the detection/attribution chapter from IPCC...
Act
S9(2)(a)
-----------------
S9(2)(a)
information
====================================================
S9(2)(a)
Official
the
>>>
under
From: Warren Gray <[email address] nz>
To:"S9(2)(a)
>
CC:Vera Power <[email address]>
Date: 10/04/2008 3:04 p.m.
Subject: CC hotspots vs. observations
Hi Gents
Released
I have been asked to follow-up on the article below
http://www nbr.co nz/home/column article.asp?id=21153&cid=39&cname=NBR+Comment
And assess the issues!
It appears that the expected vertical signature of anthropogenic CC is not matched by the currently observed
structure

See also
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/whatgreenhouse/moncktongreenhousewarming.pdf
What do you guys think?
Rgds W
Dr Warren Gray
Senior Policy Adviser - Climate Change Science
Reporting and Communications Group
Ministry for the Environment
23 Kate Sheppard Place
P.O. Box 10362
1982
Wellington
ph: 04 439 7731
S9(2)(a)
Act
New Zealand is hosting World Environment
Day on 5 June 2008.
The Ministry for the Environment is proud
to be the lead agency coordinating
this international event.
MORE INFO: Call 0800 WED 2008 or
email [email address] nz
information
--
Official
the
under
Released

Document 3
1982
Act
information
Official
the
under
Released

1982
Act
information
Official
the
under
Released

From:
Document 4
S9(2)(a)
To:
Climate Change
Subject:
ETS review Ministerial request for update due to Australian Carbon tax
Date:
Monday, 1 August 2011 4:56:56 PM
Attachments:
Spencer on the misdiagnosis of heat transferArticle.doc
Onthe misdiagnosis of temperature feedbacks from variations in the earths radiant energy balance.pdf
The Hon David Caygill,
ETS review.
  Given Minister Smith has kicked back the report on the ETS for updating
due to the Australians introduction of a carbon tax it is also timely to update the
1982
relationship of a recently published  new Paper  “On the Misdiagnosis Of
Surface Temperature Feedbacks From Variations In Earth’s Radiant Energy
Balance” By Spencer and Braswell 2011 “http://www.mdpi.com/2072-
4292/3/8/1603/ to the foundation science on which the alarmist premise toAct
introduce the ETS in New Zealand is based.
While I have read the paper in its entirety and it seems sound and reasonable in
its conclusions I have attached both the abstract and the paper to this email.
What is significant about this paper is that the data on which it is based NASA
Terra satellite is sound. The scientific methodology appears sound and I have yet
to see any technical criticism on the web that is reputable, there are comments of
criticism as you would expect in this highly charged political/scientific arena but
nothing scientific to refute the evidence.  It is early days, accepted.
This paper is not the refutation of the GW Hypothesis it is a component that
indicates caution in basing fundamental policy on computer modeling when the
information
paramatization of those models is not at all well understood.  The paper
addresses these issues and they are important and they are significant in
magnitude.
The Press release from UAH is set out below, I’m sure that your group will have
access to scientific support to analyze the actual paper in full. The press release is
the ordinary mans guide to what the paper is about.
Official
Climate models get energy balance wrong, make too hot forecasts of global
warming
the
HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (July 26, 2011) — Data from NASA’s Terra satellite shows that when the
climate warms, Earth’s atmosphere is apparently more efficient at releasing energy to space
than models used to forecast climate change have been programmed to “believe.”
The result is climate forecasts that are warming substantially faster than the atmosphere, says
Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in the Earth System Science Center at The
University of Alabama in Huntsville.
under
The previously unexplained differences between model-based forecasts of rapid global
warming and meteorological data showing a slower rate of warming have been the source of
often contentious debate and controversy for more than two decades.
In research published this week in the journal “Remote Sensing” http://www.mdpi.com/2072-
4292/3/8/1603/pdf, Spencer and UA Huntsville’s Dr. Danny Braswell compared what a half
dozen climate models say the atmosphere should do to satellite data showing what the
atmosphere actually did during the 18 months before and after warming events between 2000
and 2011.
Released
“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after
warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said. “There is a huge discrepancy between
the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”
Not only does the atmosphere release more energy than previously thought, it starts releasing
it earlier in a warming cycle. The models forecast that the climate should continue to absorb
solar energy until a warming event peaks. Instead, the satellite data shows the climate system

starting to shed energy more than three months before the typical warming event reaches its
peak.
“At the peak, satellites show energy being lost while climate models show energy still being
gained,” Spencer said.
This is the first time scientists have looked at radiative balances during the months before and
after these transient temperature peaks.
Applied to long-term climate change, the research might indicate that the climate is less
sensitive to warming due to increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere than
climate modelers have theorized. A major underpinning of global warming theory is that the
slight warming caused by enhanced greenhouse gases should change cloud cover in ways that
cause additional warming, which would be a positive feedback cycle.
1982
Instead, the natural ebb and flow of clouds, solar radiation, heat rising from the oceans and a
myriad of other factors added to the different time lags in which they impact the atmosphere
might make it impossible to isolate or accurately identify which piece of Earth’s changing
Act
climate is feedback from manmade greenhouse gases.
“There are simply too many variables to reliably gauge the right number for that,” Spencer
said. “The main finding from this research is that there is no solution to the problem of
measuring atmospheric feedback, due mostly to our inability to distinguish between radiative
forcing and radiative feedback in our observations.”
For this experiment, the UA Huntsville team used surface temperature data gathered by the
Hadley Climate Research Unit in Great Britain. The radiant energy data was collected by the
Clouds and Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) instruments aboard NASA’s Terra
satellite.
information
The six climate models were chosen from those used by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. The UA Huntsville team used the three models programmed using the
greatest sensitivity to radiative forcing and the three that programmed in the least sensitivity.
If anything this paper indicates that the Alarmist view of AGW is at serious risk
of being over stated. Our ETS was developed under an Alarmist environment that
is increasingly being found to be overstated therefore it is appropriate to take a
Official
cautious approach to policy whose foundation science is underdeveloped. Policy
that taxes on a false premise (partially false) is likely to be bad policy. The effects
on the population and particularly of the poor and socioeconomically
the
disadvantage will be negative.
It is getting to the stage where the entire policy should be rethought given
changes in the science and the proven failure of the current ETS to effectively
either change the growth in CO2 emissions or alter the temperature of the earth
now or in the future to any extent that is likely to affect the climate.
under
S9(2)(a)
Released

From:
Ted Jamieson
Document 5
To:
Pallavi Chhibber; Robin Brasell
Subject:
something on Spencer
Date:
Wednesday, 3 August 2011 4:30:34 PM
Attachments:
image001.png
http://www.desmogblog.com/roy-spencer
Whether he really worked for NASA at some time, and in what capacity, isn’t clear.
Ted Jamieson – Senior Adviser, ETS Operational Policy
1982
Ministry for the Environment – Manatu Mo Te Taiao
DDI: 04 439 7622 Mob: S9(2)(a)
Website: www.mfe.govt.nz
23 Kate Sheppard Place, PO Box 10362, Wellington 6143
Act
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
information
Official
the
under
Released

From:
Meredith Davis
Document 6
To:
Rachel Ward
Subject:
oh noes!
Date:
Tuesday, 26 February 2013 4:10:24 PM
Attachments:
image001.png
Climate sceptic Lord Christopher
Monckton will be returning to NZ
for a nationwide tour in April. Described
as “extremely entertaining”
in his publicity blurb, Monckton
believes a doubling of CO2 concentration
in the atmosphere will
1982
be harmless. Recently the former
political advisor gained publicity
for gate crashing a climate change
conference where he posed as a
Act
delegate from Myanmar to argue
there had been no global warming.
We urge readers of NZ Energy
& Environment Business Alert to
Google Monckton and Sasha Baron
Cohen for a real treat
Meredith Davis – Policy Analyst, International Climate and Environment
Ministry for the Environment – Manatu Mo Te Taiao
DDI: 04 439 7653 Website: www.mfe.govt.nz
23 Kate Sheppard Place, PO Box 10362, Wellington 6143
information
P Please consider the environment before printing this email
Official
the
under
Released

Document 7
Status Report
Minister for Climate Change Issues
Week beginning 1 April 2013
1982
No Status Meeting
Act
information
Official
the
under
Date
Seen by Hon Tim Groser
Minister for Climate Change Issues
Released
Date
Seen by Hon Simon Bridges
Associate Minister for Climate Change Issues

S9(2)(a) - Out of Scope
1982
Act
information
Official
the
under
Released

S9(2)(a) - Out of Scope
1982
Act
information
Official
the
under
Released
3

S9(2)(a) - Out of Scope
1982
4.
Other issues that you should know about this week
4.1
Lord Christopher Monckton Speaking Tour: 1-26 April
Lord  Monckton is a well-known climate change ‘skeptic’ who has  often  been  quoted  in
Act
the media. He will be in New Zealand on a speaking tour organised by the group Climate
Realists,  from  1-26  April. There are more than 20 presentations scheduled, mostly at
small regional venues.
Last time he was here, in 2010, his presentations did not attract much attention.
However, on this trip there is a risk that media will report his claims that climate change is
not occurring and that Government policies are misguided or even malicious. He is
currently in Australia, where at a recent talk it was reported that he believed global
warming was “a scam to keep the focus away from Agenda 21; a United Nations action
plan which he says aims to depopulate the nation, impose a world government and usher
information
in the return of Communism.”
Several MPs have become aware of Lord Monckton’s visit and via your office, will
receive background information.
S9(2)(a) - Out of Scope
Official
the
under
Released
4

S9(2)(a) - Out of Scope
1982
Act
information
Official
the
under
Released
5

S9(2)(a) - Out of Scope
1982
Act
information
Official
the
under
Released
6

S9(2)(a) - Out of Scope
1982
Act
information
Official
the
under
Released
7

S9(2)(a) - Out of Scope
1982
Act
information
Official
the
under
Released
8

S9(2)(a) - Out of Scope
1982
Act
information
Official
the
under
Released
9

Document 8
From:
Geoff Davies
To:
Matt Paterson; Dan Zwartz
Subject:
RE: CC Status Report item on Monckton
Date:
Wednesday, 3 April 2013 11:08:02 AM
Thanks Matt
From: Matt Paterson [mailto:[email address]]
Sent: Wednesday, 3 April 2013 11:01 a.m.
To: Dan Zwartz; Geoff Davies
Subject: RE: CC Status Report item on Monckton
1982
Hi all,
No need for anything specifically from MfE. I just have a quick chat with each office when
Act
it comes up.
Cheers
Matt
Sent from my iPhone
information
-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Zwartz [[email address]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 10:54 AM New Zealand Standard Time
To: Matt Paterson; Geoff Davies
Subject: RE: CC Status Report item on Monckton
Official
Thanks, Geoff.
Matt,
the
can you please let us know if the Minister’s office is expecting something from our team on this
topic? So far there hasn’t been much coverage: a press release  that wasn’t taken up by any of
the news media, and a piece   on the Herald website yesterday  quoting a few NZ climate
scientists saying that Monckton has no credibility and should be ignored.
Cheers,
under
Dan
From: Geoff Davies
Sent: Wednesday, 3 April 2013 9:56 a.m.
To: Dan Zwartz
Cc: Matt Paterson; Fiona Montgomery; Andrew Bristol
Subject: FW: CC Status Report item on Monckton
Released
Dan, Matt Paterson added the reference to MPs approaching the Minister’s office at the Status
meeting last Wednesday. Suggest you ask him what’s required.
Rgds  Geoff
Geoff Davies

Executive Relations
7574
From: Fiona Montgomery
Sent: Wednesday, 3 April 2013 9:34 a.m.
To: Geoff Davies
Subject: FW: CC Status Report item on Monckton
1982
From: Dan Zwartz
Sent: Wednesday, 3 April 2013 9:16 a.m.
To: Fiona Montgomery
Cc: Matthew Smith
Act
Subject: CC Status Report item on Monckton
Hi Fiona,
Last week we prepared an item for the CC Status Report , which was included as item 4.1 (page
4), “Lord Christopher Monckton Speaking Tour”. A sentence was added after the last time Julie
and I saw the draft, “Several MPs have become aware of Lord Monckton’s visit and via your
office, will receive background information.”
information
Do you know if we are being asked to provide background information on Lord Monckton’s tour
to the Minister’s office? Sonia W is away this week, so it’s harder to track the chain of
responsibility.
Thanks,
Dan
Official
--
Dr Dan Zwartz
the
Senior Analyst, Climate Change Analysis
ph: 04 439 7542
Ministry for the Environment – Manatū Mo Te Taiao
[email address]
under
Released

Document 9
From:
Nancy Golubiewski
To:
Team - LUCAS; Team - Climate Change Analysis; Team - Climate Strategy ; Team - Climate Markets
Subject:
climate skeptic tour
Date:
Friday, 19 April 2013 9:28:30 AM
In case you’re interested AND you didn’t catch Monckton’s talk on Wednesday night or this
interview last night on Nights with Bryan Crump, the link is below.  Interesting for any number of
reasons: not only for how to get a message across with a specific interpretation of data, but also
for how a media interview can go down.  The ETS also features.  There’s been other media
coverage of course, including interesting assessments on sciblogs, but this was particularly
interesting for the audible level of irritation…
1982
http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/nights
Act
Calm On Climate
Lord Christopher Monckton and his views on the state of the world's climate and
why he believes that the current political responses to the harm of a 'climate
changed by carbon dioxide due to human interactions' are in fact, injurious to
society and a functioning economy. (25'55″)
Download: Ogg Vorbis   MP3 | Embed
information
Official
the
under
Released

Document 10
From:
Dan Zwartz
To:
Julie Knauf
Subject:
Briefing Note on Developments in Climate Change Science
Date:
Monday, 20 May 2013 11:26:10 AM
Hi Julie,
As discussed, notes on the scope of the upcoming briefing note, for passing to Sonia and Peter
for comment.
Dan
1982
Scope of Briefing Note on Developments in Climate Change Science
Act
Minister Groser’s office has requested a briefing note to be delivered in early June, providing an
update on climate change science and the implications for New Zealand.
The note will be prepared by the Climate Change Analysis team, with Dan Zwartz taking the lead.
It will likely be given to Gerald Rys (Science Policy Manager, MPI) for review, and also to MfE’s
Climate Strategy team.
Context
·
The request is at least partly in response to the recent speaking tour of NZ by climate
‘skeptic’ Christopher Monckton, and a recent article in The Economist regarding estimates of
information
climate sensitivity.
·
The office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor is also preparing a briefing on
climate change science, to be completed later this year. The Minister’s office is aware of this,
but would like something sooner.
·
The last MfE briefing of a similar nature was a 21-page summary of climate change science
in December 2011: SM_BN_Three_Three~000001112953.docx
·
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 5th Assessment Report on Climate
Official
Change: The Physical Science Basis will be released in September 2013, and MfE officials
have reviewed the most recent draft of this.
the
Scope
Based on initial discussion with the Private Secretary for Climate Change Issues, the briefing note
will only include points of science, and will explicitly not address implications for the policy
response. The Minister may use it as background information during the discussions around
setting an emissions target. We have been asked to make use of appropriate graphs and
under
diagrams. We expect the briefing note to cover:
·
Trends in global greenhouse gas emissions and atmospheric concentrations.
·
The record of global surface temperature, including the significance of the ‘hiatus’ of the last
~15 years (the fact, often cited by climate ‘skeptics’, that global surface temperature has
warmed very little since 1998, compared to the rapid warming in the previous decades).
·
Recent developments in the understanding and reporting of climate sensitivity (how much
the world warms in response to changing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere)
·
Recent observations of sea level rise
Released
·
Changes in the amount of Arctic sea ice
·
The possibility of abrupt climate change or ‘tipping points’
·
Any changes regarding the urgency of action on climate changes, in the light of the previous
two points.
·
Developments in the ability to assign likelihood to future climate scenarios.
·
A summary of the likely projected impacts for New Zealand.

Document 111982
Act
information
Official
the
under
Released

Document 12
From:
Lewis Stevens
To:
Ministerials
Subject:
FW: 16/1415: MORE ABOUT FINDING TRUE TEMPERATURE
Date:
Monday, 1 August 2016 3:20:12 PM
Same S9(2)(a)
, please add this to the previous Ministerial
From: Alvina Robati
Sent: Monday, 1 August 2016 1:35 p.m.
To: Lewis Stevens
Subject: 16/1415: MORE ABOUT FINDING TRUE TEMPERATURE
1982
Additional for same request
Act
From: S9(2)(a)
Sent: Monday, 1 August 2016 11:57 a.m.
To: B English (MIN); S Joyce (MIN); P Bennett (MIN); S Bridges (MIN)
Cc: Danielle Coe; Andrew Falloon; Clark Hennessy; Cameron Oldfield
Subject: MORE ABOUT FINDING TRUE TEMPERATURE
Kia ora again all,
Further to my message earlier today about global temperature
information
measurement, here is a video about climate modelling and how the
models involve greenhouse gases. Dr Patrick Frank makes the pertinent
point that much of the talk is about models, rather than what’s actually
happening.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=THg6vGGRpvA
Official
The Treasury people should certainly see this.
the
S9(2)(a)
under
People at the top charged with making decisions that so vitally affect our
lifestyle and our economy are failing in their duty if they don’t take the
time to read this paper (attached), to learn how taxpayer-funded
scientists are misleading you.
S9(2)(a)
Released
New Zealand Climate Science Coalition

Out of scope
1982
Act
information
Official
the
under
greenribbonawards.org.nz | Follow us on Facebook
Released
From: S9(2)(a)
Sent: Tuesday, 6 June 2017 9:38 p.m.
To: Info at MfE
Subject: New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planet Model

From:
Alex Pickard
To:
Miranda Grimmer
Document 13
Subject:
FW: Climate change Important new development. Wednesday August 23 2017
Date:
Monday, 11 September 2017 2:02:18 PM
Hi Miranda.
Would you be able to print for me the bottom part of this request from S9(2)(a)? Along with the
response from this link? http://tepuna.mfe.govt.nz/otcs/cs.dll/properties/9195484
Alex
1982
From: Georgina Beasley [mailto:[email address]]
Sent: Friday, 25 August 2017 9:10 a.m.
To: Ministerials
Act
Cc: Salote Talagi
Subject: FW: Climate change Important new development. Wednesday August 23 2017
Ministerial for us J
From: Helen Lahtinen
Sent: Thursday, 24 August 2017 6:22 p.m.
To: Salote Talagi; Georgina Beasley
Subject: FW: Climate change Important new development. Wednesday August 23 2017
information
From: Hon Paula Bennett
Sent: Thursday, 24 August 2017 5:59 p.m.
To: Helen Lahtinen <[email address]>
Subject: FW: Climate change Important new development. Wednesday August 23 2017
Official
the
From: S9(2)(a)
]
Sent: Wednesday, 23 August 2017 10:44 p.m.
To: Hon Paula Bennett <[email address]>
Subject: Climate change Important new development. Wednesday August 23 2017
under
Dear Minister for Climate Change,Paula Bennett Since my last e,mails in which i have
tried to expose the fact that the theory of extra Carbon Dioxide causing a runaway
greenhouse effect is ''Failed Science''.There has been a very interesting court case.
Professor Michael Mann of Pen State.{university}, one of the most important protagonists
of man made global warming,has taken Dr Tim.Ball, Mark Steyn, et al.to the supreme
court in Canada for defamation.Ball,Steyn,et al.had called Mann's ''Hockey stick graph'' of
global temperature predictions,Fraudulent and Mann himself a Fraud.On the 4 July this
year.The judge ruled that Mann had to disclose his data,publicly funded data,that must be
free to view.Mann has failed to do as the court has ruled and is in contempt of court.He is
Released
now liable for costs and Ball can press the Fraud charges. You can find out the details.By
typing in the case on youtube or google. I have alerted you to this news because the main
stream media will almost certainly not publish it as it is a death blow to the AGW
hoax.Mann along with ,James Hansen of NASA's Goddard institute and Gavin Schmidt are
the three most influential scientists behind the theory of run away global warming ,due to
extra CO2. In a letter i wrote to The Hon. Tim Groser some while ago.I alerted him to the

fact that the IPCC. NIWA.and NOAA.were bending the science.Now we know the
universities are also running with'' failed science'' In the mean time the science that i find
robust,that of the astrophysicists'[.They show how and why it is the sun not CO2 that
governs climate] Their predictions are spot on.The sun spots have all but stopped.I look for
them through welders helmet glass now i see none.The cooling has started.Check recent
UAH satellite data.The University of Alabama At Huntsville is one beacon of honest
climate science.The satellite data is made free to all to download by honest scientists
Dr.John Christy and Dr.Roy Spencer.So NOAA and NASA can not bend that data and get
away with it. I hope this info is of use to you.I am very frightened that if Labour get in they
will take us into extremely destructive and punitive Ets.and carbon taxes.We must win this
election it is more important than ever.All the best. yours faithfully S9(2)(a)
1982
B.Sc.Agric.Wye London ps. sorry about lay out i am new to computers and self taught.
Act
information
Official
the
under
Released

1982
Act
Document 14
information
Official
the
under
Released

The Chairman of the ETS review committee and members.
Document 15
Headline
IPCC CO2 Hypothesis of Global Warming is wrong.
New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary
Temperature Model by Ned Nikolov* and Karl Zeller.  Full paper available here I recommend you read it as it is
fundamental to your task.
This could be the most important peer reviewed and published paper on climate in the last 2 centuries. Your
understanding of it and its devastating  importance to current beliefs of the alarmist climate community can’t be over sold.
It is game changing, this is the stuff Nobel Prizes are made of.
1982
If you have the maths and physics, a detailed read of the paper is possible, for most however it is the conclusions on Page
17 that are pertinent to a role on the ETS review.  The ETS was based on the so called “settled science” of late last century,
the science has moved on. A clue to the unsettled science might be that the IPCC GCM’s have failed miserably to predict
almost everything. Climate sensitivity has moved down to the extent that it alone takes the C out of CAGW. With CS at  just
Act
over 1 and still falling it leaves the IPCC 3 to 3.5 used in models as absurd outliers producing model outputs that make the
models run hot by a factor of at least 2. The hiatus in temperature, the lack of acceleration in sea level rise while CO to
continues to rise, the lack of a “Hot Spot” in the tropical troposphere The lack of desertification and on the contrary the
tangible greening of the earth, lack of increased hurricane intensity and number of hurricanes all goes to show that
something might be wrong with the theory.
From the Papers conclusions
The planetary temperature model has several fundamental theoretical implications, i.e.
• The ‘greenhouse effect’ is not a radiative phenomenon driven by the atmospheric infrared optical depth as
presently believed, but a pressure-induced thermal enhancement analogous to adiabatic heating and independent
information
of atmospheric composition;
• The down-welling LW radiation is not a global driver of surface warming as hypothesized for over 100 years but
a product of the near-surface air temperature controlled by solar heating and atmospheric pressure;
• The albedo of planetary bodies with tangible atmospheres is not an independent driver of climate but an intrinsic
property (a by-product) of the climate system itself. This does not mean that the cloud albedo cannot be influenced
by external forcing such as solar wind or galactic cosmic rays. However, the magnitude of such influences is
Official
expected to be small due to the stabilizing effect of negative feedbacks operating within the system. This
understanding explains the observed remarkable stability of planetary albedos;
• The equilibrium surface temperature of a planet is bound to remain stable (i.e. within ± 1 K) as long as the
the
atmospheric mass and the TOA mean solar irradiance are stationary. Hence, Earth’s climate system is well
buffered against sudden changes and has no tipping points;
• The proposed net positive feedback between surface temperature and the atmospheric infrared opacity controlled
by water vapor appears to be a model artefact resulting from a mathematical decoupling of the radiative-
convective heat transfer rather than a physical reality.
under
The magnitude of the needfor a  paradigm shift created by Nikolov and Zeller’s paper is so fundamental that it entirely
destroys the scientific base on which the ETS was predicated. Policy based on wrong science has no chance of success. If
such policy (ETS) continues to be implemented it can only do damage to the Economy, the Middle Class and Poor in New
Zealand meanwhile having no effect on the temperature of the earth whatsoever. The unintended consequences of
continuing the ETS are already becoming apparent with the cost of $1.4B/an. to the country for the next 10 years.  Given
Nikolov N, Zeller K (2017) it is totally unnecessary because the ETS policy is based on a false science.
The much vaunted Paris Accord will change the temperature of the earth a best by 0.05 degrees C in 2100. This amount is
not measurable.
Released
If Paris runs for an extra 70 years to 2100 it would change the  temperature of the earth by 0.17degrees C only if all party’s
fulfil all commitments. We are off to a great start with US pulling out. You can get an idea of our share  by dividing our GDP
by world GDP (2015 data) and multiplying by 0.17. is 4/10,000th of a degree C. Read the full paper by Bjorn Lomborg here
http://www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-of-paris-climate-promises
But it all becomes futile waste of resources when we take into account Nikolov N, Zeller K (2017).
I’m sure you are thinking that this is only one paper can I refer you to Einstein 1.

1982
Act
Nikolov and Zeller changed the thinking big time.
Enjoy
S9(2)(a)
information
Official
the
under
Released

Weekly update - Minister for Climate Change
Finalised on 17 October for the week commencing 21 October
Date:
21 October
Time:
1.45 - 2.45 pm
Document 16
Location:
Office of the Minister for Climate Change
1982
S9(2)(a) -
Act
Out of
Scope
information
S9(2)(a) - Out of Scope
Official
the
under
Released
IN CONFIDENCE

1982
Act
information
Official
the
under
Released

S9(2)(a) - Out of Scope
1982


Act
S9(2)(a) - Out of Scope
information
Official
the

S9(2)(a) - Out of Scope
under
International


Released
S9(2)(a) - Out of Scope

S9(2)(a) - Out of Scope

1982
S9(2)(a) - Out of Scope
Act
information

Official
Out of Scope
the
under
Released

IN CONFIDENCE

1982
Act
information
Official
the
under
Released

4. Cabinet material being prepared for you
Out of Scope
1982
Act
information
Official
the
under
Released
IN CONFIDENCE

1982
Act
information
Official
the
under
Released

1982
Act
information
Official
the
under
IN CONFIDENCE
Released

Document Outline