Terry keeps his clips on

As predicted, New Zealand’s tame band of climate cranks have waxed all pompous and upset about Sir Peter Gluckman’s perceptive comments on climate change denial. But I was wrong about one thing. Instead of Barry Brill stepping up to the plate, it’s the grand dame of NZ denial, Terry Dunleavy, “honorary secretary and webmaster”and co-founder of the NZ Climate “Science” Coalition who does the honours.

Terry’s piece is nothing new. Certainly nothing newsworthy. But I can’t resist quoting Richard Treadgold on the subject, because it made my day. Under the heading PM’s Chief Science Adviser must change — or go, Treadgold reproduces Dunleavy’s thoughts verbatim. But he can’t resist adding a final thought of his own:

I would suggest that our highly respected Sir Pete ought to acquaint himself with some real climate science if he wants to be taken seriously by the scientists in the NZCSC.

Gave me the best laugh of the day… “Sir Pete” is, I imagine, rather uninterested in what scientists of the calibre of — who, Vince Gray? — think of him. And the scientists in the C”S”C would do well to try to be taken seriously by — well, anyone, really…

[Former greatest living Englishman Viv Stanshall]

33 thoughts on “Terry keeps his clips on”

  1. RW1

    Totally agree they are a bunch of ignorant fools. They are not only questioning the intellect and integrity of Dr Peter Gluckman but that of the PM who appointed him to the position.
    They do however represent a common trend in society to shoot the messanger if you don`t like the message. After all we would not want climate change to upset our comfort zone now would we. !!!! Now where`s that latte` I ordered. ???

  2. Well isn't Hot Topic a snide little bunch of know-nothings!

    Kevin Trenberth said in the Climategate emails – for which there was no evidence of any theft or hacking – that it was a travesty that "we" – by which I think he meant either "the team" or the IPCC's acolytes – couldn't explain the flat temperatures from 2002 to 2007.

    More recently we have Mike Hulme, former IPCC author and the head of the other climate group at the University of East Anglia, saying that the IPCC's so-called consensus was an expression of the views of just a few dozen people rather than the 2,500 or more that the IPCC implied.

    The number of critical and unfavourable reviews of climate modelling continues to grow, just as the number of plausible natural explanations worthy of investigation increases.

    Meanwhile at Hot Topic we have a bunch of navel gazers who are acting out the repeated tag line from Little Britain – "Computer says yes". (I wonder who at HT represents the rather hairless gay character and who is the other one?).

    The problem is that the evidence for significant and dangerous manmade warming is is weak and transparent as a wet tissue. I use this analogy because I suspect that some here are very familiar with that subject.

    Quite honestly folk, Hot Topic gives New Zealand a bad name, beaten only by Key's determination to do something about a non-issue, which I can only understand if his actions are an attempt to massage his own ego.

    1. And I am surprised the tight knit believers haven't had time to shout down this 'heretic'. Take your time… Johnston has 70 odd pages!
      Legal verdict: Manmade global warming science doesn't withstand scrutiny
      A cross examination of global warming science conducted by the University of Pennsylvania's Institute for Law and Economics has concluded that virtually every claim advanced by global warming proponents fails to stand up to scrutiny.
      The cross-examination, carried out by Jason Scott Johnston, Professor and Director of the Program on Law, Environment and Economy at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, found that "on virtually every major issue in climate change science, the [reports of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] and other summarizing work by leading climate establishment scientists have adopted various rhetorical strategies that seem to systematically conceal or minimize what appear to be fundamental scientific uncertainties or even disagreements."

      1. Professor Johnson, who expressed surprise that the case for global warming was so weak, systematically examined the claims made in IPCC publications and other similar work by leading climate establishment scientists and compared them with what is found in the peer-edited climate science literature. He found that the climate establishment does not follow the scientific method. Instead, it "seems overall to comprise an effort to marshal evidence in favor of a predetermined policy preference."
        Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe the author of The Deniers. http://www.probeinternational.org/UPennCross.pdf

        1. Odd sort of cross-examination, where the witness doesn't get to respond, and where the lawyer gets to make up what the witness says.

          If only the real legal system worked like that…

    2. The number of critical and unfavourable reviews of climate modelling continues to grow, just as the number of plausible natural explanations worthy of investigation increases.

      But oddly enough, these startling new developments seem to be mysteriously absent from the peer-reviewed literature, their authors apparently preferring blogs. How peculiar.

  3. As a relatively new visitor to HT, I'd really like to see something positive in here that offers me some real info – this just seems like a waste of energy that could be better spent doing something productive, like planting an orchard?

  4. One day the climate crooks will be indicted. I see Barclays bank have just launched a bid for a carbon credit company – follow the money and sod the fact that science is becoming a dirty subject.

      1. You're assuming of course that there will still be a functioning civilization that will prosecute these professionally ignorant crooks. I hope this will be the case … however, I sometimes wonder whether such a construction exists now. Reminds me of the Ghandi quote that western civilization would be a good idea.


      2. I won't. It's a miracle some of them are free men now, given their previous crimes against human welfare in the service of the tobacco industry, for instance.

  5. Those who have been here a while understand the history that leads to comments such as the first few, but for people who visit this site for the first time some of the comments can seem rude or arrogant. Perhaps a post such as Guest's should keep us mindful of our manners? We are not in a private place, ladies and gents.

    1. Your comment is a little ambiguous, but I assume you cite Guest's comment as an example of rudeness and arrogance (and also sheer offensiveness)?
      weak and transparent as a wet tissue. I use this analogy because I suspect that some here are very familiar with that subject.

      1. Can't speak for Carol but very often er 'denier types' receive only the net equivalent of an eye-roll and a line or two of scorn. Justified sometimes but hard to know if someone is 'genuine' or not. People could perhaps be more careful.

        1. "Denier types" who constantly parrot the same old discredited arguments and falsehoods, like witless Energizer Bunnies, don't really deserve any better. If these are their only options open to them, that's their problem.

          1. The trouble is that the equally witless MSM will swallow the CSC bilge and regurgitate it without let or hinderance, raising the levels of FUD among the voters, causing the politicians to waver just when we need determined leadership.

    2. "Guest" reminds me a great deal of comments made here by John McLean (the one from McLean, de Freitas & Carter) earlier this year. Comes from teh same neck of the woods in Australia, anyway…

    1. Great man, Viv. I saw him live only once, at the Oxford Playhouse during Rag Week in 74 or 75. A friend of mine and fellow Bonzo enthusiast booked Viv, Roger Ruskin Spear and Bob Kerr’s Whoopee Band, and ensured that I had a seat in the front row centre. Viv was not pissed (for once) and looked somewhat taken aback when the entire front row provided the girlie backing vocals (“frying pan, frying pan”) during Canyons Of Your Mind. Other memorable moments? RRS standing astride a giant inflatable penis, waving it over the audience.

Leave a Reply