Being unsympathetic – at Christmas – is that sufficient?

From Jennifer Marohasy’s blog

Jennifer Marohassi

It is becoming increasingly difficult to articulate a skeptical perspective on catastrophic man-made climate change and other such problems. Not only with colleagues, but also within extended families. This is especially the case at Christmas time when we are all expected to agree and get along. The spirit of bonhomie and all that stuff.

Being skeptical about the climate catastrophe of 2022 means being a social outcast, and that extends to wanting to celebrate the health of the Great Barrier Reef. We should cry over everything. Still, Christmas should be a happy time.

According to clinical psychologist Mattias Desmet, the kind of totalitarianism that insists we only speak of disasters doesn’t form in a vacuum. It arises from a collective psychosis when members of a community share an underlying fear and lack a common goal. It is a form of group hypnosis that destroys a person’s ethical self-esteem and robs them of their ability to think critically.

In his recent interview with Tucker Carlson, Prof. Desmet suggests that it behooves each of us who can see through the soul-destroying propaganda to continue to speak out. That silence is not an option.

In my very first film, Beige Reef, I close with the following comment:

Filming coral at Beige Reef is a form of resistance – our goal is very simple to recognize Beige Reef. To be recognized is to be admitted and accepted as true.

As I explain in the film, the experts claimed that this coral reef was being destroyed by climate change. But that was not the case.

If they can deny the existence of a sizable coral reef at the entrance to Bowen Harbor with this false claim published by the renowned scientific journal Nature, what else can they do?

The poet Dorothea McKellar loved Australia at the beginning of the 20th century – more than 100 years ago – as a land of drought and flooding rain. In 1908 she wrote:

I love a sunburnt land
A land of vast plains,
of rugged mountain ranges,
Of droughts and floods.
I love their wide horizons,
I love her sea of ​​jewels
Her beauty and her horror –
The wide brown land for me!

A brilliant white forest with ring bark
Everything tragic to the moon,
the sapphire-covered mountains,
The hot golden stillness of noon.
green tangle of brushes,
Where supple lianas wind,
And orchids adorn the treetops
And ferns the warm dark earth.

core of my heart, my country!
your relentless blue skies,
When sick at heart, around us,
We see the cattle die –
But then the gray clouds come up
And we can bless again
the drumming of an army,
The steady, soggy rain.

core of my heart, my country!
land of rainbow gold,
For flood and fire and famine,
She pays us back threefold –

The same natural climate phenomena are now being touted as evidence of the recent man-made disaster.

American Naomi Oreskes was given a full hour on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s Science Show (21 December 2022) to absurdly claim that droughts and floods in Australia are evidence of catastrophic human-caused climate change and that there is none globally There are peer-reviewed studies – not even one is right – that contradict the consensus position that climate change is solely man-made.

These claims, and much of what Professor Oreskes has said, are misinformation. Propaganda. And they must be resisted.

As I document in my NSW Flood Inquiry contribution (co-authored with Chris Gillham), there has been no overall increase in the intensity or frequency of extremely wet days.

Once upon a time, host Robyn Williams, who controlled the science show for decades, might have invited me to bring in the alternate perspective. Finally, I even published in a peer-reviewed journal (GeoResJ Vol. 14, pp. 36-46) estimating the contribution of human-caused versus natural climate change to recent warming. My study (co-authored with John Abbot) suggests that without the Industrial Revolution there would have been a period of warming in the 20th century. We estimate the human contribution to current warming to be at most 0.2°C. That’s tiny. And the mere presence of our published article refutes Prof. Oreske’s claim that such studies do not exist.

It took tremendous effort, supported by the B. Macfie Family Foundation through the Institute of Public Affairs, to produce such research despite the gatekeepers. That this is denied by Naomi Oreskes and Robyn Williams is disappointing. But no reason to give up.

You could be deposed this Christmas for having the kind of opinion now denied on The Science Show, or it could simply be that you laugh inappropriately or choose to point out a logical inconsistency in your favorite progressives’ reasoning or, worse, you show them up to bias.

Earlier this year I did a very short film with my dear friend Jared called Washed Away. That’s how I feel sometimes. But like the rocks that form the platform below Boiling Point Lookout in Noosa National Park, we can resist.

We can even be awkward at Christmas, explaining that sea levels used to be 120 meters lower than they are today.

That’s right, sea level used to be 120 meters lower. There is a table with a quote in the film. I challenge you to invite your most “progressive” relative to watch with you this Christmas.

All the best and lots of strength to you.


item rating

Like this:

Like Loading…

Comments are closed.