If it was “settled science” how did you improve it?Richard Treadgold | June 8, 2012
For if it had no defects, why did you study it?
But if you studied it, why did you never deny the claim that it was settled?
Climate scientists of New Zealand: you have deceived us.
The RSNZ is planning to announce progress in climate science since the AR4 in 2007.
Since 2007 and earlier, from Al Gore down, these arrogant shouts around the world have escaped challenge by the scientific establishment: “the science is settled” on climate change! The claim has been around for most of the century.
The Royal Society of New Zealand has never, to my knowledge, used the phrase “the science is settled.”
It did set up the government-funded Science Media Centre (SMC), with its Sciblogs department, which re-blogs numerous odious posts from such celebrated centres of scientific excellence as Hot Topic and Open Parachute. And those blogs and their manic commenters provide all the spittle-lipped propaganda you could ever wish for the “settled science” believers without needing contributions from the respected scientists at the RS.
So the likes of Wratt, Renwick, Mullan and other IPCC authors could deliver their careful public comments in the manner expected of senior scientists and easily deflect criticisms for those unscientific claims of settledness on the grounds that they never made them.
But the RSNZ has also never, to my knowledge, corrected anyone on those blogs or anywhere else for claiming “the science is settled.” It has been content to let those false claims be made by others, in the full confidence that in the absence of a denial by a scientific society the claims would take firm root in the public mind.
Did I mention they use taxpayer funds? The SMC is a three-year pilot project from MoRST (now MSI).
The RSNZ has certainly supported the existence of a scientific consensus on the science of climate change. But (see below) it has now moved on. Are we to believe they have made “progress”?
Will Dr Renwick disclose the evidence for a significant human contribution to global temperature rise? Will he acknowledge the lack of a recent significant global temperature rise and explain exactly why we should continue to believe that catastrophe is coming?
Here’s the notice from the Royal Society:
Alert Newsletter 720
Posted: Wed, 6 Jun 2012
13. NZCCRI Seminar Series: Progress in climate science since the 2007 IPCC Assessment Report, 28 June, Wellington
Dr James Renwick, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Environment and Earth Sciences, Victoria University of Wellington, will summarise the current understanding of how and why the climate is changing.
He will also provide an overview of some of the recent research likely to form the basis for the next Assessment Report. The focus will be on observed and projected changes to elements of the climate system, the role of large-scale patterns of variability (e.g. the monsoons, El Niño/Southern Oscillation, Southern Annular Mode) and implications for New Zealand.
Details: 12.30–1.30pm Thursday 28 June. Venue: Rutherford House, Lecture Theatre 2.
(Aside: how long has James been an Associate Professor? In the Gisborne Herald of May 26 he described himself as “Principal Scientist, Climate Variability and Change, NIWA.” Are both descriptions true?)
So, roll up, one and all. Discover why climate scientists let us believe that climate science was all done and dusted.
h/t – GJB