There is now a religious ritual that the ABC performs, a set of words that an individual must utter to be acceptable to the ABC, a mantra…

I was absolutely sickened when, during the leaders debate on the ABC the other night, which I watched so that the rest of the nation did not have to, David Speers, an otherwise thoughtful and intelligent human being and, when he worked at Sky News Australia a fiercely impressive host of such important events, kowtowed to this new religious incantation with this:

David Speers: ‘Let me ask you both a question about climate change. We get a lot of questions about the concerns that people have over more intense weather events, be it storms, fires, floods – ah – particularly in your home state of Queensland, Mr Dutton. Do you accept that we are already seeing the impact of climate change?’

Yes, it’s no longer about, ‘Do you believe in climate change?’ The new mantra means you have to go one step further and say, ‘I believe the weather events that we are seeing in Australia at this point in time are the result of global warming.’ No other answer will suffice, other than total acceptance of this dubious premise. So how did Peter Dutton answer? Poorly, I’m afraid to say.

Peter Dutton: ‘Well David, there’s an impact. The question is, what we can do about it as a population of 27 million people.’

‘There’s an impact…’ said Peter Dutton, without offering up any evidence. He then suggested that this nation might be able to do something about this so-called impact, before quickly moving on to point out that China is building two coal-fired power plants a week, India is not reducing emissions, and so on but Mr Speers was having none of that. But just in case you missed the importance of this fundamentalist mantra, Speers hammered it again, and again…

David Speers: ‘You’re agreeing we are seeing the impact of climate change?’

Peter Dutton: ‘I-I think you could see that there’s an impact, David, but I don’t – in my home state you made reference to – uh – floods and natural disasters events … that has been a part of the history of our state, of this country, and-”

David Speers: ‘Worse – is it getting worse?’

Peter Dutton: ‘Well, I’ll leave others to-’

David Speers: ‘What do you think? You’re a Queenslander.’

Peter Dutton: ‘I’ll let scientists and others pass that judgment but-’

David Speers: ‘Really? Are you unwilling to say this is climate change happening right now…?’

Peter Dutton: ‘Well, as the Prime Minister refused to do the other day – to make comment in this regard as well – I don’t know David, because I’m not a scientist and I can’t tell you whether the temperature has risen … as a result of climate change or that the water levels are up … I think the honest answer for most people is they don’t know.’

‘I don’t know.’ And that, as I shall demonstrate, is the only scientifically correct answer to that question. But Mr Speers, who is TV host, isn’t interested in uncertainty, because he is so certain in his own beliefs. But here’s the thing, rather than offering up any evidence whatsoever to support his implied claim that cyclones, floods, and bushfires had all got worse in Queensland, he simply offered up the red herring that insurance premiums have gone up.

David Speers: ‘Mr Albanese, we do know that a lot of people in these areas where we are seeing more severe impacts are really worried about the impact on their insurance premium. One of our audience members, Ross, lives in Ballina and three years ago his premium was less than $3,000 now it is more than $6,000. That is unaffordable for many.’

This is of course nonsensical. Insurance company premiums are set on complicated sets of data, including previous claims following an event, including population growth, and yes, including the likelihood of further events. But the likelihood or chance of those further events is based not on data and modelling that looks back at past occurrences but modelling which assumes that climate change will exacerbate future extreme weather events, so by definition, there is an element of an inbuilt-circular loop argument. As always, the problem faced by Ross in Ballina is not climate change per se, but rather institutional risk response to the government’s claims, which are overblown.

Then it was the Prime Minister’s turn. Albo is no fool and he knows you’ve got to bow to the mantra, which he happily did, and even attempted to offer up some vague quasi-scientific evidence to support his belief in ‘the science’.

Anthony Albanese: ‘The science is very clear. It doesn’t mean that every single weather event is because of climate change. It does mean that the science told us that the events would be more extreme and they’d be more frequent. And that is what we are seeing playing out. Whether it be increased bushfires, increased flooding … these extreme weather events are having an impact. So, when we talk about the cost – this is one of the costs. The cost to our economy as well as the cost to our environment of not acting on climate change. Of not being a part of the global solution.’

And there, the logic loop is beautifully completed. And it goes like this: First, you must at pain of being humiliated on national television repeat the mantra that the current weather patterns occurring in Australia are the result of climate change, without offering any evidence. Having confirmed that belief, you have therefore justified government and media alarmism which in turn forces insurance companies to hike their rates which is then presented as the ‘cost of not doing anything about climate change’, which in turn justifies vast, excessive and out-of-control government expenditure on renewables as ‘doing our bit as good neighbours’. An absurd claim built upon flawed logic built upon an unprovable assertion built upon a quasi-religious mantra devoid of any specific facts. Indeed, ironically it was Albanese who at least came close to the truth when he said it ‘doesn’t mean that every single weather event is because of climate change’. He is dead right. The real question is … are any of them? Is there any room for doubt? Could all these events simply be part of nature’s rich and varied cycles? Let me quote now directly from the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report on Global Warming. The IPCC is the world’s leading proponent of climate change and global warming and the sixth report is their latest, released in 2023.

There are all sorts of sections in 6AR as it is called, but I’ve picked tropical cyclones because Speers specifically referred to Queensland storms and floods as an example of what he claims irrefutably is the impact of climate change on our weather. I’m glad he’s 100 per cent certain of this, because the IPCC aren’t. Here are the IPCC’s very own words, and even emphases.

‘It is likely that the global proportion of Category 3–5 tropical cyclone instances has increased over the past four decades.’

Note that … likely. Their emphasis, not mine. Next:

‘The average location where Tropical Cyclones reach their peak wind intensity has very likely migrated poleward in the western North Pacific Ocean since the 1940s, and Tropical Cyclone translation speed has likely slowed over the conterminous USA since 1900.’

Got that? It certainly sounds to me like what they are saying is extreme cyclones have moved northwards into the ocean, but cyclones in America have slowed. Interesting. But then we get this.

‘Evidence of similar trends in other regions is not robust. The global frequency of Tropical Cyclone rapid intensification events has likely increased over the past four decades.’

All of which sounds, to put it bluntly, or even semantically, dubious, or even doubtful. If something is three times regarded as ‘likely’, as opposed to one ‘very likely’, and certainly if the evidence is ‘not robust’, that suggests an avenue of doubt wide enough to drive a diesel Hilux through. And the final sentence in this section bares this out, saying:

‘None of these changes can be explained by natural variability alone’ and that statement is met with quote ‘medium confidence’.

In other words, the IPCC themselves only have medium confidence that likely increases or decreases in cyclonic activity aren’t actually just natural variability.