| By

Off the keyboard of Geoffrey Chia

Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666

Friend us on Facebook

Published on The Doomstead Diner on July 25, 2019

Discuss this article at the Environment Table inside the Diner

The reposted essay below is long, outdated and depressing.

For a much briefer presentation laced with morbid humour you may wish to view this " Ecosqueak " clip instead: https://youtu.be/3_T4QaJQRL0

(if link does not work, search youtube for "Ecosqueak" and "Geoffrey Chia")

Back in 2012 I still naively believed it might be possible to mitigate against the horrific impending planetary catastrophe we face this century if only the forces of reason and fairness could prevail over those of deceit and greed. I felt that systemic change was needed which would require vigorous opposition to those forces of deceit and greed. Simply exhorting amenable greenies to change their lightbulbs was pointless. My article " The Brisbane Institute is a Brisbane Prostitute " was a personal effort towards that goal, which I sent out far and wide. Some so-called "sustainability" advocates harshly criticised me for that essay. My response to them was this: all it takes for evil to prevail is for "good" people to do nothing.

The recent flurry of "Extinction Rebellion" and "School strike for Climate" activity reflects an unacknowledged visceral dread among the newly aware that evil has indeed prevailed.

The Brisbane Institute started life as a public sustainability think tank, with many esteemed invited speakers such as Professor Ian Lowe and Professor Kjell Aleklett (Swedish president of ASPO International). Unfortunately the BI was subsequently hijacked by the fossil fuel lobby, which I expressed my rage against in that "prostitute" article, which I sent to Rachel Nolan, Queensland State Minister for Transport and one of the original patrons of the BI, who then forwarded it on to the BI committee members. I received an idiotic response from one of them who wrote he thought the CEO Karyn Brinkley was "doing a good job". Well she certainly did a good smoke and mirrors job on behalf of the fossil fuel fraudsters. From 2012 onwards, the BI held only private meetings in corporate circles promoting their anti-sustainability propaganda and they disbanded in 2013.

The BI had previously posted "full" transcripts of the meetings mentioned below on the web (with my questions censored out) which have since mysteriously disappeared.

The following article was originally written by Geoffrey Chia in February 2012:

THE BRISBANE INSTITUTE IS A BRISBANE PROSTITUTE:

a paid mouthpiece of mining and fossil fuel interests

(warning: this article contains harsh language and bad jokes)

Here are a couple of key quotes from health leaders at the COP-17 climate conference in Durban,

South Africa, 28 November to 11 December, 2011 :

"Climate Change poses an immediate and grave threat to human health and survival worldwide.

Many are already affected. Emissions are rising steeply. Action is needed now – not later."

Dr. Hugh Montgomery, Climate and Health Council, UK

“ If the world’s governments agree to delay (climate) action for the rest of this decade…history will

judge Durban as a moment of global political malpractice of criminal proportions. It would be the

equivalent of diagnosing a patient with lung cancer and then telling them it’s ok to continue

smoking for nine more years. The health of billions of people is at stake.” Joshua Karliner,

International Coordinator, Health Care Without Harm

Here is a reference to a paper which was presented at Durban which is so important that I am placing it at the front (rather than the end) of this article:

An Ethical Analysis of the Climate Change Disinformation Campaign: Is This A New Kind of

Assault on Humanity? https://ethicsandclimate.org/2011/12/02/an_ethical_analysis_of_the_climate_change_disinformation_campaign_is_this_a_new_kind_of_assault_on_h/

The anatomy of global warming denialism

The article referenced above demonstrates how deniers of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) are in fact self serving, morally bankrupt sociopaths and that their behaviour is an assault on humanity. Now more than ever it is imperative we vigorously oppose the egregious lies perpetrated by the fossil fuel fraudsters and their lackeys. We cannot let them get away with it.

Professor Naomi Oreskes clearly showed from her voluminous research that there is a well orchestrated, well funded campaign of AGW denial, distortion and disinformation going on, the epicentre of which is the George C Marshall Institute in the United States (the originators of tobacco-cancer denialism). Our own Clive Hamilton examined this web of deceit and found it extends across and is coordinated between numerous right wing "think tanks" and astroturf groups around the world, the noisiest being the US conservative Tea Party group. (What exactly are the

conservatives conserving anyway?) This is not "conspiracy theory". There is indisputable

documentation of this corrosive network of AGW denialism, hell bent on perverting national and

international policy.

The core of denialist "beliefs" 1 is not truth, is not science, is not evidence, is not fact and is

not reason, even though they try to make their arguments sound plausible with pseudoscientific

jargon and by cherry picking facts taken out of context. Their position is based on an unshakable

sense of personal entitlement coupled with apoplectic hostility directed against anyone suggesting

any change to their lifestyles. How dare those greenies interfere with my God given right to

unfettered consumption! Hence they target their venom against environmentalists and against

climate scientists (including death threats and intimidating bogus lawsuits 2 ). Hence the

proliferation of anonymous internet trolls and their ubiquitous cyberbullying whenever a scientist

dares speak the truth about climate change in the media.

When Julia Gillard supported a price on carbon to encourage renewable energy

development, she was villified as "Bob Brown's Bitch" at a rightwing astroturf rally attended by the

execrable Tony Abbott in March 2011. Denialists continue to engage in criminal activities such as

the email hacking of universities, which is reminiscent of the mobile phone hacking by the

Murdoch press. These connections are further highlighted by the the enthusiastic coverage the

Murdoch media gave to those illegally hacked climate emails. Robert Manne's Quarterly Essay in

September 2011 outlined the deceit and distortions perpetrated by the Australian newspaper under

the criminally irresponsible Chris Mitchell.

If the denialists truly disbelieve the best peer reviewed scientific climate research, for which

there is "only" 97% consensus, then we should say this to them: do not go to a scientifically trained

doctor or a modern hospital the next time you fall ill, because medical diagnosis and treatment is

also based on the best peer reviewed scientific research, for which there may be "only" 97% expert

consensus but never 100% certainty.

But guess what? You can be certain that if any of those denialists have a heart attack or get

cancer they will immediately seek out the best modern medical treatment. Why? Because they

know it works. Because they know the science is the best option available. Because they know it is

in their own best interest to listen to the science and to follow the scientific recommendations in

order to save their egocentric carcasses.

The argument can be further extended to all the benefits in life that the denialists derive from

the scientific method: the smart phones, computers, internet, modern transportation, electronic

appliances and engineered infrastructure, which the denialists should completely abandon if they

truly disbelieve the methods, conclusions and products of science. Yet they enthusiastically embrace

the benefits of science, even while villifying scientists.

The above facts prove that the principal abiding motive, the one consistent pattern which

permeates the mentality of climate change denialists is not scientific "scepticism" but is in fact the

overweening relentless pursuit of their own personal benefit (and to hell with everyone else). The

very definition of self serving sociopaths. If medical science benefits them, they believe it. If

climate science interferes with their "right" to rapacious overconsumption and their self indulgent

luxuries (such as their "right" to drive their SUVs up and down the beach on weekends 3 ), they

attack the climate scientists.

Nature however pays no heed to the fignorant 4 chatter of those fignorant 4 denialists. As time

goes by, ever more overwhelming scientific evidence indisputably shows ever worsening trends of

global warming, of extreme weather events, of glacial, permafrost and ice cap melting and of

release of methane from the Arctic coast 5 far worse than the IPCC projections. We are seeing the

biological consequences of global warming: species migration to higher latitudes/altitudes,

behavioural changes and mass extinctions. The coral reefs are dying now . Acidification of the

oceans will lead to catastrophic collapse of marine ecosystems. Loss of mountain glacial meltwater

will lead to failure of summer irrigation for crops that billions of people depend on. Expanding hot

zones will mean the spread of tropical diseases. Extreme weather events will directly kill people and

will lead to more crop failures (as has already occurred, but the future will be magnitudes worse).

Sea level rises will threaten more than a hundred million people on the Indian subcontinent alone,

quite apart from potentially destroying coastal cities worldwide. Unchecked global warming will

lead to a planet that humans were not evolved to adapt to, will cause the death of billions of people

around the world and threaten the very existence of civilisation (which requires a stable climate for

agriculture). This is not exaggeration, this is not alarmist. It is the well considered objective

conclusion of many top scientists around the world such as James Hansen and James Lovelock and

many national academies of science such as the venerable Royal Society. Professor Hans Joachim

Schellnhuber, founder of the Potsdam Institute, has stated that the difference between 2 degrees and

4 degrees global warming is human civilisation (and we are on track to exceed the latter). Martin

Rees, former president of the Royal Society, thought civilisation had a 50% chance of surviving this

century and judging by what is going on today, he was optimistic. Paul Nurse, current president of

the Royal Society, is actively engaged in promoting the scientific method and rebutting the

denialists.

Meanwhile the economic delusionists continue to bleat that it will be too "expensive" to

reduce carbon emissions, completely ignoring the billion fold greater costs (not to mention deaths)

of not reducing carbon emissions. They know that most of the harm will not personally affect them

in their lifetime. The harm will mainly befall Third World inhabitants and Australians of younger

generations, hence using the legerdemain of dishonest accounting, the denialists and delusionists

simply ignore it.

There are hard deniers and there are soft deniers and in many respects the soft deniers are

more duplicitous, disingenuous and devious, because even though they pretend to lend a

sympathetic ear to the science, in practice they back the fossil fuel agenda. The hard deniers like

"Lord" Monckton are clearly liars and fools. The soft deniers may not overtly dispute the fact of

anthropogenic global warming but they claim that the effects will not be as bad as the scientists

predict or that the benefits may exceed the disadvantages or that we can easily adapt to the changes.

Based on what? Based on their own wishful thinking and hunches which they consider more

reliable than any hard science? Nevermind the increasing evidence of runaway global warming far

exceeding the IPCC projections.

The soft deniers are insidious Trojan horses and handpuppets of the fossil fuel corporations.

Observations of three Brisbane Institute sessions 2011

I will now describe some observations of the latter three Brisbane Institute presentations of

2011. I was keen to learn from experts (or those portrayed by the Institute as experts) and must

confess I was temporarily sucked in (or suckered in) by the apparent reasonableness with which

matters initially appeared to be conducted, however the prominently displayed Santos billboard by

the stage should have rung alarm bells from the outset. No guesses as to who the major sponsor of

these "public" meetings was. But never mind, I thought, let's hear them out. I was even gullible

enough to pay $20/- per session for the privilege of being brainwashed.

It will be impossible to comprehensively cover all aspects of these sessions, however I will

describe the broad message the organisers and chairperson of the Brisbane Institute were attempting

to deliver.

23 August 2011: Positive Energy Futures: What's the fracking fuss all about?

As you know, fracking is the process of injecting pressurised water containing chemical

agents into coal seams (or oil shale) to fracture the rock and extract methane. The resultant toxic

saline effluent is expelled on the surface. The very title of this session was designed to promote the

idea that coal seam gas represented a positive energy future for us and for goodness sake, why were

people making such a f*ing fuss about it? Their star speaker was Professor Michael Economides,

who had been clearly handpicked by the fossil fuel propagandists. Economides was sold to us as an

American energy and coal seam gas expert. He claimed to be a Democrat and environmentalist, but

immediately launched into a diatribe decrying the mindless "hate" that "greenies" have against

fossil fuels. He gave no reason why those loopy greenies might "hate" fossil fuels apart from what

he regarded as irrational ideology. He also expressed dismay at how people were "wasting time"

talking about global warming, when there were such huge profits to be made from extracting coal

seam gas, our energy source for the future, which we simply could not ignore. He claimed that all

our concerns about harvesting coal seam gas were unfounded.

Under normal circumstances it would be impolite and inappropriate to comment on the

physical appearance of the speaker, however in this case it was utterly relevant. Economides was

morbidly obese. He was virtually spherical in shape, as wide as he was high. As a physician I can

definitely state that his body mass index was far in excess of 35. The term morbidly obese is a

proper and formal medical diagnostic term to be found in all medical textbooks and journals.

How obese was he? He was:

So obese that when he steps on a scale, it screams "one at a time, please".

So obese that when his beeper goes off, people think he is backing up.

So obese that when he goes to the beach, Greenpeace shows up and tries to tow him back into the

sea.

All right, perhaps I may have crossed the line with those cheap shots, however that does not

detract one iota from the relevance of his morbid obesity. Why was it relevant? Because morbid

obesity is a disease of overconsumption related to poor impulse control 6 coupled with indadequate

exercise and disregard for any consequences. Unrestrained appetite and unremitting sloth.

At the Brisbane Institute were witnessing the farcical spectacle of a morbidly obese man

flown in from America to lecture us about the benefits of overconsumption, with reckless disregard

for any consequences. A theatre of the absurd. He was instructing us to abuse our environment in

the same way he was abusing his own body – by indulging in rapacious greed. He dismissed the

importance (but not existence) of global warming (he was a "soft" denier) in response to my

question and when asked by someone else about the possibility of fugitive emissions from coal

seam gas projects, he denied that they existed or could be important.

In fact, a Cornell University study in 2011 showed that natural gas from shale fracking

almost certainly causes more greenhouse emissions than the coal industry 7 and there is every reason

to expect that coal seam gas, which uses the same technology, is just as bad.

I am no expert on coal seam gas, but having previously attended a comprehensive

multidisciplinary presentation at the University of Queensland organised by Dr. Peter Dart, with

many expert speakers in soil science, geology, energy and agriculture, it is clear there are well

founded and justifiable concerns about potential environmental damage to our food bowl based on

the science. Particularly if CSG is upscaled to the many thousands of wells the government and gas

companies are vying for in the pursuit of short term filthy lucre. It is not about "hating" fossil fuels.

It is about being prudent and cautious. It is about showing a little respect for the wellbeing of our

ecosphere (without which we cannot survive) and for the wellbeing of future generations. It is about

placing long term need over short term greed.

Professor Economides purportedly had more than 200 scientific publications to his name.

The Marshall Institute and the tobacco companies, with their deep pockets, had no difficulty hiring

mouthpieces possessing alphabet soup qualifications to publicise their agenda. No doubt Santos had

no trouble flying this chap over from America to do the same. The physicist Dr Vandana Shiva calls

such paid mouthpieces "scientific prostitutes", whose assertions (eg tobacco cancer denial) are

unrelated to their qualifications (eg nuclear physics).

Just as a highly qualified chef has no business lecturing us about the benefits of unrestrained

gluttony with no regard for the consequences (no matter how many culinary awards he has); a

highly qualified fossil fuel professor has no business lecturing us about the benefits of unrestrained

CSG extraction with no regard for the consequences (no matter how many fossil fuel papers he has

written).

18 October 2011: Positive Energy Futures: Seriously, Renewable?

It is clear from the sarcastic title of this next session that we were not meant to regard

renewable energy as a serious option. Punctuation makes a huge difference to the meaning of a

phrase and there is a world of difference between "Seriously Renewable!" and "Seriously,

Renewable?"

Who was responsible for crafting the titles of these sessions and for steering the overall tone

and message delivered? Surely the responsibility must lie with Karyn Brinkley, the CEO of the

Brisbane Institute who chaired these meetings. Are we supposed to believe she is an independent

and impartial agent, not influenced by her financial sponsors? There is truth to the saying, "he who

pays the piper calls the tune".

Nothwithstanding the advances in renewable energy technologies outlined by the speakers,

in particular Professors Paul Meredith and Hal Gurgenci, the overwhelming message delivered by

this session steered by Karyn Brinkley was that given the present state of our grid, we should cease

and desist from any more renewable energy input. Our existing grid was based on nineteenth

century coal fired technology and was simply not designed to cope with the fluctuating nature of

renewable energy inputs, which are now causing problems including power surges, which could be

damaging.

6 December 2011: Positive Energy Futures: Save your energy!

This session started with the observation that we had one billion dollars worth of assets

locked up in surplus electricity generating equipment, which was only utilised during the highest of

peak electricity demands – which amounted to the equivalent of just four out of 365 days of the

year. Everyone agreed this state of affairs was terribly wasteful and made no economic sense

whatsoever, but no solution was offered by the panel other than declaring that everyone should

reduce their consumption, particularly at peak times. We heard the usual discourse about changing

lightbulbs and using domestic energy meters.

There is an obvious and beautifully elegant solution to the problem above and I was amazed

none of the panel members mentioned it. Hence I brought it up during the Q&A session. Peak

electricity demands occur on the hottest days of the year when airconditioners are being

progressively switched on around the state. These hot periods are driven by intense sunlight.

Quantitative studies have shown that the simultaneous occurrence of peak sunshine and peak

demand offers us the golden opportunity to harness that peak solar energy to feed into the grid to

meet or exceed the peak demands. In fact we would have to be crazy and stupid not to seize this

tremendous prize just waiting to be harvested in our so-called "Sunshine State". It would free one

billion dollars away from the "stranded assets" of fossil fuel powered peak demand electricity

generators which sit idle 361 days of the year. It would not require any fossil fuel input. The "fuel"

(sunshine) would cost us nothing in perpetuity and would be emissions free. This plan would of

course require updating our grid for the twenty first century (which needs to be done anyway) to

cope with large renewable energy inputs and the provision of sufficient solar power, probably a

combination of solar thermal and solar photovoltaic (PV) sources. Of course such restructuring

requires funding which could be obtained from the price on carbon. Furthermore, institution of a

gross feed-in tariff would encourage the proliferation of solar PV throughout Queensland (proven

highly effective by the German experience). This solution was not an original suggestion of mine 8

but one I had learned about from energy experts 9 who had done the energy and the economic

calculations to validate it.

The panel's response to this well considered solution was mind bogglingly idiotic. I refer

specifically to Kate Farrar, a business pundit, who regurgitated a vomitload of drivel I term " the

Plantation Owner's argument ". It was obviously a brainless kneejerk response she repeated ad

nauseum whenever anyone mentioned renewable energy, judging by her well rehearsed delivery.

Perhaps she had been coached by economic delusionists such as Warwick McCibbin 10 who I have

heard spew out the same rubbish in the past. In a nutshell, she stated that we should not "pick

winners" and we should "let the free market decide" and she rattled off numbers indicating how the

price of solar energy was way too high compared with the price of coal fired energy 1 1 and hence

not affordable. Her "solution" was that we should do nothing and maintain business as usual ( which

is exactly what the fossil fuel companies would like us to do ) and the market would somehow

magically solve all our problems.

If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a

different result, then she must have been a complete lunatic. This was someone who knew the price

of everything but the value of nothing. I call such people BAUAUs (pronounced "bowows" – think

of a yapping dog) which stands for Business As Usual Acolytes and Underlings .

Audience members get suckered in by their platitudinous soundbytes because, like all

convincing lies, it contains some half truths. Private enterprise and the profit motive can spur

greater productivity. Free and fair competition on a level playing field can reduce costs to

consumers while improving the quality of goods and services. Consequent economic development

can lead to better lives for people (up to a point) and lift millions out of poverty as in the case of

China.

But scratch the surface of her argument and you immediately release the foul stench of

rotting garbage. It is a simple fact that our market is anything but free and is hardly a level playing

field. Our car industries receive massive government subsidies, without which they could never be

competitive, but the economic ideologues do not bleat on about the free market then. What about

the billions in subsidies given by European governments to their agricultural sectors, shutting out

food imports from abroad? What about the Japanese government who heavily subsidise their rice

farmers and punitively tax rice imports? There is nothing intrinsically wrong about targeted

subsidies and targeted taxes to protect sectors which are vital for national security, but let us not be

hypocritical and pretend we have free and fair markets. On the other hand, inappropriate

government handouts can be extremely damaging to society and can paralyse our prospects for the

future. The most blatant is exemplified by the billions of dollars of government subsidies handed

out to the (already immensely profitable) fossil fuel corporations – taxpayers money which in fact

represents a big fat (hidden) tax on us which they never talk about. And what about America, the so

called champion of free market capitalism which bailed out failed investment banks and mortgage

firms with public money? Money which was then used to give bonuses to crooked board members?

Socialise the losses and privatise the profits – that what their "free" market actually does. Our

markets are about as free as the Democratic Republic of North Korea is democratic.

The BAUAUs only invoke the "free market" argument when it suits their own agenda (eg

supporting their fossil fuel masters) but are strangely silent when grabbing taxpayer handouts

behind the scenes. Perish the thought that any potential competitors (eg renewable energy) could

receive any government subsidies, oh no, that would spell "economic disaster".

The BAUAUs assertion that we should not "pick winners" implies that our existing system

is impartial and that somehow through the magic of the market place, the best and most efficient

operators will flourish and the uncompetitive players will perish, like some kind of natural

selection. Adam Smith's so-called "hidden hand", beloved of the Hayek/Friedman fundamentalists,

which the Nobel prizewinning economist Joseph Stiglitz says does not actually exist. Using the

examples of those government subsidies again, we know for a fact that our system already does

pick winners; favourites which are often deeply inefficient and corrupt but just happen to have

strong lobbying influence with government. The invasion of Iraq for their oil in 2003 was a classic

example of the US government favouring their handpicked "winner" Halliburton 12 , thus facilitating

a gigantic economic windfall for Halliburton (which was given oil service contracts without tender)

and other associated US corporations, but causing unimaginable suffering and death to ordinary

Iraqis, not to mention the deaths of several thousand US soldiers. Privatise the profits and socialise

the losses – that is how US "free market" capitalism works.

Government policies picking winners has always been the manner by which capitalist

economies have risen, whether we consider the Western models from the time of the British and

Dutch East India companies or the Asian models of the Japanese Zaibatsus, Korean Chaebols or

emerging Chinese Corporations. America continues to support numerous "too big to fail"

companies, exemplified by their obsolete "big three" car companies (GM, Ford, Chrysler).

The BAUAUs argue that market regulation (which is the mechanism by which "winners" are

picked and may interfere with the "hidden hand") is bad, to which any thinking person can only

respond, "bovine excrement!"

Firstly, citing Joseph Stiglitz again, it is clear that the dismantling of investment bank

regulations by the free market ideologues (regulations which were put in place after the Great

Depression) led directly to perversion of the US financial system and the Global Financial Crisis of

2008. 13

Secondly it is a fact that proper regulation based on honest accounting works and had indeed

been protecting America from another Great Depression till now. The strategy of choosing optimum

public policy by balancing benefits against detriment is well proven. That is why we ban asbestos,

even though it may be cheap. Only after choosing policy based on the benefit/risk principle should

we weave economic incentives and disincentives around it, rather than having the tail wagging the

dog as advocated by Kate Farrar, the tail whisperer.

I can speak with authority 14 on the medical model of decision making, well proven to save

lives, which in fact requires we pick "winners". If you had cancer and asked a doctor to

recommend the best therapy and he said "we should not pick winners" and "we should let the

market decide" and "let's go with the cheapest price on the market and not worry about efficacy or

side effects", how would you respond? Any critically ill patient who wishes to survive will regard

"market price" as the least important consideration and will appreciate that the optimum therapy

must be actively chosen by weighing up the benefits versus the risks of each option and not by

worshipping at the altar of "hidden-hand" economics. To choose a cheap but nasty therapy with low

efficacy and fatal side-effects is lunatic false economy, just as the BAUAUs approach to energy

policy is lunatic false economy.

Thirdly, not picking winners and treating all options as equal (standing back and allowing all

manner of activities, even destructive ones, to flourish in the market) is in fact detrimental.

Government tolerance of unregulated deforestation in Indonesia and Brazil (in the name of short

term profits) is one of the worst ecological planetary disasters today. The winners they ought to pick

should be forest preservation with ecotourism and sustainable timber harvesting. Clear felling of

primary forest should be banned. Another bugbear of mine, the bottled water industry, is not only

utterly useless in countries with good quality tap water, but is downright harmful to our

environment, considering the wasteful fossil fuel consumption and indiscriminate disposal of

bottles. It should be banned.

The bottom line is this: the "let the market decide" and "we should not pick winners"

argument is completely fraudulent, dishonest and repugnant. Decision making must utilise evidence

and reason to establish the reality of our situation, following which we must fashion appropriate

economic incentives and disincentives around those realities, in order to encourage activities which

produce net benefit to society while discouraging activities which cause net harm. And yes, there is

a cost to protecting our environment and our futures, it does not come for free, just as there is a cost

to maintaining good health.

If this cost poses hardship to low income earners, we must use taxpayers money to

compensate them. That is what a fair society does. Our subsidies should go to the working poor, not

to the idle rich and certainly not to the fossil fuel companies. The US strategy of "compensating"

the rich and penalising the poor, which rightwing Australians are so keen on emulating, is a recipe

for social conflict, violence and revolution. Extreme social inequality was the underlying cause for

the NAME (North Africa and Middle East) "Arab spring" revolutions of 2011. Occupy Wall Street?

You ain't seen nothing yet.

Why do I call the BAUAUs argument the " plantation owners argument "? In its entirety, the

BAUAU argument goes on to state that if we change our present system (which is working "well"),

by adopting "radical" reforms (eg. more renewable energy, less fossil fuel energy) it will lead to

economic disaster. Therefore we should continue BAU. Historically, where have we heard that

argument before? The exact same argument was used by the plantation owners in the Confederate

states of America before the civil war. Certainly the system was working "well" for the slave

owners, because they had complete disregard for the suffering and death of the slaves who did all

their work. To them, the slaves simply did not count. The plantation owners externalised the harms

caused by their economic system and they used dishonest accounting, exactly what the AGW

deniers are doing right now. They argued that the abolition of slavery would lead to economic

disaster. After the civil war, the "radical" reform of abolition was adopted and America went on to

become the economic powerhouse of the world. So much for predictions of economic disaster.

Kate Farrar might have been personally successful in exploiting our existing business

system, but it is a perverse system and she is the worst sort of person to lecture us about planning

our future 15 . According to the BI blurb, she volunteers to help the homeless in her spare time. One

wonders what relevance that has for her inclusion as a panel member – perhaps the BI wish to imply

she is a wonderful humanitarian who is above any criticism? Just because a plantation owner is

"kind" to their slaves (throws them a few breadcrumbs from time to time and seldom beats them)

does not justify their support for slavery.

The deceptive illusion of being "fair and balanced"

Let me state for the record that many of the invited BI speakers were certainly honourable

high achieving people, amply qualified to comment on their topics. For example, Paul Meredith was

a highly qualified scientist and passionate advocate of solar energy and Gerald Tooth had a laudable

track record of being remarkably effective in convincing the public to conserve water during the

drought years, those habits enduring even till now.

The cunning strategy of the BI sessions was to juxtapose qualified speakers next to the

scientific prostitutes and BAUAUs. This served to lend credibility to the latter and project the

impression of being "fair and balanced" to all points of view (even the crazy ones) 16 .

This was identical to the Australian newspaper's devious strategy to lend credibility to global

warming deniers by juxtaposing articles of idiotic denialist ideas (often written by an economic

delusionist professors) next to articles by serious climate scientists, implying that both should be

given equal weight and consideration in the manufactured "controversy" surrounding global

warming. "Fair and balanced", just like Fox News, the principal cheerleader for the invasion of Iraq.

The order of speakers was also contrived to serve the overall message from the BI. For

example, Wally Wight, the recognised Brisbane expert on Peak Oil, was lined up to speak just

before those who advocated harvesting shale oil and coal seam gas. This facilitated the message:

"Running out of oil? We should grab more fossil fuels!"

Perish the thought that Wally Wight should speak just before a solar energy expert.

The chairperson's dismissive refusal to allow any rejoinder to Kate Farrar's idiotic blather

also reflected her bias. Had we run out of time for further discussion? Karyn Brinkley had no

qualms about running well overtime the first "energy" session, even though half the audience had to

leave due to closure of the cloak/bag room.

The final backstop argument of the AGW "soft" denialists and fossil fuel fraudsters, when all

their other arguments have been exposed as nonsensically bogus, is this:

Yes, AGW is real, yes it will be disastrous. But even if Australia undertakes the economic

"hardship" of restructuring to become emissions free, it will have a negligible effect on the world,

considering the much larger greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from other countries. Hence we

should not "go it alone", we should not bother. Much easier to harvest more fossil fuels. Let's party

today and die tomorrow, just as the band kept playing on the Titanic.

This is my fourfold reply:

Firstly, we will not be going it alone. In fact we have been dragging our heels too long and

we lag well behind Europe, California and British Columbia (the latter state instituted a carbon tax

several years ago) and many other states and countries. China is now the largest producer of wind

and solar PV resources and has begun to impose a tax on pollution in many of their major cities.

New Zealand intends to source at least 90% of their electricity from renewable energy by 2025.

Secondly, imagine this scenario: James Packer says that the tax he pays is only a tiny

fraction of Australia's total tax income. Hence he chooses not to pay any tax at all, because the

nation will hardly notice it. This is technically true. However our appropriate response should be

outrage that one of the richest members of society refuses to pay his fair share of tax. It would be

appropriate to regard him as a freeloading self serving scumbag who should be tarred and feathered.

Similarly, there are those who say that Australia's GHG emissions are only a small fraction of the

world total, hence we should not bother to curb them because the world will hardly notice it. It

would be appropriate to regard such people as freeloading self serving scumbags who should be

tarred and feathered. I refer in particular to Tony "global warming is crap" Abbott, who is utterly,

absolutely, totally unfit as a potential candidate for Prime Minister.

Thirdly, the only fair approach to adjusting GHG emissions is by considering per capita

emissions, historical GHG contributions and by assessing who can most easily curb their emissions

(invariably the richest people). Australians score highly on all three counts. We have the highest per

capita emissions in the world, it is the Western economies that have historically contributed 85% of

all GHGs to date (the CO 2 emitted from the 1800s is still lingering out there) and as one of the

richest countries in the world we can far more easily curb our emissions than, say, Indian or African

peasants living on the edge of survival. We are so wasteful we could easily cut our emissions by

half tomorrow and still enjoy a quality of life the envy of the world. Germans have half the

emissions of Americans and arguably enjoy a better lifestyle.

Fourthly, if the richest and worst emitters refuse to curb their emissions, then it will be

morally untenable to expect anyone else to do so. With the whole world then pursuing BAU,

disaster will be absolutely guaranteed. Hence the only hope for humanity is for countries such as

Australia to take the lead in emissions reduction. Australia has to do it, unless we are completely

mad and suicidal. It is time to grow up and face our responsibilities and cease the infantile whining.

I refer again to that vile opportunist and refugee vilifier Tony Abbott.

CONCLUSIONS:

We should regard AGW as nothing less than a terminal cancer threatening global

civilisation. Faced with terminal cancer, the sane patient will not worry about the "price" of therapy

and will only focus on the best therapy (the most effective therapy with the least side effects as

determined by the scientific research). What is the point of having heaps of money in the bank if

you are dead?

If we encounter lower or even negative economic growth during our transformation to

renewable energy, so what? Once we have tackled climate change we will have an indefinite future

to re-expand our economies (with newer and better renewable energy technologies). After World

War Two, Germany and Japan transformed from devastated heaps of rubble to powerhouse

economies in less than thirty years. If we do not tackle climate change now however, there will be

no future for human civilisation. The human species will not go extinct in the way we are rendering

so many other species extinct, but billions of people will die and the survivors will have nasty,

brutish, short and poor lives. All because of the selfishness of this generation.

Gwynne Dyer, in his many books and interviews, looked at these issues and stated that

transformation to 100% renewable energy will be a doddle, a walk in the park, a piece of cake. We

have the technology, argument over. The major impediments are political inertia and corrosive

obstructionism from the fossil fuel companies who employ scientific prostitutes and economic

delusionists to advance their agenda and maintain public apathy and confusion.

Change is difficult especially for those presently living a comfortable life, however change

is now upon us whether we like it or not. This should be our message to the AGW denialists: your

names are on the record and will be duly noted by posterity. If you do not change your attitudes and

your ways, your children and grandchildren will revile and curse you for your despicable

selfishness and for your role in destroying their futures.

Is this an provocative essay? Have I caused offence by calling the Brisbane Institute a

Brisbane Prostitute? If so, I would like to offer my humble apologies to any prostitutes who resent

being compared to this reprehensible institute.

One more quote:

"Clean energy is essential to our addressing the carbon climate problem… research shows clearly

that we must prime the pump on innovation now with increased funding for research and

development, while putting incentives in place that allow the resulting new technologies to compete

successfully in the marketplace." – words from that well known hardline greenie communist radical,

Bill Gates.

Just because I advocate the primacy of rationality in shaping human affairs does not mean I

am not passionate about what I believe, as you can obviously tell. We are engaged in nothing less

than a struggle for the preservation human civilisation and unfortunately at present it is the self

serving liars, fools and scumbags who are winning. It's no use crying out in the wilderness, "for

God's sake, somebody do something!"

You, dear reader, are somebody.

Geoffrey Chia, February 2012

Dr Geoffrey Chia is a Brisbane Cardiologist who is convenor of the group "Doctors and Scientists for Sustainability and Social Justice" www.d3sj.org who advocate that policy should be based on evidence, reason and fairness to achieve the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people on a long term basis. All members of the public who agree with those principles are invited to attend the meetings for free .

Footnotes:

1. What the AGW denialists claim to believe and what they actually believe are not the same thing. They claim to

be "sceptical" of the peer reviewed climate science research, however they accept the peer reviewed scientific

research of other fields when it suits them, even if the level of uncertainty in the other fields (eg medical

therapy) may be the same or worse than that of the climate science. What is the explanation for such

discrepancy? The only explanation, backed up by mountains of evidence, is that they are self serving

scumbags, driven by greed and an overwhelming sense of entitlement.

2. Such as US Republican James Inhofe's bogus lawsuits launched against climate scientists.

3. This "right" of course far exceeds the right of Third World peasants to eat, far exceeds the right of future

generations to a stable existence and far exceeds the right of other species on this planet to survive.

4. Fignorant is to ignorant as fugly is to ugly

5. http://www.clubofrome.org/?p=3425

6. Virtually no obese patients that I or any of my specialist colleagues see in clinic are ever found to have

"hormonal" problems, even though we check detailed blood tests for all of them. Many obese patients claim

they "eat like a bird" (one presumes they are referring to a tiny hummingbird and not a seven foot tall ostrich)

but they still magically put on weight. A senior colleague of mine responds to such claims with the statement,

"there are no obese inmates of concentration camps ". Studies have shown that obese people consistently

underestimate and underreport the amount of food they eat. One of the biggest problems of the obese is their

denial that they have an impulse control problem.

7. http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/April11/GasDrillingDirtier.html

8. My solution, which I did not voice that day, would be to use natural ventilation augmented by fans and not to

use airconditioners in Brisbane except in vital locations such as intensive care units. This approach would

however require the heinous and unthinkable act of designing buildings with windows which can actually

open, shaded by eaves to protect against influx of direct sunlight. We could call such a building a

Queenslander , a novel construction which has obviously never been thought of before.

9. I first heard of this elegant proposal from Bill Brazier, then President of the Queensland Branch of the ANZ

Solar Energy Society at our d3sj meeting in February 2007 and have since read other articles confirming how

economically and environmentally reasonable, sensible and logical such a plan is (and hence completely

unacceptable to the BI).

10. Not to be confused with William McKibben (better known as Bill McKibben), founder of 350.org, who

advocates that we need to reduce atmospheric CO 2 to the level of 350ppm recommended by top climate

scientists such as James Hansen and that economic measures must be guided by scientifically determined

realities. Warwick McKibbin however believes that limpwristed maneuverings fabricated by economic

ideologies and platitudes will somehow save us. The fact is we cannot depend on the people who have caused

our problems (the economic delusionists) to solve them.

11. Our existing energy prices are based on dishonest accounting where fossil fuel energy gets a "free ride"

without having to pay for the harm it causes. Existing prices are based on lies and unrealities, leading to

perverse outcomes.

12. Some may argue quite legitimately that Halliburton (through Dick Cheney) was the defacto US government at

the time.

13. The underlying cause of the GFC was deregulation of the US investment banks, thus allowing the fraudsters to

engage in skullduggery. The trigger for the GFC was Peak Oil, the price of crude reaching US$147/- per barrel

in July 2008

14. My alphabets? MBBS, MRCP, FRACP, FCSANZ

15. Richard Branson is a somewhat more successful businessperson than Kate Farrar. His latest book is titled,

"Screw Business as Usual" which argues that we must overturn capitalism to take into account social and

environmental values.

16. As newly appointed CEO of the BI in 2009, Karyn Brinkley organised a forum for a partisan audience in

January 2010, which gave equal billing to the AGW denialists “Lord” Monckton and Ian Plimer against

climate realists in a “debate”, which the Courier Mail later declared the AGW denialists won (she has also