A Response From Professor Hunter

I recently sent a second email to Professor Hunter, asking if he would care to revise or review negative comments he made about the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition’s (NZCSC) court action against NIWA. The point at issue was that the so-called New Zealand temperature record was not based upon good science, and the NZCSC highlighted this as a result of the court action. Professor Hunter was critical of the court action, and I requested his views on his original comments in light of events. I have now had a reply as follows:

“I never respond to emails from anonymous people. As far as I can see your name is [my first name] which is about as anonymous as one can get. Enough said.”

Of itself, this is an interesting response, and prompts me to explain why I have remained anonymous. The reason for my anonymity is best expressed by Professor Vincent Cortillot, in the video of a presentation that can be found here. As part of his discourse, he explains that he has no research students working with him, and explains this by suggesting that he is concerned that their careers would be limited by working with him. I no longer have the references, but some time ago there was discussion about the fact that most academic skeptics were older, or were retired. One argument was that they were ‘past it’ and the other was that only older academics could risk the harm to their career that is associated with being a climate change skeptic. I felt the latter view best expressed the problem.

I have seen something of the problem myself. About a year ago I met an academic who was conducting research which was producing results that questioned the so-called consensus. I spoke with him for about half an hour and it sounded like his research was proving very costly in terms of his career. As a mid-career academic, I think that his work might see him very poorly placed for the future.

The reason why I recount these points is that I am at a very early stage in my own academic career. I considered the question of anonymity carefully. In light of the fact that this is just a blog, and my contribution to the debate about climate change is just one view (and as I am not engaged in research), I decided to remain anonymous. Quite simply, the impact of a blog versus the potential harm to my career made anonymity a better option. The cost of the anonymity is that I might receive responses such as the one from Professor Hunter.

There is a larger question here, which is how it is that I should have such a concern for my career in the first place. There is something terribly wrong that I am concerned for my career when simply writing a blog on an issue of scientific controversy. Perhaps there would be no negative outcome, but I certainly perceive that there is a real risk. This is not how academia is supposed to work, but there is something alarmingly oppressive about the whole issue of climate change in academia. I do not hide my views from my colleagues, but I am also concerned that putting my views into writing is a different proposition.

I have forwarded a link to this article to Professor Hunter, in the hope that he will nevertheless respond to the original questions. In the meantime, you might wish to contemplate why I should be so concerned that I must remain anonymous. After all, it is not as if I am discussing something like holocaust denial…

The Temperature Record – Contradictions

I have recently come across this fascinating video over at Bishop Hill. The video shows Professor Vincent Cortillot asking some very basic questions about the temperature record that is promulgated by the IPCC, and shows examples of regional temperatures that appear to contradict the IPCC records. With regards to any correlations between CO2 and the temperature records, he notes that there appears to be none. Instead, he examines a range of other possible influences on climate, for example that big ball in the sky that seems to make us feel warm when we can see it. Yes, that will be the sun.

I have not seen any examinations or comments yet on the science that he is proposing, but he appears to make a strong case. In all cases, I think it is worth watching in full, so have embedded it here.

A New Zealand Skeptic Blog?

This will be a very brief post, as I am guessing that you may like to know something about why I would want to create this blog. A few years ago, whilst living in China, I had some time on my hands, and engaged in several online debates about what was then referred to as anthropogenic global warming (AGW). I was, putting it bluntly, shouted down.

However, I persisted, and found that, lacking any other arguments than ‘scientific consensus’ and models of climate as a foundation, the attacks became personal. I don’t recall the exact wording of all the attacks, but ‘flat earther’ was one example. It was all a bit depressing. Since then, I have followed the debates, the arguments, the vindictive attacks, the sheer unpleasantness of the whole ‘warmist’ versus ‘denier’ with some sense of horror. This is not how debate should be addressed.

As such, I approach this blog with a skeptical stance, in that I do not believe there is any convincing evidence for anthropogenic global warming, but do so (I hope) in a polite way. I may become somewhat less polite where there are strong cases of scientific dishonesty, or attempts to manipulate the debate by hiding scientific data (and some other methods which are not about science but are about advocacy). However, I will not be impolite with those who disagree with me in the comments section, and will try to remain polite, even where people respond impolitely.

As for my expertise -  I have undertaken scientific research, and have been interested in the subject for a number of years. In fact, long, long ago – before (I would guess) 99% of people had heard of climate change – I was actually on the AGW side of the debate. I changed my mind several years ago, as I reviewed the evidence in more detail.

Am I claiming scientific expertise in subjects x, y or z? No. But most scientists, both for and against the AGW thesis, also only have one area of expertise, and are therefore inexpert in many of the sciences that together constitute climate science. However, my aim here is not to review the details of the scientific evidence, and I will rely on better informed fellow skeptics to do that for me. I am more interested in the process of the science, the politics, and the economics of the subject of climate change. I am interested in how we got to where we are today, with the furious debate that is taking place.

Most of all – I am concerned with the economic impact of climate change legislation – both here in New Zealand, and around the world.

With some good intentions, I commence the blog. I hope that those who agree and disagree with me will take a constructive view.