The Australian is consistently prescriptive in its editorials on topics such as the economy and terrorism but consistently ambivalent in its pronouncements on climate change and energy. Take this weekend’s editorial, for example, which describes the Finkel Review as recommending a Clean Energy Target which:
rather than penalise heavy polluters, would provide incentives to clean energy generation
Pardon me? By what Green sleight of tongue is providing incentives to one player not penalizing the other?
And why does it persist in referring to CO2 as ‘pollution’ as it does in the same editorial. CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels may or may not be warming the planet catastrophically. We don’t know for sure (but it’s looking increasingly unlikely). What we do know with absolute certainty is that CO2 per se, essential to life, is not pollution. And the increase to the current level of 400ppm it appears to have been beneficial, with a net greening of the earth and record crop productions. The use of emotive terms such as ‘carbon pollution’, adopted by Greens as a useful propaganda tool, is just lazy journalism.
The Australian, to its credit presents a somewhat balanced view on CAGW, mostly per medium of Graham Lloyd, but has long maintained an editorial line that it supports a market mechanism for ‘putting a price on carbon’ and it accepts, without question, the need to ‘curb our emissions’. It has never once, to my knowledge, seriously questioned the underlying assumptions – and that is all they are – that underpin the whole CAGW house of cards. Sure, from time to time it skirts around the issue, hinting here and there but it never takes the final logical step.
Given that it prints opinion pieces by sceptics such as Matt Ridley, Bob Carter et al it is tacitly admitting that there is a debate about the science.
While we are tying ourselves in knots trying to reconcile the irreconcilable – cheap and reliable power on one hand and drastically lower CO2 emissions on the other – surely it makes sense to run the blowtorch on the underlying justification, the theory of CAGW? It’s not as if CAGW scepticism is in the same realm as holocaust denial.
Kenneth Richards writing in NoTricksZone points out that in the last two years there have been almost 120 peer reviewed papers (58 this year already) invalidating the theory. That could be the start point for new editorial line from The Australian. God knows, it’s not going to come from any other mainstream media outlet.