Inconvenient Truth Indeed

Chris De Freitas is one of the those annoying academics who just will not shut up. Holding the position of Associate Professor in the School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science at Auckland University, one would think that he would have sufficient sense of academic, social and political decorum to “pull his head in.” Surely he must know that he is increasingly seen as a modern-day luddite, opposing the relentless advance of knowledge.

Such contumacious stubbornness may be laughed off as the crotchety prickliness of an ivory tower academic—a sort of tolerable, even charming, eccentricity—were it not for the magnitude of the issues at stake. For we are dealing with the survival of humanity and a threat to the planet. So enormous are the stakes that even if we are wrong in thinking that the earth is under threat, it is prudent to support everything that attempts to combat global warming—government taxes, government imposed costs, and, yes, more government taxes—because the consequences that possibly face us are just too awful to contemplate. Oh, did I mention more taxes.

Even if we are all wrong, what is the worst that will have happened? We will have just paid more taxes, the government will have got a whole lot bigger, our economy will be carrying a huge drag, and everyone except politicians and bureaucrats will be poorer. That's not so bad. So the poor and the underclass can stay that way a bit longer—well maybe a lot longer actually, but at least they are still alive.

So, it's high time the University Council acted to control this meddling nit picker. Maybe a phone call to remind him who pays his wages would be in order. Good grief, the University got rid of that trouble-maker in the Political Studies department (what was his name—ah, yes, Buchanan, that's right) really quickly. Compared to De Freitas, he was a trifling irritant. He just insulted an overseas student. The stakes are so much higher with the issues in which De Freitas traffics.

What has Chris done now? The NZ Herald (Wednesday, 13th March 2008—incidentally, the Herald is not blameless either—possibly also necessitating a phone call to the editor) carried a piece written by De Freitas (hat tip, No Minister ) in which he reviews some inconvenient truths—well, not truths, theories really, but let's not quibble over words when the salvation of the planet is at stake. In the words of De Freitas:

“It is important to keep in mind that greenhouse gas-induced climate change can also act to substantially reduce sea level.
“There is now a substantive body of research reported in peer-reviewed scientific journal literature that suggests that sea levels, which have been rising since the end of the last ice age (long before industrialisation), are likely to stabilise or fall in a greenhouse-warmed world.
“This is because empirical evidence indicates that a modest warming of the Earth could lower sea level by increasing evaporation from the oceans. The result is increased deposition and accumulation of snow on the polar ice caps, principally in the Antarctic, thereby transferring large amounts of water from the oceans to the ice sheets.
“The reasoning is that if the Antarctic air were to warm, it would still be below freezing, but its water holding capacity would increase as it warms. With more moisture in the atmosphere over the Antarctic, snowfall would increase and ice sheets would grow, locking up water that would otherwise be in the sea.
“In this context, it is significant that during the strong warming episode of 1920-40, sea level rise did not accelerate but actually stopped.”

The threat of rising sea levels has been one of those images and symbols of anthropogenic global warming ideology that is powerfully visceral. If anything makes us sit up and take notice it is the spectre of millions of people crowding on to ever smaller parcels of land—a sort of relentless global tsunami that has the potential to engulf us all in a latter day Noahic deluge.

Now De Freitas wants to prick the balloon, pointing to some extremist hair brained research, that suggests that global warming actually reduces sea levels by aggregating snow over the Antarctic cap. “Substantive body of research”, blah blah; “peer-reviewed scientific journals”, blah blah; “empirical evidence indicates”, blah blah.

Getting everybody on the global warming bandwagon is hard enough, what with antediluvian countries like the US not signing up to Kyoto, and with quibbling wealthy businessmen complaining against deeply flawed emissions trading schemes, and the world apparently getting colder. De Freitas is far more dangerous because he is actually tarnishing our most sacred and powerful marketing image.

Why doesn't someone tell De Freitas that we're just not interested. He is wasting his breath. In fact, maybe we should tell him to stop breathing all together. Go ahead, Chris—reduce our greenhouse gases—step off the planet.

Saving the planet and humanity is a high calling—dare we say it (yes, we should because it is that significant)—more than a high calling, it is Messianic. When we are doing truly Messianic work, saving mankind, doesn't De Freitas understand that we are not going to be deflected or distracted by a few inconvenient truths.

Come on, Vice Chancellor. We have had enough. Pick up the phone. Do the planet and humanity a favour. Make that call!