It can’t be over yet. When people are still being fired for not believing in global warming, it’s far from over. The war continues.
Professor Bob Carter (an expatriate Kiwi) lost his job the other day at James Cook University (JCU) in Townsville. He had worked there for 31 loyal years, his professional life devoted to stratigraphy, understanding events in the deep past recorded in ocean sediments, and teaching.
Significantly, because it led to his dismissal, Bob made an honourable name for himself and earned a world-wide reputation for remaining faithful to scientific principles while analysing the outrageous predictions from global warming alarmists. He was never afraid to speak out against the alarmists and their dubious claims.
Dismissing him with a blatant act of bureaucratic bigotry will deepen the shame of its perpetrators whenever the history of “man-made” climate change is recalled.
This contemptible action comes from academic leaders with a responsibility to uphold traditions of academic freedom and rigorous debate. The present office holders at JCU must know they owe a duty to their staff to defend them from attacks on academic freedom.
Poisonous thinking close to home
We need them to uphold the university’s honourable and ancient traditions — for nobody else can do it.
It’s troubling that the poisonous, irrational thinking that reviles dissenters and would prevent informed debate reaches its noisome tendrils so close to home. I hope my fellow citizens might wake up to this. If Kiwis thought comfortably that perhaps the more extreme or fanatical edges of the climate “debate” had passed them by, they will be reminded by the recent visit here by Wild Bill McKibben and by this despicable treatment of an honoured Kiwi son in what can only be described as an academic abomination that blind ignorance here in Australasia is no less vigorous than in far-off places such as Germany, Scotland and Uganda.
The climate debate exists because there are differing interpretations of the climate. Some people predict climate calamity, others disagree.
It’s hard for those of us who are not scientists to understand some of the scientific arguments surrounding global warming, but that’s no reason to avoid mentioning them. They’re vitally important, for they underpin the policy arguments on both sides. So what’s the principal argument against manmade global warming?
No theory, nothing to disprove
I’m not sure, but there are several that destroy it, including the little-known fact that there’s no properly constructed scientific theory behind anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
Because it’s not a proper scientific theory, it’s impossible to disprove — the goalposts just get shifted on you. We ought to remember that, because there is no rigorously defined theory, it cannot assist our understanding. When the planet’s every weather event, no matter if it’s wet, dry, cold or hot, can be caused by global warming, calling it manmade doesn’t clarify anything.
To destroy the AGW theory there’s also the little-known fact that there’s been no warming for a long time now, even though our emissions of carbon dioxide keep climbing. This is particularly damaging as it directly contradicts the strident warnings from the alarmists. They’ve always maintained that more CO2 equals more warming.
Finally, claiming “ever-increasing” warming when warming is not being observed is either negligent or deceitful.