Denial not acceptable

not like this guyConcern is building about the future of climate change policies in New Zealand. This is because of the confidence and supply agreement between the National Party and the small extremist Act Party which provides for a select committee to consider these policies.

A fresh consideration of political policies may well be required. But from a scientific viewpoint there is a danger of this being used by the climate change denial industry to launch a new propaganda offensive (see the current NZ Listener editorial Nothing to Hide). A clause in the National-Act agreement provides that the select committee hear “competing views on the scientific aspects of climate change from internationally respected sources.” Rodney Hide will obviously attempt to use this clause to sneak in “internationally respected” climate change deniers – to place non-scientific beliefs on the same level as evidence based science.

yes like this guyFortunately the National-led government is not completely dependent on the Act Party – which after all received just over 3% of the votes in November’s election. There may be divisions within the National Party that Hide can exploit. But there is a clear mandate for the government to stand firm – and the science is not on Hide’s side.

A new blog – Don’t be a Rodney, John Key – calls on Prime Minister Key to stand up to Hide and follow the lead of US president Elect Barack Obama. His recent statement is very relevant to New Zealand (see President-elect Obama promises “new chapter” on climate change):

“Now is the time to confront this challenge once and for all. Delay is no longer an option. Denial is no longer an acceptable response. The stakes are too high. The consequences, too serious.”

Similar articles

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to Ma.gnoliaAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

10 responses to “Denial not acceptable

  1. Now is the time to review the science that is reportedly behind the Climate Change propaganda, to see if it is the eco-fascist religious pseudoscience that it patently appears to be.

    Like

  2. Science, by it’s very nature, is constantly being reviewed. This is particularly true of that pertaining to climate change – because of the important consequences. However, proper review takes place in the scientific, not political, community. You don’t seriously suggest that a NZ parliamentary committee can properly review such science do you?

    Like

  3. “Science, by it’s very nature, is constantly being reviewed.”

    That must come as a real shock to Ross.
    😮

    Like

  4. I see in this morning’s Herald a report on John Key’s first post-cabinet press conference. In which he is quoted as saying that the review of climate change legislation is Act’s point of reference, not National’s… We shall see.

    And I wonder how Act’s claims sit with the papers just published suggesting that our negative impact on the climate is likely to be much more long-lasting than we’d like to think.

    Like

  5. Cedric, but “the science is settled”, so we don’t need a review. Lots of people keep saying so, even Obama said it yesterday!

    Like

  6. Of course we don’t need a parliamentary review of the science – this body is not capable of doing it. This review will only be a political one – although Hide will clearly attempt to use it to insert some of the unscientific claims of the deniers. Hopefully most of our MPs will see through that trick.

    Like

  7. “More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims”

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

    Now what are we to think?

    Like

  8. The first thing you need to ask yourself, James, when posting a list like this, is ‘are all of these people scientists?’ The second thing you need to consider, when posting a list like this, is ‘are any of these people in the field of climate science?’ The third thing you need to consider, when posting a list like this, is ‘is 650 a large number, given how many scientists exist?’

    So I’ll leave those questions for your consideration, and hope that does not constitute ‘feeding’. Best of luck in your inquiries.

    Like

  9. Well Matty, it does say that they are “scientists.” And if you look at the quotes it seems obvious that many are in the field:

    “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

    “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

    Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

    “The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

    “The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC “are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” – Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

    “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

    At what point do we accept that there is no consensus? How many scientists does it take to undermine said “consensus?”

    Another interesting quote

    Ahluwalia, (Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia) who has authored numerous scientific studies in the fields of geology and paleontology, referred to the UN climate panel as the “elite IPCC.” “The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds.”

    It seems that the IPCC does not care for contrary evidence.

    http://www.rightsidenews.com/200808191759/energy-and-environment/global-warming-skeptics-prominently-featured-at-international-scientific-meeting.html

    Like

  10. For more detail on Jame’s list of 650 dissenters have a look at
    Inhofe: less honest than the Discovery Institute.

    The conclusion is that this list is even more dishonest than the Discovery Institute’s dissenters from Darwinism list.

    Interesting that James is supporting both lists.

    Like

Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s