Professor rubbishes Rush’s submission
Well that’s awkward. Climate changesceptic Wellington councillor Sean Rush’s submission to the Zero Carbon Bill has been rubbished by his own teacher.
Climate scientist James Renwick has responded to Rush’s submission, using terms ranging from ‘‘slightly incorrect’’ to ‘‘out by a factor of 10’’, to ‘‘complete fantasy’’.
Just weeks before running for Wellington City Council Rush made his submission, citing studies he said showed much of global warming was driven by natural forces, and that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projections were ‘‘exaggerating projected warmth’’. Rush has a history as an oil industry lobbyist and lawyer. In a statement to Stuff he said: ‘‘I have never denied manmade climate change exists.’’
Renwick, a professor and head of Victoria University’s school of geography, environment and earth sciences, where Rush is studying, sent Stuff a three-page response to Rush’s submission. ‘‘While I am not particularly keen to argue in public like this, I find Sean’s submission distorted enough to warrant a response,’’ he said.
Rush was not, as claimed, doing a Masters in Science but was instead doing a Master’s in Climate Change Science and Policy, ‘‘a separate one-year qualification that is distinct from a two-year MSc programme’’. Rush’s ‘‘context’’ point was ‘‘very misleading’’ and ‘‘out by a factor of 10’’ when he talked about the amount of greenhouse effect that happened naturally versus what happened due to human activities. Rush argued there was a ‘‘recent moderate increase in global average temperature’’. Renwick shot back: ‘‘The rate of rise in temperature is the most rapid in thousands of years, and the increase in temperatures over the past century means the Earth is now the warmest it has been for at least 1500 years.
‘‘It is not a moderate increase.’’
Renwick rejected Rush’s assertion that IPCC reports did not contain ‘‘honest’’ assessments of natural variability.
Renwick said Rush had used a ‘‘rather out of date’’ technical summary and Rush’s statements on the effects of greenhouse gases trapping infrared radiation were a ‘‘misrepresentation’’. ‘‘The idea that climate changes over New Zealand will not be a worry ... is a very optimistic take on what was taught,’’ Renwick said.
In the final of his eight points, Renwick argues against Rush’s assertion that democratic safeguards were at risk under the influence of the IPCC. ‘‘This is complete fantasy and is in my opinion an insult to the scientific community who give their time freely to the IPCC process,’’ Renwick said. The IPCC did not recommend policy changes, nor did it have any power over democratic governments, and was completely transparent, he said.
Rush emailed Stuff to say he had seen Renwick’s comments and would take up some of the comments with him.
His studies were an ‘‘earnest attempt’’ to understand the complex science, he said.