Home arrow Dr Vincent Gray - Enviro Truths arrow NZCLIMATE & ENVIRO TRUTH NO 132
NZCLIMATE & ENVIRO TRUTH NO 132
BBC QUESTIONNAIRE

I am attaching my answers to a BBC Questionaire recently circulated to a range of people who are uncomfortable with the current "climate change" hysteria. I thought Richard Black did a good job in identifying the questions that most frequently face us.

Many of the recipients refused to co-operate, as they were suspicious that the results would be used for yet another attempt to discredit dissent. This remains to be seen, but I have found much enlightenment and pleasure in reading the ones who replied. There wss, as is usual amongst scientists, a wide variety of opinion. It is only the advocates of "global warming" who hunt in packs and always have a unanimous and "consensus" opinion.

Climate questionnaire – BBC News website

TEMPERATURE TRENDS

1      Do you believe that the global average surface temperature has risen over the last 50 years?

Most of the evidence is unreliable. The “Surface record” is based on an unrepresentative sample, plus a basic measurement of “mean daily temperature” in any one site derived from the average of the maximum and minimum temperatures, measured only once. This is not a scientifically acceptable basis for the final “record” as it is subject to unknown, mainly positive, bias. Also secrecy surrounds the actual sites, and such surveys that exist show that many of them are unsuitable for even local temperature trends because of proximity to buildings and vegetation. The huge variability in the number of sites available and the absence of an audit of their proper supervision and control for most of them render the entire surface record suspect and its results of little value.

On the other hand the temperature record from satellites in the lower atmosphere since 1979 is truly global, accurate, and has been scrutinised thoroughly for errors from hostile investigators, with no challenge to the basic record, which provides no evidence for globally averaged warming that cannot be explained by natural events such as volcanic eruptions, El Niño ocean events, and changes in the sun. The fact that the two volcanoes (El Chichon and Pinatubo) have caused depressions in the early part of the satellite record, and the El Niño events, particularly the large 1998 one, were in the latter part of the record, gives an impression of an upwards “trend”. The fact that there was no “trend” at all between 1979 and 1997, means that the greenhouse effect could not be detected in the place where it is supposed to happen, for 18 years, An upwards “trend” in the surface record over the same years must therefore have some other cause.

The temperature record from weather balloons supports this conclusion. They are also not distributed across the earth sufficiently randomly, but they also show no evidence of an overall warming effect since 1958 that could be attributed to greenhouse gas increases.

The National Institute for Water and Air in New Zealand (NIWA) has recently published a temperature record for New Zealand which shows that there has been no significant overall temperature change since 1950.

.

I am not a “believer”. I assess evidence. My conclusion from the above evidence is that a warming of the globe from increase in greenhouse gases has not yet been detected

2      If yes, do you agree with the IPCC’s range for that rise of between 0.10 and 0.16 Celsius per decade – alternatively, what figure or range of figures do you believe to be correct?

I have explained above that the IPCC figures are based on faulty data

The evidence shows that temperatures rise and fall in an unpredictable manner, and are usually explicable by well recognised natural claime events. There is simply no evidence for a steady increase which could be attributed to increases in greenhouse gases. “Trends” based on arbitrary choice of beginning and end points are meaningless

3      If you do not believe that the global average surface temperature has risen over the last 50 years, what is your explanation for increasing temperatures recorded by ground-based instruments over that period?

I have explained above that the readings from ground-based instruments are wholly unreliable. They are distributed in an unrepresentative manner on sites mainly close to human activity, which certainly causes a temperature rise over the years. There are no historic records of genuine temperature averages at all, but only a wholly unsatisfactory figure based on one daily reading. There is no system for monitoring sites to see whether they comply with WMO standards, and such surveys which been made suggest that many do not. Finally, the number involved lurched from 200 in 1850 to 8000 in 1980 to 2500 today.

4      Do you agree that the oceans have warmed to depths of several kilometres over the last 50 years?

The measurements go back only to 1955, the temperature displays a periodic behaviour, not a steady rise. A recent paper has found that the measurements have an upwards bias. The temperature is now falling. It is not legitimate to establish a “trend” from an arbitrary choice of beginning and end points.

GREENHOUSE GAS TRENDS

5      Do you believe that atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and other greenhouse gases have increased over the last century or so?

Yes, they have increased. But the measurements suffer, again, from lack of representative sampling. Almost all measurements are over the oceans, whereas politicians worry about concentrations over land, where measurements are extremely sparse. Calculations of possible effects are distorted by the use of averages. Since the effects are related to logarithms of concentration a knowledge of variability is essential. And they do not measure it

Atmospheric concentrations of methane are falling, but the IPCC tries to conceal this.

6      If so, do you agree that the rises are principally due to anthropogenic factors?

There is evidence from isotopes that rises in carbon dioxide and some others are related to human activity. Methane is not rising, and it involves many non-human influences

7      For carbon dioxide, do you accept the broad figure of 280ppm in the post-glacial but pre-industrial era, and the current figure of about 380ppm?

The 280ppm figure is based on an extremely unrepresentative sample, actually a handful of sites. I cannot accept that it should be regarded as a “global average”. The 380ppm does seem to be afir figure for over the ocean, but I would like to see some land-based figures, as these are really more important. The rate of increase in the ocean figures has been about 0.4% a year since 1975 and shows no real evidence of changing. Computer calculations which assume 1% a year and “scenarios” which assume increases which for one case is even higher do not make sense.

GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACTS

8      Do you agree with the principle that rising concentrations of greenhouse gases will increase radiative forcing?

It seems likely that they make a contribution to the many factors involved in changes in net radiation to the earth.

The diagram of these various factors and their supposed effects published by the IPCC is a veritable dog’s breakfast. In “Climate Change 2001” they admit that the so-called “error bars” in the diagram have “no statistical significance’, and all the items are subject to unquantified “levels of scientific understanding” They also stated that you should not add and subtract them to get an overall figure.

In the latest version of this diagram (Figure SPM-2) they have broken these rules. They give “error bars”  which are supposed to be 90% confidence levels (as opposed to the 95% levels usually supplied by statisticians) but they do not explain how these have been derived. They have also added and subtracted them but only did so in the last draft. They still have the unknown “levels of scientific understanding” and they omit altogether the main components of “radiative forcing” which are water vapour and clouds, for which they give the excuse that they are “feedbacks”

However you look at that diagram you have to conclude that the net radiative forcing since 1750 could easi;y be zero or negative.

9      Do you agree that the relationship between CO2 concentrations and radiative forcing, given current levels, is logarithmic?

I am not a specialist spectroscopist and I am inclined to accept the formulae given ib “Climate Change 2001” I would, however, point out, that it should not be applied to “averages”, since variations below the average are much more important than those above it.

10     If you answered ‘Yes’ to question 1, do you believe that rising greenhouse gas concentrations are the most important factor behind the observed increases in the global average temperature? If not, what would you say is/are the principal factor(s) behind the observed rise

The rise in 1998 was caused by the El Niño ocean event that year. The current warm spell (2001 to 2004 and 2004 to 2006). As shown on the satellite record, appears to have come to an end. In New Zealand the temperature last year was 1.5ºC below “normal” Since it remained almost stable throughout it could not possibly be related to increases in greenhouse gases. I am not an expert, but I have seen persuasive arguments relating the warm spell to changes in  the sun and cosmic rays.

11     If you answered ‘No’ to question 1 but ‘Yes’ to questions 5 and 8, what is your explanation for why rising greenhouse gas concentrations, associated with higher radiative forcing, have not resulted in a rise in the global average temperature?

First, I question the accuracy of the calculations of radiative forcing from “average” concentrations. The figures are too high. Second, there are a large number of other factors contributing to “radiative forcing”, most of which are very poorly known or understood. I therefore do not think there is evidence that the net net change in radiative forcing has been positive.

12     What value, or range of values, would you estimate for climate sensitivity?

First, the whole concept of “climate sensitivity” which assumes that a single constant can relate a net radiative forcing that cannot be calculated with a possible global temperature rise is a gross oversimplification of reality.

I would point out the work of Douglass et al, who in a study on Mt Pinatubo found that a low value of this supposed consyant gave a more plausible answer

NATURAL VARIATION

13     What would you say is the maximum amount by which the global average annual surface temperature can vary over the course of a century due to natural variability?

I am in no position to express an opinion, neither is anybody else. There are no reliable average global surface records which could be used to claim any figure.

MITIGATION

14     Do you believe that if concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases rise significantly higher than they are now, there is a chance of dangerous climatic change resulting?

There is no evidence that this could be so

15     If you answered ‘No’ to the previous question but ‘Yes’ to question 8, could you explain why you do not feel rising concentrations might prove dangerous?

I am a scientist. I do not make conclusions on important issues such as this from ”feelings” . I am unable to have any opinion until somebody comes up with plausible evidence.

16     Do you think it would be wise for the global community to set a maximum limit for atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, or of carbon dioxide equivalent? If so, what limit would you recommend?

They are not wise, they are mad. I would ignore the issue until somebody provides evidence

17     If anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions increase broadly in line with “business as usual” projections over the next 20 years or so, which of the following statements would most closely reflect your opinion of the likely impact of emissions over that period:

If wishes were horses beggars would rise. The “business as usual projections’ are simply rubbish. They pointedly refrain from checking whether they are actually happening. They are not

a) they will not have any deleterious impacts on human societies or the natural world

b) they will have some impacts on human societies and the natural world, but nothing that cannot be dealt with quite easily

c) they will have major impacts on some human societies and some aspects of the natural world

No justification for any of these propositions

18     Which of these statements most reflects your view of the Kyoto Protocol:

        a) it was a worthwhile attempt to tackle an issue of global significance

b) it was the wrong approach to tackling an issue of global significance

c) it was meaningless, because there is no reason for attempting to curb greenhouse gas emissions at present

At last, a yes and no question I can answer. My answer is ©

CLIMATE MODELS

19     Do you believe that computer models, when used in conjunction with observational data, can in principle make meaningful projections of future temperature and climate trends at global and regional scales?

In principle they cannot. And the reason ought to be obvious. None of them has ever been “validated” and the IPCC have banned the used of this word. They also never make “predictions” because they no that there is no basis for such a claim.

In order to validate a climate model you need to show that it is capable of predicting future behaviour to a known, and acceptable, level of accuracy

Otherwise it should not be used at all.

The IPCC does not even try to discuss how this may be done. Instead they “adjust” the highly uncertain parameters in their models to try and “simulate” a few past climate sequences, and claim that this “fudging” proves something. They then ask a panel of modellists, whoc are financially dependent on governments promoting greenhouse theory, their “opinion” on the “likelihood” of the value of the model “projections” They then have different levels of “likelihood” which are given fake probability numbers and claim their models are successful.

It is as if Newton and Einstein had not lived, and in order to send a rocket to the moon the asked the scientists who set up the schedule whether it might get there, and they replied “very likely, but we don’t know where”

20     If so, would you say current models are, on the whole:

                a) very accurate and useful 

b) quite accurate and useful

c) not very accurate or useful

d) completely useless

They are worse than useless because this fact is concealed.

21     If you answered c or d to the last question, could you explain what it is that you believe to be wrong with current models?

They have never been validated. They have never been shown to predict anything. One result of this fact is that there is no measure of their potential accuracy, which can only be determined by actual practical tests

22     If you answered ‘No’ to question 19, what approach would you prefer to computer modelling as a way of forecasting future climate?

Models do not make forecasts. They only make “projections” there is no future to modelling unless they can be shown to work. A major problem is that natural climate events are currently unpredictable

YOUR BACKGROUND

23     Which element(s) of your academic background is/are relevant to climate change?

I have a PhD in Physical Chemistry from Cambridge University and a lifetime research experience in many fields, plus over 100 scientific and technical publications, including climate science

24     Could you please supply a list of scientific publications (not exhaustive), or a weblink to such a list, which demonstrates your expertise in the climate field?

1.    1992 The IPCC Report on Climate Change (1990): an Appraisal,  Chapter 5 in  “The Greenhouse Debate Continued: An Analysis and Critique of the IPCC Climate Assessment (Editor, S. Fred Singer), The Science and Environmental Policy Project, San Francisco, California, USA

2.    1992 The IPCC Supplement (1992): An Appraisal  Chapter 6 in “The Greenhouse Debate Continued: An Analysis and Critique of the IPCC Climate Assessment (S. Fred Singer, Editor) The Science and Environme tal Policy Project San Francisco, California, USA

3.    1994 (with W.W. Hennessy)  Comparison of Climate Change Theory with Temperature Observations.  Poster paper at “Climate Change 94” Conference, Wellington, October

4.    1994  The Greenhouse Effect and its Consequences,  Chemistry in New Zealand 58 (2) 31-40

5.    1995 Climate Change 1994 Chemistry in New Zealand  59 (9) 30-33

6.    1995  (with W.W. Hennessy) Climate Change Science 1995 Report prepared for the Electricity Corporation of New Zealand

7.    1996 Climate Change ’95  New Zealand Science Review 53 58-62

8.    1997 Climate Change 95: An Appraisal  The Heartland Institute , Palatine, Illinois, USA

9.    1998  The IPCC Future Projections: are they Plausible?  Climate Research 10 155-162

100 2000  The Cause of Global Warming  Energy & Environment 11 (6),  613-629

101 2001 Climate Change: Can it be Stopped?  New Zealand International Review October, 27-28

102 2001 The Greenhouse Delusion. A Critique of Climate Change 2001  http://www.john-daly.com , Guest           Publication

103 2002  The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of Climate Change 2001, Multiscience Publishing, Essex, UK 95 pages

104 2003 Regional Temperature Change  http://www.john-daly.com/guests/regional.htm

105 2004  Maurice Wilkins and the Double Helix. Chemistry in New Zealand  67 (1) March , pages 50-54.

106 2004  Sociobiology   New Zealand Science Review  61  (1) 30-34

107 2004  The Third Man Speaks, Book Review, Chemistry in New Zealand  68 (1) 28

108 2006  Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere Energy and Environmenmt 17  707-714

The Following Greenhouse Bulletins were privately published. Many of the latter ones were published on various Internet Websites, notably that of John Daly  ( http:..www.john-daly.com.

101 1991. Greenhouse Miscellany,  Bulletin No 1 10th March 1991

102 1991   Five Recent Papers    Bulletin No 2 16th March 1991

103 1991 Ocean Carbon Dioxide Absorption according to A.A. Evans.  Bulletin No 3 29th March 1991

104 1991  A Sensible Climate Model. Bulletin No 4 5th May 1991

105 1991 4th New Zealand Coal Conference and the Greenhouse Effect  Bulletin No 5 25th October 1991

106 1991 Global Surface Temperature Rise Since 1940.  Bulletin No 6 :2nd November 1991

107 1991 Several Recent Papers Bulletin No 7 16th November 1991

108 1992  Recent Papers by Michaels and O’Brien  Bulletin No. 8  23rd January 1992

109 1992 The 1992 IPCC Supplement, an Appraisal: First Draft. Bulletin No 9  February 1992

110 1992 Energy Economics and the Greenhouse Effect Bulletin No 10 14th April 1992

111 1992 Modifying the Greenhouse. Bulletin No 11  20th April 1992

112 1992  Where has all the Carbon Dioxide Gone? Bulletin No 12. 18th May 1992

113 1992  Modifying the Greenhouse Again Bulletin No 13 25th June 1992

114 1992 Fuel Economy in Motor Vehicles Bulletin No 14  16th July 1992

115 1992 Three IPCC Reports Bulletin No 15  15th August 1992

116 1992  Changes from the Draft of 1992 IPCC Supplementary Report. Bulletins No 16  (20.8.92), 17 (25.8.92) 19 (9.9.92),20 (11.9.92), 21(17.9.92), 22 (17.9.92).

117 1992 Futures Scenarios  Bulletin No 18  18th October.1992

118 1992 Global Warming: The Evidence Bulletin No 23 16th October 1992

119 1992 Several Recent Books Bulletin No 24 24th November 1992

120 1992 The Greenhouse Effect: A Coal Industry Bonanza Bulletin No 26 27th November 1992

121 1992 Environmental Forecasting Bulletin No 27  December 1992.

122 1993  Coal Industry Statistics Bulletin No 28  January 3rd 1993

123 1993  Diversifying Climate Parameters Bulletin No 29  January 1993

124 1993  Futures for Coal Bulletin No 30  February 1993,

125 1993 Greenhouse Economics Bulletin No 31  March 1993

126 1993 Greenhouse Economics II Bulletin No 32  25th March  1993

127 1993 Greenhouse Economics III

128 1993 Greenhouse Economics IV Bulletin No 34  April 1993

129 1993 Barrie Pittock’s Reply Bulletin No 35   October 1993

130 1993 5th New Zealand Coal Conference and Climate Change Bulletin No 36 October 1993

131 1993 Energy Efficiency and Energy Intensity Bulletin No 37 November 1993

132 1993  Two Papers on Greenhouse Economics Bulletin No 38  November 1993

133 1993 Global Warming Debate  Bulletin No 39  November 1993.

134 1993  More Greenhouse Economics Bulletin No 40  November 1993

135 1993 Carbon Dioxide Bulletin No 41  December 1993

136 1993 Ian Enting’s Floppy Bulletin No 42  December 1993

137 1993 The Carbon Dioxide-Atmospheric Ratio Bulletin No 43  12th  December 1993

138 1994 Svante Arrhenius Bulletin No 44  11th January 1994

139 1994  Uncertainties in the Climate Bulletin No 45  19th January 1994

140 1994 Global Warming: an Alternative Perspective Bulletin No 46   January 1994

141 1994 The Current State of Trace Gas Research in New Zealand Bulletin No 47  2nd  January 2nd 1994

142 1994 Radiative Forcing of the Climate 1994 Bulletin No 48  16th  March 1994

143 1994 Natural Variability Bulletin No 49  18th April  1994

144 1994 Extreme Events Bulletin No 50 April 1994

145 1994  Solar Variability Bulletin No 51 May 1994.

146 1994 Radiative Forcing of Climate Change Bulletin No 52   June 1994

147 1994 The Rate of Increase of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Bulletin No 53  2nd August 1994

148 1994  Atmospheric Aerosols Bulletin No 54   3rd August  1994

149 1994  Errors in NIWA Presentation Bulletin No 55  August 1994

150 1994  Draft Summary for Policymakers Bulletin No 56  30th August  1994

151 1994 United Nations Population Statistics Bulletin No 57  30th August 1994

152 1994  Outlook Even Hazier Bulletin No 58  13th September 1994

153 1994  Some Recent Work on Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. Bulletin No 59  28th September 1994

154 1994  Extrapolating IPCC Scenarios Backwards Bulletin No 60  1st October 1994

155 1994  The Effect of Methane on the Climate Bulletin No 60A  21st October 1994

156 1994 The State of the Environment Bulletin No 61 November 1994

157 1994 Warming Trends Bulletin No 62  12th December 1994

158 1995 The Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center Bulletin No 63  8th January 1995

159 1995Global Temperature Trends Bulletin No 64  January 1995

160 1995 Natural Variability Bulletin No 65   9th February 1995

161 1995 Carbon Dioxide Emissions Bulletin No 66  28th February 1995

162 1995 The IPCC WGIII Second Assessment Report Bulletin No 67  28th February 1995

163 1995 Assessing Climate Models Bulletin No 68 9th  March 1995

164 1995 Volcanic Eruptions Bulletin No 69  23rd March 1995

165 1995 The IPCC WGII Second Assessment Report Bulletin No 70 27th March 1995

166 1995 Climate Change 1994 Bulletin No 71 3rd July 1995

167 1995 Carbon Dioxide Problems Bulletin No 72 1st July  1995

168 1995 Greenhouse Miscellany Bulletin No 73  26th July  1995

169 1995  Global Temperatures Since 1400 Bulletin No 74  3rd August  1995

170 1995 Future Emissions and Concentrations of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Bulletin No 75  3rdAugust  1995

171 1995 The Earth’s Energy Budget Bulletin No 76 20th  September 1995

172 1995 Greenhouse Roundup Bulletin No 77  15th October 1995

173 1995  Subjective Judgments Bulletin No 78  29th November 1995

174  1995 The Hadley Centre Model Bulletin No 79 16th  December 1995

175 1996 The Thermohaline Circulation Bulletin No 80 8th January 1996

176 1996 The IPCC Emissions Scenarios Bulletin No 81 28th January 1996

177 1996 Differences Between the Hemispheres Bulletin No 82 13th February 1996

178 1996  The Hadley Centre Climate Model II Bulletin No 84:27th  February 1996

179 1996 Two Energy Perspectives Bulletin No 85 6th  March 1996

180 1996 Climate Change 1995 Bulletin No 86: March 23rd 1996 (29 pages)

181 1996 Effective Carbon Dioxide Bulletin No 87: April 1996

182 1996 Radiative Forcing: a Discontinuity Bulletin No 88  19th  May 1996

183 1996  The Global Warming Debate Bulletin No 89 28th May 1996

184 1996  The World Energy Council and Climate Change Bulletin No 90  8th June 1996

185 1996 Climate Change Policy: A Durable Response Bulletin No 91  5th August 1996

186 1996 How Sensitive id the Climate Bulletin No 91A July 1996

187 1996 Climate Change and  CO2  Policy    Bulletin No 92 5th August 1996

188 1996 Discernible Human Influence Bulletin No 93  27th August 1996

189 1996 Runaway Greenhouse Bulletin No 94  14th September 1996

190 1996 The End of Global Warming Bulletin No 95  22nd  November 1996

191 1996 Hemisphere Differences Bulletin No 96  6th December 1996

192 1996 IPCC Technical Papers Bulletin No 97  22nd December 1996

193 1996 Aerosol Forcing of the Climate Bulletin No 98  27th December 1996

194 1997 Current Climate Data Bulletin No 99 January 1997

195 1997 Carbon Dioxide Emissions Bulletin No 100  2nd February 1997

196 1997 Updating Satellite Temperatures Bulletin No 101 16th April 1997

197 1997 The Line Goes Dead Bulletin No 102  21st  May 1997

198 1997 World Population Trends Bulletin No 103 14th  June 1997

199 1997 Updating the Data Bulletin No 104  September 1997

200 1997 Human Influence on the Climate Bulletin No 105 8.th October 1997

201 1997 The Airborne Fraction Bulletin No 106  21st  November 1097

202 1997 The Carbon Cycle Bulletin No 107  22nd November 1997

203 1997 Does Global Warming Exist? Bulletin No 108  4th December 1997

204 1997 Sea Level Bulletin No 109  11th December 1997

205 1997 The Kyoto Protocol Bulletin No 110.  19th December 1997

206 1998  The Missing Sink Bulletin No 111  29th January 1998

207 1998 Errors and Bias in the Surface Temperature Record Bulletin No 112  24th March 1998

208 1998 Regional Temperature Change Bulletin No 113.  16th May 1998

209 1998 Stabilization of Atmospheric Methane Bulletin No 114  8th June 1998

210 1998 The One Percent Solution: A Fairy Story for Grown-ups Bulletin No 115  28th June 1998

211 1998 Validation of Computer-based Climate Models Bulletin No 116  17th August 1998

212 1998 The Sun, El Niñ0 and the Carbon Dioxide Thermometer Bulletin No 117 9th December 1998

213 1999 Hansen’s Reappraisal Bulletin No 118 12th January 1999

214 1999 Population Projections Bulletin No 119 15th February 1999

215  1999 Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Bulletin No 120  27th February 1999

216 1999 Greenhouse Warming Reduced Bulletin No 121 16th March 1999

217 1999 Carbon Dioxide and Methane Revisited Bulletin No 122  April 4th 1999

218 1999 Validation of Computer-based Climate Models Bulletin No 123  April 28th 1999

219 1999 Regional Temperature Change Bulletin No 124  April 29th 1999

220 1999 IPCC Scenarios Old and New Bulletin No 125  September 23rd 1999

221 2000 The Surface Temperature Record Bulletin No 126  January 24th 2000

222 2000 Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis No 127  November 2000          

The  Following NZClimate  (and Enviro) Truth Newsletters were privately published. Most are available at  http://www.warwickhughes.com/gray04/ and some on other websites.

223 2002 15 Feb,   No 1. Launch of NZClimate Truth

224 2002  27 Feb No 2

225  2002 13 Mar  No 3

226   2002  23 Mar  No 4

227  2002  31 Mar  No 5

228  2002   10 Apr  No 6

229  2002  11 Apr. No 7

230  2002  24 Apr  No 8

231  2002  24 Apr No 9

232  2002 14 May  No 10  NZ Government Preferred Policy Package

233 2002 22 May  No 11

234  2002  10 June  No 12

225  2002  8 July  No 13 What the Scientists Say

226  2002  16 July  No  14

227  2002  16 July  No 15

228  2002  23 July  No 15

229 2002  26 Aug  No 15A

230 2002   11 Nov No 16

231 2002  19 Nov  No 16B

232  2002  17 Nov  No 17

233  2002  5 Dec  No 18

234  2002  Dec1o  No 19

315  2002  Dec12  No 20

316  2002  Dec 17  No 21

317   2003  Jan 10  No 22

318 2003  Feb 5  No 23

320  2003  Feb 28  No 24

321  2003  Mar 7 No 25

322 2003  Mar 22 No 26

323  2003  Apr 8  No 27

324  2003  May 11 No 28

325  2003  May 28 No 29

326  2003  Aug 12 No 30

327  2003  Aug 23  No 31

328 2003  Sep 6  No 32

329 2003  Sep 18  No 33

330  2003  Oct 30  No 34

331 2003  Nov 6  No 35

332  2003  Nov 26 No 36

333  2003  Dec 22 No  37

334  2004  Jan 13  No 38

335  2004  Jan 24 No 39

336 2004  Jan 25 No 39A

337 2004  Jan 25 No 40

338 2004  Mar 3 No 41

339 2004  Mar 4  No 41A

340 2004  Mar 16 No 42

341  2004  Mar 19 No 43

342 2004  Mar 23 No 44

343  2004  Apr 5  No 45

344 2004  Apr 7 No 46

345 2004  May 13  No 47

346 2004  May 26  No 48

347 2004  June 7  No 49

348 2004   June 12  No 50

349 2004  June 20  No 51

350  2004  July 3  No 52

351  2004  July 12  No 53

352  2004  July 29  No 54

353  2004   Oct 14  No 55

354 2004  Nov 12  No 56

355  2004  Nov 25  No 57

356  2004  Dec 12 No 58

357 2004  Dec 20  No 59

358 2005  Jan 6 No 60

359  2005  Jan 21 No 61

360  2005  Jan 31 No 62

362  2005  Feb 5 No 63

363  2005  Feb  22  No 64

364  2005  Feb 26 No 65

365  2005  Mar 6  No 66

366  2005  Mar 18  No 67

367  2005  Mar 25  No 68

368  2005  Apr 24 No 69

369 2005   Apr 29  No 70

370  2005  May 4  No 71

371  2005  May 13  No 72

372  2005  May 22 No 73

373  2005  June 6  No 74

374  2005  June 8  No 75

375  2005  June 11  No 76

376  2005  July 7  No 77

377  2005  Sep 30  No 78

378  2005  Oct 3  No 79

379  2005  Oct 15  No 80

380  2005  Oct 30  No 81

382  2005  Nov 4  No 82

383  2005  Nov 16  No 83

384  2005  Nov 23 No 84

385  2005  Nov 30  No 85

386  2005  Dec  1  No 86

387  2005  Dec  4 No 87

388  2005  Dec 11 No 88

389  2005   Dec 11  No 89

390  2006  Jan 9   No 90

391  2006  Jan 13  No 91

392  2006   Jab 31  No 92

393  2006   Feb 22  No 93

394  2006   Apr 4  No 94

395  2006  Apr 7  No 95

396  2006  Apr  24  No 96

397  2006  May  1  No 97

398  2006  May  5  No 98

399  2006  May 18  No 99

400 2006  May 25  No 100

401 2006  June 1  No  101

402 2006  June 4 No 102

403 2006  June 15  No 103

404 2006 June 20  No 104

405  2006  June 28 No 105

406 2006  Jul 3  No 106

407 2006  Jul 8 No 107

408 2006 Jul 22 No 108

409 2006 Aug 31 No 109

410 2006 Sep 13  No 110

411 2006  Sep 28  No 111

412 2006 Oct 8  No 112

413 2006 Oct 9 No 113

414 2006 Oct 17  No 114

415 2006  Oct 31 No 115

416 2006 Nov 6  No 116

417  2006 Nov 16 No 117

418  2006 Nov 30th No 118

419 2006  Dec 6 No 119

420 2006 Dec 23  No 120

412 2006  “Temperature Trends in The Lower Atmosphere” Energy and Environment”17 707-714

413 2007  Jan 2  No 121

414 2007 Jan 9  No 122

415 2007 Jan 22 No 123

416 2007 Jna 27th No 124

417  2007 Jan 31 No 125

418  2007  Feb 6 No 126

419 2007  Feb 12 No 127

420 2007 Feb 17  No 128

421 2007 Feb 19 No 129

25     Have you ever received funding from a company involved in fossil fuel production or use, or from an institution which receives such funds? If so, please give details.

My employment included, amongst many others

Petrocarbon Manchester 1946-47, 1951-54

Coal Research Establiahment, Cheltenham 1954-57

Coal Research Association New Zealand 1973-1987

Zhejiang University, China, 1987-1990

 

 

 
< Prev   Next >
This website is dedicated to the memory of Professor August H. (Augie) Auer jr, a co-founder of the Coalition.