Friday, 11 June 2010

Dear Professor Gluckman . . . [updated]

Dr Shaun Holt responds to Professor Peter Gluckman in a letter to the Herald:

_quote John Key’s Chief Science Advisor Peter Gluckman says that people who question the theory of and data supporting runaway global warming are comparable to those who question the links between tobacco and cancer and those in the HIV-AIDs denial movement. Yet according to the IPCC's own data, global temperature has not increased since 1998. Scientists should always be open and accepting of new evidence, should revise their theories accordingly, should argue with data not ad hominem attacks, and should not declare a legitimate debate over and call anyone who questions it crazy. It is sad and ironic that the Chief Science Advisor is not behaving like a scientist.”

Labels: ,


Blogger Eric Crampton said...

That's a week reed though. 1998 was a local maximum; 2010 seems on track to match 1998.

11 Jun 2010, 09:18:00  
Blogger Shaun Holt said...

Not exactly runaway global warming is it

11 Jun 2010, 09:32:00  
Blogger Eric Crampton said...

We've been at a Dalton minimum too though; 1998, I'd thought, was abnormally high not so much because of global warming but rather because of nino/nina patterns.

There are better arguments than "no warming since '98": 1998 is a cherry-picked year.

11 Jun 2010, 09:39:00  
Blogger PC said...

"There are better arguments than "no warming since '98.""

Well sure there are. But it's hard to make them all in just 200 words.

11 Jun 2010, 10:08:00  
Blogger Eric Crampton said...

@PC: Fair 'nough. But hanging things on '98 just looks bad, especially if 2010 winds up beating '98.

11 Jun 2010, 10:29:00  
Anonymous Sally O'Brien said...

How about this when you need a quick answer to AGW nonsense:

11 Jun 2010, 11:30:00  
Blogger Sally said...

Meet the green who doubts ‘The Science’
"The author of Chill explains why he’s sceptical about manmade global warming — and why greens are so intolerant."

11 Jun 2010, 21:35:00  
Anonymous Richard McGrath said...

Good letter Shaun. Throwing the denialist label at anyone who dares question the AGW mantra is so destructive of any sort of objective debate on the topic.

13 Jun 2010, 22:30:00  
Blogger Owen McShane said...

The issue about the post 1998 stable/cool period is that the models did not predict it.

Not right up to the year it started. Now if your model cannot predict temperatures over the decade immediately ahead why should anyone have any confidence in what they say about the years 2090 to 2100?

14 Jun 2010, 11:54:00  

Post a Comment

Respond with a polite and intelligent comment. (Both will be applauded.)

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. (Do others the courtesy of being honest.)

Please put a name to your comments. (If you're prepared to give voice, then back it up with a name.)

And don't troll. Please. (Contemplate doing something more productive with your time, and ours.)

<< Home