Hunter’s extraordinary peroration

We shall fight on the beaches…

Keith Hunter becomes deeply afraid for the future as we announce our review of NIWA’s behaviour. Why?

He says this, all timorous, intimidated and grateful for the gentle haven that is Hot Topic (as long as you agree with them):

I want to say how gratified I am that on this day of reckoning, the scientific community and the blogosphere have got behind our friends at NIWA and come out with so many statements of support. Make no mistake, this effort by the NZ*C*S*C is an attack on science and and [sic] attack on integrity. I, for one, will not put up with it! I am hugely comforted by the letters and phone calls of support I have received today. Maybe finally the mainstream scientists of this country are waking up to what the NZ*C*S*C is trying to do. Let there be no doubt – this is another attack on integrity [sic] of the science system. We defeated this when the Nazis did it, we defeated it when the Soviets did it, and we will continue to defeat it! And in case you think it [sic], let me remind you – all it takes for scientific untruths to survive is for honest men and women to ignore them.

So it’s a day of reckoning. The Coalition mounts an attack on science and on integrity. He is not putting up, is hugely comforted and confident we will defeat it. As we did with the Nazis and the Soviets and shall continue.

One question: let you remind us in case we think what?

I fail to see how the question “what adjustments did you make and why” can be interpreted to mean all this.

I fail to see how this expostulating answers the assertion that ethical standards were not observed.

I cannot fail to observe how the scientist loses his grip on reality. A day of reckoning? An attack on science?!

Views: 443

6 Thoughts on “Hunter’s extraordinary peroration

  1. Richard C on 17/08/2010 at 7:51 pm said:

    “all it takes for scientific untruths to survive is for honest men and women to ignore them.”

    Some woolly and twisted logic from Keith Hunter but let’s run with a restatement:

    All it takes for scientific truths to die is for dishonest men and women to ignore them.

    Two examples of what must rank among the worst cases of political ideology trumping science (and meekly acquiesced by the expediency of the NZ Govt) is the dismissal of the following presentations to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    The first is Dr Ferenc Miskolczi’s letter to the EPA in which he demonstrates that: “the origin of the observed global warming (positive global average surface temperature trend) in the last few decades can not be caused by the observed increase of the atmospheric CO2 concentration.”

    The letter can be viewed here (bottom of page):

    The second is Dr Roy Clark’s submission to the EPA in which he supports “A Null Hypothesis For CO2″

    The submission can be viewed here:

    Would Keith Hunter, I wonder, endorse the above restatement of his maxim after careful study of both examples?

  2. Richard C on 17/08/2010 at 9:05 pm said:

    To add to Keith Hunter’s discomfort, a Solicitor is challenging Climate Scientists on the accepted thermodynamic process of ocean evaporation.

    Surely this threat is more menacing than the Nazis, Soviets and NZCSC and another “attack on integrity [sic] of the science system.” But a Solicitor? Encroaching on the sole preserve of Climate Scientists. What next?

    See “Greenhouse Gases Can Cause Cooling!” by Stephen Wilde: LLB (Hons.), Solicitor, Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, here:

  3. Andy on 17/08/2010 at 9:07 pm said:

    The Effect of Local Circulation Variability on the Detection and Attribution of New Zealand Temperature Trends

    A representative temperature record for New Zealand based on station data from 1853 onward is used in conjunction with four coupled climate models to investigate the causes of recent warming over this small midlatitude country. The observed variability over interannual and decadal time scales is simulated well by the models

    Recent 50-yr trends in the residual temperature record cannot be explained by natural climate variations, but they are consistent with the combined climate response to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, ozone depletion, and sulfate aerosols, demonstrating a significant human influence on New Zealand warming.

    There’s a lot riding on this case. If they lose the temperature series, the models are toast.

  4. Pingback: Climate Conversation Group » An impressive level of scintillating repartee

Leave a Reply

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

Post Navigation