We know this because the National Party spokesperson for energy and resources, Stuart Smith, asked him the following written parliamentary question last month: 

“Do you agree with  Nobel Laureate Dr John F Clauser “In my opinion, there is no real climate crisis. There is, however, a very real problem with providing a decent standard of living to the world’s expanding population, especially given an associated energy crisis. The latter is being unnecessarily exacerbated by what, in my opinion, is incorrect climate science,” and if not why?

Shaw, unsurprisingly, replied: “No.”

But the minister didn’t answer the “why” part of the question.

Puzzled by why Stuart Smith posed the question in the first place, Carbon News asked the MP to answer his own question.

Like Shaw, Smith simply replied. “No.”

When prodded to answer the second question, he responded: “Because climate change is an issue that we must address.”

Well, yes. So why muddy the waters by referencing a scientist who is known for questioning whether climate change is real?

We haven’t heard back from Smith on that.

To those outside the bubble, parliamentary questions are something of a puzzle.

National Party transport spokesperson Simeon Brown submitted 66 questions to the minister of transport and the associate minister of transport on Monday of this week alone.

The first read: “For each of the 44 New Zealand Upgrade Programme projects (3 Northland, 7 Auckland, 2 Waikato and Bay of Plenty, 6 Wellington, 6 Canterbury, 7 Queenstown, and 13 Regional), what is the latest updated total cost of the project, with a breakdown of every project?”

And number 66: “What is the total number of State Highways, if any, which are currently having their speed limits consulted on, and what is the total number of kilometres, if any, being consulted on?”

That’s a lot questions and a lot of work for the public servants who ultimately need come up with answers - and it’s hard not to think they might have more pressing things to do with their time.

Typically, questions from the opposition fall into two broad categories: ones that elicit answers that will embarrass the government and questions to which the answers are well known but are an embarrassment to the government.

Smith’s question falls into neither of those categories.

So what was the point of placing the climate change scepticism of a well-known climate sceptic on the parliamentary record?

Good question.