The Impact of Climategate II

There has been a lot of talk of that Climategate 2 has had less impact than the original climate gate. My own contribution to the revelations was to reveal the horrendous story in which the ‘team’ sought to have a journal editor sacked for allowing the publication of an article that disagreed with their views. It was a clear case of an attempt to corrupt peer reviewed science. As such, I was pleased to find an open letter in the Wall Street Journal, which is written by scientists concerned at the nature and tenor of the debate on climate change. This is the discussion of the sacking.

Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

It is indeed very sad that association with positions  contrary to some people might be met with this kind of behaviour. However, the letter also covers some other points worth mentioning. For example:

A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about “global warming.” Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: “I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: ‘The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.’ In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?”

I remember reading the Ivar Giaever open letter, and should really have posted/commented upon it. I have also read about other shenanigans in which some have tried to manufacture the consensus through manipulation of statistics for support for climate alarmism (sorry, no reference to hand).

My guess is that, without the fear of career damage, the quest for grants, the dubious ‘consensus’ would look even more threadbare than it already is. For example, many years ago I heard a BBC Radio 4 interview* in which an anthropologist was researching the impact of climate change on hunter gatherers in Scandinavia. The interviewer was interested in climate change, but it was very clear that all the anthropologist wanted to do was discuss the interesting facets of the culture of the people under study. No doubt, the addition of climate change in his application for a research grant was useful.

Perhaps one day it will be possible for climate science to return to ‘normal science’ (I am aware that this is a problematic phrase, but seeking to stop contrary views is not ‘normal’ science in any reasonable interpretation). It certainly seems that the right questions are now being asked. In some ways, this may be of benefit to the wider realm of science; as anyone who is involved in critical positions on any subject will tell you, the effort of getting critiques of established thinking is always a challenge. I can only hope that, in addition to all of the negative aspects of climate science, there is a possibility that it will, in the end, raise some fundamental questions and encourage a more open approach to science.

In the meantime, sadly, the climate debate will be restricted by an oppressive system that seeks to stifle any contrary views. To be more positive, this may be on the road to change…..

*I am sorry to have two items unreferenced. For the 2nd example, it really was a long, long time ago…..

The IPCC as a Scientific Organisation?

We hear it endlessly. The IPCC uses the best scientists in the world for the compilation of the IPCC reports. The problem is that it is simply not true.

There are undoubtedly some very good scientists working for the IPCC. The problem is that many of them are not. I have been following work of Donna Laframboise in investigating the IPCC on her blog No Frakking Consensus for some time, and picked up that she has now published a book length critique of the IPCC. Donna has, for a long time, been picking through both the CVs of the IPCC contributors, as well as their processes. The result is a rather ugly picture of an institution that was supposed (and purports) to be the gold standard of science.

I wrote about one of Donna’s findings a long while ago, in which Donna wrote a piece about Dr. Sari Kovats. Kovats was awarded her PhD in 2010, but had been working as a scientist for the IPCC since 1994, and was given the role of a lead author three years before being awarded her PhD. This is but one of the astonishing examples that Donna uncovers. An equal concern is the number of key people in the IPCC that are affiliated with activist groups such as WWF, or Greenpeace. Then there is the process of peer review, or lack of it. The many tales of the conflicts of interest in the peer review process, and the lack of independent oversight make a dismal picture.

I would like to tell you that I have read the book already, but am waiting for the availability of the paper version (I hate reading on the screen, and it seems harder to concentrate on the content when I do so). However, the sample of the book on Amazon looks encouraging, and of course there has been the excellent work and investigations on Donna’s blog. As such, I suspect it will be a very good  read. Apparently the book is very well referenced and I suspect that the book will have some impact. For example,   the very fair minded Judith Currie, over at Climate etc., says the following (after a few minor critiques):

But overall, Donna Laframboise is to be congratulated for writing an important book.  Read it, it costs only $4.99 on Kindle.

So, how will this book be received by the climate establishment?  First, I suspect that they will attempt to smear Laframboise as a denier.  This is not the case.  Her prime motivation seems to be a concern about free speech; she has a long standing involvement in free speech issues in Canada.  Second, people will pick apart some of the minor points that are arguably suboptimal interpretations.

In terms of the broader audience, I have to say that I hope that this book leads to the discontinuation of the IPCC after the AR5 report (which is already well underway, and is arguably sufficiently tarnished that it is likely to have much less influence than previous reports.)

The following is a long quote lifted from a section of the book in the National Post, about some of the (ahem)….interesting CVs of IPCC ‘scientists’:

For example, Laurens Bouwer is currently employed by an environmental studies institute at the VU University Amsterdam. In 1999-2000, he served as an IPCC lead author before earning his master’s degree in 2001.

How can a young man without even a master’s degree become an IPCC lead author? Bouwer’s expertise is in climate change and water resources. Yet the chapter for which he first served as a lead author was titled Insurance and Other Financial Services.

It turns out that, during part of 2000, Bouwer was a trainee at Munich Reinsurance Company. This means the IPCC chose as a lead author someone who was a trainee, who lacked a master’s degree, and was still a full decade away from receiving his 2010 PhD.

My suspicion is that the book will just be the start. One of the key points used to promote the credibility of the global warming scare is the credibility of the IPCC as a rigorous scientific institution. Whilst there may be many good scientists working for the IPCC, I suspect this book will  lead more people to call in to question the credibility of the institution. In one sense I feel rather sorry for the scientists who have contributed in good faith, as some of the tarnish on the IPCC may eventually rub off on them. If I have time, once I get my copy, I will try to remember to do a full review. For those keen to find out for themselves, the pdf version can be purchased here, and a Kindle version on Amazon here. Please feel free to post your reviews in the comments section.

Shock! It’s the sun!

Well, here is the shocking news. Further support has been found for Henrik Svensmark’s thesis that cloud formation is influenced by the big glowing hot thing in the sky and cosmic rays. The video below explains:

This from Nature News:

The number of cosmic rays that reach Earth depends on the Sun. When the Sun is emitting lots of radiation, its magnetic field shields the planet from cosmic rays. During periods of low solar activity, more cosmic rays reach Earth.

Scientists agree on these basic facts, but there is far less agreement on whether cosmic rays can have a large role in cloud formation and climate change. Since the late 1990s, some have suggested that when high solar activity lowers levels of cosmic rays, that in turn reduces cloud cover and warms the planet. Others say that there is no statistical evidence for such an effect.

Understanding of cloud formation is, of course, one of the keys to understanding the earth’s climate. CERN have devised the so-called CLOUD (Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets) experiment to test whether cosmic rays might influence cloud formation (see the Economist article here for another  video that explains the principles). The initial results have proven to be very supportive of Henrik’s thesis:

Early results seem to indicate that cosmic rays do cause a change. The high-energy protons seemed to enhance the production of nanometre-sized particles from the gaseous atmosphere by more than a factor of ten. But, Kirkby adds, those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds. “At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it’s a very important first step,” he says.

Scientists on both sides of the debate welcome the findings, although they draw differing conclusions. “Of course there are many things to explore, but I think the cosmic-ray/cloud-seeding hypothesis is converging with reality,” says Henrik Svensmark, a physicist at the Technical University of Denmark in Copenhagen, who claims a link between climate change and cosmic rays.

Despite findings that are supportive of Henrik’s thesis, it will come as no surprise to find that ‘warmist’ scientists and publications are already seeking to minimise the findings. For example, the New Scientist leads with the extraordinary headline of ‘Cloud-Making: Another human effect on the climate’, which is just odd. The article suggests that:

Some physicists think galactic cosmic rays – high-energy particles originating from faraway stars – might affect cloud formation. To test their effect on aerosol nucleation, Kirkby’s team fired beams similar to cosmic rays through the chamber and found it increased nucleation between 2 and 10 times. But he points out that an increase in 1 nanometre particles does not necessarily translate into the 50 nanometre CCNs needed for cloud formation.

Other evidence shows that even if cosmic rays do affect the climate, the effect must be small. Changes in the number of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere due to changes in solar activity cannot explain global warming, as average cosmic ray intensities have been increasing since 1985 even as the world has warmed – the opposite of what should happen if cosmic rays produce climate-cooling clouds.

It will also come as no surprise to see that the BBC seeks to minimise the story, and the potential impact upon climate science, as in the following:

Some climate change “sceptics” claim that this process, rather than the burning of fossil fuels, can explain much of the Earth’s recent rise in temperature.

Climate scientists point out that there is evidence to show that the sustained rise in global temperatures over the past 15 years cannot be explained by cosmic ray activity. They also point to a vast body of research pointing to rising carbon dioxide (CO2) levels to be the cause. According to Professor Lockwood, it is very unlikely that variations in cosmic rays have played a significant role in recent warming.

“The result that will get climate change sceptics excited is that they have found that through the influence of sulphuric acid, ionisation can enhance the rate of water droplet growth. Does this mean that cosmic rays can produce cloud? No,” he told BBC News.

On the other hand,  an article in Forbes seems to grasp and accept the implications of the research:

About a month ago, before the study results had been made public, the skeptic camp experienced a “dog that didn’t bark” moment when the director of CERN asked that his scientists (incredibly) refrain from drawing any public conclusions from the study, saying “I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them.”   Skeptics, including me, guessed that this meant the data was tending to support the Svensmark hypothesis.  After all, the climate community has no problem drawing alarmist conclusions from the thinnest of data.  Every climate scientist seems to have his or her own full-time PR agent.  If they were explicitly avoiding public comment, and in fact telling scientists to effectively not do their job and draw no conclusions from the data, then the results must be threatening to the mainstream global warming community.

And indeed they appear to be just that. In a paper to be released today in Nature, the data tells a clear story.  Scientists found that when shielding was removed and natural cosmic rays allowed to hit the chamber, cloud seeding increased dramatically, and it increased substantially again when additional artificial cosmic rays were added.  Svensmark appears to have gotten it right.

But let’s be careful.  We are basically now in the exact same place with Svensmark that we are with CO2 greenhouse warming.  We know the relevant effects exist in a lab, and are fairly certain they exist in nature, but we are uncertain how sensitive the actual climate is to these effects.  We skeptics criticize alarmists for exaggerating feedbacks and real-world sensitivities to CO2.  We should avoid the same mistake.

But for now, I am going to forget about the climate debate for a moment and just experience the joy that comes from finding out something new and surprising about how the world works.  Here’s to unknown men who come up with crazy, counter-intuitive notions at the faculty lunch table … and turn out to be right.

As you may notice from the Forbes story, the findings from the CLOUD experiment, as well as being very interesting in their own right, also point to the problematic politicisation of climate science. It is perfectly normal for scientists to draw conclusions from a study, even if they are labelled as tentative, or needing further research. Had the research worked against Henrik’s thesis, would such a request for no conclusions to be drawn have been made? I think that it is highly unlikely. However, as the National Post reports, the leader of the project had already been ‘bitten’ once:

Jasper Kirkby is a superb scientist, but he has been a lousy politician. In 1998, anticipating he’d be leading a path-breaking experiment into the sun’s role in global warming, he made the mistake of stating that the sun and cosmic rays “will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth’s temperature that we have seen in the last century.” Global warming, he theorized, may be part of a natural cycle in the Earth’s temperature.

Dr. Kirkby was immediately condemned by climate scientists for minimizing the role of human beings in global warming. Stories in the media disparaged Dr. Kirkby by citing scientists who feared oil-industry lobbyists would use his statements to discredit the greenhouse effect. And the funding approval for Dr. Kirkby’s path-breaking experiment — seemingly a sure thing when he first announced his proposal– was put on ice.

Dr. Kirkby was stunned, and not just because the experiment he was about to run had support within his scientific institute, and was widely expected to have profound significance. Dr. Kirkby was also stunned because his institute is CERN, and science performed at CERN had never before seemed so vulnerable to whims of government funders.

You may note the diplomatic way in which Dr. Kirkby deals with this in the video at the top of the page. Bearing in mind that cloud formation is one of the most important elements in understanding the climate, it seems extraordinary that this research was not supported from the outset. However, in a ‘win’ for science, we now have a better understanding of this critical topic, and one which presents some challenges to the anthropogenic global warming thesis. However, as the article in Forbes points out, the findings are not of themselves enough to discredit man-made global warming, albeit that they are very supportive of Henrik’s thesis, and the findings are therefore a major step forwards for those that question the man-made global warming thesis.

Climate Change and Science

Some readers may wonder why I have doggedly pressed Professor Keith Hunter to clarify his comments on the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition. I hope that news coming out of the US will help explain. These are the results of a new survey:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of American Adults shows that 69% say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs, including 40% who say this is Very Likely. Twenty-two percent (22%) don’t think it’s likely some scientists have falsified global warming data, including just six percent (6%) say it’s Not At All Likely. Another 10% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

There is growing concern amongst the public about the honesty of scientific researchers, and the concern revolves around climate change. The climategate scandal, of course is one of the key issues. However, a review by Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) highlights another matter of concern. Published in Climatic Change, the abstract of his paper is as follows:

Abstract Authors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) received guidance on reporting understanding, certainty and/or confidence in findings using a common language, to better communicate with decision makers. However, a review of the IPCC conducted by the InterAcademy Council (2010) found that “the guidance was not consistently followed in AR4, leading to unnecessary errors . . . the guidance was often applied to statements that are so vague they cannot be falsified. In these cases the impression was often left, quite incorrectly, that a substantive finding was being presented.” Our comprehensive and quantitative analysis of findings and associated uncertainty in the AR4 supports the IAC findings and suggests opportunities for improvement in future assessments.

The original paper is well worth a read, but Dr. Pielke has also presented a blog post on the paper, with the headline ‘How many findings of the IPCC AR4 are WGI are incorrect? Answer 28%.’ The actual paper concludes with the following:

Although the IPCC has made enormous contributions and set an important example for global assessment of a vexing problem of immense ramifications, there remain clear opportunities for improvement in documenting findings and specifying uncertainties. We recommend more care in the definition and determination of uncertainty, more clarity in identifying and presenting findings and a more systematic approach in the entire process, especially from assessment to assessment. We also suggest an independent, dedicated group to monitor the process, evaluate findings as they are presented and track their fate. This would include tracking the relationship of findings and attendant uncertainties that pass up the hierarchy of documents within AR5. Strict rules for expressing uncertainty in findings that are derived from (possibly multiple) other findings are needed (see, e.g., the second example in the Supplementary Material).

It is not the purpose of this note to discuss other, related scientific assessments of climate change knowledge; but, we do note that our preliminary analysis of the U.S. Global Change Research Program Synthesis and Assessment Products suggests a far less systematic application of the guidance supplied to authors of those documents and far less consistent application of the defined terms. We believe that the concerns we have expressed here, and the resulting recommendations, apply more broadly than the IPCC process.

The point of the paper is best expressed in the blog post.

What does it mean?  Nothing too interesting, really — science evolves and any assessment is a snapshot of knowledge in time. However, I suspect that some people will get excited or defensive to learn that by the IPCC’s own logic, the report’s future-looking findings could include 28% or more that will not stand the test of time. Of course, such excitement and defense are part of the context that the IPCC and its critics have together created, which has led to incentives to hold the IPCC up as some sort of sacred text or to denigrate it as a sham. Our work suggests neither. Instead, from the perspective of its assessment products it is a valuable if imperfect organization.

As Dr. Pielke has identified, the IPCC reports are used as a sacred text, but science is not about sacred texts. The IPCC is presented as an authority which cannot be questioned, which ends up as an argument from authority rather than an argument about the evidence and theory. A further problem is the reluctance of key researchers to release the raw data, and details of the adjustment to data, that is the foundation of much of the science that the IPCC relies upon.

For example, Steve McIntyre has had to doggedly pursue data from several key papers with endless obstructions used to block his access to the data. Just one example can be found here, but taking the time to read the blog will find a long and sorry tale of questionable behaviour on the part of those presenting the science (or reviewing the science) of climate change. A similar tale can be found here in New Zealand, with endless obstructions to the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition’s (NZCSC) investigations into NIWA’s temperature records. Richard Treadgold offers a good summary of the rather shabby story here, saying the following:

NIWA has enjoyed tremendous support in our dispute with them. Much has been written about it and much obloquy heaped on my and my Coalition colleagues’ heads. This scientific review of NIWA’s report provides justification for our initial scepticism and our perseverance. Seeing what this audit reveals, it’s hard to find reasons to support NIWA.

At first, we hinted strongly at malpractice, to goad the ever-languid NIWA scientists into releasing the data they had withheld for many years. Our goading eventually succeeded in prompting the reconstruction of the NZTR.

Examining the results of that work has uncovered stronger evidence of unscientific and even possibly unethical behaviour than we ever imagined. We certainly never hoped for this. To clarify: this does not please us. We never wanted to find evidence of dishonesty, never imagined that we might and we are disappointed to discover that they failed to do what they said.

There really is something shabby about all of this. In my own work, in an unrelated discipline, I have found similar problems. For example, in a mirror of problems with skeptical researchers have had with reviews, I found an example in which a piece of research that refuted a broadly accepted theory was reviewed by the originator of the theory. It may come as no surprise that the review saw the paper rejected for publication (not my own research I might add, but I have had a similar if less dramatic experiences).

Those on the skeptical side of the debate have, as Richard Treadgold puts it, have obloquy heaped on their heads. Terms such as ‘flat earthers’ and ‘deniers’ are applied. The problem is that much of the skeptical side of the debate resolves around questions about the empirical evidence and theory. On the other side of the debate, in addition to the ‘honest’ science, there is concealment and/or distortion of data, invocations of arguments from authority, and blocking of access to the supposedly gold standard of science, the peer reviewed literature. The general public are starting to notice.

Dr. Pielke is correct when he implies that there is good science on the warming side of the debate, but the bad ‘science’ creates doubt in the minds of the public about the science overall. There are perfectly honest researchers on the warming side of the debate, who are undoubtedly conducting their research with integrity. The problem is that they will end up being tarred with the same brush. More broadly, ‘science’ as a concept is being tarred with the same brush.

It is for this reason that the defenders of the bad science need to be called to account, in particular when those people are in a position of influence. Organisations like NZCSC are the defenders of science, but are instead portrayed as nuts/cranks.Those who insult these defenders of science cloak their insults with the name of science. In doing so, they undermine science as a whole. In other words, it is time for the defenders of science to be given the respect that they deserve.

Note: What constitutes ‘science’ has long been a problematic question. However, I do not think that anyone would reasonably suggest that practices such as distorting data to fit theory or blocking critical work just because it is critical would be accepted as ‘good science’.

Cristopher Monckton Coming to New Zealand

I have just picked up that Lord Christopher Monckton*, a high-profile global warming skeptic, will be coming to New Zealand from the Climate Conversation Group, and am encouraged that this might see some debate in New Zealand over the issue of anthropogenic global warming. In a recent trip to Australia, Christopher Monckton engaged in a debate at the Australian Press club, and I have embedded the Youtube video below.

Lord Monckton’s debating opponent was economist Richard Deniss, and this is how the Climate Conversation Group characterised the debate:

Economist Richard Deniss must be no intellectual weakling, but he gave the impression of not knowing where he was, so he said the things he normally said. Which usually works, because his normal audience has heard them before and agrees with him. But here, he floundered and had no idea what he was doing.

Whilst the entire debate was interesting, one point of particular interest for me is the moment when one of the journalists asks Lord Monckton about his title and membership of the House of Lords in the UK. Lord Monckton had seemingly engaged in the debate on the basis that there would be no ad hominem attacks on individuals. Nevertheless, the question came up in a debate on climate change. To me, this is representative of the hostile views to skeptical positions.

Another high point was when a journalist (I think from a student magazine), asked why he did not publish his views in the peer-reviewed literature. He answered that he had published, and then presented a rather sorry account of how it was denied that it had been peer-reviewed, and the loss of the editorship for the editors who had allowed the publication. I do not know the full story here, but it certainly chimes with the evidence of the ‘climategate’ emails. However, the question of his publication to one side, the key answer was to ask why it is that, for example, Al Gore was not asked if he had published in the peer-reviewed literature. In other words, express a skeptical position and it is invalidated by not having published in peer-reviewed literature, but the same does not apply to positions supportive of catastrophic global warming.

Perhaps the overall highlight was the lack of any strength in the Richard Deniss argument. One theme was that there was a consensus, and we should therefore act. This is all familiar territory, but the implication was made by Richard Deniss that all the skeptical positions were only to be found in blogs, and the skeptical position was often compared with non-scientific debates, such as the use of ‘new-age’ remedies for cancer. Lord Monckton just kept plugging away at the skeptical science in response. It made Richard Deniss appear a little silly, as he never addressed any substantive issues of the science.

One of the most odd approaches used by Richard Deniss was to continually hark on about the Australian policy options to deal with global warming. He is debating a person who thinks that there should be no policy to address global warming whatsoever, and used debate about policy options to present an argument. It was just very, very odd. Another classic position was trotted out on numerous occasions, and that was the precautionary principle i.e. that action is an insurance. Lord Monckton batted this back by saying that we might therefore take precaution against catastrophic asteroid impacts, which are of course possible. My own variant of this argument is that we should, on the precautionary principle, prepare against dragon attacks. If dragons do exist, which we can not say is impossible as we cannot conclusively disprove their existence, then their attacks might create mayhem. However, the existence of dragons is highly implausible and improbable….it is a question of probability and plausibility.

In the end, the best way to make a judgement on the outcome of the debate is to watch it. I hope that you will take the time to do so, and the debate is below:

Update:

I just remembered that I needed to add an update on the ‘saga’ with Professor Keith Hunter (perhaps saga is too strong an expression, but…). If you click on the link, you will get the gist of the story. Professor Hunter is pro-vice chancellor of sciences at University of Otago, and I suggested that his discussion of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition’s (NZCSC) court action against NIWA had been on the wrong side of science. I asked him to clarify his position in light of events showing that NZCSC had revealed the problems in the ‘science’ used by NIWA. His most recent response was to indulge in an ad hominem attack on me (sound familiar – see above). I suggested that he might respond to the substantive issue. I checked my email today, and still no response.

It seems a little sad that a person in such a position within the scientific community might not come out and clarify that they are firmly on the side of good science. Whether he likes or dislikes the position of NZCSC, it seems that a person in such a lofty position should want to be actively supportive of action that served the interests of science. Instead, what we have is an attack on my integrity, and a refusal to clarify his position.

In this case, Professor Hunter has allowed a newspaper to quote him, and is not willing to stand by his comments, or clarify his position. It is very easy to dish out quotes but it seems that individuals should be held responsible for such quotes, in particular when they hold positions of responsibility and influence. It seems that, in light of the events that followed the quotes, he should want to use any outlet to clarify his position, if indeed he regrets his comments. In light of the refusal to clarify the quotes, it might be that Professor Hunter does indeed stand by the quotes. If so, one can only express concern for the scientific endeavours of the University of Otago. After all, if Professor Hunter does stand by his comments, one can only wonder at what he believes is good science.

Bearing in mind Professor Hunter seems to take a dim view of this blog, he might want to clarify his position in another outlet. Perhaps a press release in which he explains his position? After all, if he stands by the quotes, he should explain why. We should know why such a high profile scientist stands by such a position. If he regrets his attack on NZCSC, then he should make this public, as the comments were, to be quite frank, rude. If he does not stand by his quotes, it seems a matter of courtesy and also personal integrity to express regret for such an intemperate and rude attack.