ESSAY: THAT LONG, SLEEPY, HEAVY SCIENCE (PART 1)

Non-fiction.

This essay will stay within certain necessary bounds. I have no competence let alone expertise in the matters discussed, so what references are made will be to widely accepted and uncontroversial findings; moreover there will be no reinterpretation by me, just reference.

Those findings are the products of what one might call long, sleepy and heavy science.

By the word “long” I mean little about it is new, little of it has been challenged beyond details. In outline, it stands. Much of it is older than the last century.

By “sleepy” I mean science which has had scant recent attention due to its unfashionable nature but which is in no way hidden. It lives but it slumbers, out in the open, like an old drunk in the park.

By “heavy” I mean science which is based on abundant and readily available materials like dirt, grit, ash, smoke stains, pollen, dead flora, dead fauna, gravel, ice, rock, wood and more, much more. In short, stuff which is abundant and found all over.

The science referred to here is called climate science. Really.

Huh? Whaaa…?

No, of course not, silly! It’s not that climate science. Duh.

Best I explain...

Let’s say I’m the teen scion of my country’s most prominent theatrical family and decide to sit out in the street to publicise the findings of this long, sleepy and heavy climate science. Because the world needs to know, to stop ignoring such science. Then, by chance, the most prominent public relations figure of my country and a family friend just happens to encounter me there. Exciting things on the way from this mere chance?

Sad to say, for me this does not result in immediate world-wide attention and a trans-Atlantic voyage on a re-badged Rothschild yacht made of carbon fibre. It results in nothing. I am told to get off the street. No lingering.

You see, even those who are sceptical of what we might call Thunbergian climate science do not show interest in this long, sleepy and heavy climate science of mine. To them it offers no alternative thought, just exertion without stimulation, dry notions devoid of topicality. Some bold sceptics will proclaim that climate change is utter BS, more moderate sceptics might say climate change is real but natural. However, like those Thunbergians they oppose, they will not be interested in my long, sleepy, heavy climate science. It’s just a big lump of learning that everyone walks around without a glance because it is confusing, tedious and quite out of fashion – if it was ever in fashion.

That climate debate…Is it really a debate? Or more a sport with fixed results? Or is it a kind of public performance art? Because it’s as if someone is conducting a brassy symphony of claim and counter-claim, provocation and reaction, activism and complacency. The score allows for many dramatic clashes...but it is one planned score with one dominant conductor. And my long, sleepy, heavy theme is not to figure in the score, not in the slightest way. It is never to be denied, but always to be omitted, ignored. That’s the deal.

Still, there are facts so solidly established that they cannot be twisted without contortions which even the most practised tout would find difficult.

Of course, one can always obscure what can’t be twisted.

Eliminating weather records is easy. Not long ago you could consult online a fairly complete record of precipitation plus max and min temperature for each day at Sydney’s venerable Observatory Hill weather station, which goes well back into the 19^th century. You would not just learn that 1888 was Sydney’s driest year (they still have to let you see that because it’s an “ever” record), but you would also learn that the next driest was 1863, and the driest after that was 1968, and the driest after that was 1941. More importantly, you could see how the worst drought years were those of the early 1900s, because drought did not end with the year, as it did in 1888. You might have used the wider record, quite old in many centres, for context and comparison to understand how 1939 was the most hellish in Eastern Australia, taking into account drought, fire and heat. Well, this invaluable online tool has now been turned to superficial junk. Why? Because climate has to be perceived now as a series of new and escalating negative events.

However, the critical facts about climate and climate science can actually be summed up in a couple of simple diagrams, or a few simple sentences. Really! And you can’t turn something this big and this simple to superficial junk.

And herein lies the problem for the above mentioned touts and their globalist employers.

Did I mention that those simple and critical facts are potentially disturbing? Well they are. Very. Just not in the way that globalist touts would have us disturbed.

More later.