Mapp Wayne: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mapp Wayne: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 29 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12264. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Research Science and Technology) 
: 
 I think that speech could be characterised by the member who has just resumed his seat confusing the shaking of one’s head with the nodding of one’s head. Most people can tell that when someone shakes their head they are disagreeing with someone. If they are nodding their head it would imply that they are agreeing with someone. Apparently Mr Boscawen cannot tell the difference between those two actions. I think that probably goes to the very heart of the ACT Party’s confusion on this issue of temperature records. 
It is simply untrue to suggest that the data is in any way faulty flawed or erroneous or that it does not show any climate change. The member has asked literally dozens if not hundreds of written questions on this issue and has been provided with extremely extensive information. However he still trots out his interpretation of that information and I believe the ACT Party to its embarrassment will have its campaign to discredit the temperature records of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) disproven by the science. 
I want to take members and indeed the public through three key points about the data. There are two series involved here. The first is  
The NIWA ‘Seven-Station’ Temperature Series 
. The oldest record goes back to 1858 and as has been indicated it has been subject to adjustments for a variety of reasons. Sites have shifted. One site in particular in Wellington in 1928 changed altitude by 120 metres from Thorndon to Kelburn. It is an a priori fact that when altitude is changed there is a change in temperature and therefore adjustments have to be made. I acknowledge that Mr Boscawen acknowledged that. A schedule of adjustments is necessary. 
John Boscawen 
: Why did you do the reverse with Hokitika? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The second point I want to deal with is the issue raised by the interjection which is the situation of Hokitika. The first point is that the work on this series was originally done by Dr Jim Salinger as part of his doctoral thesis. It was extensively peer reviewed at that time and more recently because it was acknowledged that the seven-station adjustment was largely dependent on Dr Salinger’s dissertation and therefore should be reviewed. 
What was the outcome of the recent review of data from the Hokitika station? There was less than one-tenth of a 1-degree variation between Dr Salinger’s work and the review. I suggest to members that that variation is not particularly significant. The institute is doing the same exercise on data from the other six older stations and it will provide an up-to-date schedule of adjustments. The variation will be not terribly significant I would suggest in line with other work by NIWA. 
The second key issue is that there is an 11-station series actually the most important series running from 1930 to the present. The member well knows that that series is not adjusted and that is the critical point. It is an absolute comparison of the past with the present because the sites have not shifted and are virtually all in rural areas. In fact one of them is at Raoul Island. 
What does that series show? It shows a temperature increase of 0.92 degrees Celsius from 1930 through to the present. It is one of the fundamental foundations of the science in this area in New Zealand and I suggest to members there is no way that the ACT Party and its supporters will be able to rebut the veracity and accuracy of that series. It is unadjusted; it is taken by high-quality instruments; it does show an increase of 1 degree Celsius; and the rate of change broadly mirrors the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. I suggest that this is much ado about nothing. The ACT Party is trying to raise a debate about a problem that simply does not exist.