Dear Ministry for the Environment

Can you please repeat the OIA linked below from the date the search was executed for the last OIA to the current time.
https://fyi.org.nz/request/11318-any-rec...

Some of the original OIA text is repeated for clarity below:

“Please provide any records (e.g. documents, emails, notes or minutes) mentioning scientists Ned Nikolov and/or Kari Zeller and/or Dr Roy Spencer as mentioned in the link below.
For context - so that you can correctly identify the individuals - some links relevant to their work are mentioned in the links below. 
1) 2017 Peer Reviewed and Published Paper Describing How Earth's Long Term Average Temperature can be estimated from NASA data on other planets without referencing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. That is, the finding is that CO2 does not have an impact on the long term average temperature of Earth.

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/...

2) Blog reply by Ned Nikolov in response to a critique by Dr Roy Spencer

https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2019/01/...

“

Also note the entire correspondence of the previous OIA (and the conventions established) as part of this request …. and the form of reply already provided (as precedent). This includes communications with the Minister’s office on any no surprises basis about this OIA.

Also note this published paper by Nikolov and Zeller https://www.researchgate.net/publication... Does MFE have a copy stored as a Public Record in its systems?

Please also report on any actions taken as a result of passing the previous feedback to the team (see link below), and any correspondence with the Climate Change Commission on the topic of Ned Nikolov’s findings
https://fyi.org.nz/request/11318-any-rec...

With respect to the above and the previous OIA, please provide evidence that the Ministry of the Environment has fulfilled its responsibility to the NZ public for due diligence and duty of care to get the Nikolov/Zeller research reviewed and critiqued by suitable experts. What action was taken (or not) and why. Please provide evidence for any actions claimed to have been taken, the people involved (where you are able), their role, findings, the date and MoE subsequent actions.

Lastly, please provide the latest 3 documents that discuss the extent to which the MFE may be liable for financial compensation (or its officers liable to discipline or prosecution), if its advice and lack of reasonable due diligence on all the scientific data on Global Warming/Climate Change available has led to the economic harm of NZ citizens or industries, and/or loss of national treasure. For example, this could be a SSC policy document saying every public servant and govt agency is exempt, or a MoE/Treasury/Auditor General document that discusses and quantifies an identified risk or issue.

Kind regards
Chris Johnston

Dear OIA,

Thanks for your reply.

In summary:
1) the MfE has taken no action to get the findings of Nikolov/Zeller published and peer reviewed findings - reviewed.
2) in response to the question of “why not ?”, MfE’s relevant response is that “we believe the IPCC’s 6th report - lots of scientists contribute to this”.

I say “relevant” because everyone accepts “the climate changes” - so this bit added little.

Please correct me if this summary is incorrect.

Discussion:
The trouble is when the IPCC is wrong. It keeps re-revising its models. This is due to a number of interesting statistical and simulation aspects - which boil down to data quality, manipulation, assumption, forced inclusion of CO2 calcs (except the Russian model), and incomplete knowledge of the science (which is still evolving - eg cloud cover).

Indeed the reason why there is a 6th report is that the IPCC has been wrong at least 5 times before. Compare this to CFCs where the quants and scientists had quick agreement or correlation and causation.

So it is a mystery why MfE ignores the Nikolov/Zeller work which is published, unrefuted, has high correlation and predictive power, and shows all climate change is cyclic and the % make up of the atmosphere is not relevant long term avg temp at the surface of hard bodied planets.

The implication for the cost burden on the NZ economy is as significant as discovering the Earth goes round the Sun when the “authority” at the time (along with all the Church’s scientists) insisted that the Sun orbited Earth.

Einstein, when provided with a list of scientist that disagreed with his new theory said something to the effect of: only 1 correct one would have been required. For now, those 100 are regarded as incorrect - until a new innovator is called blasphemous.

Imagine how much wealthier NZ would be without these artificial burdens on CO2 and Methane, and how much better NZ could protect its environment because it could afford to?

Please provide:
- Any document the MfE has that shows NZ experiences more than 0.04% (400ppm) of CO2 in its local atmosphere?
- Any information MfE has on the local % of the 0.04% CO2 that is caused by human activity?
- Any information MfE has on the lowest amount of CO2 in our atmosphere before plant growth stops?
- Total cost to the NZ economy of the focus on CO2 / Climate since the ETS was put in place - by year
- Lastest document that estimates the cost to the NZ govt to unwind/dissolve the ETS (or equivalent figure - eg value and volume of securities issued).
- Which govt department administers the ETS (if not MfE).
- How many MfE jobs relate to Climate/ETS/CCC work - please break down by division , and a separate breakdown by salary.
- What % of non-field staff and what % of non-field salary cost does the previous answer represent? Please provide the denominators as well.
- How many enquiries are received each year for the last 2 years regarding climate policies (OIA vs others)?
- Please provide a list of partners/suppliers/universities/etc MfE uses to review published climate papers and offer advice on climate/IPCC issues. Please provide the total spent excluding GST for each of the last 3 calendar years. Where it is hard to identify invoices, then please identify expenditure by climate focussed divisions with external parties. Where expenditure is with a university then please identify the school (eg Physics, Mathematics, Botany).

Yours sincerely,

Chris Johnston

Dear OIA,

Thanks for your reply.

I note this response:
Question: "Please provide a list of partners/suppliers/universities/etc MfE uses to review
published climate papers and offer advice on climate/IPCC issues. Please provide the
total spent excluding GST for each of the last 3 calendar years. Where it is hard to
identify invoices, then please identify expenditure by climate focussed divisions with
external parties. Where expenditure is with a university then please identify the
school (eg Physics, Mathematics, Botany)."
Response: "It is not the role of the Ministry to refute or advocate scientific papers. The Ministry accepts
the knowledge of the global scientific consensus on climate change summarised by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and uses this knowledge to inform
policy decision making. "

The answer has been phrased in terms of the role of the MfE, but does not explicitly state the amount spent.

Can you please confirm that this answer means that the MfE has spent $0 with zero external parties on advice or to review climate/IPCC issues?

Yours sincerely,

Chris Johnston