The physics, chemistry, biology, climatology, meteorology and glaciology (there are probably more) will not change to suit us. If we don’t wake up and do something, the inexorable working out of the laws of physics will surely come back to bite us.
Allow me to explain at length. I, too, believed in the absolute undeniable truth of climate science once upon a time.
Ten years or so ago at the height of the very long and somewhat unprecedented drought we were having in southern Australia I read Tim Flannery's book (among others) and I was as convinced as anyone else that anthropomorphic climate change was a real and tangible thing AND that the drought was absolutely irrefutable evidence of this happening. Flannery (at that time) was also going around telling people that the drought was the new normal and in response most state Premiers decided that the construction of desalination plants was the way to go - because after all, as Tim Flannery assured us - the dams would never, ever be full again.
Fast forward ten years and I don't think there's any denying that the construction of these desal plants was an over-reaction and boondoggle ($30-$40 billion down the drain in Victoria's case) to what now appears to be a cyclical phenomenon. Yet people who are the Aussie experts on climate change are still telling us that - yes - they were still right all along and that the unusually wet winter that we've just had combined with the odd storm is also part of the global warming phenomenon… we should expect the sky to continue to fall because of increasing carbon dioxide but perhaps not in the same manner that they were telling us it would ten years ago.
So… years ago it was manifesting in one way but now it's unpredictably changed how it expresses itself? Can't make up its mind? In the meantime we have to spend billions upon billions of dollars subsidising and directly funding one particular scientific clique's idea of what is right (Al Gore - for example - has undeniably become very wealthy from writing and speaking about his climate science since he left politics) when in fact they can't reliably predict the actual impact on a place like Australia.
Now I'm not saying that people like Andrew Bolt, Lord Monkton etc have the answer either but I think it's a handy point of reference to remember that behind every barrow there's someone pushing it and often they're doing it because they have a life-long academic body of work to protect, a speaking tour, a book to promote… I've seen this in my own former academic life, people protecting their little empires. Flannery (for example) was absolutely, undeniably wrong about his predictions - so how can I take him seriously when he tells me now that overflowing dams are just another manifestation of the phenomenon of increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere when his book told me the opposite was true ten years ago? Why should we believe that the sky will fall in if we don't put a price on carbon dioxide if the 'empirical evidence' can't actually tell us what the result of increasing carbon dioxide actually is? Is increasing carbon dioxide really that bad or is it just someone with a barrow to push telling us that we should be doing it their way, buying their books, supporting their research foundations, attending their lectures, their own alarmist evidence getting them appointed as head of their own governmental authority?
Now with regards to Port Augusta's decommissioning: It's hard not to see things like the shut-down of that coal-fired baseload capacity as being driven by an ideological agenda and a subsequent "pricing structure" that is not actually good for us
. Bad for jobs, bad for industry, bad for consumers and as Alex C was indicating on the last page - South Australia was not actually ready for the closure of such a large baseload provider because renewables are not capable of providing that kind of consistent service (at some stage in the future with battery technology perhaps they will but not right now) and the national grid is not up to protecting us from extremely hot (and still) days. Because of an idea.
I'm sceptical and cynical - that's all.