PM’s Chief Science Adviser Must Change – Or Go
Prime Minister John Key has been asked by a former National Party activist either to rein in his Chief Science Adviser,
Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, or to change his title to more accurately reflect the professor’s global warming
propaganda advocacy activities.
Terry Dunleavy, MBE, JP, was a member of the National Party’s Dominion Publicity Committee in the 1960’s, its candidate
for Napier in 1969, a member of the Divisional Executive in both Wellington and Auckland, chair of North Shore
Electorate, 1995-2000, and national convenor of BlueGreens, 1998-2002. In 2006, he co-founded the New Zealand Climate
Science Coalition and remains its honorary secretary and webmaster.
Mr Dunleavy said: “In creating the position of Chief Science Adviser in May 2009, the Prime Minister commented that
‘this role is one of vital importance that demands not only a high level of science expertise, but also the utmost
integrity to fairly represent the state of science knowledge’ and that, ‘Professor Gluckman will provide me with a
direct line to advice when I need it. He will be an independent voice that will complement existing channels of advice
such as government departments and the Royal Society.’
“But, on the issue of climate change, Professor Gluckman has emerged as nothing more than a propagandist for global
warming zealotry, eschewing any regard for independence or the proud traditions of questioning skepticism in the science
he was appointed to represent.
“The timing of his expressions of support for global warming alarmism have coincided with periods when the Key
government has been forced to defend its unjustified emissions trading scheme (ETS). His first statement on climate
change as in August last year when the government was searching desperately for support in Parliament for its Bill to
amend the existing Labour ETS legislation, against the fierce opposition of one coalition partner, ACT, and a distinct
lack of enthusiasm for its other partner, the Maori Party. In that statement, contrary to the Prime Minister’s reference
to independence, Professor Gluckman noted that his paper had been peer-reviewed by Dr David Wratt, leader of the climate
group of NIWA and also chair of the climate committee of the Royal Society of New Zealand, as well as being a lead
author of the most recent IPCC Assessment Report. So much for independence! NIWA and the Royal Society are substantially
government-funded.
“Now, with Climate Minister Nick Smith having embarked on a self-confessed publicity tour to counter growing opposition
among business leaders, farmers and cash-strapped consumers to the introduction on 1 July of National’s go-it-alone ETS,
out comes Professor Gluckman again defending the pseudo-science that is the only justification for the costly but futile
attempts to curb emissions of carbon dioxide.
“Contrary to the best scientific practice, the Professor has adduced no references for his assertions on climate change
other than what he claims is a ‘consensus’ that supports the hypothesis of dangerous man-made warming. Worse, not only
does he ignore the many thousands of contrary scientific positions, but he labels those challengers with terms such as
‘deniers’ and ‘denialists’ which anyone of Jewish ancestry would know have despicable connotations. He should know that
such language breaches the code of ethics of the Royal Society of New Zealand:
“In so doing, Professor Gluckman misrepresents skeptics who argue against dangerous man-made global warming. One doesn’t
have to be a scientist to know that climate changes, as it has done in natural cycles for billions of years. For
instance, history tells us why Greenland came to be called Greenland but is now covered in ice. He cites no evidence
that natural cyclical changes are caused by greenhouse gas emissions, and is apparently not aware that correlation does
not prove causality.
“If Professor Gluckman is unable to practise what the Prime Minister asked of him, that is, to provide not only a high
level of science expertise, but also the utmost integrity to fairly represent the state of science knowledge, and to
complement and not simply parrot entrenched positions of government agencies and the Royal Society, he should return to
the Liggins Institute and the medical field in which he is deservedly an acknowledged and internationally respected
figure,” Mr Dunleavy concluded.
ENDS