Gerrit van der Lingen, a local crank, NZ CSC member and self-styled “climate change consultant” who comprehensively lost a magazine “debate” with a local scientist last year, was mightily exercised by a recent article in my local paper, The Press (one of New Zealand’s big four dailies), covering Lovelock’s latest ruminations. So incensed, in fact, that he was moved to regurgitate a few crank tropes for an op-ed in the paper last Wednesday. It’s not available on the web, sadly, so I’ll just confine myself to pointing out where he gets his facts wrong.
Tag: NZ C"S"C
Two tribes
On the one hand, in New York, the Heartland Institute‘s climate crank talking shop, where scientists of the immense probity of Richard Lindzen were happy to share a stage with proven fabricators of data like Christopher Monckton, has drawn to a close. Terry Dunleavy, head honcho of NZ’s climate crank coalition has given his presentation, and no doubt Muriel Newman is happy that her NZ Centre for Policy Research sponsorship of the event has been fruitful. The crank blogosphere has loved the attention, and the great communicator himself (step forward Bob Carter) has been positively chortling about the event in his posts at Quadrant Online.
On the other hand, a proper conference, Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges and Decisions is just getting under way in Copenhagen. Real scientists from all over the world, leaders in their fields, are gathering to present the latest research findings. The objective is to provide a comprehensive update to the findings of the IPCC’s 2007 report, so that policymakers can go into the final phase of negotiations for a post-Kyoto deal with a clear picture of what the science is telling us about the climate system. Conference organiser, Prof Katherine Richardson of the University of Copenhagen provides more background in this interview at Nature Reports: Climate Change.
I’ll be covering news from the conference as it emerges, but the big news from day one: expect sea level rise of at least a metre by the end of the century. BBC coverage here, plus TimesOnline, the Herald reprints an Observer preview, New Scientist, and the conference press release for day one.
Two other interesting stories from day one (which I will return to, at some point): the “tipping point” for complete loss of the Greenland ice sheet may be further off than thought, and a French researcher gave a dire warning about permafrost carbon emissions.
[Frankie]
This better be good
Memo to self: finish polishing submission to the Emissions Trading Scheme Review committee, because it has to be delivered by Friday. It’s mostly done — I know what I’m saying — but it has to be put into proper form. I’ll have edited highlights up here on Thursday (with luck) after delivering the submission by email, but don’t let that stop you, dear reader, from making your own submission. The terms of reference are here, the guidelines on making submissions here, and a list of committee members here. I imagine the cranks will be out in force, and Rodney Hide angling to get them heard, so it makes sense to let the committee know that there’s a substantial body of opinion backing strong climate policy. Don’t delay, do it today!
[Update: The committee secretariat don’t seem to want PDF/email submissions, but will accept submissions postmarked Friday or earlier.]
[Fountains of Wayne]
I can’t tell the bottom from the top
A couple of weeks ago I blogged about NIWA’s climate summary for 2008, but inexplicably missed a most excellent response to the figures from the NZ Climate “Science” Coalition’s energy expert Bryan Leyland. He must have been digging through some dusty tomes in the library, because he arrived at the astonishing conclusion that New Zealand was warmer 141 years ago:
New Zealand’s national average temperature of 12.9 degrees C during 2008, described by NIWA as ‘milder than normal†was in fact cooler than it was 141 years ago, this, and worldwide drop in temperatures since 1998, demonstrate that claims of man-made global warming have lost touch with reality.
Oh really?
Mr Leyland said it is important that all New Zealanders, but especially politicians, understand the significance of the two sets of temperature readings.
Quite so, Bryan, quite so. Let’s see if I can help out a little…
Tide in, mind out
No surprise: the NZ climate crank coalition has rushed to support the ACT/National review of climate policy. Rear-admiral Jack Welch issued a press release on Sunday welcoming the coalition deal, and ACT’s demand that the science of climate be reviewed:
We are confident that once the Select Committee has an opportunity to hear all sides of the scientific debate on the man-made global warming hypothesis, it will conclude that climate variation is natural and cyclical and does not justify the costs and restrictions on human activity which have been proposed on the basis of computer projections rather than what meteorological observations and the earth’s history have demonstrated over the centuries.
So this committee of parliamentarians is going to judge the work of the entire climate science community and decide that it’s wrong? Wishful thinking (I hope). But it gets better:
Admiral Welch said qualified coalition members look forward to assisting the Select Committee and to serving on the proposed advisory group of government officials and private sector experts.
Allow me to point out the obvious. The NZ CSC has no members “qualified” to assist the select committee, and if any of them get anywhere near any “advisory group”, New Zealand will be going to hell in a handbasket.
Time for the NZ scientific community to make it clear to Nick Smith and National that the starting point for any review of climate policy has to be an acceptance of the IPCC’s Fourth Report, and the NZ Royal Society’s statement issued earlier this year. Anything else would be like appointing Ken Ring to run MetService.