16/10/2018

Our Leaders Are Destroying Our Future. Wentworth Must Be A Referendum On Climate Change

The Guardian |

In the face of sustained government stupidity, many feel powerless. Voters in Wentworth can lead the way
Get Up protest in the seat of Wentworth at a byelection forum on Monday.
Photograph: Carly Earl for the Guardian 
If a bricklayer builds a wall that falls over 12 years later, killing someone, the bricklayer can be sued and even jailed. If a doctor finds some old packets of thalidomide in their surgery and, in spite of the overwhelming scientific evidence of its horrific effects, dispenses it to pregnant women, they would go to jail. The example can be multiplied endlessly: the reality of our world is that we are responsible for our acts.
Unless, that is, you are an Australian politician.
A politician can destroy our future, a politician can ignore the best evidence and be responsible for decisions that lead to deaths of many and the suffering of all, and still be free until the end of their days to milk the legal corruption that is Australian public life, picking up highly paid sinecures as ambassadors, board directors and lobbyists for the corporations they were once meant to regulate in our interest.
Last Monday there came the unbelievable news contained in the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. If large-scale action is not taken now we will face a global warming catastrophe.
The report was a nightmarish scream heard through a spithood of formal scientific language. Any rise above 1.5C is highly likely to be disastrous, with millions of people displaced by rising seas, the extinction of numerous species, and the loss of most coral reefs. At 2C the rate of crop loss doubles, as does the decline in sea fisheries. Almost all coral reefs will be dead. Diseases such as dengue and malaria will be far more widespread, extreme droughts and floods far more common, while security and economic growth will be imperilled.
One of the report’s lead authors, the geographer Adelle Thomas, said, “The scientific consensus is really strong. It’s not just a political slogan: ‘1.5 to stay alive.’ It’s true.”
The report was specific in how long we have to keep warming at 1.5C: until 2030.
Twelve years.
This Saturday the voters of Wentworth have the opportunity to turn their byelection into a referendum on climate change. If you are a Wentworth voter, consider the historic responsibility you have and how in the past you have used it to good effect. Last year it was Wentworth, after all, that voted 80.8% yes for marriage equality, the fourth-highest yes vote in the nation.
Marriage equality, as many have since noted, was not given to us by enlightened politicians. It was forced on a recalcitrant government by the countless acts of individual courage shown by those who stood up in their workplaces, families, in their kitchens, cafes, sporting clubs, for their dignity and freedom; it was made possible by organisation and a passion that transcended party loyalties, and could not finally be refused. Marriage equality was won by the people, in other words, not gifted by the politicians.
Our prime minister, a man with a wit that would make Kenny look like Oscar Wilde, once thought it funny to wave a lump of coal in parliament during the middle of one of eastern Australia’s worst heatwaves. Luckily he had Barnaby Joyce there to laugh. With a similar bro and brio he dismissed the IPCC report while speaking to Alan Jones, saying he wouldn’t be bound by its recommendations. His deputy, Michael McCormack, declared the government would not change policy “just because somebody might suggest that some sort of report is the way we need to follow”.


Scott Morrison Brings Lump of Coal Into House of Representatives

That “some sort of report” – the findings of 91 of the world’s most eminent climate change scientists surveying more than 6,000 studies of the most recent research – didn’t trouble McCormack because he hadn’t read the report. Neither had our environment minister, Melissa Price, who told ABC radio the IPCC report, whatever the shared judgment of its global expertise, was “drawing a long bow” by calling for an end to coal by 2050.
But then, of course, this is the same government that offers total political support for the Adani coalmine at a time when the IPCC says coal must be phased out. This is the same government that granted $440m to a foundation that never asked for the cash, to deal with water runoff and the crown-of-thorns starfish on the Great Barrier Reef when the science is clear that climate change is what will kill the reef.
We have shown that we are large, that we care, and that we think
And this is the same government that has no policies to meet Australia’s commitments to the Paris climate agreement. This is the same government that hides shameful greenhouse emissions reports showing our pollution increasing by releasing them in the days before Christmas, without publicity.
And its leader, our prime minister, is the man who says that “we’re doing well” when the government’s own figures show that our pollution is increasing.
The Liberal candidate Dave Sharma echoes the same smug complacency of the Liberal government he expects to join next Monday.
“I do think we are doing enough,” Sharma has said, “and I do think we have had a good record on climate change. Emissions are at their lowest levels in 28 years,” he said. The evidence is otherwise: absolute emissions continue to rise and are among the highest in the OECD.
Like our prime minister, who claims we will meet our Paris agreement targets “in a canter”, Sharma says: “We are on track to meet the Paris commitments and I believe we will address the Paris commitments and we will be addressing affordability and sustainable and coherent energy policy.”
Sharma’s diplomatic wording cloaks the truth: the Liberal government is the Aleppo of energy policy. It has none, only the shell-shocked ruins of a once great party. As for the Paris climate targets, according to consultants, NDEVR Environmental, Australia is on a trajectory that will see it fail to reach them.
In the face of such sustained stupidity by our leaders many Australians have felt an overwhelming sense of powerlessness.
But we should not.
If you are a Liberal voter, consider the voices of true conservatism and business
As the marriage equality vote showed, as the Sydney Opera House controversy revealed, if we choose to exercise our power we discover that we are not as we have so often been told, small and mean and self-serving, cast in the shrivelled image of our politicians. To the contrary, we have shown that we are large, that we care, and that we think – and that when we dare to exercise it, that the power is ours.
In evading their responsibilities on climate change, our politicians have been irresponsible to the point of what would be, in any other sphere of life, criminality.
If you are a Liberal voter, consider the voices of true conservatism and business.
Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of England, recently warned “of the catastrophic impacts that climate change could have for the world financial system”.
“We accept the IPPC assessment of climate change and that human influence is clear and that the physical impacts are unavoidable,” Jac Nasser, the former chairman of BHP, the world’s biggest resource company, declared, while Eric Schmidt, the former chairman of Google, said: “The facts of climate change are not in question. People who oppose it are hurting our children and making the world a worse place. They’re just simply lying.” Listen to Fiona Simson, the president of the National Farmers’ Federation, who has stated “We’ve turned a corner on climate change … overwhelmingly, I think it’s got to a point where the science is very acceptable.”
These are hardly the lunatic voices of the far left. It is clear that the traditional constituencies of the Coalition, business and farmers, support major action on climate change – as do the majority of Australians according to all published research, as do the majority of people in Wentworth.
Yet the government, from the prime minister down, dismisses the issue. Indeed, both the government and Sharma, state that they are “doing enough” on climate change.
The very phrase drips with the contempt of our political class for Australian citizens who they take for passive fools, easily manipulated. As with marriage equality we see a polity determined to do nothing.
Since 2013, the Coalition government in its various incarnations has lied, laughed and destroyed when it comes to this most fundamental matter: that of our future. Their record is one of deceit, obfuscation and craven capitulation to the fossil fuel industry. It is a party that has evaded its most fundamental responsibility to our land and our people, and the time for a reckoning has arrived.
This Saturday, voters of Wentworth can lead Australia as they did in the marriage equality survey. They can make the byelection a referendum on climate change by voting the candidate they believe has the best climate policy number 1, any who might have a reasonable policy from 2 to 15, and put Dave Sharma at 16.
“We have presented governments with pretty hard choices,” Prof Jim Skea, co-chairman of the IPCC panel has been quoted as saying. “We show it can be done within laws of physics and chemistry. Then the final tick box is political will.”
The most important thing a voter can do on election day is demonstrate that this threat to our future must be our politicians’ number one priority, and give our politicians the political will to act now.
There is so much beauty in this world. Sometimes it is hard to believe this life that is given us. Sometimes it is hard to believe that it is possible to change it for the better, or save it from the worst. But from today we must, and we can.
If we take our compass from power we will know only despair. But if we take our compass from those around us and their actions we discover hope. It is time we rediscovered not partisan division but a common humanity ready to take on our gravest crisis. It is time we acted, and the Wentworth byelection is the first chance Australians have. Our tomorrows are running out. We have only today.


Australia's climate wars: a decade of dithering

*Richard Flanagan is the Man Booker prize winning Australian author
*Businessman Geoff Cousins is a former Howard government adviser


Links

News Corp’s Contempt For Climate Science Revealed In Its Coverage Of Last Week’s IPCC Report

ABC Media Watch - Transcript


NUALA MCGOVERN: The report contained particularly bad news for Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, predicting that if the planet hits 2 degrees of warming instead, more than 99 per cent of the world’s coral will be wiped out.
- Outside Source, BBC World News, 9 October, 2018
Hello, I’m Paul Barry, welcome to Media Watch.
And last week’s dramatic report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change really sounded the alarm on the future of our planet, with scientists predicting the Great Barrier Reef could be wiped out by 2050 if we don’t act to slow down global warming.
And you would have thought that would make big headlines in Australia, given the reef is on the World Heritage list, our largest tourist attraction and gives jobs to 60,000 people.



So what was front-page news in the local papers?
On Tuesday and Wednesday, News Corp’s Cairns Post had this. VIEW VIDEO
News Corp’s Townsville Bulletin had this. VIEW VIDEO
And News Corp’s Daily Mercury in Mackay had this. VIEW VIDEO
Inside the paper they all had something on climate, but typically only a few paragraphs and the reef barely got a mention.
Remarkable, eh?
But in News Corp’s tabloids around the country the story was the same.
Tuesday’s Daily Telegraph had a horse on its front page:
Get off ya high horse
- The Daily Telegraph, 9 October, 2018
And, its only climate story was six paragraphs inside the paper about going nuclear. VIEW VIDEO
The Courier-Mail had this on the front, and the same small piece on nuclear power. VIEW VIDEO
And Melbourne’s Herald Sun had this on the front and nothing at all in its news pages about climate or the reef. VIEW VIDEO
So how could those News Corp papers all but ignore this huge story, which The Washington Post’s Margaret Sullivan and ex-Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger reckon is the media’s absolute duty to report?
The planet is on a fast path to destruction. The media must cover this like it’s the only story that matters
- The Washington Post, 8 October, 2018
If voters are kept in the dark about global warming by newspapers then urgent action by democratic politicians becomes a hundred times harder
- Twitter, @arusbridger, 2018
Back in Australia, News Corp’s columnists did think the IPCC warnings were worth noting, but only to ridicule the threat and the idea of doing anything about it, with Miranda Devine writing scornfully:
This week’s hysterical missive from the United Nation’s Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is just the latest case of the boy who cried wolf.
- The Daily Telegraph, 10 October, 2018
So, is Miranda a scientist? No.
Nor is the Herald Sun’s Terry McCrann, who went off even harder, branding the threat to the Reef:
… emotional — and utterly dishonest — blackmail deployed by the IPCC climate hysterics of the grubby coalition of theological climate extremists and greedy money-chasing renewable energy rent-seekers; carpetbaggers and mainchancers all.
- Herald Sun, 8 October, 2018
Quite a broadside.
To its credit, The Australian did give the IPCC front-page treatment, with Environment Editor Graham Lloyd running a couple of stories.
But within hours the paper’s columnists had switched to all-out attack, with Chris Kenny deriding the scientists’ warnings as “alarmism”, “virtue-signalling”, “sanctimony” and “crying wolf”.
And Judith Sloan joined the chorus of derision, by claiming that the IPCC report – written by 91 climate experts and citing 6000 peer-reviewed papers – was not science and all old hat.
More people being inundated, more floods/droughts …
You know, the normal catastrophic stuff.
- The Australian, 9 October, 2018
Meanwhile, Environment Editor Graham Lloyd – who should know better – had two swipes, declaring the scientists to be living in a parallel universe, and attempting to discredit the data on which the warnings were based:
Claims of 70 problems found with key temperature dataset used by climate models
“The primary conclusion of the audit is the dataset shows exaggerated warming …”
- The Australian, 8 October, 2018
Lloyd’s story mirrored identical attacks from leading climate sceptics the day before.
Led by James Delingpole, another non-scientist who says global warming is a scam, on the notorious alt-right website Breitbart:
Climate Bombshell: Global Warming Scare Is Based on ‘Careless and Amateur’ Data, Finds Audit
- Breitbart, 7 October, 2018
And by Joanne Nova – who is a scientist, but says the world should thank Australia for its CO2 emissions – who claimed:
The IPCC demands for cash rest on freak data, empty fields, Fahrenheit temps recorded as Celsius, mistakes in longitude and latitude, brutal adjustments and even spelling errors.
- JoanneNova.com, 7 October, 2018
All three attempted demolition jobs relied on data analyst Dr John McLean, whose work they all claimed showed the IPCC had got it hopelessly wrong.
So, who is McLean?
Well, let’s get another of his fans, One Nation’s climate expert, to introduce him:
MALCOLM ROBERTS: Hi, I’m Malcolm Roberts and I’m with Dr John McLean from Melbourne and he’s on Skype with us and he is 13 years in climate science …
And he’s just conducted the first audit of the temperature database known as HadCRUT 4.
- Facebook, Malcolm Roberts, 11 October, 2018
McLean’s audit of the data earned him a PhD from James Cook University in Townsville, where his supervisor was Peter Ridd, another well-known climate sceptic who was recently sacked.
So how good is McLean’s track record?
Well, seven years ago, he famously predicted:
It is likely that 2011 will be the coolest year since 1956, or even earlier
- Climate Realists, 9 March, 2011
That was 100% wrong. According to NASA:
… the year was the 9th hottest in the past 130 years.
- NASA, 20 January, 2012
A previous academic paper of McLean’s in 2009, claiming El Nino was responsible for most of the rise in global temperatures, was ripped apart by climate experts who accused him of cherry-picking the data.
His co-author then was yet another famous climate sceptic, the late Bob Carter, who liked to tell his admirer Alan Jones that man-made global warming was rubbish:
BOB CARTER: Well, there's only two words you can use to describe it - it's a farce and it's a circus.
ALAN JONES: It is.
BOB CARTER: And the sad thing about it is ...
ALAN JONES: It's a lie. It's a lie.
BOB CARTER: Yes, and because of the way it is pushed as you say, in the education system and in the news media, so many well-intentioned people have been sucked in.
- The Alan Jones Breakfast Show, 2GB, 10 December, 2012
The work that backs up McLean’s new data audit is dedicated to Bob Carter.
So, is McLean to be believed ahead of 91 leading climate experts and 6000 peer-reviewed scientific papers when he claims the IPCC’s work is worthless?
The Australian, Breitbart, Joanne Nova and Miranda Devine clearly reckon he is.
And so does Alan Jones, who cited McLean last week in telling his listeners:
ALAN JONES: Don’t believe the global warming science is settled. It is corrupt.
- The Alan Jones Breakfast Show, 2GB, 12 October, 2018
One Nation’s Malcolm Roberts is also convinced by McLean’s argument:
MALCOLM ROBERTS: So this is what is underpinning the UN’s climate scare, which is underpinning government policies in this country. What we need to do then John is pull out of Paris.
JOHN MCLEAN: Yes, we certainly should be stepping right back and saying, hey, this data is crazy. Come back to us when we’ve got some, when you’ve got some decent data and a convincing argument.
- Facebook, Malcolm Roberts, 11 October, 2018
But how convincing is John McLean? We asked a number of climate experts to review his audit.
Professor Steven Sherwood at NSW University’s Climate Change Research Centre told us it:
… turns up little if anything new … seems specifically motivated to discredit global warming ...
- Professor Steven Sherwood, Email, Climate Change Research Centre, UNSW, 12 October, 2018
And he added:
Its naive claims of alternative causes of global warming do not consider the relevant laws of physics and do not make sense.
- Professor Steven Sherwood, Email, Climate Change Research Centre, UNSW, 12 October, 2018
The ANU’s Nerilie Abram, lead author of a coming IPCC report on the oceans, told Media Watch:
Regardless of whether the PhD thesis work has any merit or not, the claim that this falsifies IPCC findings is wrong.
- Associate Professor Nerilie Abram, Email, ANU, 12 October, 2018
And the UK Met Office was just as emphatic, putting McLean’s, quote, “70 problems” into context by pointing out that the HadCRUT dataset which it looks after:
… contains over 7 million points of data from in excess of 7500 observation stations on land around the globe, together with millions of measurements of sea-surface temperature. The small number of specific errors highlighted represent a tiny fraction of the data and as such are likely to have a negligible impact on the overall results. The long-term increase in global temperature is unequivocal. This is backed up by other globally recognised datasets, all of which are run independently, and find very similar warming.- Met Office, Email, 13 October, 2018
And that takes us back to the bigger picture, where the concern is that so much of News Corp treats climate science, and the threat to our planet, with such contempt.
Why is that so? Presumably, because Rupert Murdoch is a non-believer.
But sadly, it’s not new, and not just in Australia. Back in 2012, America’s Union of Concerned Scientists audited News Corp’s coverage in the US and concluded:
Representations of climate science on Fox News Channel and in the Wall Street Journal opinion pages are overwhelmingly misleading
- Is News Corp Failing Science?, Union of Concerned Scientists, September, 2012
And it then gave examples of what that coverage contained:
… broad dismissals of human-caused climate change, rejections of climate science as a body of knowledge, and disparaging comments about individual scientists. Furthermore, much of this coverage denigrated climate science by either promoting distrust in scientists and scientific institutions or placing acceptance of climate change in an ideological, rather than fact-based, context.- Is News Corp Failing Science?, Union of Concerned Scientists, September, 2012
Six years later, the same determination to deny and denigrate climate science is flourishing in Australia.
And what makes it even more serious is that in Australia News Corp controls around 60 per cent of our daily newspaper circulation.
Not to mention a whole bunch of websites and of course Sky News which, for once, we have not even bothered to audit because we know too well what we’ll find.
And we should add we put a series of questions to John McLean. He declined to answer them. You can read the emails on our website.

Links