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

Some of Australia's noisier warmists — Clive Hamilton is an especially piercing example — pronounce the necessity of suspending democratic rights, so that citizens can be punished for sinning against Gaia. Flannery is less poisonous than that, but he was nevertheless running a business. The features pages loved his message about impending disaster. A real disaster, however, makes real news, and, dangerously for him, brings less servile commentators on the case, ready to quote poetry at him. He hasn't had to face that sort of thing before, but now he must, and so must all those who share his convictions, including, especially, the Greens. It was Green pressure that stymied the construction of dams. Probably, from now on, dams will come back into favour, in recognition of the fact that the climate of the sunburnt country, in all her beauty and her terror, is still the way it always was. After the First World War, the desirability of up-river flood control was already well understood. Indeed Australia pioneered such engineering, and the Tennessee Valley Authority borrowed the idea from Australia, not the other way about.  

If, from now on, dams are built instead of desalination plants — which in recent years have been proved to yield a fraction of the water at a multiple of the cost — then we will be able to tell that sanity has returned to at least one section of the vast area covered by the pretensions of the climatologists. But it's quite likely that, in general, their view will continue to be dominant. Though the idea that there is consensus on the subject among climate scientists has become harder to push now that so many other scientists have joined the discussion, the media, on the whole, would probably rather stick with a high-concept drama than report a debate. So we can't tell yet whether common logic has prevailed. But we can be sure that poetry has benefited. 

It might be said that "My Country" is not very good poetry, but it would be said in error. Dorothea Mackellar knew exactly what she was doing when she wrote it. Born in Sydney in 1885 and raised as a city dweller of fine family, she knew the inland only as a privileged young lady usually did, as a place for holidays. But on the family farms at Gunedah she took it all in, the terror along with the beauty. Indeed she might even have found the terror rather beautiful, as we Australians tend to do. At the age of 19, she wrote the poem when she was on a genteel tour of England. First published there in the Spectator in 1908, the poem is an address to the charms of the old country, telling it that although she appreciates its sylvan virtues, her soul is ruled by the new country's rough edges. The argument is carried out with a firm but subtle command of rhetoric and a sense of form unusual in a poet so young: it's one of those works that you wouldn't dream of calling mature until you found out it was precocious. Certainly, there is no reason for Australia's intellectuals of today to patronise her — she, after all, had by far the superior education. 

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Anonymous GeeGee
March 9th, 2011
4:03 PM
Oh,my! All the self important 'scientists' rubbishing Clive James excellent article. As far as I can see, all he is saying is that despite the present preoccupation with climate change, it has and always will be changing and it is better to take sensible, common sense precautions based on historical knowledge (aided by poetry of course!)Good on yer, cobber!

IAN HILLIAR
March 9th, 2011
7:03 AM
It is always fun to read Clives erudite comments ,and of course even more so when he pokes fun at people like Tim Flannery and ,of course, Clive Hamilton. The one thing these people really cant stand is being laughed at. Laughter is our greatest weapon against self important politicians and self appointed "public intellectuals", as they have no real sense of humour, only a sense of their own importance.

Paul
March 8th, 2011
1:03 PM
Enjoyable read, thanks, Clive. Also enjoyed the hilarious comments from the tofu eating, turbine hugging brigade.No need for you to respond to their barbs about "facts", they have yet to provide any themselves.

Paul A
March 8th, 2011
11:03 AM
Dear Clive Having heard and read your previous pronouncements on the topic of climate change I have concluded that there is only a small chance that you will ever understand the scientific basis of climate change, or the reason the tiny minority of scientists who disagree with the mainstream are very likely to remain a tiny minority. What disappoints me now is that the language you use here. You use the "unlovely acronym" CAGW (an initialisation by the way, not an acronym), a term you won’t find in any scientific literature. You also use the unlovely term "warmist". These are linguistic constructs of ideologues and dissemblers of science whose aim is to dumb-down public debate. They do for the public understanding of science what a Gaddafi speech does for the hopes and aspirations of Libyan youth. As a man of letters this language ought to ring alarm bells in you. Instead you seem to have immersed yourself in it, and uncritically regurgitate it here. As a former admirer, and I am extremely disappointed.

Lazal
March 7th, 2011
11:03 PM
The planet's climate scientists (with exception of a literal handful, usually sponsored by the fossil corporations) are all telling us climate change is happening, it is caused by human activity and we need to act to prevent very bad things happening. The recent floods are just a taster. But we can ignore them because someone found a poem that says there have been floods in the past. Throw in a bit of "common sense" and - bingo! All those satellites, ice cores, temperature records and PhDs making sense of them are wrong. Personally, I think doctors are overrated as well. There's nothing you can't cure with a few leeches.

nicholas tesdorf
March 7th, 2011
10:03 PM
Clive shows that Poetry is more scientific than the 'science' from the IPCC. It will last a good deal longer too.

Tom Harris
March 7th, 2011
10:03 PM
Very interesting article. I especially like the conclusion and will highlight that on our home page. Of course climate varies on all times scales and we had better adapt or die. The idea that we can stop these natural cycles is irrational and we need to say this at every opportunity, politically correct or not. Tom Harris, B. Eng., M. Eng. (Mech.) Executive Director International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) P.O. Box 23013 Ottawa, Ontario K2A 4E2 Canada http://www.climatescienceinternational.org

V. infernalis
March 7th, 2011
8:03 AM
Well, since we're arguing against facts using prose, allow me to try my hand: "Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player That struts and frets his hour upon the stage And then is heard no more: it is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing." No bonus points for guessing who the idiot is.

Diane Audrey Wallis
March 7th, 2011
8:03 AM
I always thought it was "rugged mountain ranges" – thanks for that – ragged not rugged. I too remember the Maitland floods and my late father-in-law recalled a Sydney summer (maybe before WWII) when it rained every weekend and all the little beach-side kiosks selling ice-creams went broke. Tricky old place Australia.

John Frankis
March 7th, 2011
5:03 AM
Quite right Clive, you are indeed the scientist of our dreams not a crusty old windbag who'd ruin a great poem by talking his presumptuous nonsense all over and around it.

Post your comment

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