Stay rational on climate change

Many assume that a “climate sceptic” rejects man-made global warming. But that isn’t how the term is used by activists and the media. Deviation on any of the four categories can be enough.

The third category, “effect”, concerns the repercussions of a warming world. The IPCC’s position is that none of the range of potential outcomes is tolerable. Stern and Garnaut say amen to that, but some experts differ.

The fourth category is about the appropriate “response” to climate change. The Kyoto Protocol prescribes tough carbon emission reduction targets and measures like an emissions trading scheme. Our government is going down this route. Other ways of pricing carbon have also been advocated. And some argue there are higher priorities than climate change.

Still, dissenting from any aspect of the wide-ranging orthodoxy can see you branded a dangerous sceptic. You can be orthodox on cause, but disagree on effect, and be labelled a sceptic. You can be orthodox on cause and effect, but object to carbon pricing as a response, and be labelled a sceptic. You can be orthodox on cause, effect and response, but question “cap-and-trade” emissions trading, and be labelled a sceptic.

We have arrived at the absurd point where you can be orthodox on everything, but disagree with the government’s timetable for emissions trading, and still be damned as a sceptic. Try criticising green shibboleths like light-rail and bicycle paths and you can be tarred as a sceptic for that, even if you are otherwise orthodox.

Clearly, it’s about framing debates and manipulating public opinion. “Denier”, “sceptic”: bludgeons to keep people in line and intimidate troublemakers. Shudder at the consequences. How many millions of dollars will be squandered, how many livelihoods put at risk, and how many opportunities lost, owing to fear of these reprehensible tags?