Of omni-competent media moguls
and other science savants

What a wacky month it’s been in Australian politics.

In the space of two weeks in the middle there, we had Senator Eric Abetz accidentally pretending medical expertise, Treasurer Joe Hockey straying recklessly into the driving habits of poor people, and the Prime Minister’s lead business advisor Maurice Newman sharing his singular views on climate change.

Now, Dick Warburton claims he has pluckily set aside his doubts about how much humans have had to do with climate change in delivering his recommendation that we either a) eviscerate or b) decapitate the Renewable Energy Target.

But while we might consider giving Abetz and Hockey the benefit of the doubt (both statements were made on the fly; both have since backpedalled), Newman and Warburton have both waded in with intent, and not for the first time. So far, Newman’s resisted all offers of help with his science homework. I’m not sure anyone’s been game to make the offer to Warburton.

You’ve got to admit these guys have got form. A sensible observer might hope that, like in the children’s tale, simply shouting, “hey, the emperor’s got no clothes!” would be enough to make them realise their error. A sensible person might think that a fashion critique of that non-existent wardrobe is a waste of everybody’s valuable time.

Well, yes. And yet, here we are, years and years after the whole dubious spectacle began, and climate science deniers persist in cavorting in their undies. Thus, this month we’ve been treated, not just to the usual roster of trolls marching around in the comments sections in their socks and suspenders, but to two of our highest-profile business leaders capering about, skinny shanks akimbo, closely following an eerily similar act by Rupert Murdoch.

It wouldn’t have been an edifying display at the best of times. At the best of times, perhaps this kind of profound absurdity would at least have been good for a laugh. With a squint and a pint, you could almost see it as a particularly courageous form of performance art.

But we’re very bloody far from the best of times. We’re fresh from scrapping the carbon price, with no alternative on the horizon (but Al Gore was in the room! So it’s all ok people! Nothing to see here!). The Renewable Energy Target is next on the block, and only the force of nature that is Clive Palmer can save it (admittedly, Clive’s done stranger things).

Everyone’s ready to concede that the main effect of repealing the RET, apart from handily scuttling a burgeoning clean energy industry, will be the further lining of coal miners’ pockets and those of the utilities who love them. Everyone, including the economic modellers on whose work the review was based. Everyone, except of course Warburton, the Government who hired him, and a chorus line of scantily-clad fellow climate science deniers.

Ending incentives for investment in clean energy is an error – of long-term economic strategy, and of moral judgment. It’s hard to admit that we’re here because we’ve given all the seats at the table to ageing, semi-clothed gentlemen.

But now here we are, and the question is – how on earth do we convince them, if not finally to get dressed, at least to keep their sagging paunches out of public policy?

Gently pointing out their state of undress hasn’t worked. The scientific misrepresentations that deniers like to think they’re wrapping themselves in have been comprehensively debunked (see here, here and here for specific critiques of the two most recent outings; or here for a more general tour of the terrain). In fact, they’ve been debunked so many times that you have to wonder at the effort it must cost deniers to maintain the illusion.

In the face of bipartisan support for action on climate change in every developed nation – with the exception of coal-crazed conservatives here and in North America – deniers insist they know better.

To the observation that every significant international body with a remit in the fields of energy, health or finance has endorsed the need for climate action, deniers shout “conspiracy!”.

There isn’t a single major media outlet outside the NewsCorp stable that subscribes to the tenets of denialism, to which the denier parade howls “bias!”.

In short, deniers believe they’re smarter and more incorruptible, not just than the climate scientists they sometimes enjoy stalking, but than the combined analytical acumen of everyone from the editors of The Economist through to the UK and Chinese governments. How nice it must be to know better than the National Academies of Science in Australia, the US, the UK, Germany and France. How delirious to be smarter than the World Meteorological Organization, the US Department of Defense, the International Monetary Fund, the World Health Organization, and dear old Maggie Thatcher, bless her buried bouffant!

Common or garden contrarianism requires a breathtaking level of confidence in one’s own view of the world. This variety is special. It’s delusion on an imperial scale, and it can only be maintained by listening exclusively to people who have something to sell you.

Much like parading around in public, half-dressed.