Our cli­mate nar­ra­tive set in stone

The West Australian - - AGENDA -

It is time for proper science jour­nal­ism, time that our lead­ers, our TV me­dia, and our press — along with the cli­mate alarmists if they are game to come — to sit down with our earth sci­en­tists to learn the facts about cli­mate.

The his­tory of what cli­mate has done since the Earth was formed is writ­ten in the rocks, the fos­sils and the an­cient ice caps. It is there for all to read if they want to.

And what it says is that cli­mate changes is driven by forces out­side our con­trol, such as so­lar flares. It al­ways has and al­ways will change.

Scot­land was once a desert. There were glaciers around Kal­go­or­lie in WA and in the Sa­hara.

Dur­ing what is known as the Me­dieval Warm­ing era the Vik­ings were grow­ing wheat in Green­land.

We have bounced from heat wave to ice age and back to heat wave since the world be­gan, and it’s not go­ing to change.

We have to stop talk­ing about “car­bon pol­lu­tion”. With­out car­bon there would be no an­i­mal or plant life, as we know it at least, on Earth.

Coral reefs have sur­vived many episodes of warm seas, as have many other biota.

When our coal seams were form­ing the air was thick with car­bon diox­ide, which boosted the growth of trees, ferns and other plant life.

As our pop­u­la­tions grow we will need all the help we can get to feed them and car­bon diox­ide will play a part if we let it — such as turn­ing the Sa­hara back into sa­van­nah.

In­stead of fuss­ing about global tem­per­a­ture we would do much bet­ter to fo­cus on what we are do­ing to the en­vi­ron­ment with our wastes. Rob Ryan, Car­avon­ica, Queens­land (Our cor­re­spon­dent holds a MA (Ge­ol­ogy) from Ox­ford Uni­ver­sity).

Cli­mate so­lu­tions

The IPCC sets be­fore us the con­se­quence of cli­mate catas­tro­phe if we con­tinue with our heads in the sand.

But the good news is that the two No­bel Prize win­ners in eco­nom­ics were ac­knowl­edged for their neg­a­tive and pos­i­tive so­lu­tions con­cern­ing the prob­lem.

The neg­a­tive so­lu­tion is that car­bon pol­lu­tion be taxed. The pos­i­tive is that in­no­va­tive re­search and de­vel­op­ment into so­lu­tions be funded.

That is, re­search on in­no­va­tions to cut car­bon emis­sions, boost­ing bi­o­log­i­cal and in­dus­trial car­bon cap­ture and help­ing those ad­versely im­pacted by cli­mate change.

Such in­no­va­tions would be a mas­sive boost to the econ­omy, em­ploy­ment and ed­u­ca­tion in science, tech­nol­ogy and en­gi­neer­ing.

Yes, it will re­quire hard po­lit­i­cal de­ci­sions, as well as push back against vested in­ter­ests, false science and the exit of politi­cians who lack the courage to lead and em­brace science.

Richard Smith, Clare­mont

Dis­cred­ited cli­mate data

Once again we see the IPCC trot­ting out the same old scare tac­tics, us­ing the same old, dis­cred­ited data.

All one needs to re­mem­ber is that dur­ing the Juras­sic to Cre­ta­ceous ages, Earth was at its most fer­tile. Plants grew so quickly that the di­nosaurs hardly needed to move around.

Global tem­per­a­tures were some­what higher than to­day, and CO2 was about 7000 ppm com­pared to 400 ppm to­day.

This re­sulted in very rapid growth of veg­e­ta­tion, which in turn led to the huge di­nosaurs, and so on.

The great coal beds of the world were laid down in this time, some of them over 2000m thick. Just imag­ine how many trees would have to die to cre­ate 2000m of coal.

The most im­por­tant point is that these very high lev­els of CO2 did not cause ru­n­away warm­ing of the planet. Car­bon diox­ide does not cause warm­ing. It is a re­sult of warm­ing. Later, the tem­per­a­tures dropped and the di­nosaurs died out.

We would ben­e­fit hugely from CO2 at about 1700 ppm or a lit­tle higher.

Agri­cul­tural out­put would more than dou­ble, and most, if not all, of the deserts would green over, mak­ing for a much greener planet Earth.

Peter Pomeroy, Red­cliffe

Scep­ti­cism on cli­mate

Cli­mate sci­en­tists do not pro­duce a mar­ketable prod­uct, so can­not gen­er­ate an in­come.

They must rely on fund­ing to sur­vive.

The more dire their pre­dic­tions, and the more they can alarm the gen­eral pub­lic, the more chance they have of re­ceiv­ing fu­ture fund­ing.

All re­ports from any­one re­ly­ing on some­one else to fund their ac­tiv­i­ties should be read with a de­gree of scep­ti­cism. Don Wright, Leschenault

Big bucks coro­nary

Read­ing yes­ter­day’s cover story on the Bux fraud, I can well un­der­stand one of the in­vestors suf­fer­ing a heart at­tack.

Greg Ross, Eden Hill

Earth’s cli­mate has changed.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.