Climate Change and ‘future wars between nation-states’?

Author

A.N. Other

Subjects

None noted

Tags

climate, environment

RAN Ships

None noted.

Publication

September 2016 edition of the Naval Historical Review (all rights reserved)

By John W. Wells (1)

This controversial article takes us out of our normal comfort zone as the author has definite views which are not necessarily shared by the Society. However we represent a broad church and provide an opportunity to all our members to have their say on these important aspects, especially in this issue of our magazine, which emphasizes environmental concerns.

What’s it all about?

Over the past few decades, much has been said and written about ‘man’s contribution to warming of the planet’. Predictions of Armageddon, ‘future wars between nation-states’, Pacific Islands being swamped by rising sea levels, and mass migration, have all formed part of the emotive narrative and alarmist language used by those pushing their respective agendas. Young men and women who serve in the Defence Forces, now and into the future, appear to have been placed on notice.

Many readers would be mindful of our naval commitment and involvement in border protection with respect to illegal fishing, interception of illegal maritime arrivals including those fleeing conflicts zones. The war effort to combat terrorism, particularly DAISH or ISIL (2) remains a high priority. Disaster relief operations continue to form an important part of our naval response in times of crisis. So, how did the strategic narrative get to the point where speculation about going to war over the ‘effects of man-made climate change’ could be a future option?

Firstly, if asked whether you believe in climate change, then, your only answer must be yes! Why? Because there has always been climate change on the planet Earth. Our Earth has warmed and cooled, with sea levels rising and falling, since time began. From the ‘last great warming’ about 125,000 years ago, when global ice volume was low, the sea level was four to six metres higher than now. Interestingly, Lake Eyre, a salt lake, is about 15 metres below today’s sea-level.The ‘last big freeze’ which started 116,000 years ago had snowlines throughout the world 900 metres lower than today. Then, we had the Roman Warming (250 BC – 450 AD); the cooling of the Dark Ages (535 -900 AD); the Medieval Warming (900 -1300 AD); the Little Ice Age (1280 – 1850 AD); and, the warming of the late 20th century until now.

Secondly, if asked what causes climate change, then pause briefly and carefully consider your position. Resist the urge to follow the herd by accusing CO₂or more particularly, man-made CO₂ as being the culprit. In order to make their case, CO₂ has been linked unfairly to global warming by those supporting and deriving benefit from the climate change industry.

Informed Judgement

Pivotal to informed judgement is ‘academic freedom’. It is described as the argument for ‘free speech and free inquiry’. ‘Peer-review’ mechanisms remain integral to academic freedom. The politicisation of climate science has changed the dynamics and stifled any debate. Credible scientists have been ridiculed and marginalised for pursuing the scientific code of conduct – academic freedom and peer-review.

As a case in point, some of you might recall that the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit experienced leaked emails termed ‘Climategate’. The saga provided fascinating insight to the strategy employed by some to link CO₂to climate change, but more particularly global warming. It was reported that Climategate emails revealed ‘an orchestrated vilification of ‘sceptic’ scientists; deliberate attempts to exclude the publishing of their work including organising the dismissal of editors who allowed such publication; and insights on how data had been manipulated to “prove” a warming effect to coincide with industrialisation, while preventing raw data being made available for peer-review’. Significantly, critics of the Climate Research Unit argued it was a failure of governance by the University at that time.

Credible scientists have recorded that the late 20th century warming has not been a period of steady warming. They have noted that warming occurred from 1850 -1940, cooling from 1940 -1976, warming from 1976 -1998 and cooling since 1998; and, for a period of 17 years, the earth’s temperature flat-lined. Indeed, reality did not match climate change models predicting Armageddon. Climates far warmer than the late 20th century warming certainly existed beforeindustrialisation.

Given this disparity between actual climate and predictions made by inaccurate modelling [and, ‘old salts’ would not be surprised about that], the usual suspects had to rethink their marketing campaign strategy so that the ‘global warming industry’ could justify continuing ‘The March of Folly’. Consequently, their language shifted from the previous carping about ‘global warming’ to one of ‘climate change’. Unfortunately, it has been effective because nations are now accepting ‘consensus climate scienceto drive international energy and carbon policy’. One has only to witness the barrage of media these days with respect to fire, flood or falling gum trees. Whether it is a typhoon in the South China Sea or a bush fire in the Blue Mountains, CO₂gets a drubbing, or the inference remains that CO₂ is responsible – always the subliminal message. For the record, CO₂is not a pollutant. CO₂remains a clean, colourless and odourless gas which is vital for the health of our planet and indeed necessary for our very existence on earth. CO₂is food for plants and plankton and they would have difficulty surviving without it.

Recently, in a televised climate science program, the much respected CSIRO recorded that the earth has warmed one degree over the last 100 years and sea levels have risen 17 cm in the same period. The question you need to ask yourself before you follow the herd is simply this: why was there climate change prior to the industrialisation of the earth? Credible scientists argue that the science is certainly not settled and that there are ‘neither sound theoretical grounds nor observational evidence to support the argument that changing concentrations of atmospheric CO₂ (including man-made) will have any significant impact on future climate or global temperatures.’

Determining the facts

In determining fact from fiction with respect to the science of climate change, it is timely to note the recent sad passing of Professor Bob Carter, James Cook University.Professor Carter remained a ‘rationalist’ critic of the climate change lobby. He was thoroughly professional to the end and advocated the scientific ‘evidenced-based’ approach (with peer review). He argued Science is not Consensus. Professor Carter was not alone in his criticism – many eminent scientists, including Professor Ian Plimer, Patrick Moore (co-founder of Greenpeace) and Climatologist William Kininmonth continue to question what has happened in the climate change debate. They want honest dialogue about the facts on climate change.

Whilst my grandmother knew indoor plants were healthy for the home environment because they replenished the oxygen in the air, today I remain unconvinced that young Australians are receiving the facts about the crucial role of CO₂in the life cycle. Their education seems heavily slanted towards CO₂ being labelled a pollutant, rather than its vital role in the photosynthesis process – plants and trees absorbingCO₂ and releasing oxygen. In addition, the important role of phytoplankton absorbing CO₂, thereby producing up to 50% of the earth’s oxygen supply is worthy of note. Therefore I say to our readers, do not be afraid to have an alternate view, even if it remains a difficult path to follow. When President Obama of the United States declared, ‘the debate is over and the science is clear…the science is settled’, understandably, it is easy to feel intimidated – given the barrage of media employed by those seeking funding for their climate science studies.

National Concerns

Our public institutions such as the CSIRO and the Bureau of Metrology must remain scrupulous in their collection, management, interpretation and provision of climate data and if required, such institutions must pass the public test of forensic scrutiny of their processes.

We seem to know more about the surface of the Moon than we do about our own planet and the oceans! There is much more to be learnt about the climatic effects and influences of: El Nino and La Nina; the dynamics of ocean currents and the Coriolis effect; changing temperature and salinity gradients of the oceans; role of plankton and photosynthesis; volcanic activity; tectonic movement of the earth’s crust; sulfide chimneys and fissures on the ocean floor (including the undiscovered); seafloor hydrothermal circulation; geothermal transients; orbital dynamics of earth’s position in relation to the sun, moon and planets; cyclic orbits and planetary alignments; gravitational waves; sun spot activities and solar flares; the obliquity of the ecliptic; movements in the magnetic poles and axial precession; earth’s rotation and the Chandler Wobble; and…!!

As a nation, we must continue to pursue strategic objectives of clean air, clean water (including oceans) and clean food production – free of toxic chemicals. In addition, our foreign aid programs should continue to include assistance for our Pacific neighbours to mitigate the effects of climate change in terms of warnings, construction standards and rising sea levels. These programs should be innovative and undertaken on a rational and timely basis with properly managed infrastructure projects, but within affordable and responsible budgeting.

Collectively and individually, we remain adaptable, resourceful and innovative, possessing our fair share of the Australian entrepreneurial spirit. Who knows, maybe it is time to implement the 1880s suggestion to flood Lake Eyre via a canal from Spencer Gulf so as to change the climate dynamics of the interior and the Western Ranges – the future interior food bowl of Australia? Wet season rain waters from the Channel Country feeding into Lake Eyre could then be diverted to establish and sustain new cropping projects. World population increases and food shortages spring immediately to mind.

We should be harnessing more of the Sun’s energy and planting more trees; and, if the usual suspects are hung up on targets, then give them a 20% increase in forest area in Australia (make that the world!!) by 2050. Forget the nonsense being peddled by the usual suspects about CO₂ – we need it, for without it the earth could be doomed! Remember, if you cut down a tree, as precious as they are, then plant two or three to replace it and the earth will be a healthier place.

Throughout history, the effects of climate change may have produced what is now termed ‘climate refugees’ – people migrating after protracted periods of climatic stress, usually drought. As for future wars between nation-states – perhaps, if the earth was subjected to a catastrophic event such as a gigantic meteor strike or an extreme volcanic eruption which drives us into another ice age, then the future might be unclear. When Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines erupted in 1991, the volcanic ash cloud cooled global temperatures by 0.5° C for a period of two years. However, for the foreseeable future, the probability of a catastrophic event driving us towards Armageddon remains low.

Accordingly, I believe the stresses from climate change can be managed and mitigation strategies affected. Modern democracies have the advantage over the swords and sandals era. Today we are able to adapt relatively quickly and improvise through the use of technology in the face of potential climatic adversity – innovative solutions. As a prosperous nation, Australia is able to help our less developed neighbours adapt to the changing nature of climate. Recently, one of Navy’s newest ships HMAS Canberra (L 02) conducted disaster relief operations and provided much needed assistance to the people of Fiji after Cyclone Winston.

Any climate change mitigation policy and subsequent action plans must be drawn from ‘evidenced-based’ studies within an environment of ‘academic freedom’ endorsed by ‘peer review.’ Finally, but most importantly, any talk of future wars between nation-states because of CO₂is both emotive and alarmist – let the cool heads prevail. Our young men and women in the Defence Forces, more particularly the Navy, have enough to deal with during these turbulent times, without the sabre rattling over man-made CO₂.

Notes:

1. John W Wells commanded HMA Ships Attack, Ardent, Bombardand Tobruk. He was fortunate enough to serve in the aircraft carrier HMAS Melbourne(CDRE G.R. Griffiths DSO, DSC RAN, later RADM, AO) when the ship led the naval task force for Operation Navy Help Darwinto support and provide disaster relief after Cyclone Tracy ‘flattened’ Darwin on Christmas Day over 41 years ago.
2. DAISH is the Arab acronym for Al-Dawlah Al-Islamiyah fe Al-Iraq wa Al-Sham(the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria), for which another acronym is ISIL.