LETTER: Clarity on climate

Well I am blessed .... a letter addressed to me directly (that is, via the letter of the day, The Daily Advertiser, November 22) from the lord, Viscount Monckton. 

What a surprise. He must have very little to do there in the UK other than read opinion in The Daily Advertiser. 

And indeed I am thankful and somewhat remorseful. I have seen the light and the errors of my ways – and may I say – I have now found a new compatriot in the science of global warming. 

My letter of November 9 obviously missed the point. 

It was my understanding that a Mr Goonan, in his previous letter (The Daily Advertiser, November 5) did not believe in global warming, and he was asking for scientific proof that there was such a thing. 

Mr Goonan indeed rejected the hockey-stick diagrams and other representations of reality. 

And now, a Mr Goodman, asks the same question. 

It seems that ignorance of the science is endemic in Daily Advertiser readership. 

I was also to understand that Mr Goonan was asking for scientific proof on behalf of the Viscount – and, on the basis of that – I presumed that the Viscount did not have any proof of his own. 

I was, therefore, hoping to enlighten both Mr Goonan and the Viscount by a modest contribution to The Daily Advertiser in which I suggested that a PhD in science, reviewed research papers in reputable journals, or even a reading of the Bureau of Meteorology website may add to their knowledge. But, my efforts were unnecessary.

I see now that the Viscount agrees with the science of global warming, indeed recognising a rise of 1.2 degree Celsius per century. Good news for Mr Goonan and Mr Goodman. 

We are – if I can use the words – now singing from the same hymn sheet. 

We could argue (as good scientists do) about the magnitude, time scales (I would suggest 1.2 degree per 50 years) and causes, but it gives a comforting feeling that we are all in such harmony. 

I must also apologise for doubting the integrity of the publications of the Viscount. 

You see, I was led astray by something written in The Daily Advertiser (July 27, 2011) where The Daily Advertiser reported “Only once did he attempt to have his research peer-reviewed – the acceptable way to verify the accuracy of claims – but has decided to never again subject his findings to scrutiny. ‘I was treated so foully that I haven’t done so again’, he said after a journal published his findings then later issued a note declaring it did not support the research.”

Also, in the same edition, I see: “In an interview with The Daily Advertiser yesterday, Lord Monckton said he did not claim to be a climatologist ...” and “... Monckton has no qualifications in any branch of science”, the latter being attributed to someone in the Wagga audience of his talk who did seem to have some qualification in the area. 

I guess my old fashioned and classically trained view that only fully peer-reviewed papers are of scientific worth must be rethought, and that papers contributed to operations such as science and public policy foundations should be taken with more than just a grain of salt. 

So, now that we are all in such harmony and in good voice, let us consider what will be the next step in the debate as what to do about global warming. 

I, for one, have a mainstream view as proposed by sensible parts of both the main political parties in that a modest free-enterprise/free-market trading scheme where carbon is traded like all other commodities is the answer. 

I am particularly interested in the way such a scheme will promote research and development – a commodity that this nation desperately needs for its very survival against the emerging technological and manufacturing juggernauts of Asia. 

But having put that populist view, I am fascinated with the proposal of the Viscount. 

If I understand it correctly, he is suggesting that we do nothing until a problem occurs, and then “fix it up” after the event. 

I can see how this may work – and I think the idea is very worthy of further thought. 

I, for one, would propose that this thinking should be applied to bushfire prevention, where it would be obviously cheaper to rebuild towns and bury the dead that put in place simple preventative measures. 

Alternatively, we could save a fortune by not worrying about levee banks and simply rebuilding the city of Wagga every 10 years or so after a flood. 

There are many economically rational ways to save the communities tax dollar. 

I look forward to the Viscount’s visit – I will be there – I am no square! 

Dr Graeme White

Wagga