Boscawen John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Boscawen John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:661;Page:9834] 
1. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Research Science and Technology 
: Does he stand by his statement in his corrected answer to parliamentary question 19275 (2009) asking for “the full data on which NIWA’s official time series of the mean annual temperature over New Zealand from 1853 to 2008 is based” that “links to this data are collated on the following website www.niwa.co.nz” under the heading “New Zealand temperature rise clear”; if not why not? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Research Science and Technology) 
: 
 The answer is yes. I should note that the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) website is being updated to make it easier for people to get information about the New Zealand temperature records. The relevant information is now contained on the web page headed “NZ temperature record” which states in the first sentence: “There are many lines of evidence supporting NIWA’s conclusion that New Zealand has warmed by 1.0 deg C since 1900.” 
John Boscawen 
: Which if any of the following statements is false: the claim in the link he gave that the Kelburn site readings were adjusted downwards because “the Kelburn site is on average 0.8 degrees cooler than Thorndon because of the extra height above sea level”; his claim in Parliament on 17 February that “the Wellington site has been moved from Thorndon to Kelburn a difference in height of 125 metres. That requires adjustment.”; or his answer to written question No. 1313 (2010) that “adjustments are not made on the basis of elevation differences either for Wellington or for any of the other six locations.”? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I note in answer to that question that parliamentary question No. 1313 (2010) says in its closing paragraph that one of the reasons why there had to be an adjustment was in fact due to the change of altitude between Thorndon and Kelburn the effect of which is a well-known fact of climate science. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With the greatest of respect it might be that the Minister cannot answer the question which should be the answer. But it cannot be said that his answer stands when he said precisely that the institute did not make an adjustment because of the elevation. That was the point of the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hesitate to ask the member to repeat the question; it was a very long question. But if I recollect the question accurately it asked which of the following statements was incorrect. In answering it the Minister focused on the third statement if I recollect correctly that Mr Boscawen made. But he appeared to be disputing that statement in his answer and the Minister is at liberty to do that. There are further supplementary questions and I will listen very carefully to make sure that they are answered. I accept that this is a straightforward question that the member is seeking information on. 
Jacqui Dean 
: Why does NIWA say that the temperature has increased by 1 degree Celsius since 1900? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: There are two key records in this area. The first is the  
NIWA ‘Seven-Station’ Temperature Series 
 which I note includes the Kelburn site. That dates back to 1853 for at least one of the records. The second key record is the eleven-station series which dates back to 1930. The stations in the eleven-station series have not been moved and are largely located in the countryside. The information from the eleven-station series is the raw data. It has never been adjusted. It shows an increase of 1 degree Celsius since 1930. Ultimately this issue is about the science and the data. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Why did the Minister refer Parliament to the 1981 Jim Salinger doctoral thesis and tell Parliament that the original worksheets and computer records used to construct the New Zealand seven-station temperature series are no longer available when the seven-station series was constructed at the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research during the 1990s by Jim Salinger and others and the adjusted series was published in a paper by NIWA employees Zheng Basher and Thompson in 1997 with the graph and commentary posted onto the institute’s website in 2007; and how can we conclude anything other than that NIWA has something to hide and is being less than open with its Minister and indeed our Parliament? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I have been advised by the institute that in relation to the information in Dr Salinger’s thesis of 1981 some of the material was in various computer records held at Victoria University. Apparently the computer records per se are not available as such but of course Dr Salinger has this information comprehensively reported in his dissertation as is the other information. I say this because it is an important point: the institute is reassuring the public about the veracity of the research by doing a full review of the seven-station series as has been stated in the House a number of times. It has already done it for Hokitika and over the next 4 to 6 months it will do so for the other six stations. When that information is available I suggest that it will be totally open for a robust scientific critique. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Does he accept that the review of the seven-station series in itself is an admission of doubt about the official temperature record or even worse that the much-heralded official series which has been used for everything from sworn expert evidence to advisory booklets for local government cannot be scientifically justified that records have not been kept that Ministers have been misdirected and misled and that as a result in part New Zealand is about to massively penalise itself with an emissions trading scheme that will impart huge costs on our country for no benefit; and will he support me in my call for an independent review of the institute’s work on climate change; if not why not? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The reason that the institute is doing the review of the seven-station series is that this is such an important series internationally as it extends back to 1853 and to comprehensively demonstrate the robustness of its work. The institute’s work will be fully open to robust scientific critique. I must also note because this is a crucial point in the whole debate that the eleven-station series which dates from 1930 shows a temperature increase of 1 degree Celsius. That particular series has not been adjusted; it is totally dependent on the raw data itself. I finish on this point: the institute is spending a huge amount of time on ensuring that its website is sufficiently robust to enable people to access it and indeed ask the sorts of questions dare I say it that the member is asking. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: How can the Minister have confidence in the work done by NIWA on climate science when the institute’s information has led Ministers to give wrong answers in the House when the principal author was associated with the now utterly discredited British climate research unit when other scientific authorities disagree with him when the institute itself has no material available that can support the analysis underpinning its official series when the principal author of the series has now been sacked and when the institute is having to review the series because it has no confidence in it nor can it justify it or defend it? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I think that the short answer is to look at the eleven-station series which is actually unadjusted and shows an increase of 1 degree Celsius since 1930. At the end of the day this issue will not be resolved by confident assertion but on the basis of the science. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am very familiar with the eleven-station series but my question was about how the Minister can have confidence in NIWA. It was not about the series and the Minister did not address the question of whether he had confidence in the institute. It may be that he does not but he should actually answer the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The dilemma is that when a member asks a question like that he or she is seeking an opinion and the way in which the Minister responds to a question that seeks an opinion is really pretty much up to the Minister. I feel that the Minister addressed significant parts of the quite lengthy question that the member asked and I think it would be unreasonable of me to try to pin him down to any more specific answer than that.