1.  The AGW movement claims there has been a global temperature rise of 0.5C over the last 60 years and that this is due to increasing CO2.  Both AGW proponents and sceptics accept that the relationship between energy retained and CO2 concentration is logarithmic (a constant increase in retained energy for each doubling of CO2).  The AGW movement data also shows that since 1900 CO2 has risen by very close to half a doubling  over this 60 year period.

IPCC have claimed in their 4th assessment report (summary for policy makers), that the most likely temperature rise by 2070, when CO2 will have risen by a further half doubling to twice the level in 1900, is a further 3C rise  (page 12).  Why would the first half doubling give 0.5C rise while the second half doubling gives 3C or 6 times as much rise?

2.  One claim I have heard is that it takes the climate a long time to respond to the change in CO2 concentration and we have not yet seen the entire rise from the first half doubling.  The same IPCC 4th assessment report (page 12, 13 and 14) indicates that if CO2 were stabilised at the current level, the temperature would rise by a further 0.2C over 2 decades stabilising at 0.7C above the 1900 level. 

If the current temperature rise is not yet at the equilibrium level then for the business as usual scenario the temperature rise by 2070 will also not be at the equilibrium level.  Yet the IPCC data suggests the equilibrium rise from the first half doubling is not even one quarter of the less than equilibrium rise from the second half doubling.  To me this is illogical.

3.   IPCC claim an increase in retained energy of around 3.7 watts/sqM for each doubling of CO2 (1.66 watts/sqM for the current rise page 4).  They admit this is much too small to result in a 3+ degree temperature rise.  The large temperature rise is based on claims of very large net positive feedback in the climate system.  

Yet, every natural stable system I can think of exhibits net negative feedback.   Indeed the terms stability and negative feedback are synonymous since negative feedback is what causes stability.  By contrast, positive feedback causes instability (such as tipping points where a large change in output occurs for a small change in input).   Stability does not mean zero change, it means the response to changes in input are small enough and sufficiently controlled so as to not cause system destruction or runaway.  If you want to argue that the climate system is not stable then I would why it has remained conducive to continued life on this planet for billions of years.  This is despite all the change in CO2 levels, volcanic eruptions, changes in solar output and orbital changes over the millennia.  To me, that is a very good definition of climate stability.

4.  The AGW modellers claim cloud feedback is positive.   AGW advocates seem to divide clouds into two categories, low clouds and high clouds.  Every report I have read acknowledges that low clouds cause cooling.  With regard to high clouds there is some dispute but the AGW modellers claim they cause warming.  Further they claim a warming planet results in a bias away from low clouds and towards high clouds thus exacerbating  warming, hence contributing to positive feedback.

At the same time they claim constant relative humidity in their models.  This means that as the temperature rises, more water must be evaporating.  Now unless we want to predict that the amount of water in the atmosphere is going to continuously rise until the oceans are suspended over our heads, more evaporation must imply more precipitation ie: more rain.  However, rain only comes from low clouds not high clouds, so more rain means more low cloud mass not less low cloud mass.  This contradicts the previous position.  If the claim is that both increase, then that means significantly more cloud mass in total.  Clouds are the biggest contributor to Earth’s albedo (the fraction of incoming solar energy reflected back out to space).  Rising total cloudiness means increasing albedo and the albedo is very strongly cooling.  The albedo already causes 100 watts/sqM to be reflected away from Earth.  To cancel out the entire impact claimed by IPCC for doubling CO2 only requires an increase in cloudiness from 60% to 62.4%.

An increase in temperature, leading to more evaporation, in turn leading to more cloudiness which reduces the solar input to Earth thus reducing temperatures is a description of negative feedback not positive feedback.

5.  The claimed “proof” of positive feedback is a model prediction of a hot spot in the tropics at mid troposphere levels.  However all the experimental evidence from many, many measurements has failed to find any evidence of such a hot spot.  In science, a clear prediction that is falsified experimentally means the underlying hypothesis on which the prediction is based is wrong.

6.  The reports documenting man’s CO2 emission use some scarily large numbers but these have to be viewed in the light of the overall system size.  For example, a million dollars is an extremely large amount of money for a private individual but it is almost petty cash for a government.  If we want to put the numbers into perspective we need to relate them to the size of the system.  Why not express CO2 quantities in terms of how many PPM 1 year’s emissions will raise or lower the atmospheric CO2 level (if all of it stayed in the atmosphere).  We could call that PPM equivalents.

In those terms, human emissions amount to about 2.7 PPM equivalents.  Now NASA have published a diagram showing annual CO2 transfers for the planet.  This shows terrestrial plants absorbing about 61 PPM equivalents.  We know that both rising CO2 and rising temperature favour faster plant growth.  That’s why horticulturalists artificially raise CO2 levels in glass houses to about 1000 PPM.  It is also why plants grow faster in the tropics than in cooler locations on earth.  More to the point, a recent study showed average plant growth has accelerated by about 6% over the last 30 years.  A 6% increase in plant growth means a 6% increase in absorbed CO2, from 61PPM equivalents to 64.7 PPM equivalents.  This means that human emissions have increased by 2.7 PPM equivalents but plants have increased their absorption by an extra 3.7 PPM equivalents over the same period.  The increased plant growth is consuming more than 100% of human emissions.  Is there another (natural) factor contributing to CO2 increases?

This response, more CO2 leading to faster plant growth which in turn consumes more CO2 is another example of the widespread bias towards negative feedback I alluded to earlier.   Apart from which, is increased plant growth and thus agricultural productivity bad?  I would have thought it was highly desirable.
 
7.  The AGW hypothesis is based on temperature rises between about 1975 and 1998 or about 25 years worth of data.  This is claimed to be definitive yet the last 10 years worth of data shows falling global temperatures.  This is claimed to be a short term aberration and of no consequence.  I do not see how 25 years can be considered definitive beyond dispute while 10 years of data is a short term aberration, too short to be significant.  I would have thought at least a 10:1 ratio would be necessary to make such a claim.

8.  If I adopt this 10:1 ratio by looking at the last 100 years worth of data I find 1910-1940 temperatures rising while CO2 was not.  1940 to 1975 temperatures falling while CO2 rising, 1975 to 1998 temperatures rising while CO2 rising and 1998 to 2009 temperatures falling while CO2 rising.   Three quarters of the period shows no correlation or negative correlation with CO2 and only one quarter shows positive correlation.  I do not understand how one can claim a hypothesis proven when ¾ of the data set disagrees with it.  To me it is the clearest proof that the hypothesis is wrong.

9.  For the last 10 years the global temperature data shows either no atmospheric temperature rise or indeed a falling global temperature.  Recently this has been claimed to be due to a combination of a quiet sun and changes in ocean circulation superimposed on the underlying warming trend.  The further claim is that when these effects reverse, warming will start again with a vengeance. 

If these natural processes can cancel out the impact of AGW then they are as powerful as AGW.  If they can overwhelm the impact of AGW to cause cooling they are more powerful, yet IPCC and other AGW proponents have claimed in previous assessment reports that solar influences are only a minor contributor compared to CO2. 

The  sun was unusually active during the latter half of the 20th century in contrast to its current inactivity and the ocean circulation was the opposite of what is now happening.  Thus the natural effects claimed to be causing cooling now would have been causing warming in the late 20th century.  If these natural effects are as large as the AGW impact then they would have caused half the observed 20th century warming.  If the natural effects now outweigh the AGW impact to cause cooling then they would have been responsible for more than half the observed 20th century warming.

This is not only in contradiction of the earlier IPCC claims, it also means that the actual impact of CO2 increases since 1900 is much less than the claimed 0.5C.  At most 0.25C and possibly much less even than that.

If in fact the temperature returns to the long term average over the next few years (as seems to be increasingly likely), it suggests that these natural processes were responsible for essentially all the observed temperature changes over the 20th century with negligible impact from CO2 changes.

10.  I have looked at the raw temperature record for the USA (USHCN data) and the Bureau of Meteorology data for Victoria, Australia.  Both show fluctuations of temperature with time but zero underlying trend for the last century.  By contrast, the official IPCC endorsed data shows a strong underlying upwards trend.  When I investigate why the difference, I find that the raw data has been adjusted for several supposed factors and every one of these adjustments created a warming trend.  This implies that the claimed warming trend is due to the adjustments, not the raw data.  In any less controversial scientific issue, such a result would be viewed with the greatest possible scepticism and would be extremely unlikely to be accepted.

When I examine the raw temperature data record for cities compared with nearby suburban or rural areas, I  find an extremely high signature of urban heat island effect.  Yet the people doing the temperature adjustments claim that urban heat island effects are negligible and do not require correction.  This is despite the fact that a significant proportion of the measurement stations are in cities. 

Such a clear factor not corrected for while other more subtle claimed factors are corrected casts further doubt on the correction protocol.  If there is an upwards bias in the corrections, it means the claimed warming trend is exaggerated and may in fact not exist at all.

11.  The mainstream media keep reporting that the current situation is increasingly dire and is much worse than even the previous pessimistic projections.  When I examine this statement I find that previous projections predicted rapid atmospheric warming during the last 10 years whereas in fact we have had cooling.  They predicted rapid increase in rate of rise of sea level when in fact the rate of sea level rise has recently declined.  They predicted a very rapid increase in Arctic summer sea ice loss whereas in fact, for the last 2 years, it has been increasing.  They predicted a rapid rise in hurricane incidence and severity when in fact there has been a decline.  To me the media’s many claims are not supportable.  I also consider it to be beyond simple error.  At best it is unpardonable gross carelessness in checking the data they are reporting and at worst it is deliberate bias in reporting.

12.  More recently, in response to the data showing no warming for the last 10 years, I have seen new claims that global land temperatures are now deemed irrelevant.  The newly discovered measure of importance is the rise in ocean temperature, since it is now claimed that this is by far the largest planetary heat sink.  If that claim is true, it makes all the previous data claiming to show strong global warming over the period 1975 to 1998 also irrelevant.  To suggest that from 1975 to 1998, the energy went into warming the land and air and then abruptly in 1998 it stopped doing that and the heat instead went into heating the oceans is, to me, completely absurd.  Nature simply does not work that way.  It is like claiming you put the kettle on, for the first minute the energy goes into heating the water and then abruptly it stops heating the water and starts heating the room instead.

13.  Looking further at the claim of warming ocean temperatures.  Late last century it was realised that the method of measuring ocean temperatures was extremely inaccurate and unreliable.  To overcome that, a sophisticated, global system of buoys was designed and implemented at very considerable cost and effort.  These buoys repeatedly dive down to measure temperatures  and then resurface to report back findings  This network is called the Argo network and it became operational in 2003.  Since becoming operational, it has shown ocean cooling.  Yet the scientists who claim ongoing ocean warming exclude the Argo data and the satellite data instead relying entirely on the earlier poor reliability methods.

The same scientific community which claimed a method was inaccurate and unreliable, designed and implemented  a new high accuracy measurement system, are now rejecting the new high accuracy data in favour of the older data they themselves viewed as unreliable.  How can that be justified?  Why is the data from the older less reliable method correct, while results from the new, high accuracy methodology are wrong?  What does that say about the scientists who designed the Argo system but apparently don’t trust its output?  To me it suggests selecting data to prove a favoured hypothesis, commonly called cherry picking.

Some sites are talking about “correcting” the Argo data.  Why should a carefully thought out, brand new, high accuracy system already require adjustment to its outputs?  Was a mistake made in the design?  Why are the proposed adjustments again in the direction of exacerbating the claimed warming?  When the raw data contradicts the hypothesis yet the “adjustments and corrections” all reverse that result so as to support the championed hypothesis, it’s time to start worrying.

14.  What mankind is doing by consuming fossil fuels is recycling CO2 that used to be in the atmosphere but got trapped in the distant past.  Is there a “correct” level of CO2?  What I have read suggests that the Earth was a more verdant place before the CO2 got locked up in fossil fuels.  Would the Earth be more or less pleasant a place if the carbon currently locked up in fossil fuels were again available to the biosphere.  Not just for humans but for all living things, plants and animals.  Surely we should consider that before we pick some arbitrary recent point in time and declare that the CO2 level at that time is the ideal to be maintained at all costs.

FROM a slightly different but related perspective, I see the AGW story continuously changing.  When one measure no longer trends the wanted way, a change is made to a new measure (change from surface to ocean temperatures and ocean acidity).  In one report, an effect is claimed to be negligible when that suits the hypothesis yet the same measure is later used as a reason to explain away embarrassing trends (Solar influence and ocean currents).  All the observed effects are very moderate (less than 0.5C) if present at all yet hysteria is generated on the basis of hypothesised extreme future outcomes (up to 6C rise and 10 meter sea level rises).  Outcomes far enough in the future so as to be un-testable yet close enough to impact people being born today.  Claims based on abstract models that fail even short term validation tests.   As a practicing scientist, I have seen this scenario more than once before, changing benchmarks and indicative parameters, rewriting predictions and predicted causes after the event, excusing erroneous predictions.  These are clear signs of propping up a false hypothesis.

There does seem to be clear evidence that temperature changed several times over the 20th century both up and down.  There is far less evidence for any underlying upwards trend due to CO2 and many reasons to question the data analysis that tries to demonstrate such a trend.
 
One of the arguments I often hear is “well even if AGW is not absolutely proven we should take action just in case its correct” – the precautionary principle.  I see two reasons to disagree with that. 

Firstly, if rising CO2 should bring about some warming it is by no means certain that this would be catastrophically bad or for that matter whether it would be bad at all.  It seems quite likely to me that the cure would be worse than the disease. 

Secondly, and to me much more importantly, there is another issue we need to consider and that is the law of unintended consequences.  Briefly this states that whenever you take action there will always be consequences you did not consider in advance and did not intend.  Since there are many more ways to be wrong than to be right there is a better than 50:50 chance that these consequences will be bad.  If the original action is based on a false premise it greatly increases the risk of bad unintended consequences.  The precautionary principle is based on the belief that there is no down side to taking action.  The law of unintended consequences tells us that there is always a down side and the cost versus benefit always needs to be carefully evaluated before acting. 

We are already seeing some very bad unintended consequences of the action taken so far over global warming.  The government driven initiative to use less fossil fuel by diluting it with ethanol is causing massive forest clearing the Amazon basin (to grow the ethanol feedstock) and is very significantly raising food prices causing even worse starvation in 3rd world countries.  Terrible as it is, this has not greatly impacted on western society but the next phase most certainly will.

There is another very serious unintended consequence that I would like to raise here; one that concerns me very deeply.  When I listen to the public AGW debate  I hear very high profile politicians and prominent public figures calling for people who openly disagree with AGW to be put on trial for treason.  I hear many cases of people losing their jobs because of voicing sceptical opinions.  I hear prominent global warming advocates refusing to enter into debates or trying to avoid debates by claiming the science is settled, and by claiming we do not have time, we have only weeks to act.  I hear AGW advocates resorting to personal attacks against people who disagree rather than addressing the technical issues they raise. 

I hear AGW proponents claiming to be the under funded underdogs, fighting to protect the planet against greedy capitalists, yet the reality is their funding is at least 1000 times greater than the sceptics funding.  I see many reports of scientists refusing to release their workings, thus preventing review of their methodology, despite the fact that their work was funded by public money. 

I see how the established media abandons balance in reporting by strongly favouring proponents of AGW, ignoring or denigrating sceptics and forcing most onto blog sites like this one.  I hear some environmental groups and activists publicly claim that its OK and even necessary to exaggerate the threat so as to get the public to engage. I see the courts condoning acts of vandalism and even violence against essential public infrastructure.  I see high profile public figures supporting such acts and claiming them to be reasonable and justified. 

In short I see our society abandoning some of our most vital democratic freedoms over this hysteria:  Free speech, impartial enforcement of the law, balance in reporting, freedom of information.  These are freedoms our forebears gave their lives to bequeath to us, they are our most valuable inheritance and we seem to be throwing them away over an unproven hysterical hypothesis.

More recently I have read articles from England advocating individual ration cards for petrol, heating oil, gas, electricity.  Is water and food next?  War time austerity as an ongoing future way of life?  A return to the agrarian poverty of the middle ages?  I note the new film “Not evil just wrong” has had to be distributed via the internet rather than traditional media.  One step from distribution through an underground network?  Will that apply to all future sceptical writing?   What about other writing contrary to the popular opinion of the day?

These are the issues that differentiate between a free democracy and a totalitarian regime and the further one goes down this path the harder it is to pull back.  History has shown us that the disease is far easier to acquire than to get rid of.

*******************

Notes and Links

Michael Hammer graduated with a Bachelor of Engineering Science and Master of Engineering Science from Melbourne University.  Since 1976 he has been working in the field of spectroscopy with the last 25 years devoted to full time research for a large multinational spectroscopy company.

To read more from Mr Hammer click here and scroll down:  http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/author/michael-hammer/

Mr Mooney now has a second book out entitled ‘Unscientific America’.   I haven’t read the new book yet, but according to an interview Mr Mooney gave last night on Australian television if you don’t believe in AGW you aren’t even a scientist.   Indeed he told well-known ABC journalist and television presenter Leigh Sales that while society hasn’t agreed on the facts, the scientists have.

Ms Sales initially queried Mr Mooney, suggesting that many claim there is no scientific consensus on AGW.   But she didn’t then pursue the point when Mr Mooney reframed, side-stepped the question and then contradicted himself.  

Much of the preamble compiled by Margo O’Neill and the interview by Ms Sales suggested that being a climate change sceptic was equivalent to being part of the minority against vaccinating children or part of the religious right that argues against the teaching of evolution.    Their argument essentially went that there is always a part of a community that holds beliefs that are illogical.

The solution, Mr Mooney explained to Ms Sales, is a better educated population particularly in the area of science which he suggested provides a foundation in critical thinking. 

But there was no much critical thinking on display and a small amount of research ahead of the interview would have discovered that Australia’s best known climate change sceptic, Ian Plimer, fought a long and hard campaign against the teaching of creationism in schools.   But then again understanding what motivated Professor Plimer to speak out against the teaching of faith as science in our schools would have spoilt their story because the Professor might have explained that speaking out against AGW fundamentalism is really just a continuation of his campaign for critical thinking and real science.    

************************

Notes and Links

Public must engage with scientific fact: book
Australian Broadcasting Corporation,  17/09/2009, Reporter: Margot O’Neill
A new book called Unscientific America has put forward the theory that we are facing a dangerous divide between science and culture.
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2689426.htm

The vote is sponsored by World Vision; Australia’s largest charitable organisation with a history of working with schools. 

When I was about 13, in about 1976, my school promoted World Vision’s 40 Hour Famine to raise money to feed children in poor countries.  I only raised a small amount through the sponsorship program but it made me feel like I had participated in something good – something worthwhile. 

Now World Vision is involved in not only humanitarian work but also the politics of climate change:   ‘Youth Decide ‘09’ is a national youth vote on climate change sponsored by World Vision and no doubt results from the poll will be used leading up to the United Nation’s Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen to tell the Rudd Government how Australian Students want cuts in emissions by at least 40 percent by 2020. 

Indeed according to ‘Youth Decide ‘09’ only by Australia signing up to drastic cuts in greenhouse gas emission can the worst impacts of climate change be avoided, the Great Barrier Reef  be saved, less people around the world face water and food shortages and the list goes on…   http://www.youthdecide.com.au/home.aspx

In reality it will make no difference to any of these things, or global temperatures, if the Australian government agrees to reduce emissions or not.   So World Vision is not only involving itself in politics, but also spreading misinformation.

There is no science, not even Ross Garnaut science, indicating Australia makes a significant contribution to global emissions.

Indeed the ‘Youth Decide ‘09’ website is full of misinformation and yet it includes Monash University as a partner.

While the rhetoric is little changed from 1976 when I raised money for World Vision, the difference is that back then no one was involving science.  It is one thing for teacher to tell kids about poverty and encourage them to raise some money to be charitable, but it is an entirely different matter to involve science teachers in politics and morality – which is exactly what ‘Youth Decide 09’ is all about.

Some answers are here:  http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26056202-7583,00.html 

* ‘Global warming hotheads freeze out science’s sceptics’ by Christopher Pearson, in The Australian, on September 12, 2009

Hi there,

I attended a very interesting lecture today around Climate change denialism with guest speakers Dr Andrew Glikson of the Planetry Science Institute and Professor Clive Hamilton of the ANU [Australian National University].
 
It seems to me there is a vast array of eminent scientists who are in agreement that increased levels of carbon due to human activity is having an undeniable impact on global warming. 

 
You term yourself as a whistleblower and as long ago as 2005 (I guess you could call that either 3 or 4 years ago depending on which month) you embarked upon studying ‘the science of global warming’.  I would like you to elaborate a little more in your personal profile on your website as to under whose employ you have been in the past 10 years or so.  Maybe you could also elaborate on how the IPA receives funding and from whom it receives funding?
 
Our planet is at a crisis point and yet we have people like yourself pushing a public agenda that there is nothing to worry about.  I can’t think of anything more morally or ethically reprehensible to be perfectly frank!!!
 
Cheers
[Name provided, but withheld]

September 2, 2009

************

Notes

I no longer work for the IPA, and my website also explains that my sources of income are varied.  I anticipate earning a total of A$25,000 this financial year – enough to get by. 

Of course my income would increase if more people made a donation to the running of this blog – click the orange button at the top right hand side of this webpage.

via Benny Pieser

DONNA Laframboise believes that when activists insist their cause is more important than other people’s free speech, we all need to worry.

www.DeSoggyBog.com  

www.Noconsensus.org.

for some context …  http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/08/clean-up-just-stirs-up/

The problem for those who question the scientific and ethical nature of the new Climate Cult, is that all the beaut stuff has been snaffled by the New Age Weathermen, and, as a result we are battling to get a decent foothold on the mountainous terrain of public opinion. But all is not lost!

If Rudyard Kipling was still about, or still fashionable, he would have, no doubt, given us something like this to fall back on:

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are loosing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good nor talk too wise. 

The first difficulty those classified as “climate sceptics” face is the word ‘sceptic’. It has all sorts of various connotations, but a short version goes something like; “a person who habitually doubts generally accepted beliefs”. Ouch!   No wonder the Climate Cult love the word ‘sceptic’.

So the first thing needed is to re-badge ourselves. The Pharaoh Akhenaten tried it around 3300 years ago when he attempted to change the way most Egyptians saw themselves, both in relation to the heavens and how they depicted themselves in art. It only lasted until his death. How will climate sceptics be remembered in the next 100 or 1000 years? Not that well, I fear— unless we re-badge.

The reality is that most of those who are badged as climate “sceptics” actually have no axe to grind about the science one way or the other – they are actually climate “agnostics”, and just want the facts of the matter to be allowed to fall where they may.  But the word hasn’t caught on, and another alternative – climate “realists” – has all the appeal of a wet fish. So, of the available terms, climate “rationalist” is probably the best, and perhaps we should stick to that.

The second problem that doubters of the current climate-mania face is that they are depicted almost exclusively for what they doubt rather than what they believe. It is an age old trick. “If you’re not with us, you’re against us.” Don’t you just envy the warmaholics/carbonistas for their ignorance. The certainty of dogma.

In facing the above problem it seems that what is needed is a concerted effort by Climate Rationalists to continually expound their beliefs. Not a sort of Soviet style manifesto, or gormless, meaningless list of “save the planet” jingles or chants, but a substantial statement of belief and purpose.

Climate Rationalists certainly believe (or at least all the ones I know or have read about do) in fresh air, unpolluted seas and rivers, lush woods and the aroma of a distant wildebeest. Most dislike the wasteful use of resources, coal and oil included, or the slashing of forests and mountains of garbage, to say nothing of awful rush-hour traffic and unpredictable weather. So any notion that Climate Rationalists are generally against the cut and thrust of sound economic and social management of both the planet, and its resources, is really a gross libel.

What Global Warming and Climate Change warriors believe in is very straight forward and clear. They believe that human activity is causing the planet’s climate to change (warm dangerously). They believe that human-caused carbon dioxide emissions are bad, and should be controlled. They believe that just about any recently detected change to land, ocean or atmospheric activity is the result of accumulating, human-caused carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere. Anything that is changing in this world is being caused by irresponsible humans, not Sister Moon or Brother Sun.

So what do Climate Rationalists believe? Well this Climate Rationalist, for one, believes in the following:

1. Science based upon science, and in particular science which is rooted in empirical and experimental observation rather than unvalidated computer models.

2. Science, defended against the heavy hand of politics, religious fervour, and media manipulation.

3. Science based on the premise that all plants and creatures on this planet evolved because of the changing nature of this planet through time, that natural earthly events such as changes to atmosphere, ice-caps, land shifts, volcanic eruptions and non-earthly solar influences. And the natural ups and downs of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

4. That all these changes ebb and flow through time, and are natural, evolving and to a large degree, unpredictable and unpreventable.

5. Humans need to think deeply about the possible consequences of believing that they can interfere with the natural environment on a global scale by trying to stop evolution.  Carbon dioxide today! What tomorrow?

As the Senate is voting this week on the future of Rudd’s ETS there could not be a better time for readers on Quadrant Online [and this weblog] to toss around the five notions listed above and add, subtract or demolish.

We need a positive creed for our beliefs.

Perhaps Kipling would say:

If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build ‘em up with worn-out tools.

The days when our lives were so much simpler.

*************

Notes and Links

John Izzard is a documentary film producer and director whose credits include “Bastards from the Bush” on Les Murray and Bob Ellis; “Conversations With a Dead Poet” on John Forbes; and “A Fine Body of Gentlemen” on 1868 Aboriginal Cricket tour of England. Regular contributor to Quadrant magazine, and Quadrant Online.

This article was first published by Quadrant Online as part of its ETS Forum on August 8, 2009.  To read other articles in the ETS Forum click here: http://www.quadrant.org.au/.    Permission to republish this article here is appreciated.

To read other articles in the ‘Defining the Sceptics’ and ‘Defining the Greens’ series at this weblog click here and scroll down.

You may recall that on one of Lemuel Gulliver’s voyages he is rescued from a desolate rock by a rope dropped from a manoeuvrable island that floats in the air. It is the kingdom of Laputa, a small island no more than a few miles wide that can be steered over a country called Balnibarbi. The king of Laputa rules Balnibarbi and if the citizens below prove troublesome then Laputa can bring perpetual night to a rebellious town by keeping it in permanent darkness or at least until the citizens mend their ways.

There is an interesting resonance with our present rulers in Canberra, with a city that, to many, appears to float disconnected and threatening darkness to those who disagree. Perhaps the Cabinet town meetings are the equivalent of Laputa hovering over its citizens.

But Swift’s insights are much deeper. The ruler and courtiers of Laputa are devoted to the study of science and music to the exclusion of most other activities. In fact Gulliver is regarded by the court as of little interest since he can make no contribution to their activities. The structure of Canberra, its bureaucracies, universities and academies – but little industry – looks to be the modern realisation of the realm of Laputa.

The king of Laputa would understand the language of Canberra with its “detailed programmatic specificity”. The problems of government require endless enquiries, initiatives and meetings with few decisions except to have further enquiries, initiatives and meetings. This might befuddle most citizens but it would resonate with king of Laputa … In fact Swift was satirising the Royal Society with its endless meetings and discussions while the society itself appeared to bring no general benefit to the community.

Gulliver is befriended by a practical noble who is despised by his peers for his common sense and understanding. Gulliver is given leave by the king to depart and descend to the country of Balnibarbi, to be guided by his noble friend. He is amazed on descending to see what looks like a ruined country with its capital Lagado in a sorry state.

His host, whose estates are the complete opposite, explains:

“That, about forty years ago, certain persons went up to Laputa, either upon business or diversion; and after five months continuance, came back with a very little smattering in mathematicks, but full of volatile spirits, acquired in that airy region. That, these persons upon their return, began to dislike the management of every thing below; and fell into schemes of putting all arts, sciences, languages, and mechanicks upon a new foot. To this end, they procured a royal patent, for erecting an academy of projectors in Lagado and, the humour prevailed so strongly among the people, that there is not a town of any consequence in the kingdom, without such an academy. In these colleges, the professors contrive new rules and methods of agriculture and building, and new instruments and tools for all trades and manufactures; whereby, as they undertake, one man shall do the work of ten: a palace may be built in a week, of materials so durable, as to last for ever without repairing. All the fruits of the earth shall come to maturity, at whatever season we think fit to chuse, and encrease an hundred fold more than they do at present: with innumerable other happy proposals.

“The only inconvenience is, that none of these projects are yet brought to perfection; and, in the mean time, the whole country lies miserably waste; the houses in ruins, and the people without food or cloaths: by all which, instead of being discouraged, they are fifty times more violently bent upon prosecuting their schemes; driven equally on by hope and despair: that, as for himself, being not of an enterprizing spirit, he was content to go on in the old forms; to live in the houses his ancestors had built, and act as they did in every part of life without innovation: that, some few other persons of quality and gentry had done the same; but were looked on with an eye of contempt and ill-will; as enemies to art; ignorant, and ill commonwealths- men; preferring their own ease and sloth before the general improvement of their country.”

Here we can see the forerunner of contemporary green politics. The courtiers like Garnaut and the Treasury mandarins analyse and report on the future assuming that energy technologies of the “politically correct” sort will arise to take the place of the old and despised uses of fossil fuels or the satanic uranium nucleus.

As in Balnibarbi, much contemporary green politics is bi-partisan. The present leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Turnbull, banned incandescent light bulbs when he was Minister for the Environment and the present incumbent, Peter Garrett, having “burned” fossil fuels in an earlier career now talks of banning plastic shopping bags. Indeed the description of Balnibarbi is a foretaste of the future state of Victoria, foreswearing the use of brown coal, unable to harness the wind and not being able to draw enough electrical energy from its neighboring states to keep the lights on.

The energy rent-seekers who have visited Canberra return to their home states with a vision for the future and government financial support, either directly or by regulation fortifying this vision. The academy of “projectors”, the old term for promoters, has its modern realisation in climate change institutes to be found in universities while the professors devise new schemes, write letters advising business to change its ways and attend conferences of like-minded persons in agreeable cities of the world.

We have not yet got to the State of Balnibarbi but Jonathan Swift has told us what to expect.

**************

First published by On Line Opinion.  Republished with permission from Mr York.

Image from Wikipedia with thanks.