Features Australia

You Newton Denier, you!!

Good news on the Great Barrier Reef challenges climate ‘science’

Matt Canavan

Getty Images

Matt Canavan

20 August 2022

9:00 AM

Albert Einstein was famously a Newtonian denier. At a time when more than 97 per cent of scientists agreed with Isaac Newton’s definition of gravity, a young scientist from Germany was a sceptic. As one historian has described the consensus view on Einstein’s theory of relativity, shortly after it was first proposed, ‘It was seen as being very German, very incomprehensible – if not completely wacky – by a lot of people.’

But Einstein was a scientist. So he made precise predictions about the world. And those who thought he was crazy could check his sanity quite easily. According to Einstein’s calculations, stars at the edge of a solar eclipse would be displaced from their usual position by 1.75 arc seconds. That is about the thickness of a coin seen from two miles away.

In February 1919, two teams of English scientists travelled to Africa and South America to observe a solar eclipse and check the new theory. When the scientists announced the results in November at the Royal Society the New York Times headlined the story ‘Einstein Theory Triumphs’, while the London Times went with ‘Newtonian Ideas Overthrown’.

Alas, there were no such clear statements from our mainstream media on the recent news that, despite the many predictions of the Great Barrier Reef’s impending death, in fact coral cover had reached record levels. The press should have gone with something to the effect of ‘Climate Change theories debunked’ or ‘Farmers and tourist operators demand reparations for scientific negligence’.

Instead, our ABC went with ‘Record coral cover for Great Barrier Reef but climate threat remains’.

The brave scientists of a hundred years ago made clear predictions that could be tested for their accuracy against real world phenomena. They put their reputations and careers on the line with the clarity of their work.

Today’s scientists use computer models and statistical ranges so they can never be held to precise account. Many modern scientists are not really scientists at all. They are glorified bureaucrats skilled at the art of protecting one’s backside by having a worldview so flexible that it can fit any possible outcome.

Floods? Climate change. Drought? Climate change. War? Climate change. And even a classic of the genre from CBS this week, who reported that a ‘study points to climate change and rising temperatures adversely affecting childhood obesity’. The capture-all predictions of our modern day ‘scientists’ can help all of us. It was not the iPad I bought Johnny for Christmas that has seen him put on ten kilograms, it is the evil coal industry!

The descent of scientific endeavour was demonstrated by a lecture given by the then chief scientist of the Australian Institute of Marine Science, J.E.N. Veron, to the Royal Society in 2009. This was the same society that had presented the results of the Einstein eclipse 90 years before.

Professor Vernon’s lecture was titled ‘Is the Great Barrier Reef on Death Row?’ And he started his speech, ‘This is not going to be a happy talk because the answer to that question is yes.’ Yet despite that seemingly definitive answer, he only made generic and long-term predictions of an increase in bleaching events and cyclones.

Einstein predicted the 1.75 arc second movement of stars 153 light years away. Our modern-day scientists cannot make a testable hypothesis about coral 2 kilometres under the ocean. If you cannot make a claim that can be proven true or false, you are not a scientist.

While scientists have been making sweeping, yet non-specific claims, that the reef is dying, those that live near the reefs have suffered. Professor Vernon’s scare-mongering about the reef’s death in London, and that of many others like him, have convinced thousands not to bother visiting the reef. Island resorts have shut. Thousands of people have lost their jobs.

Governments have weaponised ‘the science’ to turn laws and regulations against farmers. Just in the last few years the Queensland government has passed new red tape laws that, by the government’s own figures, will cost the average farm $60,000. No compensation has been offered.

The new laws also impose a ‘no net decline’ test on any new farms that will effectively stop the expansion of farming in North Queensland. This will stop new dams being built across the undeveloped expanse of Cape York, denying Aboriginal Australians the same economic opportunity that European arrivals have taken advantage of for 200 years.

Arbitrary targets have been imposed on farmers to reduce their nitrogen use and water run off. The new results of record coral cover should end all of these unnecessary restrictions on the people who work hard to grow our food.

The first attempt to prove Einstein’s theories was interrupted by the first shots of World War I. A young German scientist had travelled to the Ukraine to observe a solar eclipse in 1914. The advancing Russian army, clearly suspicious about a German armed with telescopes, confiscated his equipment.

The Australian Institute of Marine Science now seems as worried as the Tsarist Russian army about the publication of scientific experiments. A few years ago, they ended publishing data on the coral cover for the whole reef. We are fortunate to have brave scientists like Peter Ridd compiling them for us. His data shows that the predictions of the reef’s death are wrong.

I have a naive desire to return to the robust contest of competing theses that science used to be. Modern science has the claustrophobic constraints of the Spanish Inquisition. Heretics to ‘the science’ are not burned at the stake but they are cancelled.

To achieve more open debate and inquiry we should listen to Peter Ridd, establish an Office of Scientific Review to challenge the scientific consensus and return science to the principle that a theory has to be tested before it is accepted.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10


Published by Nelle

I am interested in writing short stories for my pleasure and my family's but although I have published four family books I will not go down that path again but still want what I write out there so I will see how this goes

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: