Comments on climate change and the denialist spruikers
I acknowledge experts can, and often have, been wrong. And entire groups of experts have been wrong - look at the refusal of experts to accept the earth revolves around the sun! People were burned for expressing that belief, for goodness sakes.
Or the two Aussie Nobel winners who proved stomach ulcers were caused by an easily antibiotically killed bug. To overcome the medical professionals' refusal to accept their research, one of them infected, then cured himself. Sounds easy, but much suffering was involved. Indeed, his very life was threatened.
Or the famous refusal of all-too-many doctors and surgeons, including Melbourne's leading society surgeon and, as it turned out, abortionist of the time, to wash their hands, clothing, and equipment between patients to minimise death from infection!
The surgeon/abortionist demonstrated his contempt for germ theory by wearing heavily blood-stained clobber while operating. He was eventually hoist on his own petard when the death of one of the young women he aborted caused the police to bring murder charges against him. Sadly, he got off, and has a much more grand grave than his victim!
But, in all these cases it was a matter of researchers/theorists trying to persuade others of the value of their research. That research could be checked and evaluated. First reactors simply refused to do so, usually on the basis of hidebound refusal to accept what they'd been doing and/or believing was wrong.
In some cases it's taken centuries for theories to achieve general acceptance. Depending on the theory, non-acceptance has led to considerable numbers of deaths, misery and pain.
In the case of climate change, however, the situation is reversed. The majority of scientists across a wide variety of specialities is seeking reform in the way a major matter is dealt with, rather than attempting to cling to insupportable views, opinions, and science.
This is an important consideration. Proof of both climate change's existence and its human cause is the evidence presented by the majority. The resistance to change is coming from a tiny minority, whose arguments simply don't stand up to even a layperson's close examination in comparison to that presented by the majority.
Unlike religion, belief in climate change is not a matter of faith. The proof, the huge amount of evidence all points to one conclusion. The opponents of this view simply don't have a skerrick of evidence to counter the scientists - in other words, their beliefs are only supported by faith.
That may be sufficient for belief in a god (although not in my case), where the entire future of the human species is not at threat. But when it is very seriously threatened, my feeling is that one goes with the evidence unless there's a powerful reason otherwise.
At present, I feel no-one's come up with a reason powerful enough to risk the whole of humanity's future. , against contrary arguments from tiny minorities of experts.
I'm sorry, those of you who feel otherwise, but unsupported nonsense about NASA/UN plots, or plots involving various meteorological services simply don't stand up to even a distant examination, let alone a close one.
Or some sort of takeover by a world organisation, government, ethno-cultural group, etc. etc? Nope, none of these stand up, unless you only open yourself up to persuasion by self-interested, and sometimes notably psychiatrically afflicted spruikers.
And those of you who fear fleets of black helicopters from someone or other? Where the hell is a fleet of sufficient size to take over more than a small town stored? A massively huge cave complex in the centre of Australia? Or under Mount Everest, or the New York UN building?
I'm sorry, but these loads of old bollocks are so ridiculous as to not even warrant these brief mentions.
Equally nonsensical is the argument this is a natural occurrence, therefore we need do nothing because nothing will make any difference.
The extent of the evidence associating global warming solely with human activity is stunning - and for those who are in doubt there seem to be two options.
First, no real action, just pretend, as is Australia's current policy.
Or, second, real action now.
"Real" means something that's going to have a genuinely major impact within a timeframe which will genuinely help save us and our descendants from this crisis.
There's doubt in my mind, it seems the safest and most logical option is to act as if we have caused the warming until there's at least equally convincing evidence otherwise.
Clearly, this latter approach would involve costs, both economic and social. But they're survivable, and the ultimate benefits could move us forwards much more quickly and safely.
And don't forget, the destruction of the world's environment over the last two hundred years has been drastic. Do you really believe we should continue until it all runs out?
The point, however, is that this option, while it might slow economic development down, although that's far from certain, it won't lead, at worst, to the end of humanity, or, at best, human civilisation.
The alternative, take no real action, has a much different potential. If its proponents are wrong, humanity could cease to exist over the next few hundred years. Or, at least, civilisation as we know it could cease to exist.
And, maybe, our descendants will have to reinvent First Australian civilisation!
What about the people spruiking for the opponents of reform to minimise the impacts of climate change?
These con merchants, as I regard them, spruiking this stuff about global warming, have, over the last couple of years, been forced to the wall and most are finally admitting climate change is happening.
So, now, they've started resorting to lies about whether or not there's evidence global warming's being caused by humans.
Their main argument? The planet's always experienced climate change. This is, of course, indisputably true. However, what's also indisputably true is that:
The reasons for the spruikers doing what they're doing? Concern for humanity? Fear of the UN? Hate of university-educated people?
Well, these may be some of the reasons people believe the spruikers, but at least most of the spruikers' personal reasons appear, after a little examination, not to rest on these things. Or even a serious belief in what they're spruiking.
I'm reminded of the primary spruikers for Brexit, as evidence since Britain's fateful vote, or at least 70% or so of the voters, or, actually, around 37.5% of the voters. The couple at the top are now famous not so much for being on the winning side, but for supporting something it's pretty well known they weren't committed to.
And does anyone really believe Donald Trump will do anything he's promised the working poor of the United States? Sadly, apparently they do!
But the real question is, does Donald Trump? And, don't forget, he's a climate denier, and so's the bloke he's appointed to run the nation's leading environment agency.
Like these men, the anti-climate change spruikers' reasons and purposes appear to be quite different.
First up, of course, is the cash to be gained from various means, including book sales, and interview and speaking circuit fees.
And next is the self aggrandising to fulfill various narcissistic, psychopathic, and/or sociopathic purposes, and sometimes much more nefarious reasons involving power, control, and even sex.
Of course, there may be other reasons, and I accept some may be genuine, triggered by other spruikers. But generally, I doubt this includes many.
And why is this a problem? Because by mobilising disaffected voters to their cause, for want of any other major anti-intellectual causes, they're creating major impacts on government policy in ways endangering us economically, socially, culturally, and environmentally. At least.
An eample is the Liberal government of Malcolm Turnbull, who insists he believes in human-caused global warming, to very seriously consider handing over $1 billion of taxpayers' hard earned cash as a "loan" to the Indian company Adani.
The purpose of this cash? To build a railway line from what's possibly going to become the world's biggest coal mine to a new port to be constructed within the orbit of the Great Barrier Reef.
Setting aside the arguments over the appalling environmental risks from the construction of the line and the port, and the ships making their way through the reef, there are two other matters of relevance here.
First, are we seriously going to allow the construction of a mine to export coal to one of the dirtiest and corrupt (sorry, India, but at heart you know it's true) industrialising nations? Yep, I'm afraid so. Your government's doing it in your name.
And, isn't coal a major cause of global warming? Yep, if you accept the science, it sure is.
So, aren't we making global warming worse.
Yep, it sure looks like it!
Second, Adani and it's owner are notorious in India for building both without and in contravention of approvals of various sorts, causing massive environmental and social harm, stealing government funds, and persistently lying to government inquiries. The company shows no social awareness or conscience.
So, not only can't we trust the company to do the "right thing" by local communities, or act in accordance with environmental, building, and planning approvals, or to repay fully our $1 billion.
The likelihood is they'll bring in their own work forces and, like most other mining companies, avoid paying their taxes while soaking up not just the loan, but all the taxpayer funded subsidies available to massive mining companies for some unfathomable reason.
Or the two Aussie Nobel winners who proved stomach ulcers were caused by an easily antibiotically killed bug. To overcome the medical professionals' refusal to accept their research, one of them infected, then cured himself. Sounds easy, but much suffering was involved. Indeed, his very life was threatened.
Or the famous refusal of all-too-many doctors and surgeons, including Melbourne's leading society surgeon and, as it turned out, abortionist of the time, to wash their hands, clothing, and equipment between patients to minimise death from infection!
The surgeon/abortionist demonstrated his contempt for germ theory by wearing heavily blood-stained clobber while operating. He was eventually hoist on his own petard when the death of one of the young women he aborted caused the police to bring murder charges against him. Sadly, he got off, and has a much more grand grave than his victim!
But, in all these cases it was a matter of researchers/theorists trying to persuade others of the value of their research. That research could be checked and evaluated. First reactors simply refused to do so, usually on the basis of hidebound refusal to accept what they'd been doing and/or believing was wrong.
In some cases it's taken centuries for theories to achieve general acceptance. Depending on the theory, non-acceptance has led to considerable numbers of deaths, misery and pain.
In the case of climate change, however, the situation is reversed. The majority of scientists across a wide variety of specialities is seeking reform in the way a major matter is dealt with, rather than attempting to cling to insupportable views, opinions, and science.
This is an important consideration. Proof of both climate change's existence and its human cause is the evidence presented by the majority. The resistance to change is coming from a tiny minority, whose arguments simply don't stand up to even a layperson's close examination in comparison to that presented by the majority.
Unlike religion, belief in climate change is not a matter of faith. The proof, the huge amount of evidence all points to one conclusion. The opponents of this view simply don't have a skerrick of evidence to counter the scientists - in other words, their beliefs are only supported by faith.
That may be sufficient for belief in a god (although not in my case), where the entire future of the human species is not at threat. But when it is very seriously threatened, my feeling is that one goes with the evidence unless there's a powerful reason otherwise.
At present, I feel no-one's come up with a reason powerful enough to risk the whole of humanity's future. , against contrary arguments from tiny minorities of experts.
I'm sorry, those of you who feel otherwise, but unsupported nonsense about NASA/UN plots, or plots involving various meteorological services simply don't stand up to even a distant examination, let alone a close one.
Or some sort of takeover by a world organisation, government, ethno-cultural group, etc. etc? Nope, none of these stand up, unless you only open yourself up to persuasion by self-interested, and sometimes notably psychiatrically afflicted spruikers.
And those of you who fear fleets of black helicopters from someone or other? Where the hell is a fleet of sufficient size to take over more than a small town stored? A massively huge cave complex in the centre of Australia? Or under Mount Everest, or the New York UN building?
I'm sorry, but these loads of old bollocks are so ridiculous as to not even warrant these brief mentions.
Equally nonsensical is the argument this is a natural occurrence, therefore we need do nothing because nothing will make any difference.
The extent of the evidence associating global warming solely with human activity is stunning - and for those who are in doubt there seem to be two options.
First, no real action, just pretend, as is Australia's current policy.
Or, second, real action now.
"Real" means something that's going to have a genuinely major impact within a timeframe which will genuinely help save us and our descendants from this crisis.
There's doubt in my mind, it seems the safest and most logical option is to act as if we have caused the warming until there's at least equally convincing evidence otherwise.
Clearly, this latter approach would involve costs, both economic and social. But they're survivable, and the ultimate benefits could move us forwards much more quickly and safely.
And don't forget, the destruction of the world's environment over the last two hundred years has been drastic. Do you really believe we should continue until it all runs out?
The point, however, is that this option, while it might slow economic development down, although that's far from certain, it won't lead, at worst, to the end of humanity, or, at best, human civilisation.
The alternative, take no real action, has a much different potential. If its proponents are wrong, humanity could cease to exist over the next few hundred years. Or, at least, civilisation as we know it could cease to exist.
And, maybe, our descendants will have to reinvent First Australian civilisation!
What about the people spruiking for the opponents of reform to minimise the impacts of climate change?
These con merchants, as I regard them, spruiking this stuff about global warming, have, over the last couple of years, been forced to the wall and most are finally admitting climate change is happening.
So, now, they've started resorting to lies about whether or not there's evidence global warming's being caused by humans.
Their main argument? The planet's always experienced climate change. This is, of course, indisputably true. However, what's also indisputably true is that:
- every single skerrick of scientific evidence points to a reality that if this is a natural climate change it's more hugely massive than any that's gone before, at least since the planet converted from hell to heaven;
- it's proceeding much more rapidly; and
- it's occurred in absolute step with the industrial development of the planet.
The reasons for the spruikers doing what they're doing? Concern for humanity? Fear of the UN? Hate of university-educated people?
Well, these may be some of the reasons people believe the spruikers, but at least most of the spruikers' personal reasons appear, after a little examination, not to rest on these things. Or even a serious belief in what they're spruiking.
I'm reminded of the primary spruikers for Brexit, as evidence since Britain's fateful vote, or at least 70% or so of the voters, or, actually, around 37.5% of the voters. The couple at the top are now famous not so much for being on the winning side, but for supporting something it's pretty well known they weren't committed to.
And does anyone really believe Donald Trump will do anything he's promised the working poor of the United States? Sadly, apparently they do!
But the real question is, does Donald Trump? And, don't forget, he's a climate denier, and so's the bloke he's appointed to run the nation's leading environment agency.
Like these men, the anti-climate change spruikers' reasons and purposes appear to be quite different.
First up, of course, is the cash to be gained from various means, including book sales, and interview and speaking circuit fees.
And next is the self aggrandising to fulfill various narcissistic, psychopathic, and/or sociopathic purposes, and sometimes much more nefarious reasons involving power, control, and even sex.
Of course, there may be other reasons, and I accept some may be genuine, triggered by other spruikers. But generally, I doubt this includes many.
And why is this a problem? Because by mobilising disaffected voters to their cause, for want of any other major anti-intellectual causes, they're creating major impacts on government policy in ways endangering us economically, socially, culturally, and environmentally. At least.
An eample is the Liberal government of Malcolm Turnbull, who insists he believes in human-caused global warming, to very seriously consider handing over $1 billion of taxpayers' hard earned cash as a "loan" to the Indian company Adani.
The purpose of this cash? To build a railway line from what's possibly going to become the world's biggest coal mine to a new port to be constructed within the orbit of the Great Barrier Reef.
Setting aside the arguments over the appalling environmental risks from the construction of the line and the port, and the ships making their way through the reef, there are two other matters of relevance here.
First, are we seriously going to allow the construction of a mine to export coal to one of the dirtiest and corrupt (sorry, India, but at heart you know it's true) industrialising nations? Yep, I'm afraid so. Your government's doing it in your name.
And, isn't coal a major cause of global warming? Yep, if you accept the science, it sure is.
So, aren't we making global warming worse.
Yep, it sure looks like it!
Second, Adani and it's owner are notorious in India for building both without and in contravention of approvals of various sorts, causing massive environmental and social harm, stealing government funds, and persistently lying to government inquiries. The company shows no social awareness or conscience.
So, not only can't we trust the company to do the "right thing" by local communities, or act in accordance with environmental, building, and planning approvals, or to repay fully our $1 billion.
The likelihood is they'll bring in their own work forces and, like most other mining companies, avoid paying their taxes while soaking up not just the loan, but all the taxpayer funded subsidies available to massive mining companies for some unfathomable reason.