OIAD-913
Chris Johnston
[FYI request #25313 email]
Tēnā koe Chris,
Thank you for your email of 30 December 2023 to the Ministry for the Environment (the Ministry)
requesting the fol owing under the Official Information Act 1982 (the Act):
Can you please repeat the OIA linked below from the date the search was executed for the last
OIA to the current time.
Some of the original OIA text is repeated for clarity below:
“Please provide any records (e.g. documents, emails, notes or minutes) mentioning scientists
Ned Nikolov and/or Kari Zel er and/or Dr Roy Spencer as mentioned in the link below. For
context - so that you can correctly identify the individuals - some links relevant to their work
are mentioned in the links below. 1) 2017 Peer Reviewed and Published Paper Describing How
Earth's Long Term Average Temperature can be estimated from NASA data on other planets
without referencing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. That is, the finding is that CO2
does not have an impact on the long term average temperature of Earth. 2) Blog reply by Ned
Nikolov in response to a critique by Dr Roy Spencer
Also note the entire correspondence of the previous OIA (and the conventions established) as
part of this request …. and the form of reply already provided (as precedent). This includes
communications with the Minister’s office on any no surprises basis about this OIA.
Also note this published paper by Nikolov and Zeller.
Does MFE have a copy stored as a Public Record in its systems?
Please also report on any actions taken as a result of passing the previous feedback to the
team (see link below), and any correspondence with the Climate Change Commission on the
topic of Ned Nikolov’s findings.
With respect to the above and the previous OIA, please provide evidence that the Ministry of
the Environment has fulfil ed its responsibility to the NZ public for due diligence and duty of
care to get the Nikolov/Zel er research reviewed and critiqued by suitable experts. What action
was taken (or not) and why. Please provide evidence for any actions claimed to have been
taken, the people involved (where you are able), their role, findings, the date and MoE
subsequent actions.
Lastly, please provide the latest 3 documents that discuss the extent to which the MFE may be
liable for financial compensation (or its officers liable to discipline or prosecution), if its advice
and lack of reasonable due diligence on all the scientific data on Global Warming/Climate
Change available has led to the economic harm of NZ citizens or industries, and/or loss of
national treasure. For example, this could be a SSC policy document saying every public servant
and govt agency is exempt, or a MoE/Treasury/Auditor General document that discusses and
quantifies an identified risk or issue.
Can you please repeat the OIA linked below from the date the search was executed for the last OIA to
the current time.
The Ministry does not hold any records mentioning Ned Nikolov, Kari Zeller, or Dr Roy Spencer dated
between your last information request of 29 September 2019 and this current request. I must
therefore refuse this part of your request under section 18(g)(i) of the Act, as the information
requested is not held by the Ministry and I have no grounds for believing that the information is held
by another department.
Does MFE have a copy stored as a Public Record in its systems?
A search of the Ministry’s holdings indicates we have not stored “A New Planetary Temperature Model
and Its Implications for the Greenhouse Theory” by Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller, though we do hold
references and public links to it.
Please also report on any actions taken as a result of passing the previous feedback to the team (see
link below), and any correspondence with the Climate Change Commission on the topic of Ned
Nikolov’s findings
Scientific evidence of climate change is unequivocal and the New Zealand Government is approaching
climate change using a scientific lens. The Government accepts the knowledge of the global scientific
consensus on human-induced climate change summarised by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) Assessment Reports.
The Ministry does not hold any correspondence with the Climate Change Commission on the topic of
Ned Nikolov’s findings. I must therefore refuse this part of your request under section 18(g)(i) of the
Act, as the information requested is not held by the Ministry and I have no grounds for believing that
the information is held by another department.
With respect to the above and the previous OIA, please provide evidence that the Ministry of the
Environment has fulfilled its responsibility to the NZ public for due diligence and duty of care to get
the Nikolov/Zeller research reviewed and critiqued by suitable experts. What action was taken (or not)
and why. Please provide evidence for any actions claimed to have been taken, the people involved
(where you are able), their role, findings, the date and MoE subsequent actions.
The science of climate change is clearly explained in a number of peer-reviewed, publicly available
papers, following the traditional and trusted scientific method. Hundreds of scientists and researchers
from around the globe participate in the IPCC working groups, reviewing thousands of these papers.
This is summarised in the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, which provides a comprehensive summary
of the state of scientific, technical, and socio-economic knowledge on climate change, its impacts and
future risks, and options for adaptation and mitigation. The Sixth Assessment Report is available at:
Sixth Assessment Report — IPCC. Lastly, please provide the latest 3 documents that discuss the extent to which the MFE may be liable
for financial compensation (or its officers liable to discipline or prosecution), if its advice and lack of
reasonable due diligence on all the scientific data on Global Warming/Climate Change available has
led to the economic harm of NZ citizens or industries, and/or loss of national treasure. For example,
this could be a SSC policy document saying every public servant and govt agency is exempt, or a
MoE/Treasury/Auditor General document that discusses and quantifies an identified risk or issue.
The Ministry does not hold any documents that discuss the extent to which the Ministry may be liable
for financial compensation (or its officers liable to discipline or prosecution), if its advice or a lack of
reasonable due diligence on all the scientific data on Global Warming/Climate Change available has
led to the economic harm of New Zealand citizens or industries, and/or loss of national treasure. I am
therefore refusing this part of your request under section 18(g)(i) of the Act, as the information
requested is not held by the Ministry and I have no grounds for believing that the information is held
by another department.
You have the right to seek an investigation and review by the Office of the Ombudsman of my decision
to withhold information relating to this request, in accordance with section 28(3) of the Act. The
relevant details can be found on their website at:
www.ombudsman.parliament.nz. Please note that, due to the public interest in our work, the Ministry publishes responses to requests
for official information on ou
r OIA responses page shortly after the response has been sent. If you
have any queries about this, please feel free to contact our Ministerial Services team:
[email address]. Ngā mihi,
Martin Workman
Chief of Staff
Ministry for the Environment | Manatū Mō Te Taiao
