This video from Andrew Bolt (featuring Bob Carter) provides some entertainment

http://www.countingcats.com/?p=9903

Be interesting to see what Key does now. He is not stupid. He will make room to exit – like exit right?
Cheers
Douglas

“Message to climate scientists (especially in the U.S.): now that the UNFCCC treaties do not seem to be desired by even the most progressive U.S. administration in recent (and likely future) decade, please rethink your allegiance to the UNFCCC/IPCC ideology. Let’s get back to doing climate science as it should be done: challenging every aspect of the climate science to broaden and deepen our understanding of the climate system and the full range of possible future climate scenarios associated with both natural climate variability and anthropogenically forced climate change. And supporting policy makers in developing and assessing a broad range of robust, no/low regrets policy options.

http://judithcurry.com/2011/05/29/un-talks-and-power-politics-its-not-about-the-temperature/

This should give some support to the sceptic side of the debate in NZ.

They respond to this sort of pressure -
Saturday, 28 May 2011 16:58 Agence France-Presse
DEAUVILLE, France: Russia, Japan and Canada told the G8 they would not join a second round of carbon cuts under the Kyoto Protocol at United Nations talks this year and the US reiterated it would remain outside the treaty, European diplomats have said.

The UK Aust and NZ are now ‘out of step with some big and respected players -especially in Nth America. China and India have already dumped any recognition in practical terms. What do you think Mr Key will do now and how much of the ‘wriggle room’ will be used by his scientific adviser? Interesting times now.

Douglas

It’s difficult to know how to deal with this systemic political corruption.

They have the big gongs, “Sir” this and “Nobel Prize that”. I have a mere PhD to muddle along with.

Well Richard, you have decided that you have to go over him rather than past him at the gate which I suppose if o.k. if you are dealing with (as you seem to be) a scientific argument. It also seems though, that there is a perception held by politicians that the science as promoted is no longer a reliable basis for the decisions that have to be taken that affect our economy – hence the procrastination now being seen in implementing anything that might be disadvantageous to the economy. We seem to be building in caveats that allow us plenty of time for delaying any action. The politicians are very good at making meaningless statements to placate groups but to take hard decisions that could cripple (say) the dairy industry would be political suicide. I can’t see Key being caught in this way. Gluckman’s paper of August 2009 seemed to support the ‘consensus’ as you say but it was also constructed to leave him ample ‘wriggle room’.

I’m beginning to think that it is a waste of time contacting Sir Peter Gluckman with anything contrary to the above PMSAC position statement. My experience seems to indicate that he is a gatekeeper for the “consensus” and will not be moved by facts, science, empirical observation etc if it does not conform to the “consensus” view.

Recently I have sent 2 briefs to Sir Peter via the PMSAC as per (not so) Silent (Cc’d to the Office of Climate Change) and although both have been acknowledged and passed on to Sir Peter “for his information”, I have not had any other response (not even acknowledgment from the CC Office). The first was regarding the lack of an AGW prescribed water vapour level rise in the atmosphere (TPW) and the second was the set of key climate metrics (observations vs AGW prescription) along with a bunch of climate driver science papers and articles.

I’ll give them the benefit of a little more time and some time soon will send a 3rd brief re recent science regarding 2 external natural forcings that the IPCC have not taken into account but will have to now in light of the conclusions (ocean oscillations and cosmic ray flux).

My strategy then if there is still no response will be to repeat the process but to address the communication to PM John Key with Cc to CC Minister Nick Smith, PMSAC and the CC Office. My approach will be along the lines:-

“I’ve contacted the relevant offices but have had no response. What do I have to do to get a response if those with a responsibility to do so will not do the work that they are paid by the taxpayer (their employer) to do?”

Warming of the atmosphere also leads to an increase in water vapour content which further amplifies the warming, since water vapour is itself a strong greenhouse gas.

As we know, the absence of evidence for this hypothesis is where the CAGW theory breaks down.

Yet, Gluckman is prepared to support this viewpoint, without further clarification of the uncertainties and the underlying assumptions.