RUTHFULLY YOURS

I have customarily invoked the word agnostic to describe someone who is uncertain about whether God exists, and the word atheist to someone who denies any such existence. In contemporary times, as the use of the two descriptions has broadened to more than labels about religious belief, I have embraced that trend.

Thus, on the issue of climate change I have described myself as being an agnostic with growing temptations to becoming an atheist. My walk along the road to atheism has gathered pace. The bullying and dismissive tactics of the climate alarmists have played no small part in this process.

The overwhelming bulk of commentators, scientists and others who assert a special understanding of the subject sweep aside dissent with dismissive descriptions such as “denier”. There is mounting impatience with any who dare to challenge what has clearly become the conventional wisdom. Use of the term “denier” is particularly pernicious. For decades that term has been normally understood to describe someone who asserted that the Holocaust has been either grossly exaggerated or, even worse, never occurred.

Academics and others who dare to question the majority view are brutally told that the science has been settled. A growing number have either lost their jobs, been denied promotion, or been subjected to constant harassment and ridicule. Time-honoured notions such as freedom of inquiry and the need to regularly question seemingly settled assumptions have gone by the board.

Climate change zealotry now manifests itself in growing numbers of demonstrations which interrupt citizens going about their lawful business. We are regularly told that we face an existential crisis. Indeed, just about everything in our society is now at a “crisis” point. In the process, we are rapidly losing a sense of proportion.

If ever an issue in mankind’s existence required rational analysis and cool heads it is climate change.

This is particularly so for Australia. The policy of the present government is to deliberately phase out several of the most valuable export industries this country has ever had. I speak of coal, iron ore and natural gas. In the name of achieving a goal of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by a particular date, explicit and costly subsidies have been granted to renewables industries. Sadly, little regard is paid to the massive contribution of those established export industries to electricity generation in poorer nations, which has lifted millions of their citizens from poverty in recent decades.

Those who have real doubts about the extent of mankind’s contribution to global warming—and I am one—justifiably rail against these attempts to stifle legitimate debate on the subject. I recently read Steven Koonin’s excellent book, Unsettled. He was President Obama’s principal scientific adviser on climate change. In the book he challenged propositions such as the claim that what the Americans call wildfires (we call them bushfires) are now far more prevalent because of climate change. Data in the book also undermines the central proposition of the climate alarmists regarding the consequences of global warming.

Those who do have doubts should be extended the courtesy of an orderly, respectful, and informed debate. They should not be beaten over the head with abusive dismissals. The debate should be guided by the fundamentally commonsense proposition that “the science is never settled”. As one of the very few well-developed Western nations which is a net exporter of energy, Australia has far more at stake than most for it to be otherwise.