Under a double page headline 'Dire warning on rising sea levels', South Australia's Sunday Mail had what Paul Williams described as an "extraordinary article on climate change". Here's his critique:
"On the right hand page are six maps of the Australian continent, showing the coastline as it is today, and as it would look if the sea level rose 100 metres, 200 metres etc up to 500 metres. In small print, at the bottom of the caption next to the first map, is the disclaimer "Readers should note this was done as part of a scientific experiment, not as a prediction". Nevertheless, the graphic has a powerful visual impact.
On the left hand page headlined in the print version, "Hard decisions needed", the accompanying article begins "An apocalyptic prophecy of an Australia under water shows Adelaide would be one of the first places to disappear in a catastrophic sea level rise." So straight away readers are given the impression that the graphic is an actual prediction, despite the disclaimer on the next page.
The "hard decisions" of the headline are explained by Dr Graeme Pearman, who is described as a Climate Institute Australia adviser and former CSIRO head of atmospheric research.
He says we will have to decide between protecting the coast with breakwaters or letting the coastline recede naturally. Dr Pearman states that sea levels have already risen 20 cm "with global warming", and are expected to rise half a metre more over the next century. But there's more, "if Greenland goes, it will rise by 7m", and "if Antarctica went as well it would rise by 80m".
Dr Pearman concedes it is unlikely that Antarctica will "go" during the next few thousand years, but the article leaves the impression that Greenland is quite likely to "go".
This article is blatant sensationalism, with a few facts thrown, which do not support the sensational claims, and no balance. Why would the Sunday Mail publish such an article? Does the last paragraph give a clue?
"He (Dr Pearman) called for urgent action to join global efforts to reduce carbon emissions. Australia and the US are the two main nations which have refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol to reduce such emissions."
This looks like part of a process to sway public opinion towards Australia ratifying the Kyoto protocol.
If the article had said that Australia is on track to meet its Kyoto targets anyway, whereas many of the countries that have ratified Kyoto are NOT meeting their targets, I think most people would quite sensibly shrug their shoulders and say, "so why should we sign?" Add to that the fact that Kyoto can have no measurable effect on climate, yet will cost Australia jobs and hurt our economy, and there seems no reason at all to ratify Kyoto.
Of course there is a political aspect to all this. Labor has a policy that it will ratify Kyoto.
Is that why the Sunday Mail and the Advertiser are running a scare campaign, to help boost the prospects of Federal Labor?"
Maybe, or perhaps the newspaper, owned by Rupert Murdoch who is now concerned about global warming, is just really concerned about global warming? But is it good journalism?
Hi Gavin. Thanks for the reply.
You say ‘We owe a universal debt to the environment.’
A grandois statement but for what it’s worth, I agree. Always have.
You say ‘We have the right principles operating everywhere (almost).’
Following the 2003 fires, gullies leading into the Gibbo River (and many other rivers) had major, ‘unnatural’ erosion events triggered.
Prior to the fires, as is normal, 5-15ft (on average) of sediment laid within these gullies.
After all the vegetation was stripped from the adjacent mountainsides by the fire, the water from the following thunderstorms, with no vegetation slowing the velocity of water, or soaking it up, rushed down stripping the gullies. This caused very large, easily observed, sediment (soil, rocks, boulders, shale) build up, at the gullies junction with the river. In the more remote heads of the river, these build-ups were astonishing.
In the lower reaches of the river, where the public come to camp, the authorities took machines onto the gully bed and pushed the accumulated material into the river, which in fact dammed the river a little, causing the water to now back-up.
They only did this, with the visible (to the public) situations. The same severe erosion took place, after the Caledonia wildfires. This remote country was closed to the public. So they couldn’t see it.
What principle is at work here?
Oh, and after the fires, I camped a number of times up at the head of this river. Very badly burnt up there. At night the dead silence was profound. Nothing but the odd tree falling down and flow of the river. Eerie.
What principle and outcome do we have here?
You say ‘I can recall a certain lady bringing home a great variety of frogs and lizards after night shift on the frozen pea line at Cottees in Melbourne’
You compare this to suicide or the cessation to an industry on biased grounds? I know what you mean but really ….
You say ‘Given I have worked with a lot of scientists; the level of any questionable behavior over the last fifty years is extremely small.’
Do you really believe this? In the field of flora and fauna management, questionable behaviour can have a biased domino effect right through to management plans. Especially since legislation such as the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Regulations 1990, Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987, etc. are specifically aimed at inclusion of species specific inputs. Don’t disagree with the philosophy of the legislation mind you, just the the method of some of the ‘inputers’. Bias driven by personnel philosophy, sorry, observations. These so-called ‘experts’ do effect policy. You’re kiddin’ me mate.
You say ‘environmental science and new practice developed around it can be described as “floundering” It’s all too fresh for solid peer review to be properly established and recognized everywhere particularly by the public.’
This could read:
“environmental science and new practice developed around it can be described as “biased” It’s all too biased for solid peer review to be properly established and recognized everywhere particularly by the inexperienced public.”
You say ‘Guess what I found here? a lot of blunt photos’
The 2003 fires could provide millions of acres of blunt photos, although, how do you photograph the thousands of animals that evaporated.
Also, I must admit, I don’t like seeing coupes out in the bush (looks like hell) but it must be said that there are many past coupes (capable of producing ‘positive’ photos) that have returned to forest. Flora and fauna quickly migrate from adjacent, untouched forest. The evidence of scats and animal tracks seem to quickly re-establish themselves.
You say ‘some environmental assets will have to be defended with guns’
Which ones and by whom?
Pinxi, you are a scream. Discussion over the fence, eh. What about semantics over the keyboard, using second hand information. I read, I chose to believe, type of stuff. You sound like a trumped up, ‘empowered’, I know everything, uni student.
I can guarantee you, I have many thousands of man hours and bush kilometers under my belt, covering a large expanse of Victorias divide. I have participated in fauna surveys and have also dived the oceans, a lot. I also have spent a considerable amount of time over the past 15 years, reading environmental ‘stuff’, especially, that which applies to the areas I know.
I know my postings are not as eloquent or ‘on post’ as others, however I am just trying to inject real life experiences here.
And by the way why did you not tackle/comment on the rest of my post, ie fraud.
To close to the bone maybe?
Got to go. I hear the mountains calling me.
Stewie: With regard to “Things are so streamlined everywhere now there is little time for details like owls hidden in the bush” It’s been my experience that major processors pay scant regard to detail like wild creatures and their habitat. My criticism applies to agriculture, energy production, forestry, manufacturing, mining and urban land development. We owe a universal debt to the environment.
Stewie, when you ask “Do you believe that there is potential, for instances of environmental science, to be actually serious fraud? I can say with some certainty good science is never about fraud and most good practice is usually covered by some umbrella system like NATA. Registered business including some science in this QA system gives me great confidence as we go forward in all manner of developments. We have the right principles operating everywhere (almost).
Given I have worked with a lot of scientists; the level of any questionable behavior over the last fifty years is extremely small.
http://www.nata.asn.au/
Hoverer environmental science and new practice developed around it can be described as “floundering” It’s all too fresh for solid peer review to be properly established and recognized everywhere particularly by the public. This blog is but one result. Let me to be the first to say our old military standards won’t prevail in this field.
Stewie says “but everybodies experience is different”
I can recall a certain lady bringing home a great variety of frogs and lizards after night shift on the frozen pea line at Cottees in Melbourne. ‘collateral damage’ depends on whose side of the fence you are on at the time. Mark my words; some environmental assets will have to be defended with guns in the same way little old mines were. There are too many of us now, one can’t possibly have it all.
Hey all mining is suddenly a form of poaching!
Back to this thread, our media acts as a circuit breaker for both sides if they are smart enough. Since I was quite rusty on Gippsland I googled. Sorry Stewie: Guess what I found here? a lot of blunt photos
http://www.australianpaper.forests.org.au/index2/updates11-02.htm
"sacrifice a lot of our society"... sacrifice what exactly, and how much, stewie? What evidence supports this claim? If we apply standards of evidence to the science then let's not stop short of applying them to the business case as well.
The ABARE study into the costs of meeting the Kyoto Protocol looked only at the costs and ignored the savings and new market opportunities. So if we claim costs and sacrifices as a reason to do nothing, then let's substantiate it eh, not base it on a 'we'll all be rooned' discussion with the neighbour over the back fence.
First, Jennifer or Paul Williams, if this post is to long or off post (to much) scrap it and maybe you can email it to Gavin. Thanks.
Gavin I can only minimize the rhetoric, by a long explanation, via personnel experience.
I have seen, how flora and fauna ‘scientists’, not only ‘cherry pick’ broader elements, of a species specific issue, such as habitat extent, habitat potential, population indicators, historic data but also cherry pick, its basic ‘everyday’ characteristics. They like missing ‘bits’ or ‘inputs’ in their reporting. People have similar criticisms of much of the global warming theory.
The f &f scientists produce reports (complete with missing ‘bits’), that are then referenced by people (community groups, media, political lobby groups), who are not aware of the missing ‘bits’.
‘Bits’ missing, then enables the/other ‘scientists’ (or politicians) to draw conclusions, on the broader ‘management’ issues, concerning that species and adjust them accordingly, to suit the ‘mathematical’ dominos affect, the incorrect base values (data) dictates. Using this ‘missing bits’ method you can manufacture ‘worst case scenarios’.
Have you heard of the ‘endangered’, Spotted Tree Frog (Litoria Spenceri)?
This frog was put up (in a Parl. Inquiry, 1989) as being under threat of ‘local’ extinction, due to eductor gold dredge activity, in the Goulbourn River.
I at this time, had a fair amount of experience in the mountains and had done a little dredging myself.
How had this frog survived in such a harsh and often ‘unforgiving’ environment? I asked myself.
As an aside, with your family background Gavin, I suspect you know what I mean about the ‘unforgiving’ environment. It is not often experienced by your average Joe, who is looking for 25deg. days, blue skies and a nice spot on a crystal clear river, to pitch a tent and catch a trout. Nothing wrong with that but it could initiate a narrow perspective.
You would be aware of the ‘unforgiving’ bit, when it’s pissing rain for days; leaches everywhere; raging, dirty rivers, with rocks ricocheting down its bed; trees/branches coming down; tracks slippery and dangerous. Or stinkin’ hot; creeks dried up; rivers at a standstill; gullies growing over; the ground crunchy as hell; you sweat on the rocky ridges; snakes are on the move.
Have you noticed how this perspective of the ‘unforgiving’ side of this environment is absent from most/many flora and fauna reporting.
I know science is clinical, but I find, this ‘environmental science’ is so easily blurred without this natural perspective.
I regress, the frog……
I undertook, during this inquiry, to investigate every element of environmental concern, not just because of the many anomalies I saw, but simply because I was interested, in the process of environmental management. For three years I spent a considerable amount of time on this.
On one of my trips into the Arthur Rylah Institute I visited two freshwater biologists. One was going to give me info on fish (Galaxia species) and the other on the spotted tree frog.
It turned out the frog bloke was absent, so I spent a little time with the fish bloke.
I had no difficulty in picking up that this fish bloke, who was about to retire, held some negative attitude, towards the new breed of flora and fauna ‘managers’.
I explained to him my grievances, with the department’s claim of extinction potential due to egd operations. He went to his filing cabinet and gave me a report on this frog, which in part explained how this frog was nomadic and was not restricted to waterways, as it could absorb and store water, under its skin, up to 50% of its body weight. Hence, this frog can be found on mountainsides and can transverse ridge and spur lines.
It’s also nocturnal and changes color to suit its immediate environment. Very difficult to find.
All info past onto the committee, from the Parlimentary Inquiry research officer (a department staffer who is now an environmental consultant), did not include this frogs nomadic trait.
Instead, a perception was produced of static populations. This extrapolated, meant that spotted frog populations, that had disappeared from previous ‘known’ locations, were seen as ‘locally’ extinct. This perception lived on well after the egd inquiry. Statistical data from this is still relied upon today and significantly contributes to its status of ‘endangered’.
The numbers were also fiddled with regards to ‘elevation found in’ data.
Historic references, to ‘known’ sightings painted a picture of a broad tolerance to elevation changes. However, when the new f & f scientists came along, this changed to one of a highly restricted elevation preference.
The ability to predict population size seemed, to me, over confident.
On looking at the field trip logs (had to use FOI to get them) of the field scientist and knowing the country, you could see that in reality, very little ground was covered, it was mainly during the day (?looking for a nocturnal frog?) and the weather dry. Only a precursory search was carried out, when considering its overall habitat range potential. Joe average might be impressed though.
Little reference to the threat from predation by the introduced trout, the obvious culprit if there were issues of decline.
When I inquired with the expert, why this information was not included, he actually denied that trout ate frogs and that if I claimed they did, I would have to produce scientific evidence. I said “but you are the people who would produce such evidence”. Checkmate.
Little (no) reference to the ecological threat from feral wildfire was made. Yet fuel loads were excessive in such areas (until 2003).
Recovery plans (unpublished at the time of the inquiry), were later drawn up for this ‘endangered’ frog. National Parks and no logging included options, of course.
Included in the’ recovery’ plan
(Environment Australia, Spotted Tree Frog 1998-2002 Recovery Plan, Graham Gillespie, Peter Robertson Department of Natural Resources and Environment Flora And Fauna, 16/9/98)
3.11.4 Fire Management
To prevent changes in the habitat of the Spotted Tree Frog or changes to water quality in STF streams: Do not permit prescribed fire in the Spotted Tree Frog habitat, and aim to exclude all fire from this area. Fuel reduction burning to be excluded from all catchments upstream of Spotted Tree Frog habitat where possible. Fire management strategy to be developed for each catchment, including provision for treatment of wildfire such that minimal disturbance to Spotted Tree Frog habitat is maintained; to be included in area fire management plans.’15
Looks like, in 1998, they were trying to say that fire, was not such a desirable thing in the whole catchment(s). Fuel reduction burning is not to be permitted upstream, in the frogs’ habitat they said. The whole report and similar ones, seem to indicate that fire is almost foreign to this forest type. A scaremongering, undercurrent runs through reports when fire is mentioned.
The 2003 wildfire did not seem to respect these ‘management’ plans or agree with exclusion principles. The fires decimated these water catchments, the ones next to and behind it. They burnt to the ground.
Why did they previously describe a policy, nearing exclusion of fire? Make sense? And they call this a recovery plan? What perception would Joe average get from this reporting? Probably, fires. Bad.
Reading between the lines, they basically were playing around with perceptions of water quality and increased sedimentation, so as to put pressure on activities like logging and even camping spots. Using ‘worst case scenarios’ and inference of looming disaster of a ‘fragile’ habitat, anything that caused sediment movement equals bad.
Many other, species specific plans, including recent ones, have similar distortion of data, by missing ‘bits’.
Gavin you said in your first reply,
“Things are so streamlined everywhere now there is little time for details like owls hidden in the bush”
What did you mean by this? It’s very much happening now? And what has been done to now (over the last 15 years), needs to be re-visited.
Do you believe that there is potential, for instances of environmental science, to be actually serious fraud?
I’d say yes, it’s just that our judiciary system doesn’t seem prepared or positioned, for dealing with this potential type of crime. Unless you’re a farmer, miner, forestry worker, fisherman…… The media seems clueless.
Your assumption on me and APM. Wrong. Why did you get this perception? Do you think the logging industry is the only group who claim fraud and injustice? Wrong again. There are many of us, and we are not just followers of a theory, but people with direct cause for upset, based on various personnel experiences.
Oh, and eductor gold dredging was banned, not on evidence. There wasn’t any. After the committee, decided to go for a second round of submissions, due to the angry response by egd proponents, over the so called ‘science’, the ambiguous, ‘precautionary principle’ was invoked, to cause a cessation to licences. This was applied even though egd had been going on for over 10 years and the PP is meant to apply to ‘new’ activities, of unknown quantity.
So disgraceful was this episode, people committed suicide after this event. So we had blokes who were once hard working, using an environmentally sustainable technique to extract gold (new wealth), minding their own business, top themselves. Some of the extreme greenies I know, see this as ‘collateral damage’.
And now the environmental scientists say islands are sinking and there’s talk of environmental refugees. Hmmmm. The flora and fauna experts haven’t hesitated to include this in their ecological threat list and in fact others are trying to discuss global warming and increased bushfire scenarios as an exclusive cause and effect scenario. Excessive fuel load hardly gets a mention. Anywhere. Never has really.
You ever heard of the U.N.s, Agenda 21, Gavin. I’m sure you have. Quite a profound proposition, requiring huge social, economic and environmental adjustments, especially to western societies. Many (like these socialists I here of in the ALP), seem quite willing to sacrifice a lot of our society, in the name of this global Gaia.
By the way Gavin, I’m not having a go at you at all and agree, with things you posted but everybodies experience is different.
I remember when i was first aware of climate change likelihood in the 70s as a result of having aware neighbours and reading New Scientist.
The outcry against these types of 'non-predictions' reminds me of the reaction when we tried to raise discussion on climate change : we were alarmist, un-scientific, ratbag, single issue do-gooders.
30 years later many of the people who derided us are now saying climate change as a result of human activity is a reality, but the worst case scenarios are alarmist etc.
What we do know is that the climate change we are experiencing now is a delayed reaction by nature to what we were doing say 30 years ago. The next 30 years will be interesting and uncertain - thats all we can say with any certainty. Think about this - what is the value of the Australian coastal real estate that will be flooded if the sea level ony rises 1 foot in 100 years. A fair bit I reckon.
Air travel also has other consequences - when unburnt hydrocarbons come out of a plane at 30,000 feet they tend to fall back to earth. In addition to boosting shampoo sales, some of them land on the leaves of the remnant global vegetation where they interfere with the photosynthesis process at the level of the stomata on the leaves. This is a contributing factor in the poor health of global forests.
The Men of the Tress 'carbon neutral' scheme counteracts the effect of car emmissions by car owners funding tree planting, If you apply the same logic and methodology to aeroplane emmissions, the results are incredible.
THERE IS NOT ENOUGH ROOM ON THE PLANET TO PLANT THE COUNTERACTING TREES.
It is time that we all started to reduce our fossil fuel consumption. We may not be able to accurately quantify climate change, however we do know its real and that it is changing our habitat in ways that effect natures capacity to support us.
The knockers can say thats alarmist - I call it reality. But then they probably use planes and drive to work. I don't fly, and I don't own a car.