Gluckman — great baby doctor but no climate scientist

The ODT reports Professor Sir Peter Gluckman’s speech last night (you’ll remember him, he’s the PM’s chief science advisor).

As expected, the speech seems to have been mainly waffle with few new facts or arguments.

However, the Professor informs us that New Zealand beech trees and swallows are feeling the heat. This is despite Phil Jones’ claim that there has been no significant global warming for 15 years and a slight cooling during the 21st century. It also betrays David Wratt’s claim that future global warming will be less in New Zealand because of the surrounding ocean. More pertinent is the fact that NIWA’s SSS and ESS don’t seem to detect any warming in this country during the past 50 years. So something else must be affecting the swallows, and Gluckman’s ‘science’ (the only factual line in the whole speech) is exposed as being wrong.

Apparently the public is “confused” about the science — “what we know and what we do not know” — and the confusion is all caused by “deniers”. But, Doctor, we have genuine questions… Answer our questions! Beginning with: what’s the evidence?

If Sir Peter gives the PM truly objective advice on climate science, why doesn’t he do the same in his speeches? I think he’s telling John Key just what he wants to hear about global warming, so it doesn’t have to be objective.

There’s more to say about this disgrace.

Visits: 341

One Thought on “Gluckman — great baby doctor but no climate scientist

  1. Andy on 10/06/2010 at 8:45 pm said:

    We need to
    explore the origins of such denialism which is at the heart of the so‐called debate over
    anthropogenic climate change.
    Such active rejection of the scientific consensus has also been seen in other controversies,
    including the causal relationship between tobacco smoking and lung cancer, the alleged but
    non‐existent relationship between measles immunisation and autism, and in the denial of
    the causative relationship between the HIV virus and AIDS.”

    Perhaps Prof Gluckman could comment on the issues surrounding positive vs negative feedbacks addressed in this document. This is the crux of the “debate” in my opinion.

    “Global Warming Advocacy Science: a Cross Examination”

    He might also like to comment confusing statements re. NZ emissions that I have posted here:

    And maybe Prof Gluckman would like to explain to the NZ public how we intend to reduce GHG emissions by 50% in 2050.

    Some examples would help.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation