Science for hire?

The government’s Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, ONZ KNZM FRSNZ FMedSci FRS has produced a report on the methamphetamine contamination issue.

It is quite definite in its wording, no ifs, buts, or maybes and very helpful to Minister Twyford.

It may have been a few years ago when Sir Peter wrote this?undated paper on climate change. Quote.

[…] The vast majority of the world?s climate scientists consider it very likely, based on several lines of evidence, that the current warming trend is of human origin and is associated with increased production of the so?called ?greenhouse gases? as a result of fossil fuel use, agriculture and deforestation. Humans had little impact on the global environment until the advent of agriculture about 10,000 years ago. The flow?on effects of this agricultural revolution were mutually reinforcing ? domestication and farming of ruminant animals such as sheep, cattle and goats, clearing of forests for pasture and crop growing, population growth because of greater food availability, and technological advances leading to dependence on coal and other hydrocarbon fuels for utilisable energy.

Increased concentrations of the greenhouse gases trap heat (ultimately of solar origin) within that part of the atmosphere closest to the earth. The major greenhouse gases emitted from human activities are carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. Carbon dioxide has a very complex and slow cycle such that once concentrations in the atmosphere increase, some of this increase will remain there for millennia. The other two gases have much shorter cycles, and thus their atmospheric concentrations could be changed quite quickly. Warming of the atmosphere also leads to an increase in water vapour content which further amplifies the warming, since water vapour is itself a strong greenhouse gas.

Ominously, the extent of human?induced global warming may be magnified by feedback effects that release even more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere as the world warms (carbon dioxide is less soluble in warmer sea water, and more methane may be released as the Arctic permafrost thaws) and cause less of the sun?s heat to be reflected by the melting polar ice caps. Other effects of increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere include the gradual acidification of the ocean, which could compromise the many marine organisms that build shells from calcium carbonate (such as molluscs, krill and corals) and itself cause a feedback effect by slowing the uptake of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Understanding the complexity of climate science requires the involvement of many scientific disciplines, and this creates difficulties in reaching conclusions. There are unknowns, such as what will be the effects of altered cloud patterns on climate as global temperatures increase. Nevertheless, there is a high degree of agreement among scientists about the situation and the probable path ahead for our planet. […] End of quote.

Lots of weasel words, no hard evidence to support the government’s stance.? Sir Peter ends with “There is no easy answer ? the science is solid but absolute certainty will never exist.”? It almost seems from an unbiased reading of the report that he does not really believe the global warming/climate change hype but is crafting the report in such a way as to tell those paying the bills what they want to hear.

Sir Peter’s methamphetamine report, however, is much more definite and conclusive.? Is that what they wanted to hear?

I have used the definite style of the meth report to update the climate report …

[…] There is currently no evidence that methamphetamine? carbon dioxide levels typically resulting from third-hand exposure to smoking residues?modern living on household surfaces?global climate can elicit an adverse health effect.

Toxicity assessments and exposure dose?Climate computer models have deliberately adopted very conservative?warmist assumptions, with large safety margins?biases built in.

Taken together, these factors indicate that methamphetamine?carbon dioxide levels that exceed the NZS 8510:2017 clean-up standard of 1.5 ?g/100 cm2?450 parts per million should not be regarded as signalling a health?global risk. Indeed, exposure to methamphetamine levels below 15 ?g/100 cm2?carbon dioxide levels above 450 ppm would be highly unlikely to give rise to any adverse?many positive effects.

This means that, because the risk of encountering methamphetamine on residential surfaces at?atmospheric carbon dioxide levels that might cause harm is extremely low, testing?decarbonising the economy is not warranted in most?all cases.[…]

Is it ‘science’ for hire?