Not a Tough Question
Today’s Australian Financial Review has a great feature on the business case for environmental action.
I find this quote particularly interesting because of who is saying it…
“If I look at what two-and-a-half thousand scientists are saying, I do find it incredible there are still naysayers. But even so, who am I going to believe? Two-and-a-half thousand scientists or a few naysayers? I am in the business of monetising risk and that’s not a tough question.”
Michael Hawker
CEO Insurance Australia Group
Martin Durkin, the maker of ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’, has acknowledged two scientific errors in the documentary and has corrected these in the DVD. So what? Maybe Durkin is a dissembler of information (can’t say for sure until I see the ABC’s watered down version of the doco). But Al Gore is unquestionably guilty of the same. Yet where’s the outrage? Where’s the scornful condemnation of his ‘controversial’ documentary? Nearly every significant statement Gore makes in ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ regarding climate science is either one sided, misleading, exaggerated, speculative or wrong. Don’t believe me? Check out this site:
http://www.climatescience.org.nz/
For me, the more important issue is that when dissent does exist, as is the case with AGW, the media should present to the public both sides of the debate. This is clearly not happening in Australia. Up until the screening of ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ was announced, there was a complete whitewash in the MSM favouring AGW alarmists. It is my belief that this kind of censorship only serves to diminish our own society’s freedoms and is effectively moving us along a path towards totalitarianism.
Science is not about consensus. Healthy science is about scepticism and questioning the status quo. Otherwise there would be no science. And when push comes to shove, that’s my main bone of contention with you, Richard. In your post ‘Greenland is Melting’ you stated that ‘the proof about Climate Change has reached a point of irrefutability’. No, it hasn’t. I think the link I provided above illustrates this fact perfectly.
Just look around you. It has reached the point where anyone who has an open mind on AGW and observes both sides of the argument is labelled ‘a GW denier’, ‘morally unhinged’ or a ‘flat earther’. As a result, debate is stifled and even valid criticism is silenced. Your statement above is proof in point that this technique is widely used. I have a problem with this as it aims to prevent any dissent being heard lest the dissenter be vilified for holding a different view. It is a powerful means of coercion that has been employed by tyrants throughout history and takes a strong mind and conviction to resist.
Well, I’ve got a strong mind and the convinction to resist!
Oh, Richard, you made me laugh with this one!
There’s definitely a buck to be made from global warming hysteria. And you can be sure that no one knows this better than the CEO of ‘Insurance Australia Group’. Global warming = rising premiums. Ka-ching!!
I bet Michael Hawker includes Al Gore and his ‘Inconvenient Truth’ every night in his prayers! Though for Mr. Hawker, I’d say it’s more of a ‘convenient’ truth, wouldn’t you agree?
So, I find the quote you posted not so much interesting but…um…highly predictable.
So you’re saying that the CEO of IAG is looking forward to Global Warming because rising premiums will increase his net worth and the value of shares? Could it not simply be that he’s a nice person who wants to do what he believes is the right thing. Much like me, and everyone attached to the youCan2 project. Please tell me you read the article, before you criticised his point of view!
Science is rarely unanimous. We often can only go on a best guess. However, for every debate we now have on climate change’s legitimacy we waste valuable time. The debate I believe we should be having: what is the best way to deal with it.
Dealing with climate change, for me, represents the very best in man-(and woman-)kind. Nations united around a common goal is what the world needs right now. We are divided in so many ways, and yet we all inhabit this little blue dot.
We have already conquered so many global problems, and we will overcome this one. The price is miniscule (1% of GDP was a figure quote in The Stern Report). The technology is already available, and continues to emerge and develop in new and exciting ways. There seems to be little financial cost to respond to this challenge, so why not work together on this?
And that is my final point. I believe the world is getting warmer. I made the choice to believe this based on my research. I decided I wanted to contribute to the solution, not by inciting “hysteria”, but by creating a series of ads that suggest simple things we can all do.
We have been debating Climate Change for some time, in Australia and all around the world. Because of the nature of the issue, there needs to come a point where we decided either “it’s probably true” or “it’s probably not true” (WMDs, anyone?!). After making that decision we should take the appropriate action. The debate has now taken two decades. The majority, though not all, of informed people who take a stance seem to think the world is getting warmer and that’s not a good thing. If this were a general election, they would have won in a landslide!
Is it not time to count the votes, see which side won, and then talk about the action? Or should we keep deating this forever?
Simone, I have edited your last blog and reposted it below.
I found the comments you made in the last paragraph unacceptable. I am happy for you to make you case for or against climate change, but I will not allow any comments made about religion. I am not religious, but I respect the rights and beliefs of those who are. To use the phrase “[DELETED] terrorism kills” is clearly pointing the finger at that particular group of people.
The truth is that ALL terrorism kills, not just that perpetrated by the followers of any particular religious group.
I abhor terrorism in all its forms, but I will not allow my blog to be a forum to suggest that one particular religious group is more prone to terrorism than the other.
You comments regarding climate change are below…
Richard
Simone said…
No, I’m not saying that the CEO of IAG is looking forward to Global Warming. What I am saying is this:
a) maybe he’s just ignorant of the mounting evidence which suggests that global warming is NOT caused primarily by anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Considering the media’s complete whitewashing of this issue, that’s a distinct possibility. This makes him a good person, but ill-informed and maybe even a bit brainwashed.
b)Maybe he’s latched on to the global warming hysteria because he doesn’t have the intellectual capacity to refute what agenda-driven scientific professionals, green groups and politicians are telling him . This still makes him a good person, but not too bright and perhaps a little easily led.
c) maybe, like so many politicians and political groups (hello Mr. Rudd), he’s jumped on the global warming bandwagon because it is a means of achieving his own ends. In my books, this makes him not such a good person.
The CEO of IAG is obviously a clever man, so my bet is that options a) and b) are unlikely explanations for his GW stance.
As for me, I’m willing to ‘waste’ more time debating this issue because failing to expose the fraud that is ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’ will end up costing us all a hell of a lot in the long run, and I’m not just talking about monetary loss.
Like you, I believe we should all do our level best as individuals to minimise our ‘carbon footprint’. Being a AGW sceptic does not automatically make one an environmental vandal. I’m all in favour of developing clean energy technologies (what do you think of nuclear energy?) and would be the happiest lass on earth if we could somehow minimise or completely end our reliance on fossil fuels (without causing economic mayhem in the process). I even like the idea of the YouCan2 advertisements, but here’s the catch. I think it’s unfair that tax-payers have to foot the bill. With so many scientists, politicians, green groups, CEO’s and super wealthy celebrities on the global warming bandwagon, it surprises me that they’re not all rushing headlong to put their money where their mouths are by funding these kinds of campaigns.
‘Nations united around a common goal’ reeks a bit of socialist dogma if you ask me. But that’s just what the global warming scam was designed to do, i.e dramatically increase the size and scope of government and proliferate a worldwide socialist agenda. And you’ve fallen for it…hook, line and sinker. In a way you’re unwittingly complicit in it too because of your involvement in a tax-payer funded GW campaign.
—–
I have left your last comment in, but encourage you to stick to the facts. Please could you name those people who “designed” the “global warming scam”? How often do they meet? And where?
I really think the days of conspiracy theories about twelve evil men trying to get rich and control the world are best left to the 1960s.
“And you’ve fallen for it…hook, line and sinker. In a way you’re unwittingly complicit in it too…” – I’ve not yet brought into question your intelligence on this issue, so please don’t question mine. I studied climate change at university, and have continued to be a keen follower of climate and polictical geography. Perhaps the mountain of evidence I use to back up my arguements is incorrect, but please don’t suggest I am stupid enough to have been suckered into a worldwide con.
Hi Richard
First of all, I realise now that my last comment probably wasn’t worded very well. It wasn’t my intention to question your intelligence, but I can understand why you have been left with that impression. In case you haven’t noticed, I’m very passionate about this issue and I guess I got a bit carried away. Sorry.
Look, up until very recently I was very worried about anthropogenic global warming too. One evening, after watching a ‘Sixty Minutes’ story about peak oil, I almost made myself sick with worry. I rang a close family member to discuss my fears. We got talking about other threats to civilisation (real and imagined, past and present). Inevitably, the issue of global warming came up. My relative suggested I inform myself about the other side of the debate before giving up all hope of a happy future for myself and my family. Well, to be honest, I didn’t even realise there was another side to the debate. But now I do. The only thing I worry about now is that global warming alarmism is going to destroy the country I love so much, economically and socially. So, for what it’s worth, I also fell for the global warming scare, but I’ve never thought of myself as unintelligent. I was just ignorant of all the facts. No crime in that.
Secondly, I know my opinions have ‘conspiracy theory’ written all over them. I don’t much like it, but I just can’t find any other reasonable explanation for the fact that only once side of this debate is being heard. Meanwhile, Tim Flannery is talking about the benefits of introducing a carbon tax. WTF! If this isn’t an example of trying to increase the size and scope of government, I don’t know what is. Farms (which should be used to run cattle or produce food) are being bought by airlines, coal companies, big corporations and the guilty rich to be used as carbon offset schemes. So let’s get this straight. Greenhouse gases can still be produced, but you can buy a carbon offset ‘indulgence’ and all your sins will be forgiven? Is there any evidence to suggest that this actually works? It seems a bit hairbrained if you ask me. Never mind that we’re all going to starve to death when all the farms are bought out! If it wasn’t so scary, it’d be funny. By the way, I gather from your previous writings that you’re a fan of Michael Moore? If I’m correct, wouldn’t this then just be a case of one conspiracy theorist chewing the fat with another?!
As for your censorship of the comment in my final paragraph…fair call. It’s your blog and you have every right to delete comments with which you don’t agree. If you don’t mind, I might email you personally to elaborate on the point I made?
Have a good week.
And so we reach an impasse. We both have facts and data to back up our arguments. We both seem to be well read, able to form cohesive and compelling arguments. It simply boils down to this: who do you believe? Neither of us are doctors or professors in the field of climate, so we have to base our decision on the cases presented by others. And with such division in the debate, how do you choose?
As with any debate, unless you are in possession of hard data you have personally captured and analysed, choosing a side comes down to gut feeling. You read. You review. You consider. You decide. Our decisions are a product of our belief systems. What do we think of others? What do we think of ourselves? What do we want to believe?
I choose to believe that humans have a massive effect on the environment in which they live. I base this belief on my own study (back in the old Uni days!) and from the many books and reports I have read. We have decimated the earth and the ocean. Is it so unreasonable to expect we have done the same to the climate? I believe not.
I believe that, as with all organised groups, some proponents have a personal agenda. However, I believe the majority of people have a strong moral compass. I think that, given a choice, most people would do what is right. Not all, but most. I believe that the signatories of the Business Round Table here in Australia (BP, IAG, Origin Energy, Swiss Re, Visy and Westpac) are motivated by what is right, what is profitable, and what is sustainable. Not all people in power are corrupt. Not all people with money have cheated. Some yes, but not all.
This may seem like a rose tinted view of the world. But isn’t that the best view? Life is too short to be cynical, too short to think the worst of people rather than the best. If ‘Nations united around a common goal’ reeks a bit of socialist dogma then long live socialist dogma! Only a global effort will eradicate poverty in our lifetime. Only a global effort will find solutions to epidemics in the poorer countries of the world. And only a global effort will solve the problem of climate change, man-made or not.
The cost of combating man-made global warming was estimated by The Stern Report as 1% of GDP. The contribution countries should make to development goals outlined in the United Nations Millennium Declaration is 0.7% of GDP. These are extremely small amounts of money.
But we arrive back at the beginning again. We both have facts and data, and we both represent opposite sides of the argument. So what next?
Even if we cannot stop the warming. Even if we face the terrible consequences of dangerous climate change. And even if we don’t. I believe the idea that mankind can unite in its quest to solve a global problem is a noble one. It brings us together. It makes the world a smaller place. And if that understanding, and the idea that the world is my neighbour, permeates society then I believe it will bring a slow end to fighting, to poverty, to terrorism.
Evidence aside, the cost is negligible but the benefits to the human race are hard to ignore. The world is an abundant place. There is more than enough for everyone. And in a country like Australia we have no excuse for not giving considerable sums of our own money to help those who have not been as fortunate as ourselves. And to those who will live on this earth after we have gone.
When man landed on the moon the world stopped. Literally. The global audiences attracted by Live8, and the Olympics, is evidence of our inbuilt desire join together to create something bigger than ourselves.
If I indulge you one last time, and make the assumption that the cases for and against AGW are 50/50, I would always choose the side that unites the world in hope, not the one that divides it in the pursuit of money.
I have met Tim Flannery. He doesn’t want increase to size and scope of government. He just wants to do what he believes is ethically right. Good for him.
There is much evidence that a carbon emissions trading scheme works, which is different from a carbon tax. (Stictly speaking, a tax is paid to the government.) In Australia a tax would need to be around the $50 a tonne mark to stimulate investment in renewables. Renewable energy creates more jobs than fossil fuels, and also decentralises generation which is great for consumers.
The carbon tax debate is a complex one, but the goal is simple. If the tax does not significantly reduce CO2 emmissions then it is pointless. I’ll agree with you on that!