[ "Open Letter" in response to that of Joe Fone's to Jeanette Fitzsimons last week. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0907/S00008.htm.]

Open letter to Joe Fone of the New Zealand Climate "Science" Coaltion.
by Doug Mackie

Dear Joe,

If I said that I had never read Shakespeare and asked if Hamlet was the one where they met the Ewoks, then I'd be laughed at. But public ignorance of science lets you, Joe Fone, and the rest of the NZC"S"C get away with the equivalent.

A good a place to start as any is your assertion that: "the cost and damage to the country of imposing any form of carbon taxes will be high and completely futile." You want us to accept your argument from authority that "doing something" will be costly. I presume you mean more costly than not doing anything? Where do you get this factoid? Wait, don't tell me. I can guess. Some economists told you. Ohh they must be right then. Even if they are the same economists (a) whose unbridled greed caused the meltdown, (b) who were perceptive enough to see it coming or (c) both a and b.

You are a member of the NZ Climate "Science" Coalition. For years they have made the same tired and easily refuted claims. The 3rd IPCC report of 2001 in particular anticipated and answered pretty much every single whiny objection the NZC"S"C has ever come up with. Therefore, you should go away and read the IPCC reports. Then explain why the answers there do not satisfy you. If you lack the attention span or vocabulary to follow the reports then you could try the brilliantly accessible Technical Summaries. For the really hard of understanding there are the Summaries for Policy Makers. All are available at www.ipcc.ch.

Let me address the one single almost scientific point you make: that you seem to think the whole theory of human induced climate change is scaremongering because the climate changes naturally. Nobody denies this Joe. The cause for concern is the rate of change. At the end of each of the last 8 glaciations (ice ages) - going back almost a million years - the CO2 increased by 100 ppm (from 180 to 280 ppm) and average temperatures increased by about 10degC. But, and it is a big but Joe. Such a big but that I wonder you could have missed it. But that change took 10,000-15,000 years. The planet coped just fine with an increase in CO2 and temperature over that time.

Right now however, we have increased CO2 by over 100 ppm (from 280 to over 380 - higher than it has been while humans have existed) in just 200 years; at least 50 times faster than it has changed before. The full warming effect of the current level of CO2 is yet to be felt. And this is where much of the cutting research is. Just what sort of temperature rise are we in for if we don't stop emissions and allow the ecosystems time to catch up? What is your guess Joe? (Be sure to cite references for your estimate). Do you see now the difference? Do you see why it is deceptive to compare the changes now with then? Do you see that a change that happens over 10,000-15,000 years is going to have different effects to one that happens over 200 years? Do you see that a change in CO2 from 180 to 280 ppm then is not the same as a change form 280 to 380 ppm now?

Oh and that reminds me: Can you point me towards the peer reviewed evidence against human induced climate change? And I don't mean the shabby frauds in the pretend journals like "Energy and Environment" that is supported and contributed to by NZ Climate "Science" Coalition folk. Like the way Bryan Leyland continues to support the delusions of E.G. Beck who says things (if I may crib from Douglas Adams) they would have trouble believing in Salt Lake City. I mean real science. I mean not cherry picking the way Bob Carter does when he claims "no warming since 1998". I mean not citing fraudulent petitions like that of US Senator Inhofe. Inhofe's list of 600-odd climate scientists who are against human induced climate change includes scientists who (as any good scientist should) even mention any "uncertainties" (in a scientific context an uncertainty is the margin of error) and these scientists have demanded their names be taken off.

Many NZC"S"C members have made variations on these same points in various places. And do you know what the most telling point is? Well, a hallmark of real science is how squabbly it is. Scientists are never backward about ripping into a fellow scientists if they are (or just might be) wrong. But the NZC"S"C folk and other deniers never do that. The most telling point is that NZC"S"C happily lets their members and associates say contradictory and wrong things with nary a peep.

Want an example? Here is one: For a long time your NZC"S"C website carried a prominent link to Ken "Weather by the Moon" Ring's website. Ring says that CO2, ozone and CFCs are heavier than air and that therefore "the levels should be FALLING not rising" he went on to explain to me that his belief was that therefore such gases accumulate in mine shafts and the like. Yes, these gases are heavier than air but gravity is so weak compared to wind and thermal mixing that they never settle. If you are very careful you can pour layered a drink. But not if you try pouring them into a food processor running at 10.

OK, so what? Well, I asked your NZC"S"C science advisor, Chris de Freitas of Auckland University what he thought of Rings's ideas. de Freitas had recently published a paper about the daily cycle of changes in the ozone concentrations over Auckland. So if Ring was right, de Freitas was wrong because the ozone would fall to the ground and he shouldn't have been able to measure it way up in the sky. de Freitas never did respond any further than to say Ring's ideas were "interesting" but he didn't have time to follow it up. Interesting? An idea that threatened to invalidate his own area of research was "interesting" but he didn't have time to follow it up? The idea is far from dead and cropped up several times again in submissions to the 2009 ETS Select Committee.

Wanna know what I think this, and many, many more examples shows? I think it shows that NZC"S"C and allied deniers are so desperate that anyone, no matter how deluded, is welcome. You know that if you start chucking out the obvious errors you would have nothing left.

So go ahead, Joe. Ask about specific scientific concerns you have. But please, take the time to read the IPCC reports first. I am happy to send you copies of any scientific papers you need. But don't make the mistake of trying to throw as much endlessly refuted bullshit as you can and hope that some sticks.

Regards,
Doug Mackie

ENDS

© Scoop Media