Don't Panic!

I happened to catch the last few minutes of the ABC's QandA last night. The topic at the time was Climate change. It was the usual one-sided ABC panel with the usual one-sided audience clamoring for immediate action against carbon pollution. It is the greatest "moral challenge of our time", "without real action today we are facing climate disaster!" the various calls coming across as rather shrill.

Of course there was the sacrificial token representative of the 'dark' side. In this case it was James Paterson a rather youthful Victorian Liberal Senator. During the few minutes I watched he acquitted himself well, responding with commendable equanimity in the clearly hostile atmosphere.

I was struck by the passion of the climate change advocates, the foam-in-the-mouth, frothy passion, the no-argument-or-discussion-is-allowed passion, the disgust-for-anyone-wanting-to-question passion.

These are without doubt intelligent people, who on any other subject would listen to the information, seek alternate views, apply some filters as to the veracity of the information and then come to a balanced judgement. But it seems that with Climate change it is different. Yes it is a cliche to call it a religion, but I do recall from decades past I did note the same visceral passions in the occasional discussions on religion.

As I have noted in my earlier posts, my own beliefs have evolved over the past year. (See the Climate Change page for a list of my posts.) I have been swayed from the most foreboding predictions of "runaway" climate change by just a few observations.

From http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

• The Earth's average temperature has been more than 5C degrees higher than today and yet it supported a rich biodiversity.  For example, during the Jurassic period the average temperature of the Earth was ~25C. This is a full 10C degrees higher than today. Yet during the Jurassic life was abundant. So what is so special about a 2 degree rise from the current average of ~15C. 

• CO2 concentration has been much higher than today and yet the Earth supported abundant animal life. Again during the Jurassic CO2 concentration rose to >2500 ppm yet supported life. 

• The historical record shows no evidence of a "tipping point". The geological record shows a wide variation of temperatures and CO2 concentrations (see Graphic above). Yet there is no evidence that there is a "Tipping point" whereby if the CO2 concentration exceeds some threshold there is a runaway temperature increase. On the contrary the geological record shows cyclical changes in temperature and CO2 concentration with most temperature higher than today. 

So lets all calm down. Yes, there is global warming. The earth has been in a steady warming period after the mini-ice age of the early 17th century. Yes, it is probable, but not certain, that man made emissions of CO2 are contributing to this warming. It is possible, but again not certain, that if our civilization can reduce its emissions, we could mitigate some of the temperature increase. Indeed it may even be worth doing this in a sensible, equitable and gradual process. After all I am all for sustainability.

But there is no need to overreact. The world will not end in a ball of fire if we fail to control our emissions. Planet earth will not turn into Venus if we fail to close brown coal power stations in Victoria next year. Nor indeed can any of our virtue-signaling state governments on their own make any measurable impact on the Earth's temperature. Neither can all of Australia. It requires a coordinated world effort to make even an iota of difference. Will such a coordinated effort occur? We are yet to see.

My expectation is that our significant investment in energy research will generate breakthrough technologies. Technologies that provide abundant base-load energy at lower cost than fossil fuels. When that happens the world will quickly shut down fossil fuel power stations without any coaxing.

We do have time. Even if the world carries on business-as-usual our civilization will survive a 3 degree increase in temperature and a doubling of CO2 concentration. Indeed it would be a warmer wetter and greener world, perhaps more pleasant that today's. 

QandA's shrill calls for no-holds-barred-urgent-action remind me of the advice printed on the "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" , "Don't Panic!"

Lifetime ban-ter

What's so wrong about a lifetime Visa ban for asylum seekers who had tried to enter Australia by boat? The proposed ban would prevent anyone who has come to Australia by boat from re-entering anytime in the future, even if they have citizenship from another country.

Sounds pretty harsh! After all it could be 40 years from now, when that person may have won a Nobel prize, and wishes to enter for a holiday. I guess these are some of the arguments.

But let's considers some facts; -

• The government has a right to do this. The Australian government has a right to determine who enters the country, and certainly can and does prevent persons of 'doubtful' character from entering. So this declaration is not really novel.

• The person has had fair warning. The Australian Government has already stated that no person who enters Australia by boat will be settled in Australia (courtesy of the Rudd ALP gov in 2013). So again this is not really novel.

• It encourages re-settlement. While NZ has offered to accept some asylum seekers, the Australian government has not allowed this option as the open border between Aus and NZ would enable asylum seekers to circumvent Australia's stated policies. This would inevitably feedback to re-start the boats.

• It hastens closure of the offshore processing centres at Manus/Nauru. While the proposed change will not suddenly empty the detention centres it will encourage asylum seekers to leave voluntarily. By firmly locking the door to settlement in Australia some will inevitably opt to return to their home countries, while others may receive the chance to be-settled in countries such as NZ.

While it may not serve the political purposes of the ALP /Greens and refugee advocates, the legislation can help asylum seekers and there is little downside.

Asylum seekers would far prefer to have an option for re-settlement in a country like NZ, Canada or US than hold-out on Naure/Manus for an indefinite period.  So by arguing against this measure asylum seeker advocates are arguing against the interests of those they claim to support!

Warmer, wetter and greener

This weekend's Australian featured an article by respected author and science journalist Matt Ridley (Is climate policy doing more harm than good?) and quite coincidentally I came across the YouTube video of his presentation at the Royal Society just a few days ago. However, for some reason, the video has been removed from YouTube. Should I suspect censorship? So please read the article.

Ridley's argument is most compelling. He argues for a middle road between the two extremes of the climate change debate. He presents a cogent case for a world that is warming due to man-made emissions, but at a slower rate than models have been predicting and is far from "catastrophic" but potentially heralding a warmer, wetter and greener world. 

Nor does he contradict the IPCC. Rather he demonstrates that the IPCC presents a range of outcomes depending on a range of scenarios, assumptions if you will. Therefore his own, more positive prediction is within the range predicted by the IPCC. 

I have written at some length on Climate Change, including a statement of my own position (see Credo on climate change). Since that time some 15 months ago I have read extensively on the subject both from the advocates and deniers, but admittedly I have been looking more closely at the deniers. What better way to evaluate one's position than by listening to those who disagree.

There are many , many intelligent scientists who question "the science of climate change" and for good scientific reasons. As a result I have become more skeptical and I am sensing so has the whole world.

Who knows the dire warnings of "catastrophic" climate change may go the way of many other predicted catastrophes of the past. The 1972 predictions by the Club of Rome that the world could only support 5 billion people, or again in the 70's, the prediction that the world was about to enter an Ice Age. Such predictions may garner attention and indeed funding, but are usually exaggerated.

I prefer the middle of the road, and therefore have found Ridley's position compelling.

Malcolm misfires...again!

The week started so well, with all guns aimed at Union thuggery, preparing the ground work for the ABCC legislation Yet it ended so dismally with both barrels emptied into the government.

This has left many in the liberal side of politics shaking their heads and asking "how could this happen"?

Without getting into the details, after all in the fullness of time they are irrelevant. We tend to sift out the minutiae and are left with impressions. The overarching impression is of a government in disarray. No matter who contributed to the problems, the responsibility is borne by the PM who is supposed to lead his party through the great morass of potential problems. Rather the Turnbull government seems to lurch from one political fiasco to another. Week after week Malcolm has been exposed as a weak, vacillating and politically naive operator and the government he leads as lacking focus and discipline.

Woeful.

Malcolm's mixed messaging

What is he up to? After several weeks seeming to take at least some control and demonstrating some core Liberal values Malcolm is falling back to old habits.

His overseas trip showcased Malcolm the statesman. Mixing it with the leaders of the world he cut a fine figure. Astute, confident and willing to address issues directly and with conviction. He affirmed Australia's position on border control, despite the wide criticism it had received from many, and he "sold" the policies well. He was the very model of the Liberal leader of old, his mentor of sorts, "we will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come".

So too his attack on Green/Labour renewables policies following the unprecedented total blackout in South Australia. He was unwavering and caustic in his critique of the strategy that claims aims for renewables at any cost. Yes, he had a good reason to do so. After an unprecendented total blackout of an entire state, that despite the attempted deflection by the guilty , was inexcusable caused at least in part by SA Labour government policies.

Given his personal stance on climate change, one would have thought it went against the grain for Malcolm, Nevertheless he seemed to enter the fray with gusto and with piercing logic. Of course that doesn't mean the Left simple conceded defeat on the contrary they went on at great volume obfuscating , denying, and generally excusing the inexcusable. Still it was there for all to see, we may all believe in responsible climate change action, many will also believe in renewables, but definitely not at all costs. We must have electricity!

So after this most welcome change in fortune why is he wavering on SSM?  On SSM Malcolm seems to be trying to have it both ways. He avers the stated policy of the government is to have a plebiscite.
He repeatedly re-iterates the facts; -

• a plebiscite on SSM was taken to the election
• the government has a mandate for the plebiscite
• a majority of voters supported the plebiscite on SSM
• Ireland had a successful referendum that saw people come together

Yet, and it is still causing him enormous political problems. He has not and seems unwilling to state clearly and convincingly that as far is his government is concerned it is the plebiscite or nothing.

He has been given plenty of opportunities to do so. No interview goes by without the press asking him if he will rule out alternatives. He has refused to do so. His apparent wavering has caused the opposition to seize the political opportunity to create mischief. They have refused to support the plebsicite and enlisted their leftist army to attack the government for not letting parliamentarians have an unfettered conscience vote. Yes this is politicking plain and simple. Yet Shorten seems to be on a winner, at least for now.

At this stage it is the government that is being blamed for this 'postponement' of SSM. In the long term that may be a different matter, but for now the game for both the opposition and the press is to make Malcolm blink.

So far Malcolm has stood firm, but is making his own party nervous. They see the wavering indecisive vacillating Malcolm. The politically naive Malcolm, the Malcolm who failed to handle the politics of Tax reform or the budget, or the election campaign with any convincing aptitude.

Leaders are decisive, they command respect by willingness to state their position with conviction.
Malcolm started his reign with great expectations, support from the press and an opposition in disarray.

Yet after 12 months, after a much to narrow electoral victory, his party standing is poor even with its own supporters, the opposition is in the ascendant , and the loyal press though still willing to cut him slack question his political nous.

Although it should have been done a lot earlier, he could simply remove one of the questions of his leadership by simply declaring "on SSM it is the plebiscite or nothing".