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.”


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

  2. Not exactly runaway global warming is it

  3. 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.

  4. "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.

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

  6. Sally O'Brien11 Jun 2010, 11:30:00

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


    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."

  8. Richard McGrath13 Jun 2010, 22:30:00

    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.

  9. 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?


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.