Doubt the Best Policy

Sign Up for free e-mail updates!

GIVEN how unfashionable and irresponsible it is to be a climate-change sceptic, it is surprising that the Liberal Party, the alternative government in Canberra, has elected as their new leader a well-known sceptic in Tony Abbott.   He is on the public record saying that he is unconvinced by the so-called settled science of climate change and has called the orthodox position "crap".

It is easy to be dismissive of a position when it is considered a minority view.

But, given the elevation of Abbott - and the new-found optimism among his followers since Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit in Britain was stood aside pending an inquiry into allegations of misconduct sparked by leaked emails - it is perhaps timely to reconsider the minority position, if only to be reassured it is wrong.

Listening to the debate in the Senate this week over the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill, there is clearly a lack of understanding, at least by the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Penny Wong, on what the so-called sceptics actually believe.

In closing debate on the Bill, she said: "They are sham arguments from people driven, and now led, by people who do not believe climate change is real."

It is a misrepresentation to suggest such people as Abbott do not believe climate change is real.

In dispute is whether the warming trend during the past 150 or so years has been caused by emissions of fossil fuels or the result of natural change, not whether the climate changes.

Other points of disagreement include whether carbon dioxide should be called a pollutant at all.

Many, including outspoken Melbourne University geologist Ian Plimer, claim that it is a necessity of life and that a bit more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would only be a good thing.

A third false claim about the so-called sceptical position is that they believe nothing should be done.

Leading Australian climate sceptic Bob Carter, from James Cook University, has detailed the need for governments to recognise climate change as a natural hazard and emphasises that responsible policy should include contingency planning for the possibility of abrupt global cooling as well as the possibility of continued warming.

While Wong and others may dismiss such claims as sham arguments, the reality is, however misguided, many honestly hold such views and they have a growing audience.

Plimer's book Heaven and Earth: Global Warming The Missing Science is in its fifth print run in Australia and has just been released in the US.

Other popular books by so-called sceptics include An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming by the former British chancellor, Nigel Lawson, and Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor by former NASA scientist, Roy Spencer.

But, during the past two weeks, the so-called sceptics have been much less interested in the books, and much more interested in reading the hundreds of emails that were recently leaked from Britain's leading climate research unit, CRU.

Until he agreed to step aside pending the outcome of an investigation, Jones was director of this unit that compiles data on the global temperature record and then distributes this information worldwide, including to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology and to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Jones has not denied that the emails, some dating back over a decade, are real or that their public release will be, potentially, very damaging for climate science. One email, dated May 29, 2008, and attributed to Jones, directs his colleagues to delete email correspondence subject to a Freedom of Information request from Steve McIntyre, a well-known sceptic and Canadian statistician.

As British climate activist and author George Monbiot has commented: "To direct the destruction of such information is a criminal offence and, even if no other message had been hacked, this should be sufficient to ensure Jones' resignation."

This, and other emails, have also reinforced the belief held by Abbott's cheer squad, including some high-profile scientists, that there is a conspiracy and that the official so-called settled science is corrupt.

Abbott, in his new position of Liberal leader, is trying to restrict his comments on climate change to the issue of the CPRS, calling it a $120 billion tax on the Australian public, and avoid any discussion of the science.

But the battle of my-scientist-is-better-than-yours won't go away any time soon and if there is an eventual victor, this will inevitably impact on Abbott's credibility and politics.

In the meantime, if we are to have credible discussion on the science underpinning the CPRS, Wong and others owe it to the Australian public to better understand the alternative position - what the sceptics really believe and why.

Dr Jennifer Marohasy has a PHD from the University of Queensland and has been a state government research scientist, an environmental manager in the sugar industry and a public policy research director at the Institute of Public Affairs. She is sceptical of the consensus position on anthropogenic global warming.

Published in The Courier Mail

More Articles