You can’t moralise on climate change unless you’re a monk
|
Clive Hamilton claims the world as an active biosphere will end if we don’t do something about climate change and to deny such is a great moral crime akin to holocaust denial. Firstly the Earth as an active biosphere has a good billion years left in it before the sun gets a tad too hot to orbit this close in. Secondly, morality is like religion, and best kept to one’s own counsel and not proselytized as dogma. Middle class, white people should take care to lecture anyone about the correctness of their morals and social justice quota. The blind eye given to climate change is nothing compared to the blind eye we turn to the everyday problems of our world and the self serving actions we all engage in each and every day to live at the top of the food chain. Change those behaviours as you see fit, but don’t lecture others about the correctness of their actions or thought unless you live as a monk in a forest. While Arthur Sinodinos is on the money saying that these issues are far too important to be left to the Greens, the opposite also holds for the other extreme of Joyce and co. We need an initial moderate response that gets us started on the road to carbon reform. The only reason the self serving ads of the current Coal Industry are on Australian TV polluting the debate with disinformation, is that the Federal Greens played interference with the Government mid year to delay and delay the government’s first round of carbon reform. This created a policy vacuum that has lasted all year and which the other extreme has sought to fill with as much disinformation as they can muster to match the hard green left’s own disinformation campaigns. The current ETS debate could have been wrapped up months ago, but it was not good enough for the Greens or so they claimed. But the real reason Brown and Milne have sought to delay is to create political trouble for the government and garner more votes at the next election. This is precisely why I have such contempt for the hard green left of Hamilton and Milne. They are political opportunists of the first order, but pretend to be above all that by cloaking themselves in the Colors of Giaa. I voted Green for years, but after the Ralph Nader disaster of 2000 that delivered New Hampshire and Florida to the Republicans and hence the White House, I came to see the Greens as part of the problem, not the solution. If Al Gore was not good enough for the Greens in 2000 what will they accept? Finally if Elizabeth Farrelly thinks Hamilton is so smart, because he says “small actions don’t mean sh*t” then why aren’t the Greens and their paid lobbyists at the Australia Institute campaigning to shut down all the solar PV subsidies going to individual home installations when clearly we will get a far better bang for our tax dollars if we pool our taxes into government owned renewable energy utilities — that are run as such? Again, Hamilton and the rest of the Australian Greens have done nothing on this key practical issue of public policy, instead they just whine every time Garrett kills another dodgy middle class handout for people to install solar panels so they can feel good. I’m no fan of the IPA — but Sinclair is on the right track with the economic analysis of real action. Value judgments are going to get made on this issue, and if you don’t like that, then start with the rest of your lifestyle — the impact of which on the world’s poor was long an issue before climate change became today’s favourite fable of fear. Simon Mansfield is the publisher of TerraDaily.com and SpaceDaily.com |
|
|
|
15 Comments
I tend to doubt it the author of this piece could possible maintain his views had he understood the reasons for the statement by Professor Joachim Schellnhuber, Director, Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact, and chief climate science advisor of the German Government:
“We are simply talking about the very life support system of this planet”.
There are 3 types of people who deny or ignore climate change, or are critical of those who are trying to do something about the issue:
1. Those who don’t accept the science (how lucky for them).
2. Those who accept the science but do not fully comprehend the implications.
3. Those who comprehend the implications but choose to do nothing.
4. Those who understand, but take their wrath on the few people who try and do lsomething about the issue.
Is the author of this piece one of the latter?
To summarize recent observations:
Climate change is tracking toward levels which transcend the planetary boundaries which allowed the development of humans over the last 3 million years. These limits have already been crossed in terms of the rise in greenhouse gases (CO2, methane, Nitric oxide) and extensive loss of species1. Given lag effects, looming threats include (A) ocean acidification and phosphorous flux, collapse of coral reefs and the marine food chain; (B) availability of freshwater; (C) conversion of natural forests to cropland, i.e. the Amazon; (D) ozone depletion; (E) atmospheric aerosol loading and (F) chemical pollution by metals, plastics, radioactive nuclei etc. With the exception of rapid atmospheric changes triggered by major volcanic and asteroid impact events, which led to the five great mass extinction of species [1], the current rate of CO2 rise (2005-08: 1.66-2.55 ppm/year) is unprecedented in the recent history of the Earth, driving polar ice melt and sea level rise in excess of IPCC projections. Warming of large parts of the Arctic and Antarctic circles by 3-4oC during 1975-2009 (~0.09–0.12oC/year) triggers fast feedback effects from ice melt, albedo loss and open water infrared absorption and from the carbon cycle. Estimates of future sea level rise derived from 40 years records (1.6-3.5 mm/year), glacier and shelf collapse dynamics and the magnitude of positive climate feedbacks, render exponential to non-linear sea level rise on the scale of tens of meters over the next few centuries possible. Further warming of the oceans, lowered pH and the CO3(-2) to HCO3(-) transition threatens algae and calcifying plankton and reef habitats, extending from shallow marine environments to abyssal depths. There is little sign of the sharp reductions required in fossil fuel emissions, which have risen by 29 percent since 2000, nor of reduction in land clearing, nor of the huge efforts required for mitigation and adaptation, massive reforestation, revegetation, bio-char and chemical draw-down of atmospheric CO2. The best outcomes of the looming Copenhagen climate summit, 25 percent carbon emission reduction relative to 1990 levels, will be unable to prevent mean global temperatures from exceeding 2 degrees Celsius relative to pre-industrial levels, with tragic consequences. People’s natural denial syndrome is enhanced by a disinformation campaign by ideologically driven contrarians, claiming mastery over nature, ignoring the basic laws of physics and chemistry and fraudulently altering climate data, while economists haggle about the “price of the atmosphere” and governments appear to worry about elections more than about survival of the young and future generations.
Andrew Glikson
Earth and paleoclimate scientist
To be fair to the Greens, Al Gore in 2000 was not the AGW high priest he is today. Had he won, the constraints of office would have restricted his movements on climate to an occasional twitch of the hand.
I’m pleased that Simon Mansfield is brave enough to come out and nail Hamilton for the Savonarola that he is.
Now let Guy Rundle come out. It’s beyond belief that a professionally cynical Marxist can’t smell a cult when it’s in the same room with him. Does Guy fear the opprobrium of the cultists? Right now, the slightest scepticism or even criticism of AGW is political suicide. Tribalism. The contempt showered on me, a nobody, by the AGW tossariat is like a daily vat of shit poured from the pulpit. Thank God I’m English. My towel is always dry.
Frank, you confuse me. You clearly are not your average ‘climate change is not happening’ adopter of a maladaptive teapot stance and yet you are scornful of the ‘cult’ and its saviour St Hamilton.
So, please, let me know what you think we should be doing? What is the Campbell manifesto?
No, no Altakoi. We don’t need a manifesto from a self-confessed shitproof, dry towel, nobody Pom. Although he did come up with “tossariat” which I like a lot.
THE NATURE OF SKEPTICISM
Scepticism is inherent in true science, where datasets and observations are examined from a variety of angles, as is the procedure when papers are submitted for rigorous peer-reviews in scientific journals, often rejected only to be resubmitted if and when a significant body of evidence associated with interpretations consistent with the basic laws of physics and chemistry are advanced by authors.
Climate scientists would be delighted to be proved wrong - what a relief it would be. I can’t wait to read a peer-reviewed scientific paper which proves that, in the very least, human emissions are not responsible for runaway climate change.
Sheer ignorance of physics and chemistry, of climatology and of the history of the Earth atmosphere/ocean system, including fraudulant alteration of data measurements, do not constitute “scepticism” more than creationism constitutes “scepticism” vis-a-vis darwinian evolution theory.
I do not compare “sceptics” to holocaust deniers for the simple reason I believe most of them do not understand the science of climate change. They simply do not get it and instead express motives arising from other quarters, including a belief in human supermacy over nature.
It is if and where (self-appointed) “sceptics” are aware of the consequences of their promotion of the continuing use of the atmosphere as an open sewer for carbon gases, that the issue aquires an entirely different perspective.
Dr G, “We are running out of time – so what can decent folk do in the face of greedy, corrupt, climate racist, climate genocidal, climate criminal intransigence?” (http://www.green-blog.org/2009/08/04/paleoclimate-scientist-glikson-cut-carbon-emissions-80-by-2020-to-avoid-catastrophe/)
Have you told the Government this? If we do manage to get Kevvie and Penny to agree to your suggested 80% cut by 2020 will we be safe and can we avert the catastrophe that shall be wrought upon all those filthy, racist, greedy and corrupt foreign types? I think we should be told.
BTW, seems Hamilton is struggling to find enough fellow apocolyptics to deliver his ‘word of Clive’ literature(?) in Higgins, what ya doin on the weekend?
I don’t think you can blame the grab by the Republicans for the White House in 2000. Take a look at ‘How Bush Won Florida’! They disenfranchised many black voters; announced that Bush had won before all votes were counted, and then had the Campaign person for the Republicans in the Supreme Court. The votes in Florida still have not been counted, nor will they ever be. Bush probably won in 2004 in a similar manner. I don’t trust their whole electoral system one bit!
I don’t know what the Greens could have done over the last 2 years! They’re not the government for a start. What did they do that you object to? While you blame the Greens, you’re letting the bastards like Minchin, Abbott, Abetz, etc off the hook. Now, they’re the evil ones, only interested in themselves - don’t give a toss about us or the planet, even their own kids! Perhaps they think they’ll be dead before the real horrors begin!
This piece is non sequitur piled on ad hominem jerk off.
The Greens are the only ones following the science - so you don’t like hearing the truth?
Suck it up loser.
“I voted Green for years, but after the Ralph Nader disaster of 2000 that delivered New Hampshire and Florida to the Republicans and hence the White House, I came to see the Greens as part of the problem, not the solution.”
Do you not understand the difference between first-past-the-post + electoral college and PR + TP? Or are you just being deliberately disingenuous?
Frank Campbell appears to be a NIMBY and/or crank who has a bee in his bonnet about stopping wind turbines being built in his rural area when his neighbours (who aren’t city tree changers) want them. As such he’ll slag off the effectiveness of wind power at any opportunity. Obviously if you want ammo for this that leads you to the denialist lobby.
If he “voted Green for years” I’m David Suzuki.
Wow, it’s like fishing in a fish farm. I love the way y’all take the bait while I listen to the radio on the bank. Altakoi: I have outlined bits of the Campbell Manifesto a few times lately on Crikey. In disparate places. I did offer to come down to Melb. and sort out the AGW shambles (if given a packet of crisps) but didn’t hear back. Having written about 8 Crikey articles this year on Black Sat/environment (and one on art fraud), I’d suggest that Malcolm Street read those and see if I’m a “crank and/or nimby”. (Can’t be a nimby because our property isn’t and won’t be threatened, but you’re still in with a chance with “crank”. And many of those distressed by wind towers Malcolm are tree changers. Many are not. And I’m not a tree changer, though we are tree planters. Been “Out Here” for decades).
But Arise Sir Malcolm! You ARE David Suzuki!. I was a rusted on ALP voter (as anyone could guess from my soft Marxism, from the Rundle School of Black Skivvies) but became gradually disgusted with their crude developmentalism/corporatism so went to the Greens. Why, I was even invited to read someone’s execrable poetry in Hobart c 1994 at a Pedder anniversary run by the Tas Greens, and helped organize a trip to Taiwan (cos’ I’d spent time there with the local greens) for Bob Brown…but enough of this Diary of a Nobody…suffice to say that Malcolm exhibits the classic symptoms, evident everywhere on Crikey, of personal insult. I got several serves from Rundle too. You desperately seek labels and bio-info so you can dismiss your (apparent) opponent contemptuously. Dogs sniffing arses, identifying deceitful enemies. Both deniers and cultists have reached a shrill crescendo, vilifying/silencing anyone who doesn’t conform. Think Keane, Rundle, Minchin, Bolt…You all know it’s crunch time. Stand back: the tossariat is coming together. Simultaneous competitive ecstasy.
But am I demeaning the potential importance of AGW? No. I’m attacking the creeping fascism of The Cult and the bogus notion that the End Days are nigh. Look at Hugh McColl savouring my bait above: “We don’t need a manifesto from a self-confessed shitproof, dry towel, nobody Pom.” Couldn’t have said it better myself Hughie. Is it any wonder that 11% of Oz Green Party voters think that AGW is exaggerated? Not to mention a sharp, consistent fall in AGW belief right across the Anglosphere? (see Possum Polls on Crikey this week). Malcolm teeters on the edge of political insight when he asks “Obviously if you want ammo for (slagging wind) that leads you to the denialist lobby.” I can tell you Michael that denialist ranks have swelled in the bush as windfraud spreads. People are hurt and investigate. This leads to AGW denial but, far worse, it sometimes leads (unjustly) to rejection of environmentalism generally. So the cult damages the cause.
What is to be done? I still want my packet of chips….
p.s. Altakoi et al, to test if I’m a Brown Green, a Green Red, a Minchin in sheep’s clothing or just a fuckwit you’re invited to read my 77-page illustrated submission to the Bushfires Royal Commission- on their website, alphabetical under F.Campbell.
pps: The Greens (as a party) have largely abandoned the environment in favour of AGW Cult worship.
The real environment gets a rare mention on ABC radio 774 on Monday 10am-12pm (Victoria). It’s a forum on so-called fuel reduction burning. Every redneck in the state wants to punish the bush- and the greens- by burning it. I’ve been asked to participate, so there’s your chance to have a good sniff…
Agreed Frank, the cult harms its own cause. It’s probably even helped create its own “denier” opposition by turning the whole thing into the Western Front. You’re either with us or you’re against us. Wander the frontier or try talking to the other side and we’ll assume you’re the enemy.
oh come on folks. Follow the money. Billions if not trillions tied up in fossil fuels. Really it’s as simple as that. The Greens are not cultists. AGW is a reputable scientific theorem, and corporate donors are spinning in as many malicious ways as they can.
It’s all about money and incumbency and privilege. The Greens are the best organised opposition to this hegemony. To adopt a Ruddism, are they perfect? Noooo, as Jed Bartlett might say.
But they are independent. And in these scary times, that’s a premium.