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".

PC pestilence

Funny how things creep up on you. Some words that were once acceptable, even in polite company, have not only changed meanings but have been made totally taboo. Words such as "golly wog", or "negro", or "abo" are now a real no no, and any one using them will be immediately branded a "racist" and shunned.

But really, calm down everyone, They are only words. They are innocent. Their use does not make the user anything but perhaps insensitive to mass criticism. Sure many words have negative historical connotations and their use can cause offence. So as always, "user beware"!

The passion for conformity however nowadays seems to have taken a dictatorial tone. Any expression of ideas contrary to the accepted norm generates explosive derision, a widespread communal attack on the offender and banishment from polite company.

We didn't see it coming!

Words are but one example of an insidious "political correctness" that has come to dominate many aspects of our lives. Our PC straight-jacket restricts the very words we are allowed to use, the ideas we are allowed to express and I guess by implication the truths we are forced to deny, or at least not express.

It is stifling open free exchange of ideas, stifling our free society. Without discussion, scrutiny and debate ideas stop evolving. No doubt that is the intent. To set boundaries around expression and to corral thoughts into the accepted norm to prevent radical ideas from taking hold.

Woe betide the transgressor

We have seen this PC straight jacket applied with great effect. Consider the attacks on Sonia Kruger for daring to suggest Muslim immigration should be stopped. Incidentally, in a recent poll, this view was shown to be supported by half the population. Yet, being one of the first to call suggest "the emperor has no clothes", had her excoriated by the thought police, and even threatened with dismissal. So too Bill Leak for pointing out that aboriginal delinquency had its roots in the home, was attacked from all sides, again irrespective of the merits of his point.

Almost in all such cases the thought police attack the transgressor personally, rather than debate the issue. Transgressors are labeled, homophobes, racists, deniers and worse. Labels serve to denigrate the individual so their opinions can be discarded as unworthy without even the need to provide a counter argument.

Our Universities are failing their role.

Hasn't this always been the case? New ideas are not accepted by the mob easily. Remember Galileo.

I don't think so. Sure there were periods in history where questioning accepted dogma was seriously dangerous to one's lifespan. Indeed this is true in many parts of the world even today. But in Western  democratic societies we had largely moved past this.

I recall in the 60s and 70s of my youth, no ideas were untouchable. On the contrary it was an era when many traditional views were analyzed, criticized and some were cast asunder. It was an era that saw great developments in Civil rights, Pacifism, Women's Liberation, and Gay Liberation. All movements born from free discussion and exchange of ideas supported and encouraged by Universities. Now University students and even academics unite to shout down and shut down discussion of "unorthodox" views.

Consider the attitude to the proposed Australian Consensus Centre on climate change. Despite an offer of federal funding, the University of Western Australia was forced by students and academic staff at the university to withdraw from hosting it. Why? It was perceived that the centre under its proposed head Bjorn Lomborg would give voice to unorthodox views on Climate Change. This is despite the very successful Copenhagen Consensus Centre also headed by Lomborg in Denmark.
Equally telling after the UWA withdrew no other Australian University stepped in to accept the fully funded Centre.

This unfortunately is not unique. Consider the disruption of a presentation by retired British Colonel Richard Kemp on "Ethical dilemmas of military tactics" in Sydney University. invaded by demonstrators including one of the university's lecturers to keep him from presenting his views. Views which were perceived by the demonstrators as favoring Israel over Hamas.

These are just a few examples of a sickness in our society that tries to shut down discussions which may seem uncomfortable.

It is a symptom of malaise, a society wanting to conform and ignore issues rather than fight them.

Successful societies evolve

A vibrant developing and ultimately successful society has to give voice to all views. Let every point of view be given access to the media, especially the publicly funded media. Let every view be presented by those most capable of presenting the views. Then let the arguments fight it out!

The most important consequence of open reasoned debate is a gradual evolution of ideas. Ideas that once were in direct competition evolve to accommodate some opposing views and as a result receive wider acceptance. A society that handles such debates without explosive passion will always evolve. In the past Australia has evolved to become a very tolerant, equitable society that is the envy  of the world.

The unsavory fall into the PC syndrome is hopefully only a temporary setback. We can see signs that attempts to stifle debate are unsuccessful, whether it be immigration or SSM or climate change. The vote in the senate with the election of Xenophon and Hanson. shows that you cannot disenfranchise large minorities.  Now the major parties will have to win back these lost votes by accommodating their views.   

I have a dream!

"Let us not wallow in the valley of despair, I say to you today, my fellow Australians.

And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in our Australian values, the fair go, helping a mate and respect for the law.

I have a dream that one day Australians will live out the true meaning of the words " all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day, throughout this sunburnt country, the sons of former convicts, the daughters of former aborigines, and the children of our wide range of immigrants will sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day our institutions, all our institutions, be they our ABC, our Human Rights Commission, our state and federal governments or our judiciary, will renounce discrimination and recognize all Australians as equal.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that all our children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, their sexual orientation, their gender, their religion, or their political disposition but by the content of their character.

I have a dream.

( with apologies to Martin Luther King Jr - original version here)