Climate argument fails logic test

Bankrolling renewables ‘just in case’ is not analogous to fire insurance

Geoff Edwards is right when he says we expect our leaders “to recognise ideological crusades for what they are” (“Forget Plimer's polemics, just play the percentages”, 22/1). The problem is for them to figure out which side of the argument is an ideological crusade, especially when one side is better funded than the other.

As philosopher Sir Karl Popper said: “If we are uncritical we shall always find what we want: we shall look for, and find, confirmations and we shall look away from, and not see, whatever might be dangerous to our pet theories. In this way, it is only too easy to obtain what appears to be overwhelming evidence in favour of a theory which, if approached critically, would have been refuted.”

Given the gravity of the climate change debate and the price of getting it wrong either way, it would therefore be appropriate to ensure that the counter position is developed as strongly as possible. To date, that does not seem to have been done and those who say it should be are shouted down with pejorative language.

The fact is that the science on anything is never “in” — it’s only ever the best mathematical approximation we can make of the observed data at the time – just ask Sir Isaac Newton what he thinks of Einstein’s relativity theory. Such an approximation needs to include the long-run climate history crystallised in the Earth’s geology as much as it does forecasts made from contemporary observations.

Peter Thornton, Killara, NSW

Geoff Edwards suggests taking action against climate change is like insuring your house against fire; the percentages of catastrophic damage are low, but one still takes out insurance. But this is misleading as geological history clearly demonstrates that in the history of all climate change, the only catastrophic events have been deep-impact events from space or ice ages and not warming phases. In fact, all of the rapid increases in life forms have occurred during warming events.

A better insurance metaphor would be spending a lot of money on extra airconditioners in case the one you have is operating at 0.5C above its nameplate.

Michael Young, Swanbourne, WA

Geoff Edwards doesn't argue Ian Plimer's earth science facts, he argues the precautionary principle and presents a classic case of sophistry to confuse and mislead public opinion. If Edwards is true to his argument, he would never again step on an aircraft. Prior to the beginning of the 20th century, 99.9 per cent of scientists agreed that heavier-than-air machines could never fly. I rest my case.

John McRobert, Indooroopilly, Qld

Geoff Edwards says taking preemptive action against global warming is the same as insuring one's house against fire, adding even though “that risk is vastly less than 1 per cent a year, the consequences of not taking action are dire". The preventive measure Edwards is talking about is switching to renewables. Wind and solar send electricity bills skyrocketing and generate power intermittently — if the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining then that's bad luck for us. For Edwards to reduce the burden on the nation of expensive and unreliable renewable energy to the cost of house insurance is an insult to the intelligence of the Australian people.

The need for preemptive action would have some credence if cyclones, floods, droughts and bushfires were the result of human activity and not normal weather variation. Catastrophists like Edwards should stop harping on deterrent action against a problem that doesn't exist, namely, that humans are causing global warming.

Dale Ellis, Innisfail, Qld

A number of statements puzzled me in Geoff Edwards’ article, in particular, his assertion that once a fossil fuel is burned and its carbon, a carrier of energy, is converted to C02, the stored energy is lost forever.

Had the laws of thermodynamics, the basis of physics changed? Had the law that states “Energy cannot be created or destroyed” been thrown in the garbage bin?

Apparently not. Carbon dioxide is still used by trees and plants in photosynthesis to produce oxygen, which is part of the eternal cycle of life on Earth. Phew! Close one, that.

Simon Marston, Eltham, Vic

It is quite sad that Geoff Edwards does not understand the role of carbon dioxide in putting his dinner on the table.

R. Meikle, Noosa, Qld