Climate change deniers

I have no problem with the opinions of a prominent climate change denier being published, as The Australian did today. It is important that all arguments and views are discussed openly and scientifically. However, I am dismayed that the article didn’t offer anything persuasive to make a case that anthropogenic climate change is not true.

It referred to several claims made by Christopher Monckton: that reactions to global warming have diverted food into biofuels and prolonged starvation across the world, that action to halt global warming will be very costly and potentially ineffective, that there have been cycles of rapid warming and cooling over geological time, and that the IPCC is a “venal, corrupt and incompetent organisation.”

There may be truth in some of these statements. Yet even if they all were true, none of them provides either evidence or logical argument against the hypothesis that is considered most likely by a large majority climate scientists today: that emissions of greenhouse gases by humans are causing irreversible climate change.

Why can’t we have sensible debates on climate change that avoid resorting to logical fallacies, diversions and emotive language?

Republic

Royal visits often stimulate discussion about whether (or when) Australia should become a republic. It's time we did.

Interest seems to have waned greatly since the referendum 11 years ago. But that was a flawed proposal that involved undesirable changes to our political system. The current Australian political structure has served us well. It works. There is no reason why we can’t retain it when we become a republic.

Another referendum is needed. Let’s keep things just as they are, but rename the position of Governor-General to President and drop the Queen as our head of state. More fundamental changes can be made separately in later referendums.

Many Australians admire members of the Royal Family, but our affection or respect for them is no reason to retain them as our heads of state. After all, many of us also admire Queen Mary of Denmark—and she’s more Australian than Prince William will ever be.

Productivity

Kevin Rudd is undoubtedly right that an improvement in productivity growth will lead to larger increases in income per person over time. However, his vague statement that “working families” have an interest in Australia’s productivity demonstrates that perhaps he has not put much thought into the matter. It affects them for sure, but what can they do to change it?

In basic terms, productivity is the efficiency with which inputs in production (capital, labour, raw materials) are transformed into outputs (finished goods). It is largely dependent on technological advancement. Productivity growth grew so much after the Hawke-Keating reforms due to moves towards more efficient methods of organising production and allocating resources. However, the lowest hanging apples are picked first, and we reached a higher level of productivity, not a permanently higher growth rate.

Since then, productivity has been driven largely by technology. That is something that governments (or working families for that matter) have little control over. Unless, of course, they invest more in government-funded research and development so that the gains are ongoing over time.

If Kevin Rudd is serious about improving productivity, where is the extra funding for universities, CSIRO, ANSTO, etc?

(published under a pen name in The Age, 20 January 2010).