Open Letter to Senator Fielding

13 July 2009

Dear Senator

As you would know, the news today widely reported that you have been unable to find coherent answers to your reasonable queries on climate change and have raised this issue with your fellow parliamentarians.

I am by no means a climate scientist, but I have heard some reasonably compelling answers to the points that you have raised. In Australia, Professor Barry Brook at the University of Adelaide is able to provide detailed explanations that may help arrest your concerns. I will be seeing Barry tomorrow and will let him know that you may be in contact.

Through contacts in the US and in Europe, I can also connect you with other leading global climate scientists who will be able to provide you with as much detail as you wish to see. There is of course no absolutes, no absolute proof – science as you know is merely a question of fitting the most likely cause with the most obvious consequence. The evidence appears however to be reasonably conclusive on many of the key points.

I would agree with you that science is not perfect. This is continually demonstrated in scientific fields such as medicine, but we continue to take treatments even when the diagnosis is not perfect. Like the human body, there is undoubtedly far more to learn and far greater understanding of our climate to be gained.

Some might consider the fact that the vast majority of global climate scientists agree in overview (if not in detail) to be merely a conspiracy of self-reinforcement amongst all those ‘white coats’. Others might consider that in fact the weight of probability appears to be strongly in favour of anthropogenic climate change caused by emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

In the unlikely event that all the leading scientists have got it wrong, there is an interesting consideration that I first heard raised by Professor Stephen Schneider of Stanford University. He asked a public meeting in Adelaide Town Hall how many in the audience had house insurance, to which many hands were raised. He then asked how many people have had their house burn down, to which one poor chap at the back raised his hand. To many who have thought seriously about the issue, the insurance of reducing carbon emissions appears to be a sensible precaution just in case the world’s climate scientists happen to be correct.

If you are right, then I will happily applaud you once the scientists are standing with you. That you may be wrong and, through your actions, may even manage to turn global opinion against the climate science community, worries me immensely. I wish to invest in climate insurance for my family.

If there is a hint of uncertainty, then taking the safe route through backing the majority of climate scientists appears to be the only rationale course of action.

Please let me know if you would like to be introduced to any particular climate scientists – I would be more than happy to facilitate this through my contacts.

I apologise for making this an open letter with the media, but it is an issue that is too important to remain in private.

Best regards
John