Hear, hear! I'd like to comment on Paul Rea's letter (December 19).
It is such an insult to have my Dutch pension taken from me and deducted from my New Zealand superannuation. I have worked four years in the Netherlands as a teacher and for 20 years now I have received €192 a month and pay tax out of this.
I have worked in New Zealand for 40 years and paid high taxes. I feel entitled to a full pension. I worked till I was 79 years old with pleasure.
New Zealand never had to pay for my education. I was productive the moment I landed. Why do politicians promise things they don't adhere to or implement? It affects people badly when they don't.
I hope the NZ Seniors Party will put pressure on the Government to do something for us.
ELISABETH GREAVES-DEN BROEDER
Credibility of science on the line
Frank Gibson's opinion piece in Thursday's Chronicle, December 28, defends science, and criticises leaders who oppose the political positions of activists claiming climate science justifies their positions.
The leaders, says Mr Gibson, show ignorance and stupidity. There is more to this story.
World War II showed politicians the popularity and power of science. The military-industrial complex exploited government's power. It's gotten much worse in the last decade as others, such as tobacco and pharma executives, joined in.
Yes, most senior politicians in the US are corrupt. How else can your income be a politician's salary, yet you retire very rich?
The corruption of scientists started after WWII. Scientists are thought to be "objective", "disinterested" and honest. Would that it were so.
Scientists are not more saintly or right than other mortals. Science as a process is powerful because it uncovers and corrects mistakes. Many scientists can be bought with offers of grant money and jobs with political influence.
For "warmists," here are some uncomfortable truths:
1. Science does not work by "consensus."
2. The models beloved by "warmists" cannot explain the large fluctuations in historical climate, let alone the geological record. Many scientists reject as unproven the claims about human-caused global warming.
3. The models' predictions have been wrong. Climate data used in modelling is only recent and spotty. The models ignore many important variables. Activists claiming models are reliable for predicting our complex global climate are a joke. Modelling has been abused.
4. Researchers are very competitive. They have very strong incentives to only find and report studies that support the positions of funders.
5. There have now been far too many cases of dishonesty by climate researchers and agencies. We know research results paid for by big businesses must be taken sceptically. So must research and agencies paid for by politicians. Do not denigrate all who disagree with the "warmists". Some are legitimately sceptical. And be sceptical of US media reports. Finally ...
6. Science itself is very much in danger of losing its credibility. It deserves to if it does not harshly sanction dishonesty. What a loss to humanity that would be.
PS: I heartily approve of Frank Gibson's local efforts to promote science and rationality. But I understand he was not trained to be a research scientist. How can he know US politics?
ROBERT L. HAYS PhD (Stanford, biology)
Send your letters to: The Editor, Wanganui Chronicle, 100 Guyton St, PO Box 433, Wanganui 4500; or email firstname.lastname@example.org