I used to engage often with the climate change debate, Paul Collits wrote, but not so much these days. “I reached a premature and ultimately (disastrously) false conclusion, that facts in this debate would win out.”
In 2018 Collits wrote an article published in the Quadrant describing that, in short, catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (“CAGW”) – global warming caused by humans – is a scam, a confidence trick, and how the climate alarmists pulled it off:
“One of the more useful concepts of modern public policy theory is that of the ‘policy community’, a loose network of actors who share interests and/or beliefs and who together form coalitions, both formal and informal, that end up driving policy outcomes … This is, in effect, how they did it. How they pulled it off.”
Who are they? “They” turns out to be at least eight nodes of a network of true, or maybe, “flag-of-convenience” CAGW believers. Each node has its own compelling reasons for perpetuating the scam:
the bona fide greenies, political activists who finally have a purpose;
the grant troughing academics who have built careers and empires on the back of CAGW;
the climate change money makers;
the woke corporates;
the globalist, supranational bureaucrats;
the deeply concerned, woke individual – the “doctor’s wife”, and indeed often the farmer’s wife, the school teacher or the public servant;
the media; and,
the over-schooled but under-educated, brainwashed millennials.
Together they form perhaps the most powerful network in human history, Collits wrote in 2018.
Yesterday Collits wrote a follow-up article titled ‘Climate Inaction Now!’:
“My earlier conclusion some years back that simply repeating over and over the facts on climate change and pointing out the idiocy of the climate delusion was all that was required to win. That attitude was and is costly, indeed, disastrously, false optimism. Vacating the field was plain dumb. The fight on this one will never end, and the world is, indeed, run by those who turn up.”
So, let’s turn up!
The climate alarmists’ arguments, to the extent that they could even be called “arguments”, were so threadbare that it hardly seemed worth the effort to refute them. The “argument” consisted of a set of highly contested propositions that all had to be true for the “case” to be compelling for policy-makers. There is no logic trail from the first proposition to the last. With apologies to the Scottish philosopher David Hume, who argued that you cannot derive an “ought” from an “is”, there is no climate “ought” and no climate “is”.
First, there is the assertion that the earth is warming. Second, we have been told that carbon dioxide caused the earth to warm. Then we had the idea that man contributed significantly to increased levels of carbon dioxide. Next came the claim that this increase was dangerous, not benign. Then, we had the insane idea that public policy could do something about all of this. Next, we had the idiot-level, simp argument that we should do something about all of this. And to cap it all off, we had to “fight” climate change with mitigation and not adaptation. Each assertion was, and remains, highly contestable, to put it at its most polite. To be impolite, it is all absolute tosh. As in the infamous Pell case, only one of the pillars had to be proven to be false for the whole edifice to collapse. The earth has not been warming for ages. Recent rises have been natural. Often the recorded temperatures are rigged. Modelling is not evidence of anything (as Don Aitkin once said). The earth has warmed far more in the past, before industrialisation. Man contributes very little CO2 in the greater scheme of things. A slight rise in global temperatures is a good thing. Man has very little capacity for influencing temperatures (outside the urban heat island effect). Certainly, no individual country has. And if everything else were true, the correct strategy would still be adaptation.
These few counterarguments are merely scratching the surface. Highly respected scientists the world over – 97 per cent of climate scientists do NOT believe all the rubbish spouted by the alarmists – have fully debunked climate myths. But, as we shall see, this has been to little effect when pitted against the policy-emoting that defines our age. There is no consensus. It is manufactured. And even if there were a consensus, it would not be “science” as properly understood. The idea that man-made CO2 causes dangerous global warming has the status of mere hypothesis, just like any other scientific theory. It must be endlessly tested and, if disproven, even once, should be thrown into the dustbin of history.
The ”case” amounts to endlessly repeated talking points chanted by apologists for renewable energy, nothing more and nothing less. The alarmist “archipelago” is simply a motley collection of chancers and ideologues united by their desire to crush traditional, reliable energy. The climate alarmists have been able to create that very effective democratic tool called by the political scientists a “policy community”. Or, if you prefer, a bunch of chancers and ideologues.
With benefits. In careers, spin-off companies, academic posts, promotions, a phalanx of public sector positions, banking middle management appointments, and the rest. There is, indeed, good money in climate change. With the lasting benefit of being – in their eyes – on the right side of history. Occupying the moral high ground, with associated abuser rights. Oh, and power by the bucketload. And endless conferences to attend in wonderful locations. King Charles III – it is still a leap to bring myself to say the title – had to be persuaded by his new Prime Minister not to attend COP 27. The real surprise is that, unbelievably, there have been 26 previous COPs! Climate change is the gravy train’s gravy train.
Read More: If We Want the World We Cherish to Still Exist