|Letter to The Editor, The Economist-21st April,2021|
I am not a scientist, but I can read, observe and think. I am
concerned that our (mankind’s) response to climate change is rather
like our use of wide lockdowns in response to COVID-19-a response that
in many cases appears to do more damage than the “disease”.
I find the application of the “scientific method”-a hypothesis (often
a projection utilising computer models),tested by
hard,real,observations- a convincing approach. The observations have
shown the hypothesis of carbon dioxide and other so called “green
house” gasses causing significant global warming, grossly exaggerates
the degree of warming (and assumes an exaggerated contribution from
humans) when tested against real observations. Likewise, observed
increases in coastal sea water levels are way below those produced by
most computer models. Locally (Sydney ,Australia) measurements at Fort
Denison have revealed a negligible rise in sea water levels.
We can simply adapt without the need for a so-called ‘reset’. Thank
God it is not cooling. It seems that the current alarm is based on a
false premise, yet the apparently dominant conventional wisdom
At this point of technological advancement, energy generating
‘renewables’, particularly wind and solar, when the essential
provision of back-up is included in the cost, are significantly more expensive
than the continued use of fossil fuels.
In Australia the subsidisation of these renewables has been a major
factor in causing our electricity costs to explode and is destroying
our capacity to be cost competitive in our manufacturing industries.
To deny the developing world the benefit of low electricity costs
using fossil fuels as we have done, is positively evil and is a
handicap in their efforts to lift living standards. Meanwhile China
pays lip service to eventual emission reductions while it continues to
out compete the developed western world with ever increasing low cost
fossil fuel based energy.
The claims of a scientific consensus in favour of the significant
contribution to warming from anthropogenic gases is dubious. Have a
look at the list of prominent scientists that make up the Scientific
Advisory Council of the Global Warming Policy Forum-of a sceptical
nature all. I would challenge the “alarmists” to compile a better
credentialled list. In any event scientific progress is most commonly
achieved by individuals who challenge the status quo, not by
Media organisations (including The Economist) who see themselves as
advocates for particular causes, run the risk of ‘group think’ and
losing objectivity (or the perception of objectivity) as they push
their chosen causes.