wish i wasn't a warmenist

"Wish I wasn't a warmenist

* Published 10:29 AM, 27 Apr 2011

Giles Parkinson

Just when I had gotten used to being labelled a ?warmist? ? someone who accepts the majority view of scientists that humans have done their bit in contributing to global warming and climate change ? I discover that the term is already pass?.

Last week, Terry McCrann, the News Ltd columnist, wrote of a collective of ?warmenists? in his latest rant about climate change and related policies. It seemed a new invention, but it turns out the term has been around for several years. And according to the most authoritative source I could find, it could be a far greater sin to be a warmenist than a mere warmist.

Here?s how the online Urban Dictionary defines a warmenist: ?Gullible, scientificially (sic) illiterate, unthinking acolyte and zombie-fired propagandist of the Religion of Anthropogenic Global Warming.?

One in the eye, one supposes, for all those academies of science which have declared they accept the science of global warming and man?s role in it. But the definition goes on: ?One who takes direct orders from High Priest King of Idiocy, Albert J. Gore. One who puts the "mental" in environmentalism. Historical inheritors of those who believed that King Canute could hold back the tides and that the wolf would eat the moon unless their first-born daughter's virginity was sacrificed to the local shaman.?

Highly entertaining. And there are even derivatives of this word, such as ?warmenista?, defined as ?somebody who believes in and tries to convince others of the notion of global warming.? And, the website suggests, it can be used in sentences like this: "It's all the warmenistas' fault that the car industry is in such a mess". And to think that most people just blamed high debt levels, rising oil prices, poor fuel economies and bad management.

But such is the level of debate around climate change and carbon pricing in this country, and in others, such as Canada and the US. It has descended, miserably, into a battle of insults, slogans and one liners, typical of the populism that characterises the battle for a marginal seat, which given the precarious nature of this government?s hold on power, is exactly what this debate has become. And as Tony Abbott, his colleagues and the emissions-intensive industries have discovered to their joy, it is much easier, and much more profitable, to scare than to discuss. The polls tell us that.

Given that it is more effective to be entertaining than to be informative, it might be tempting to question how the government has chosen to deploy its resources. Its strategy has been to use Professor Tim Flannery to argue the science, Professor Ross Garnaut to argue the economics, and climate change minister Greg Combet to find a policy that can get through parliament.

Each is finding it hard to have an informed and rational debate about climate change. This struggle has been long lamented, as highlighted by Geoffrey Barker in an article on Inside.org in November 2009, when he noted how the key message of a speech delivered by then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was reduced, within a few days, to a meaningless political catch-phrase.

Rudd had argued that opponents of action on climate change were ?betting the house on that simple premise that the cost of not acting is nothing.? He went on: ?They are reckless gamblers who are betting all our futures on their arrogant assumption that their intuitions should triumph over the evidence? The logic of these skeptics belongs in a casino, not a science lab, and not in the ranks of any responsible government.? By the weekend, the speech had been condensed to three words ? ?Rudd?s hissy fit?.

Garnaut and Combet can sympathise with this. Everything they say is boiled down to the impact on electricity prices, but at least they are able to reply in kind. Garnaut, when challenged on his scientific qualifications, often retorts: ?Yes, but I know how to read.?

Flannery finds it harder. He is passionate about the subject, writes brilliantly, and is an effective communicator, but only to those who are prepared to listen. The polls tell us that the scare campaign, particularly around energy costs, means many consumers have chosen to switch off their minds, but not their appliances. Flannery does not think or communicate in sound bites. When asked recently how a carbon price would help reduce global temperatures, he answered truthfully: It wouldn't for a thousand years or more. He should have told them an equal truth, taking action now is designed to try and stop temperatures rising too far, to stop the planet from frying. But perhaps he was burned by prior predictions. In the end his words were distorted to suggest that cutting emissions would have no impact at all.

Now that the government has a new chief scientist, one whose credentials should be unimpeachable for the shock jocks and populist columnists, perhaps it's time for a change at the head of climate change commission ? a steady hand that can not be so easily baited, or distorted. Flannery is likely to be much more effective off the government payroll than on it.

He wouldn?t be the only one. If the battle is to be fought over the radio waves and through populist culture, imagine the role that could be played by Peter Garrett, as lead singer of Midnight Oil. Instead, the junior minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth is trying to look busy ? and competent ? fixing problems with the Myschool website. Square pegs in round holes."

http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/wish-i-wasnt-warmenist