I was a bit surprised at having two letters on climate change published in succession by The Australian and the latest one along with almost all other letter writers having similar questioning of Morrison’s energy policy as enunciated so far. Of particular interest, but worryingly true, is the heading to the letters below.
My Commentary on Sunday drew attention to the address in London by highly regarded meteorology professor and US Academy member, Richard Lindzen, and his remarks that Australia's political class has “gone completely bonkers in their response to climate change alarmism and hadn't taken the time to actually read and understand the science”. He added 'I can't imagine what suicidal instincts reside in Australia's political class.' 'In asking me to comment on the Australian response, you are asking the wrong person. You need to speak to someone specializing in abnormal psychology.'
Yesterday’s Commentary focussed on the lecture given in London by Professor Richard Lindzen and his ridiculing of Australian (read Morrison government) comments about the IPCC report and his denunciation of the report itself (see Lindzen Slams IPCC Report). Lindzen is not any old professor: he has written over 200 articles on climate change an meteorology and would provide enlightenment if brought to Australia, more so than Monckton because of his background. That Commentary suggested that the government should invite Lindzen.
My Commentary on Friday 12 October examined the IPCC report and, inter alia, drew attention to the fact that “there have been two periods since the early 20th century when temperatures have been relatively stable despite CO2 concentration levels having increased strongly. This suggests little or no correlation between the two ie prima facie, this means that even though human activity does contribute to CO2 concentrations, they could be having only a minor effect on total temperatures”. I also pointed out that, as only a relatively small proportion of CO2 concentrations appear to stay in the atmosphere, this suggests that other factors are likely to be more causitative contributors to temperature increases. By contrast, the IPCC analysis implies that temperature increases are all due to increases in CO2 concentrations and that this conclusion is science-based.
Yesterday I had a “coup”, with The Australian publishing a letter by me and giving it the heading “Bad Energy Policy” (see below). This relates to my comment in the letter that “Voters would have to choose between two bad policies, with the Labor Party offering results twice as bad”. Although the Editor deleted some bits from my original draft (as shown by the bits in square brackets), he has retained the reference to the letter sent by 300 scientists to Trump on global climate. Several scientists from Australia are signatories, including myself ( I have a BSc Econ Hons from the LSE and economics is a justifiable inclusion here). The language used in Lindzen’s letter and included in my letter below is particularly interesting in that it asserts that government actions to reduce emissions of CO2 produce no environmental benefit and in fact cause serioussocial and economic harm. This can be taken as the view of deniers rather than sceptics. Note also that the lead author, Dr Richard Lindzen, is a highly regarded atmospheric physicist who has deeply researched this subject and has communicated with me on it (to put me on the right track!).