The dire situation, he concluded, led him “to look back on my 20 years of climate activism as a colossal failure”. You could say this is the phenomenon known as global waning, the anxiety caused by knowledge one’s star has faded.
That a purported climate expert refers to himself primarily as an activist is revealing, as is the cause of his melancholy. If he were suffering from world-weariness as he would have us believe, then surely “looking back” over his career would include introspection, especially in light of his many dud predictions.
Tellingly, he does no such thing. The burning issue of his time is not so much climate change but his self-worth, thus letting everyone know in the form of a soliloquy that even the great man himself has human frailties. In this drama the climate protagonist stands on stage in an exaggerated pose, his eyes closed, his head tilted to face the heavens, the back of wrist on his forehead as he loudly bemoans his personal existential angst and the shallowness of lesser beings.
This is our cue. The unspoken corollary is a future without his leadership, a climate dystopia so terrible the mere thought of it prompts mass panic. “Forgive us,” we wail in unison, “we have not been worthy of you”. Patting him on the back, we reassure him his selfless efforts have not been in vain.
What Flannery appears to crave is publicity and the constant affirmation of others, a condition otherwise known as being needy. If any more proof were needed, it is his attitude towards those who have held him to account. Again from last week: “But the climate crisis has now grown so severe that the actions of the denialists have turned predatory: they are now an immediate threat to our children.”
To use “denialists” in this context is an error that’s compounded by appealing to our emotions. Having referred to 2GB presenter Alan Jones and Herald-Sun columnist Andrew Bolt as those who “have laboured so hard to create” a “world of grim winnowing”, he said “I have come to understand they are threatening my children’s wellbeing as much as anyone who might seek to harm a child.” That is what climate science has become, apparently. You promote a hypothesis, and if others question it or cite evidence to the contrary you label them a “denier”. If they persist, you work yourself into a self-righteous rage.
Now compare Flannery’s statements with what he said during a restaurant interview for The Sydney Morning Herald in 2014, fittingly titled “Tim Flannery: a man for all climates”. Speaking of “very weird conspiratorial right groups” who challenged the United Nations’ pronouncements on climate change, he stated: “There’re quite a few unhinged people out there who latch on to some of this, and you do worry there’s a risk of people taking justice — as they see it — into their own hands.’’ People who falsely and maliciously label their critics child abusers, perhaps? And: “The history of science teaches us people will long be convinced by fallacious arguments,’’ a statement that speaks for itself. Lastly, “If you slag off people and degrade their reputations, you ultimately degrade your own”.
Flannery frequently maintains he is a target for the conservative media. But many in academia publicly took issue with his theories and integrity years ago. Consider these excerpts from The Sydney Morning Herald in 2004: “Just because a guy is well known does not mean he knows what he is talking about,” said University of Sydney palaeontologist Dr Stephen Wroe. “I’ve got a fairly cynical view of Tim. He’s an opportunist. He knows climate change is a buzzword, but a few months’ work does not make him an expert.” Presciently observing in respect to Flannery — a mammologist — commenting on fields in which he has no expertise, he added: “It will be scary if he gets to hijack this subject.”
And from archaeologist Jim Allen of La Trobe University: “I wish I could be as sure of anything as Tim is of everything”. Another archaeologist, Dr Judith Field of the University of Sydney: “Tim doesn’t let the facts get in the way of a good story. He does a lot of broadbrush stuff, with broad consequences, and some of it is just plain wrong”, adding that Flannery’s theories were “conceptually driven” rather than “based on data”. A number of these concerns have seemingly been borne out.
In 2007, Flannery declared “even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems”. As environmental engineering professor Stewart Franks observed five years later — by which time the Gillard Government had appointed Flannery chief commissioner of the Climate Change Commission — “Fast forward to 2012 and we see widespread drenching rains, flooded towns and cities, and dams full to the brim and overtopping.” As to why Flannery’s prediction was “so spectacularly wrong”, Franks remarked “He is perhaps best described as an amateur enthusiast.”
Chief commissioner Flannery subsequently released a report through his office in 2012 saying “climate change cannot be ruled out” as a factor in these downpours. Asked at that press conference about his credibility, he stated “I’ve been really consistent with what I’ve said, which is that we’ve got a water problem in this country.” Upon the Abbott Government’s abolishing the commission in 2013, Flannery reflected it “had developed a reputation as a reliable apolitical source of facts on all aspects of climate change”.
In an article for The Conversation in 2012, Flannery wrote that Victoria’s “changing climate is likely to lead to less snowfall”. As ABC business reporter Daniel Ziffer wrote last Friday, the real estate industry is booming in the Victorian Alps due to bumper snowfalls over the last several years. For those of you worried about Ziffer receiving a narrative violation from his employer, fear not. In this 876-word article he dutifully made six references to “climate change”.
Not only is Flannery known for making ridiculous predictions, he also has a habit of denying what he said. Commenting on this in 2011, ABC journalist Virginia Trioli stated “I’ve sat with Tim Flannery at forums and the like, where he has point-blank said: no, I never said that. And I’ll say: yes you did, here’s the quote. And then he’ll run a gag with the audience, a plea to get them on side, saying it must have been in the News Limited papers. And you’ll get a ha, ha, ha. And I’ll be there going, no, here it is, it’s actually in a Fairfax paper, not that that matters anyway. So this is intriguing to me because he has a little bit of a reputation of saying things and then denying it.”
And to think The Conversation published a piece from Flannery in the same week its editor and executive director, Misha Ketchell, announced a zero-tolerance policy regarding comments from “climate deniers”, accusing them of “shamelessly peddling pseudoscience and misinformation”. He could start with Flannery, who last week wrote of impending climate doom and mass death, stating “British scientist James Lovelock has predicted a future human population of just a billion people.” As Bolt noted in 2012, that was in 2006, and Lovelock later disavowed his alarmist views, the scientist also criticising Flannery for his.
Given The Conversation’s invoking of doctrinal purity to exclude unbelievers, it should amend its name to reflect this. “The Conversion”, perhaps? “The Circumlocution”? “The Confabulation”? “The Cancellation”? I rather like “The Claytons Conversation”. In a revamped marketing program, Ketchell could emulate actor Jack Thompson. “It’s the conversation I have when I’m not having a conversation,” he would insouciantly explain to readers.
As for Flannery’s public display of angst about the worthiness of efforts over the last 20 years, he can relax. He has benefitted through sales of his books, through government sinecures and lucrative appointments such as “environmental consultant” to Richard Branson’s Virgin’s Galactic Venture, which planned space trips for tourists. Ironically only two years before, in 2007, Flannery had deplored the fact “humanity has belched more than 50 gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere” in one decade, which gives you an indication as to the fluidity of his principles.
In short, your time with us has proved most beneficial for you, Professor Flannery. But it has been an utter waste of ours.
Chalmers’ left hand conflicts with what is right on regulation
Every politicians bangs the ‘cut red tape’ drum but next week the ACCC will trial a Jim Chalmers-sanctioned merger regime that will become a lawyers’ and regulator’s picnic.
There’s no moral high ground in state censorship
Australia is on track to end up with a censorship industrial complex, developed via ostensibly democratic means, that looks similar to those imposed by the dictatorships we’re told to loathe.
Writing last week in online media outlet The Conversation (more on that name later), academic, author and former Australian of the Year Tim Flannery lamented the world’s failure to heed his warnings about climate change.