Climate change

The layperson suspicious of the passionate religious-like activity of climate change supporters, many of whom could be described as alarmist and catastrophists in an Old Testament way, will quickly find themselves lost in labyrinth of science jargon if they try to find out what the truth is. If overwhelmed by the dire warnings, they will eventually find they have to take on faith and trust what the prophets of climate doom preach. But there is another dimension to belief in climate change – apart from being overwhelmed by an avalanche information one can never personally verify.

That dimension is the leftist or rather the Marxist dimension. The Marxist dialectic is infallible. Climate change is a front-line dogma of the left. So if you don’t believe, you will be subjected to the vilification, intolerance and social disqualification that is the left’s penalty for faith errancy. You will be called a ‘climate denier’ with the obvious association with ‘holocaust denier.’

The problem, though, for the Marxist dogmatists is that reality gets in the way for the recalcitrants whose eyes and ears in daily life determine most of their beliefs. The conservative mind is an empiricist-oriented mind. We pay serious attention to not only what we observe in our daily existence, but we pay even more attention to the facts of life and social arrangements that have been tested over time – over centuries when it comes to traditions and conventions. The wisdom of our ancestors is a respected authority.

When it comes to climate change, we conservatives cannot help noticing, for example, the woefully wrong prediction that the rain will not fill our dams or rivers because of climate change. The prediction was made during a time of drought. Even the dopiest Australian knows that Australia is a land of alternating drought and flood. There have been many floods since that prediction.

So often high temperatures are announced as the ‘highest temperature since a particular day, sometimes years ago. Few people seem to know that one of the most destructive droughts recorded since settlement was in the 1890s. I have clear memories of terrible heatwaves and bush fires in the 1950s. During one heatwave, our neighbours took their blankets to the backyard during the night to get some relief.

I could multiply such examples. I will suffice with listing a few facts that Andrew Bolt constantly offers, facts that the ordinary person has no trouble understanding:

Not only has there been rain to fill dams and rivers over the last decades, but the rainfall has increased marginally over the last century.

The claim that food production would fall because of global warming has not been vindicated. Australia and similar grain-producing countries have produced record crops.

Not only have there not been more cyclones and hurricanes, but there have been less and less destructive.

Polar bears are increasing in number, not diminishing.

Pacific islands are not drowning. The mass of 43% of islands have increased while 14% show some shrinkage. Professor Kench of Auckland University is the acknowledged expert on the state of the Pacific Islands.

Even if Australia achieved the impossible of zero emissions it would not only destroy the country economically, but it would make not the slightest difference to the (alleged) results of climate change.

This last point is of critical political and economic significance. The ideology of climate change is dictating policy in the leftist parties of Labor and the Greens that ordinary people regard as insane. Climate change ideology is also infecting the traditionally conservative Liberal Party. The question is how much economic and social ruin will be wrought before Australians react? And how will they react?

Back in 2009, a hoard of hacked emails from Anglia University were alleged to have shown climate change scientists doctoring reports and hiding inconvenient findings. Two quotations from the hacked emails were very embarrassing:

One scientist wrote, ‘I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline..

Climate scientist and IPCC lead author Kevin Trenberth wrote: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” 

One will find long defences and justifications of these (misunderstood) quotations on the internet. The sentences are taken out of context and the common riff raff simply don’t understand the science to follow an explanation of why these quotations mean the opposite of what they seem to mean. A rebuff to the rebuffs is found here: The Climategate emails.

Writer … and still in the fifties