You are here:   Civilisation >  Critique > The Drumming of an Army
 


It never rains: Brisbane, January 2011 

Poetry, said Auden, makes nothing happen. Usually it doesn't, but sometimes a poem gets quoted in a national argument because everybody knows it, or at least part of it, and for the occasion a few lines of familiar poetry suddenly seem the best way of summing up a viewpoint. Just such an occasion has occurred recently in Australia.  By the time the heavy rains first hit Queensland early this year, the theory of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW, to borrow the unlovely acronym) was ceasing to exercise unquestioned thrall in the minds of Australia's progressive voters. But spokespersons for the Green party clung on to it, encouraged by the fact that the theory, in its Climate Change form, was readily applicable to any circumstances.  

Before the floods, proponents of the CAGW view had argued that there would never be enough rain again, because of Climate Change. When it became clear that there might be more than enough rain, the view was adapted: the floods, too, were the result of Climate Change. In other words, they were something unprecedented. Those opposing this view — those who believed that in Australia nothing could be less unprecedented than a flood unless it was a drought — took to quoting Dorothea Mackellar's poem "My Country", which until recently every Australian youngster was obliged to hear recited in school. In my day we sometimes had to recite it ourselves, and weren't allowed to go home until we had given evidence that we could remember at least the first four lines of the second stanza, which runs like this. 

I love a sunburnt country,
A land of sweeping plains,
Of ragged mountain ranges,
Of droughts and flooding rains.
I love her far horizons,
I love her jewel-sea,
Her beauty and her terror —
The wide brown land for me.

The first four lines of the stanza are the bit that everybody knows, partly because they are so addictively crafted, and partly because they fit the national experience of what Australia's geography and climate are actually like. In any household, the seniors (known in Australia as "the wrinklies") remember the droughts and the flooding rains of their childhood. I myself remember the Maitland floods of the early 1950s. The whole of the central seaboard of New South Wales was under water. I can remember rain you couldn't see through: right there in my southern suburb of Sydney, the creek flooded the park, and the lake in the park spilled into the bottom of our street, prompting the construction of a galvanised iron canoe in which three of us sailed to what would have been certain death if the contraption had floated for more than a few seconds.  

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Peter Brown
March 7th, 2011
4:03 AM
An entertaining diversion perhaps, but Clive probably got this wrong just like he did with the Telstra ads in the 90s. The edition of The Australian where I saw Clive's little piece includes an article related to Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. News Corp is now carbon neutral because as quoted in the New York Times, Murdoch says, "We made a bold commitment in 2007 to embed the values of energy efficiency and environmental sustainability into all of our businesses — for the benefit of our communities and our bottom line." Also, "Our efficiency projects pay for themselves in less than two years, on average, and span from simple solutions like lighting retrofits and automatic PC shut-down to systemic changes like installing telepresence and videoconferencing technology to reduce the need for air travel." I reckon Rupie knows something that Clive doesn't.

Barney
March 7th, 2011
4:03 AM
Clive is a very good writer. However this piece is not argued form a point of strength. I don't know if we are experiencing or about to experience significant climate change or, if we are, whether it's caused primarily or partly by human activity. From what I've read neither does Clive. As clever as Clive undoubtedly is I don't think he has the keys to understanding what might be going on. In the meantime, I hope he's right - but even if he is, it's not down to any greater understanding.

Gaz
March 7th, 2011
4:03 AM
Clive, this piece is just intellectually lazy nonsense. As you said yourself, "pride comes from facing facts". So stop embarrassing yourself and make an effort to learn a bit about the science instead of parroting second-hand talking points originating in coal industry-funded think tanks. If you think some of your arguments are original, read Merchants of Doubt by Oreskes and Conway and find out where your ideas really came from. You have built up a wonderful legacy of insight in your work. Please don't let it be tarnished by such lightweight pseudointellectual trash.

Chris O'Neill
March 7th, 2011
2:03 AM
Clive says "Before the floods, proponents of the CAGW view had argued that there would never be enough rain again, because of Climate Change." Didn't Clive ever learn not to believe everything he reads in the papers.

cbp
March 7th, 2011
12:03 AM
Yes, who needs that pesky science when we have an old poem to make us feel better.

Vince Whirlwind
March 7th, 2011
12:03 AM
Good grief. The IPCC reports specifically warn of increased rainfall for places like Queensland. But don't allow facts to get in the way of your silliness, will you? Another thing, ask yourself - what is this "theory of CAGW", precisely? You *do* realise that there is no such theory except in the minds of the critical-thinking impaired ideologues who choose to reject science in favour of their irrational beliefs?

David Boyd
March 7th, 2011
12:03 AM
Clive-simply wonderful. As someone who has been 'dining out' on "droughts and flooding rains" (and not much in the middle), in trying to explain the massive variability of Australia's climate and inland water flows and the need for conservation, it is deeply satisfying to see someone express it so coherently and intelligently.This article should be taught in our schools along with Dorothea's great poem.

Terence Measham
March 6th, 2011
11:03 PM
I much enjoyed this stylish and logical set of observations. Greedy I know but I wish they had extended to bush fires because in recent years environmentalist opposition to hazard reduction has deeply infected bureaucracies to the point where they are paralysed (which tends to suit them). After Victoria 2009, "the reality principle got a look-in" but not much has changed from where I choose to sit (in a heavenly but fire-prone spot).

Richard Pinder
March 6th, 2011
5:03 PM
The warmist predictions for drought depend on the tropospheric temperature rising at twice the rate of the surface temperature, the computer models show this but observations don’t. As for the suggestion that Clive and other sceptics are thick, then read this from the latest edition of the British Mensa Magazine. Two thirds of the warming in the last 200 years happened in the last quarter of the previous century, whether that is interpreted as a Hockey Stick depends on politics, but as for the cause then this period coincided with a warming phase of a Hale magnetic cycle and also two very short Solar cycles, there is no evidence that Solar irradiance caused this, and also the evidence that the tropospheric temperature failed to rise at twice the rate of the surface temperature proves that it was not CO2 that caused the warming, but to find the Elephant in the room Mensa members should search Google Scholar for the phrases ‘Earthshine Albedo’ or ‘Project Earthshine’.

RTB
March 6th, 2011
3:03 PM
"Her pitiless blue sky...." and "Blue skies, smiling at me, nothing but blue skies do I see." What a contrast in perspective! One sees too much of a "good" or "bad" thing and the other sees too little. If no one told you the world is getting warmer (or cooler) how would you know?

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.