The primary evidence for human-caused climate change isn’t models, but rather, basic physics and chemistry.
– Dr. Michael Mann Professor of Meteorology

It staggers me how afraid some people are of the facts. It staggers me how afraid some people are of real debate and discussion and investigation.
– Senator John Madigan

Senator John Submarines-are-the-spaceships-of-the-ocean Madigan has been labeled one of the top “climate blockers” by the enviro organisation 350.org in the Pollution Free Politics campaign. Since it’s election time it’s worth looking at what Madigan has said and done regarding climate change. Why? Why the hell not he might be on the cross-bench and give a crucial vote on climate change.

Recently Madigan, whom News Corp journalist Niki Savva described as “firmly in the sceptics camp” lashed out at his critics in a speech titled ‘The morality – or lack of it – in politics.’ In the speech he made a broad generalisation that “those who subscribe to the idea of impending catastrophic climate change refuse to engage in genuine argument.” After hearing this I thought I’d take it as an opportunity to engage in argument (not sure what he means by genuine). He goes on in the speech comparing himself to heretics who were burned at the stake:

One cannot help but think of the inquisition in the Middle Ages when heretics were burned at the stake for their beliefs. I ask: are what the Greens term ‘climate change deniers’ the heretics of our contemporary world?

Instead of arguing or clarifying his position, which has been a rejection of the climate change science, he provides a red herring. Maybe he doesn’t want to clarify his position because Pope Francis has made it clear that Climate Change is an important issue and Madigan, as a “devout catholic”, doesn’t want to contradict the pope? Or perhaps public opinion has moved too far on the issue for it to be still be a vote winner?… I don’t know.

Madigan is entitled to his own opinion or belief, but not to his own facts, he has made claims that I have collected below. He provides a good example of what some have termed ‘climate denial’ or ‘climate science denial’ he also has been an enabler of climate science denial by giving Christopher Monckton a platform.

I have gone through statements by Madigan where he argues his position and taken these to be his “genuine argument” and I have highlighted the mismatch between his arguments and scientific evidence. Hopefully this will prompt “real debate and discussion and investigation”.

I’ll begin by looking at the evidence of climate change which cannot be ignored (and many like Madigan, Abbott, Murdoch, Maurice Newman, Bolt or Cardinal George Pell have wilfully ignored) if one is going to make logically valid and consistent statements about the issue.

There are direct observable measurements of:

• Increasing global carbon emissions
• 650,000 years of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels (It’s at its highest now)
• Increasing global temp
• Increasing ocean heat
• Glacial retreat
• Ocean acidification
• Increase sea level rise

among a mountain of evidence.

There is scientific consensus that Earth’s climate is warming with 97%+ of “actively publishing climate scientists agree.”

The most credible voice on the science is the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which concluded that:

Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.

 There is an extended discussion of the scientific evidence at the end of this blog.

Denial

Sometimes a person who rejects anthropogenic global warming self-identifies as a skeptic. This is problematic because they are not using the ‘tools of scientific skepticism to arrive at their position.’  The word skeptic gives an ‘unwarranted veneer of scientific thinking’ to their claims, claims which undermines evidence found using the scientific method. The IPCC is self-correcting because it’s based on evidence provided by peer review, it embodies scientific skepticism. People who reject the IPCC’s findings and other credible scientific evidence are not skeptical.

The US National Centre for Science Education defined “climate change denier” this way:

…in common with a number of scholarly and journalistic observers of the social controversies surrounding climate change — opts to use the terms “climate change deniers” and “climate change denial” (where “denial” encompasses unwarranted doubt as well as outright rejection). The terms are intended descriptively, not in any pejorative sense, and are used for the sake of brevity and consistency with a well-established usage in the scholarly and journalistic literature.

This is one explanation here’s another more succinct one from Rational Wiki:

Global warming /climate change denialism refers to claims that “global warming: a) isn’t happening, b) isn’t caused by humans, or c) isn’t significant.

“dismissal or unwarranted doubt of the scientific consensus on the rate and extent of global warming, its significance, or its connection to human behavior, in whole or in part.”

Like denial of the links of HIV to AIDS or the health problems from smoking, climate science denial can have very dangerous and costly effects.

Some statements by Madigan could be regarded as climate science denial, such as this:

I don’t doubt there is climate change. We know there is, because the dinosaurs aren’t here anymore.

What Madigan is saying is a common trope, which is something like ‘the climates always changed, therefore climate change is not caused by humans.’ I’ll look in some detail at some more that I’ve found by Madigan. The burden of proof is on those who reject with total certainty the climate-warming trends or reject that over the past century the climate-warming trends are due to human activities. If this proof is not provided as Christopher Hitchens wrote, “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”…

Doubt and debate (meanwhile coal’s still burning, world’s still warming)

One oft used and tired argument is that there is uncertainty and doubt. This also was an method deployed by tobacco companies. The formation of the arguments sometimes looks like these statements, which are quotes from Madigan:

…the degree to which man can influence the change of climate, well I don’t believe the jury is in on that yet. For all the people of the world, scientists who say it is, there’s probably an equal body who says it isn’t.

and

people agree we need to debate the issue no matter what.

There is a false balance in this quote, there is an assumption that because there is a linguistic binary that it follows that there is 50-50 split amongst the scientists, which is a non-sequitur and an assumption. As already shown there is a 97% consensus of climate scientists and also consensus with national scientific bodies. The jury is in. If one wants to make a claim, such as “human induced climate change is a myth”, then the burden is on them to give proof. See the graph below of the gap between perception vs reality from Skepticalscience.

This doubt over the scientific consensus is sometimes combined with doubt over the science itself. It looks like this “But I didn’t cause it and you didn’t cause it and once again, we get back to bloody assumptions” Once again a quote by Madigan. As I show below the heating effect of greenhouse gas was known in 1896. As Michael E. Mann the Distinguished Professor of Meteorology and Director, Earth System Science Center states:

The primary evidence for human-caused climate change isn’t models, but rather, basic physics and chemistry.

Madigan has also tried unsuccessfully to deploy the false ice age climate denial trope:

…Madigan seemed to misunderstand Senate testimony from Climate Institute director Erwin Jackson. Asked how much global temperatures would rise if the world cut emissions as pledged, Jackson testified it would be 4 degrees less than the 7 degree rise forecast if no action were taken. A net warming of 3 degrees. But Madigan told The Sunday Age: ”He said 4 degrees’ difference. If we could achieve that, and the rest of the world does what they claim, we will be in a bloody ice age.

Just to be clear, Madigan is saying that aiming for 3 degrees warming (an increase in temperature) will cause the ice age (?!?).

In a committee where Madigan was Chair the following exchange took place:

Senator DAY: …Do you think that the science is settled, that increases in CO2 levels lead to increases in temperature?

Dr Hanna: Yes, the science is settled. That is the laws of physics. The laws of physics are pretty immutable. If you understand the laws of physics, the laws of physics are the laws of physics. It is not something that changes with perception or whatever. That is fundamentally settled.

While we debate the issue we are not acting on climate change mitigation or adaption and we keep the status quo: burning fossil fuels and digging it out of the ground. Australia per capita is one of the highest producers of greenhouse gas in the world and the second biggest exporter of coal. In 2014 Australia exported 387Mt of the 1,400 million tonnes (Mt) of coal were traded globally.

Madigan himself has been forced to stop debating and to make decisive act, to vote on climate change issues in the senate. This is how he voted according to OpenAustralia’s They Vote For You page Madigan:

Voted moderately against

• Carbon farming
• Treating government action on climate change as a matter of urgency

Voted strongly against

• A carbon price
• Increasing investment in renewable energy

Voted very strongly against

• A fast transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy
• Restricting donations to political parties

The last one was a motion called on all political parties to ban and refuse to accept fossil fuel industry donations noting “the unprecedented coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef” “the devastating bushfires affecting areas of Tasmania’s Wilderness World Heritage Area”” the fact that 2014 and 2015 were both the hottest year on record”” that fossil fuel companies have made $3.7 million in political donations”

Why would Madigan vote against this Bill? I don’t understand myself, considering he talks a lot about the corrupting influence of big business.

Also illuminating from a look at the OpenAustralia’s page on Madigan is that he didn’t bother turning up to vote on a Bill to empower farmers with the right to say no to  Coal Seam Gas on their land. One would think this is the bread and butter of a representative of farmers.

On his website he says “I support renewable energy” which is interesting considering he helped derail the industry and stall investments by scrapping the climate legislation.

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

A non-scientists-ex-advisor to Thatcher Lord-wannabe who dismisses the IPCC with a wave. Monckton said that Madigan “is someone with whom I see eye to eye,” Madigan on the other hand helped fund his trips to Australia – even against advice from staff in his own office who knew taking a strong stand with the 3rd Viscount could be a future liability. He visited Abbott in Canberra, at the then PM’s request and recently stated that Abbott was rolled by the UN because of his “anti-global-warming views”.

It’s naive to assume that [Malcolm Turnbull] has not been in contact with the UN.

Monckton has a long history of climate denial and has pulled “edgy” pranks such as skydiving into climate talks or dressing in traditional Arab robes after arriving on camel and later posing as a delegate from Myanmar. He said to the conference “In the 16 years we have been coming to these conferences, there has been no global warming at all.” You get the idea.

During the Paris climate talks there was a fringe meeting of some prominent climate deniers, where and they had a frank discussion about their media tactics. It is clear from the strategy that their role is not one of truth, evidence, and understanding; but of deliberately and wilfully obfuscating action on climate change. Here is a summary of point 14 of their strategy:

We’re not climate change deniers

– We accept that there is such a thing as the greenhouse effect” – Monckton

– Yes, if you add CO2 to the atmosphere, it would cause some warming – there are some on the fringes who would deny that, but it’s tactically efficacious for us to accept that.” – Monckton

Monckton suggested that they should accept that the greenhouse effect is real. There was a fair amount of disagreement in the room. The chair said “I’m trying to appeal to left wing journalists”. For a moment they lost control as a number of people shouted out their various objections. The conclusion?: “The Greenhouse Effect – the debate continues”.

The summary of the meeting is worth reading in whole.

A few years earlier Monckton addressed a room full of mining executives, sounding like a Bond villain. He was caught, while someone secretly filmed the event, describing ‘techniques of denial that undercut the scientific process.’

Frankly whatever you do at a street level – which is what you are talking about here – is not going to have much of an impact compared with capturing an entire news media.”

You look at the impact that Andrew Bolt has had since he was rocketed to fame and – without giving away too many secrets – Joanne [climate sceptic Jo Nova see below] is going to end up doing quite a bit more on that channel if all goes according to plan.”

It seems to me that devoting some time and effort to encouraging those that we know who are super-rich to invest in perhaps even establishing a new satellite news channel – not an expensive thing to do – and getting a few Jo Novas and Andrew Bolts to go on and commentate – but keep the news fair, straight and balanced as they do on Fox.

He has visited Australia multiple times, including Ballarat. Monckton was supported by a weird convergence of DLP (that was Madigan’s party) and fossil fuel interests.

[Monckton] has undertaken no less than three tours of the country, in 2010, 2011 and 2013. His 2010 tour was partly funded by coal billionaire Gina Rinehart, who, with the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies, also funded part of his 2011 tour.

When Monckton was in Ballarat he said “There has been no global warming for a decade and we can’t explain why,” quoted in a gushing tribute by Brendan Gullifer who was a senior journalist for the Courier at the time and soon after was working for Madigan as a Senior Advisor.

In 2011 Mockton did a speaking tour in Australia that was organised by Leon Ashby acting on behalf of the The Climate Sceptics party that looks like an industry front. Ashby was later appointed to board of the IPA front group the Australian Environment Foundation. The DLP helped hire the venue in Ballarat’s St Patrick College where Monckton was to give a speech entitled “A Carbon Tax will Bankrupt Australia The Science Does Not Justify It.”  Monckton’s presentation was preceded with one by Madigan, here is an account by a sympathetic observer:

John Madigan opened proceedings with a speech from the heart, about his core values. If someone takes pride in their work and does it to the best of their ability, then they are an equal. There was a lesson from his days being taught by the christian brothers; “to question is to learn”. This led in nicely to Monckton’s first point.

In 2011 The DLP made a submission, while Madigan was their only federal representative, to an inquiry into Australia’s Clean Energy Future that states:

Carbon dioxide- unlike its deadly cousin carbon monoxide- is not a pollutant

Coal-fired power generation is safe and it is affordable

Gas-fired power generation is also clean and affordable.

To use carbon tax as a means of population control? For as surely as night follows day, that must be the inevitable outcome.

The last point is my favourite and shows the level of conspiratorial thinking inside the DLP at the time.

In 2012 Madigan’s Party invited Monckton to Ballarat the following year he arrived in Australia for a talking tour. He came to Ballarat as well as other places with the assistance of the DLP. His talk was titled “Carbon Tax, Climate Scam, UN Treaties: Can Democracy Survive All Three?”

An account of the evening was written by Andrew Bray who represented Ballarat Renewable Energy and Zero Emissions:

Someone I respect once told me “you’re entitled to your own opinions but you can’t have your own facts.”

This is particularly true in discussions about climate change, where scientific fact is so regularly trumped by political opinion. It’s like politics is the schoolyard bully who takes the wimpy science kid behind the bike shed every lunch time for a beating.

The circus around Christopher Monckton that descended on Ballarat this week is a perfect example. His talk was designed to raise doubt about climate science in order to discredit the carbon price.

His politics may be the winner but a clearer understanding of the science is bound to be the loser.

For some of his talks Monckton was also accompanied by Joanne Nova, Dr David Evans and the late Professor Bob Carter.

Monckton helped with the Australian campaign that led to scrapping the carbon price. He did this by different ways including helping create the “Galileo Movement” which was an astro-turf PR campaign:

The latest entry is the Galileo Movement, again co-opting the name of a “martyr for science” for an anti-science activity. The Galileo Movement’s founders funded the previous visit to Australia by Viscount Monckton. The movement’s “Independent Climate Science Group” includes Monckton, Bob Carter, S. Fred Singer and Ian Plimer as well as Garth Paltridge.

Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party has flirted with climate denial having the project manager of the Galileo Movement as a senate candidate.

Monckton themes of confected battles of good vs evil sounds very similar to Santamaria’s well rehearsed talks of the “Forces of good fighting faces of evil” and the “menace of communism.” One could see the appeal of Monckton by someone who was steeped in the Santamarian tradition which needed something to fill the gaping hole left after the cold war. This was all going well until the pope threw down his encyclical Laudato Si – On Care for Our Common Home. In it he argues strongly for action on climate change:

Climate change is a global problem with grave implications: environmental, social, economic, political and for the distribution of goods. It represents one of the principal challenges facing humanity in our day. Its worst impact will probably be felt by developing countries in coming decades…If present trends continue, this century may well witness extraordinary climate change and an unprecedented destruction of ecosystems, with serious consequences for all of us.

Since the Pope has made his statements Madigan has been silent on the issue.

My County “Of droughts and flooding rains”

A recurring motif in climate denial is a poem ‘My Country” by Dorothea Mackellar shoehorned into facile arguments about why the world’s climate isn’t warming.

An example of this comes from Savva’s article about Madigan:

As he plies his smithy’s trade around his district, he talks to the farmers about their experiences and those of their fathers and grandfathers.

He concludes that what is happening now with floods and fires and droughts is no different from what happened way back when. He cites Dorothea Mackellar’s epic poem My Country, published in 1908, as further evidence.

Here the poem is used to discredit the scientific evidence of climate change. Can a collection of anecdotes and a poem written in 1908 be considered sufficient evidence to understand a complex global system such as the climate? No way. I have spoken to farmers who have seen a noticeable change. I worked for a beekeeper in Tasmania who was working the Leatherwood tree for nectar, who said the trees were flowing later and there were noticeable changes to flowering times and duration. This is the problem with anecdotes at best they add color to the scientific evidence.

In 1896, a Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius wrote a scientific article providing evidence of the greenhouse effect with the title, ‘On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground.’ There was knowledge of the chemical processes that form the basis of understanding the greenhouse effect in 1896 before My Country was published. Madigan could have cited Arrhenius but instead chooses a poem written at a later date that is used out of it’s original context to support a feeling that the climate hasn’t changed.

The 19-year-old Dorothea wrote her famous 6 stanza poem while homesick in England. Anyone who has been stuck in a European winter could empathise with Dorothea – (I know I can, twice being stuck in a depressing and dark snow trapped villages suffering vitamin d deficiency). The poem is a favourite of Tony Abbott, the same man that called climate change “shit” and used the following stanza as evidence that the global climate hasn’t changed:

I love a sunburnt country,
A land of sweeping plains,
Of ragged mountain ranges,
Of droughts and flooding rains.

On the face of it Dorothea is stating that “droughts and flooding rains” occur and that Australia is a “sunburnt country.” She is thinking about Australia while in England. She may have been using the environment as a metaphor for her emotional stasis in England.

The 2014 ‘State of the Environment’ report by the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO states there has been a 0.9C of average warming seen since 1910 and that:

This warming has seen Australia experiencing more warm weather and extreme heat, and fewer cool extremes. There has been an increase in extreme fire weather, and a longer fire season, across large parts of Australia.

To consider the conclusions of CSIRO refuted by a poem written in 1908 is wronger than wrong, it is wilful stupidity and to report it straight faced as if it’s not a stupid thing to say is complicity in the denial of the science and a journalistic fail.

As a side-note, it is ironic that Madigan after leaving the DLP started his own party called the Farmers and Manufacturing Party. Climate change is one of the biggest threats to farmers and also that there are opportunities for manufacturing in the renewable energy sector and to pretend to represent farmers and actively promote climate denial is laughable.

The veteran journalist of climate denial Graham Readferm wrote (regarding Abbott quoting ‘My Country’ to refute the 2014 State of the Environment report):

As a contributor, the country continues to plough ahead with massive expansion plans for coal and gas exports while taking a leading role in per capita emissions.

Prime Minister Abbott surrounds himself with climate science deniers who think the science is a “delusion” or a cover story for creeping socialism.

Mackellar’s verse was once a stand-alone definition of Australia, but not any more. Too much has changed.

Much has changed since 1908 including knowing that it’s not a great idea to treat our skies like a rubbish tip or an infinite sink for greenhouse gasses.

Where does this leave us?

Madigan was elected with 2.3% of the primary vote on the Democratic Labor Party ticket (a party which was a splinter group from the Labor party). Madigan has since left the DLP forming his own Party called the John Madigan Farmers and Manufacturing Party. If elected he may have considerable power so his views need to be examined and he should expect and welcome scrutiny.

He gave a crucial vote to repeal the price on carbon which has led to increasing emissions. See the graph below of annualised carbon emissions. The red line marks when the carbon tax was repealed.

I invite Madigan to provide evidence that refutes the IPCC’s conclusions. Madigan is no heretic, he’s only been called out and he’s thrown a red herring to distract us from the fact that he has encouraged climate science denial. Madigan has had the luxury of public office, resources, and a platform to megaphone his views.

Perhaps Madigan should consider the morality of being part of a polity that not only stops action on climate change, through the repeal of carbon price, but has helped mislead the public by providing a platform for a prominent climate science denier. Instead of taking note of the call of action from scientists that we need to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Madigan instead, attacks those who are trying to act on climate change and push back the PR spin that emanates from fossil fuel industries.

Merchants of doubt such as the revelation from Peabody coal supporting a long list of organisations and individuals, or Koch brothers who have spent at least $79 Million to groups denying climate change or Exxon Mobile who spent over $30 Million or the IPA who according to Mike Seccombe who wrote in the Saturday Paper:

has a long, covert history of fomenting climate change denialism.” Its funders have included “Rio Tinto, Caltex, Shell and Esso as backers, as well as the tobacco companies Philip Morris and British American Tobacco.

Madigan ignores questions about his stance on the issue in spite of the greater and compelling scientific evidence, the historic agreement in Paris and the Pope’s encyclical which has fundamentally shifted the debate globally.

Madigan himself invites criticism saying that:

I’ve never hidden anything about what I think, I’m upfront. I’m an open book…I very much deal in facts and tangible things.

It staggers me how afraid some people are of the facts. It staggers me how afraid some people are of real debate and discussion and investigation.

I don’t believe in shutting people down, even if I vehemently disagree with them.

So where does he stand now? Is he like an open book? Is the rise of greenhouse gases since the Industrial Revolution a fact? Does he have a plan to address climate change? How does he define “fact” and investigation? Does he regard a climate scientists and the IPCC process as scientifically sceptical? How does he define denial of well established scientific evidence in this case climate science?

I think these questions are important to ask an elected representative who holds office, with considerable power and influence, as an essential element of democracy and transparency. And for him to dodge the question with a red herring about being a victim of a witch-hunt is weak.

Madigan once said “A smart man knows his limitations. A fool has none.” I know my limitations that’s why I defer to the IPCC for their conclusions on the science of climate change. Does Madigan think he knows more that 97% of climate scientists, CSIRO and the IPCC?

If Madigan has changed his views I welcome him to correct me.

Evidence

There’s a mountain of evidence.

Scientists from the CSIRO found that there is 99.999% chance that the warming can be attributed to accumulation of global greenhouse gases associated with anthropogenic (human caused) GHG emissions.

NASA writes that 97% (or more) of actively publishing climate scientists agree that:

…climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position..

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the highest standard when it comes to information about climate change.

The IPCC has concluded that:

Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.

The IPCC also found that:

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.

and that

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

There is direct observable measurements of:

• Increasing global carbon emissions
• 650,000 years of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels (It’s the highest now)
• Increasing global temp
• Increasing ocean heat
• Glacial retreat
• Ocean acidification
• Increase sea level rise and acidity

These are measurements of the real world. There has been modelling which shows clearly that natural causes such as volcanic or sun events do not account for the observed warming trend we are experiencing at the moment and that because of the accumulated greenhouse gasses and continuing emissions there will be more warming. See Graphs at the end.

This data combined with the conclusions of IPCC, NASA, CSIRO and the consensus of climate scientists and scientific organisations worldwide (where no national or international scientific body disagrees with the IPCC’s conclusions above).

The burden of proof is on those who reject with total certainty the climate-warming trends or reject that over the past century the climate-warming trends are due to human activities. If this proof is not provided Christopher Hitchens wrote “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”

The IPCC embodies a process where peer-reviewed evidence is summarized for policy makers. With a mandate to provide:

“the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.”

“Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information.”

The US based National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has endorsed the IPCC by saying that it “..is the most senior and authoritative body providing scientific advice to global policy makers”

“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

The following graphs either come from NASA, NOAA, EPA, the IPCC etc

Global Carbon Emissions from Fossil-fuels 1900-2011. EPA.

 

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Levels. NASA.

Global Temp. NOAA.

Observed warming 1901-2012 . IPCC.

Ocean Heat. NOAA.

Glacial decline.  USGCRP

Sea Level Rise. Note: satellite data. RealClimate.

Warming: Natural VS Human. EPA.