Comments on: Tepid support from BoM

By: Climate Conversation Group » BoM the Terminator

Climate Conversation Group » BoM the Terminator — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 09:34:25 +0000

[...] go to plan, because they managed to get out of giving any positive endorsement of the new NZT7 [see “Tepid Support from BoM”]. You’d think NIWA’s friends might at least pretend to like the review! But all the BoM [...]

By: Richard Treadgold

Richard Treadgold — Sun, 09 Jan 2011 20:45:32 +0000

Ain’t that right, Alexander! Nicely said.

By: Alexander K

Alexander K — Sun, 09 Jan 2011 15:32:51 +0000

The politician’s ideas about peer review and commercial sensitivity rank right up there with ‘I got Dad to check me homework and he reckons I got all me sums right” and ‘I lost the change from the fiver Mum gave me to buy the bread and milk on me way home from the dairy’.
Children playing very transparent games, and they wonder why the grown-up electors see through them every time!

By: val majkus

val majkus — Sun, 09 Jan 2011 07:48:23 +0000

thanks RichardT; enjoyed your ‘did the dog bark in the night’ post; I think I was the first commenter to your blog to ask that question but in respect to a previous article by you

I’m sure Barry and the NZCSC’s lawyers would agree that all data submitted by NIWA to the BOM together with what Barry calls ‘the letter of engagement’ are subpoenaeble in the current Court proceedings instituted by NZCSC together with all subsequent correspondence etc between/from NIWA and BOM

The Aussie Govt is keen on pleading commercial in confidence to prevent docs being produced but in my view this does not apply to NZCSC current case and the ‘review’; – commercial in confidence is used to prevent a competitor using material to an entities detriment and this does not apply in my view to production of the stuff referred to above as there is no competitor and in addition the review was paid for by public monies;

So let the dog start to bark and don’t let the politicians stop it

By: Richard Treadgold

Richard Treadgold — Sun, 09 Jan 2011 06:29:32 +0000

Good summary. This is not over.

We want to see the REAL review from the BoM.
We want to see NIWA’s review submitted to a REAL peer review prior to publication.

By: val majkus

val majkus — Sun, 09 Jan 2011 06:17:18 +0000

I haven’t had much time to spend in the last 2 to 3 weeks but my concerns would be

a) the discrepancy between the dates to which RichardT refers in a recent post (sorry don’t have time to find the post
b) is the letter from BOM at p 13 of the NIWA report the BOM review or some preceding document from BOM
c) the letter from BOM is basically a pat on the back to the payer and the question is what data was it given
d) I see no reason why ‘the letter of engagement’ should be ‘in commercial confidence’ after all both entities are there to serve the public interest; the BOM I’m assuming was paid from NZ taxpayers funds and if I were acting on behalf of the NZCSC I would demand it
e) depending on the result to d) above then the review has or has not been done

Very quick thoughts and thanks Barry for your article and to RichardT for preceding thoughtful articles