30 January 2020

Now is not the time to be a Quiet Australian, says Broulee GP

| Dr Michelle Hamrosi
Join the conversation
Broulee beach

Broulee beach and island beyond: the impact of the fires is clear along the South Coast. Photo: Supplied.

As we welcomed 2020, we were forced from our home in Broulee as a raging fire approached. When we returned a few days later, we were grateful to find it was still standing.

That night, around the dinner table, my seven-year-old daughter said, “I just want it to be normal again”.

“Me too,” I replied, thinking, I’m not sure things will ever be ‘normal’ again.

Miss 7 looked pensively into the distance as food went cold on her plate. “I’m just imagining the future,” she said. “Everything is dead and brown. There is no food. There are mountains of plastic and the air is filled with pollution.”

I want to tell her it won’t happen, but I can’t. If we don’t act on climate change, this will be her future.

At 6:00 am on New Year’s Eve, we were woken by our landline ringing and mobile phones beeping. The ‘Fires Near Me’ app sent a warning and an automated messaged from the RFS played a message informing us there was a fire in the Mogo area. Mogo was still a long way from us, so we weren’t panicking. To be safe, we began to implement our bushfire plan.

Then the power and phones went out. My husband, who was on call for Moruya Hospital anaesthetics, decided to go to work as he needed to be contactable.

Outside it was heating up, a strange, hot dry wind gave me an uneasy feeling. I ran to our neighbours for support. They urged me to prepare to evacuate with them to the beach.

But moments before going the winds changed and in front of our eyes the fireball regressed. Without dependable communication lines, we decided to evacuate initially to Moruya and then to Batemans Bay – all up, we were away for six days.

Since returning home, my daughter’s words have haunted me. The future she is frightened of is already here.

Everything around us is black and smouldering. We’ve had food shortages and our water is unsafe to drink and swim in. Our air is thick with hazardous pollutants. The sand is covered in black ash and piles of burnt leaves. People have lost their homes, properties and businesses. Millions of animals have died.

I’ve been concerned about the growing impact of climate change on our health and our country. But this experience has made it so much more real and palpable. We are being impacted NOW by climate change, and it’s only going to get much worse.

I’m really concerned for the future of my children and whether Australia will even be a liveable place for them.

I’m a local GP, and since we re-opened the Monday after the fires, without power, phones or internet, I’ve seen many patients suffering the impacts of this disaster – smoke exposure, exacerbations of asthma and emphysema, acute anxiety, panic attacks, stress, grief and even suicide.

Clean air, clean water and a liveable climate underpin our very survival. These are the rights of basic health and they’re being eroded before our eyes. Climate change is not about belief, it’s about science.

Let me ask you this: imagine I told you that for the spot on your skin that we biopsied, 97 per cent of pathologists agreed it was melanoma. Would you have it removed, or would you take a 3 per cent chance and leave it?

Many politicians, including our local leaders, are telling us that right now is not the time to talk about climate change.

I cannot think of a better time.

I call on all levels of government, regardless of political alignment, to learn from this climate-fueled disaster and take immediate action. Listen to our scientific and emergency leaders. Listen to the medical community. Declare a climate emergency and get on with the job we pay you to do. It is your duty of care to the Australian public.

The immediate threat of fires has eased, so please do what you can to help our communities recover. Please give generously. But just as importantly, do what you can to help put pressure on our government. Write or email your local representatives. Join a climate activist group like Australian Parents for Climate Action. Climate change is a health emergency. Make no mistake – our health, our livelihoods, our communities and our environment are at risk.

The fires have shown us that risk will not be upon us at a future date, unknown. It is here, right now. We can change course, but we must do it now. Collectively, we can demand it. If we work together, anything is possible.

Now is not the time to be a quiet Australian.

Dr Michelle Hamrosi is a South Coast GP and lives at Broulee with her young family.

Original Article published by Dr Michelle Hamrosi on About Regional.

Join the conversation

All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
Capital Retro10:54 am 10 Feb 20

What is a “Quiet Australian”?

Capital Retro12:17 pm 08 Feb 20

Hey, Malcolmo Oz aka GrumpyMark, have you read Bushfires in Australia yet? That book clearly defines where bushfires have been been before which I am sure people who lost their homes in the recent bushfires were aware of so what other reason could there be for them to build there except for a lifestyle choice?

Thanks for referring to me as a low-life spurious opportunist too – it goes well with vandal climate change denier, names that I have been called without challenge from the RA moderators.

Capital Retro11:25 am 05 Feb 20

“The evidence for anthropogenic climate change is robust, …..”

But is has never been tested nor have any of the other “carbon causes climate change” theories.

Interesting excerpt from the Prime Minister speech in moving the Bushfire Condolence Motion in the House of Representatives today:

“…. These fires have been fueled by one of the worst droughts on record, changing in our climate and a build up in fuel amongst other factors.

Our summers are getting longer, drier and hotter, that’s what climate change does …”

Yep…climate changes over 1000s of years. We appear to be in the next start of a natural 500 year cycle in which the last peak was during the medaevil warm period ( the same one michael manns hockey stick graph ignores ).

Capital Retro6:15 pm 04 Feb 20

The little girl in the leading image looks a lot like Greta. What an amazing coincidence.

So, a 16 year old autistic kid and a GP walked into something they weren’t qualified for….

Also, no, your daughter did not say that. Stop telling lies.

Hmm……as a man of science and engineering, it concerns me people dont appear to have looked at the actual facts.

A fact – Over the last 20 years, there has been no significant increase in global temperature. Look it up.

A fact – there has been significant obstructing of hazard reduction burning over the last 10 years at least in most of the areas around the South Coast and the high country. If you dont hazard reduction burn, you have massive fuel build up.

A fact – according to studies I have seen by CSIRO and others, eucalyptus ( on average ) drops 5 ton of debris per acre per year. Allow for 15% rotting away per year, and you still have 4.25 tons per acre per year. 10 years of no hazard reduction burning = 42.5 tons of debris to burn. Eucalyptus has same BTU thermal output of brown coal when it burns.

Basic physics says more fuel, hotter fire.

Climate has been changing for 1000s of years, the issue isnt imaginary run away man made climate change, its lack of hazard reduction burning.

Really really simple.

Steve, “a man of science and engineering”, c’mon mate who are you trying to kid? Your ‘facts” (opinions) really need some checking don’t they.
Firstly, a fiction – “Over the last 20 years there has been no significant increase in global temperature. Look it up” Yes, suggest you do: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ Or you could try the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology or any genuine scientific body really. Secondly, your now debunked fiction about hazard reduction burning. Start with this: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-07/fuel-reduction-burn-debate-rubbish-says-vic-fire-chief/11849522 Basic physics says hotter, dryer climate, fiercer fires. Climate science has forecast everything about the unprecedented fires. Your attempts at pretending otherwise are, indeed, “really really simple”.

Capital Retro10:42 pm 03 Feb 20

And it has all happened before and will continue to happen again. People need to turn off their socialist media and read some history books.

Oh dear “socialist media” is that the same “socialist media: that supports vaccination? Is that another leftie plot you disagree with and therefore don’t accept the science? The facts of the matter are that, although bushfires are a common feature of the Australian landscape, the extent of these fires is unprecedented. Your problem lies in trying to equate science with politics. If you can untangle that false connection then you won’t need to keep justifying denialism.

Imagine using the ABC, and the opinion of the bloke holding the bag for lack of hazard reduction as your source. LOL.

@stevew77 … I’m not sure what field of science you come from, but these 394 scientists (as at 0600AEST 4-Feb) with research expertise across the fields of climate, fire and weather science disagree with you …

Capital Retro6:13 pm 04 Feb 20

Why won’t you and your colleagues read about the historical bushfire facts? Science has nothing to do with it. If you say they “disagree with me” then they are ignorant because I have the historical facts complied by the CSIRO. Are you going to call the CSIRO climate change deniers too?

Yes, Ice Ages and Warm Ages have been occurring since planet earth initially cooled down .

Tidal measurements at Australia Height Datum Pinchgut since 1900 demonstrate no rise in sea level. An inconvenient fact for climate warriors.

Sure post a link to the journal article in which the data has been published – I’m sure the bona fides of the publisher(s) will be verifiable

Capital Retro9:37 am 05 Feb 20

Did you miss the bit in a previous comment where I said “turn off your socialst media and read some history books”? It is clear that the people promoting the theme that these fires are “unprecedented” and their disciples only give credibility to what is accessible online. Gone are the days when research meant going to a library and that’s where the indisputable facts are.

Accordingly, I can’t give you a link but if you go to a library and get a copy of “Bushfires in Australia”, R H Luke and A G McArthur, CSIRO Division of Forest Research ISBN 0 642 02341 7 you will be informed correctly.

Maybe then we can have a meaningful discussion.

I not sure what you mean by “your socialist media” – just as all right wingers are not climate change deniers, not all climate change believers are socialist lefties). Nevertheless, I’ll turn it off, if you promise to keep up to date with research and current thinking. The book to which you refer, was written in 1978 and republished in 1986 with corrections (https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/8507912?selectedversion=NBD5333435).
I think a more relevant publication from the CSIRO, is their submission entitled “Bushfires in Australia” prepared for the 2009 Senate Inquiry into Bushfires in Australia (aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=3d4e5dd5-9374-48e9-b3f4-4e6e96da27f5 – this is a link to a PDF version of the submission … if you don’t trust the link go to aph.gov.au website and in the search box, in the top right corner, type 09/355).
I draw your attention to section 5 “Climate Change (ToR i)” and in particular, 5.3 “Observed trends in fire weather” and 5.4 “Potential changes in future fire weather risk”.
I do apologise if it bothers you that this very credible publication is available online, but even as a “boomer”, I recognise the need to keep up with the times.

Capital Retro2:21 pm 05 Feb 20

Have you checked the bona fides of the CSIRO yet Malcomo?

Malcolmo Oz… I read that report which says “Sea level continues to rise at a rate of about one-eighth of an inch per year.” That is 0.3175cm per year. If that rate was sustained then it would take over 314 years for sea levels to rise just 1.0 metre. In the expanse of time ocean levels have risen and fallen regularly by greater amounts and humans walked across the Bering Strait from Asia to settle in America. Don’t panic.

Capital Retro6:28 pm 05 Feb 20

I suggest you ask Malcolmo Oz for a copy of that CSIRO book I suggested he gets. You will then find that the current fires are not unprecedented.

Capital Retro6:55 pm 05 Feb 20

Socialist media was meant to be a play on words with a tilt to the Twitterati who are predominantly “socialist lefties”. For goodness sake, lighten up – the sky isn’t really falling.

I know when Bushfires in Australia was first published – I have one. I’m not really into “looking for the fifth leg on the cat” stuff either so why don’t you read the original book, compare it to the later amendments and “discovery” and report back to this thread. I’m open minded to new twists in the narrative.

I’m not “bothered” by anything you dig up, by the way.

“Science has nothing do with it.” Well no for denialists it sure doesn’t.

Why would I read a book that is over 40 yerars old to get a current picture? I’m not really interested in your kind of history, I’m more concerned about the current impact climate change is having. Convenient how you choose to ignore a much more recent (2009) publication from the CSIRO. Is that because the narrative doesn’t match your dismissive rhetoric?

Capital Retro10:11 am 06 Feb 20

The matter being discussed is whether these fires were “unprecedented” and the factual accounts outlined in the 40 year old book clearly states they were not. It’s not about your perception that climate change is involved.

Perhaps you can quote me the differences between the 40 year old book and the 2009 version where “the narrative doesn’t match my dismissive rhetoric”

Tell me…why has there been no significant global temp increase in the last 20 years? If climate change is a runaway process, then logically temps should keep going up…..not be stable.

And why has the infamous temperature “hockey stick” graph been shown to be completely wrong and discredited? Can you explain to everyone the medaevil warm period and why it shows a 500 year cyclical temp trend?

And how is it that every IPCC model predicted outcome been completely wrong?

Any why did tge BOM homogenize the Rutherglen temp data that showed a vooling pattern , to then create what appears to be an artificial warming pattern?

I prefer proof….

The fires this year are bad because of the lack of hazard reduction burning.

Here is a simple physics test – get 2 piles of same wood…the first one is 2 kg, the second is 10 kg.

Light them and blow on them with a fan at the same rate for 5 mins and record the temperature from 1 m away.

Now which one burns hottest?

Physics says the 10kg burns hottests as it has the most fuel.

Now consider years of fuel build up in our state and federal forests due to insufficient hazard reduction burning and what logically will the outcome be when a fire starts?

If one chooses to build their home in the bush, in close proximity to and surrounded by highly flammable native trees, then one is putting themselves at greater risk when inevitable bush fires approach. This is not climate change, but a lifestyle choice that impacts on health and safety, just like smoking, drinking or over eating. This should be especially obvious to a GP.

Capital Retro7:21 pm 04 Feb 20

Then they demand compensation because they chose to not insure their property.

Acton – “This is not climate change but a lifestyle choice…”. According to the RFS it, actually, is climate change. If I were you, with an attitude like that, I’d stay right away from anywhere on the south coast. You’d be as popular as a fart in a lift.

Moderator – I see you have chosen not to publish my response. I find it interesting that you don’t publish my comment calling these two posters “low lifes” yet you actually allowed them to publish their offensive (and totally unsubstantiated) comments … you do realise that there will be people directly affected and traumatised by the fires (through no fault of their own because they were in the path of the fire) who read these comments. Congratulations on allowing these slurs on innocent people while not allowing a response designed to call such posts for what they are.

I’m going to try again. Apparently my original comment posted a couple of days ago was deemed inappropriate by the moderator because of my description of the type of people who would make specious (“If one chooses to build their home in the bush, in close proximity to and surrounded by highly flammable native trees, then one is putting themselves at greater risk when inevitable bush fires approach.” You have evidence this doctor did this?) and unsubstantiated (“they demand compensation because they chose to not insure their property”) generalisations that would make Alan Jones tear up with demagogic pride.
Fortunately, millions of Australians don’t share your warped attitude to this tragedy and those affected buy it, as they have opened their hearts, homes and wallets to support the many victims whose only “fault” was that they happened to be in the path of a fire. While you may think you are in the majority when it comes to refuting climate change, I can assure you (and I don’t need stats to support it), you are in the minority of people who thinks it’s appropriate to use the misfortune of others to further your own cause.

Capital Retro7:38 am 10 Feb 20

Building a house in the bush is caused by climate change? You are deluded.

What no can me back at astro2’s comment Acton and CapitalRetro? Could it be that even you realise your specious and unsubstantiated generalisations were over the top and out of step with the rest of Australia who have been very generous towards every victim of these tragic fires – without Checking their political alignment.

Damn autocorrect – ‘can me back’ = ‘comeback’

Capital Retro10:53 am 10 Feb 20

Have you read “Bushfires in Australia” yet?

HiddenDragon6:55 pm 02 Feb 20

Things are more than a bit grim right now, but rather than reinforcing the fears of children, parents and grandparents might explain that humanity has faced terrible things in the past and prevailed – ask those who were children during the despair and grinding poverty of the Great Depression, the horrors of the Second World War (the recent anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz being a potent reminder), and the truly existential threats of the “Doomsday” weapons of the Cold War.

The real solutions to the present problems will be technological – do as I say, not as I do sacrifices are a denial of the realities of human nature and just won’t cut it.

Things will right themselves. Trouble is there are a lot of people out there easily given to panic and histrionics and there some people with money who will profit by such panic. Planet Earth is still coming out of the last Ice Age and continues to re-warm. We will adapt and survive. I think the big problem with the climate crisis warriors is that they have little faith in themselves and the ability of mankind to rise to the challenge.

What exactly do you want the government to do to reverse climate change, stop the fires or end droughts? Can the government make it rain?
If change starts with you, what are you doing personally to stop the climate from changing?
Have you symbolically stopped using electricity, petrol, flights and plastics?
Before you want others to change, change yourself, otherwise all climate activists are just practicing hypocrisy.
Don’t frighten little children with Henny Penny alarmism. Their life now and future is better than any previous generation in the history of humankind.

The climate warriors have been harping about the drought, fires, etc, “It’s climate crisis”. From the look of BOM we’re about to see a LOT of rain. Is that climate change too? How to adjust the offended woke hysteria to this new phenomenon. Dorothea Mackeller: “… of drought and flooding rain”. It’s normal Oz weather pattern.

Capital Retro12:12 pm 02 Feb 20

“I’m just imagining the future,” she said. “Everything is dead and brown. There is no food. There are mountains of plastic and the air is filled with pollution.”

Who is creating this nonsense that is causing young children who are not old enough to form their own opinions to imagine such negative thoughts about the future?

They don’t have to “imagine” anything. It’s happening in front of them. Although I think you probably know that and you’re just trying to keep up with those denialist posts, because if you do, climate change won’t happen will it? Even if it does, it won’t. Just keep denying strenuously and that will stop it right in its tracks. Same with the metaphorical melanoma the author referred to, if you deny that spot on your skin is a melanoma,despite over 97% of medical experts saying it is, why then\, it just won’t be.

Do you know where the infamous “97%” quote ( which is wrong, by the way ) came from? There was a survey of sceintists, 57 responded, 55 said they might back climate change.

But 55 isnt “1000s of scientists”, is it?


That is a crock and no actual credible scientist would promote the kind of apocalyptic alarmism that has caused a 7 year old girl to make such ridiculous statements (if she did actually say them).

Even under the worst models of the effects of climate change, the statement doesn’t make sense.

No predictions say everything will be “dead and brown”.
No predictions say there will be “no food”.
Overall “air pollution” has almost zero to do with climate change and how mountains of plastic have anything to do with it is beyond me.

The metaphorical melanoma is also a woeful example that no one with a scientific background would use. We know what melanoma does, we can physically point to a few thousand Australians who die from it yearly and there’s detailed empirical studies on the the disease and effects and efficacy of treatments.

It isn’t based on computer models and the negative effects of not acting are very often death to the individual.

If you are trying to claim that not acting on the extreme predictions of climate change is equivalent to a melanoma, you are either being deliberately disingenuous or you are ignorant. That isn’t science.

I note there is also no comparison of what the “action” or tratment should be in this mythical scenario. We currently have in place many policies and agreements to act on climate change, we arent “doing nothing”.

So what does “cutting out the melanoma” look like in this proposed metaphor?

Would you cut off your arm to stop the cancer spreading if instead you could simply remove the melanoma itself?

The kind of deliberate alarmism over climate change spread by articles like this is harmful. If it’s an attempt to garner support to a cause, it fails miserably.

Hmmmm, stevew77 … I too have a Forbes article … I’ll see your 55 and raise you 11,000 (maybe these scientists didn’t get the survey email????)

Next? Oh maybe you want to trot out the “500-scientists-write-letter-to-u-n-confirm-there-is-no-climate-crisis” article but please don’t as this response shows that only 6 out of the 506 signatories (5%) were professionals in biology, ecology, or environmental science

PS stevew77 – this article (https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/70/1/8/5610806) has some pretty graphs too, just like your article

Oh the 11000 scientists that included professor “Mickey Mouse” from the Mickey Mouse institute of the blind in Namibia, Professor Dumbledore and others amongst students and people with claimed qualifications in completely irrelevant fields?

Climate change is real but these types of lists are pointless and completely irrelevant and harmful to actual science. The one you’re linking to was an online survey and petition where anyone could sign up and claim qualifications in the area without vetting, as seen by some of the ridiculous names on the list.

It’s a straight up logical fallacy, attempting to use a plea to authority as if it makes an argument more valid.

When people say we should “listen to the science”, it’s harmful to then turn around and give the opposition such easy ammunition.

chewy14 – did you actually read my post? I was responding to a claim (by stevew77 above) that only 55 scientists have said they might back climate change by showing there are open letters backed by a multitude of scientists, whose names, institutions and credentials are listed so they can be verified. When scientists put their name to a document it is quite valid to cite that document and their support for the information contained therein. Seriously? – “professor “Mickey Mouse” from the Mickey Mouse institute of the blind in Namibia, Professor Dumbledore and others” – yes, you have given the opposition easy ammunition!

I read your comment, you linked to an article claiming 11000 “scientists” declared a climate emergency.

Except for the fact that the list of “scientists” was no such thing, anyone could add their name to the list and claim qualifications that were made up or irrelevant as I’ve shown.

Heres some background that youre clearly missing: https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/globalnews.ca/news/6138812/mickey-mouse-global-climate-emergency-letter/amp/

There were numerous fake names, students and people with irrelevant qualifications listed. You’ve now even linked the cleaned up list that has removed the clear fakes below (did you even read it?). What does someone with a PhD in social work or veterinary studies have to do with climate science for example?

Even the content of the letter itself was no scientific in nature with numerous areas of emotionally driven language that should not be seen anywhere near a scientific discussion.

Steve’s point is correct in that there is no 97% agreement between scientists and even if there was, it’s irrelevant to actual science. It’s a logical fallacy to attempt to claim it actually makes the argument.

In the past there has been consensus amongst scientists on thousands of issues where those scientists turned out to be 100% wrong. Opinions are irrelevant, verifiable theories backed by evidence are what’s important.

Yeah, it’s actually 99%.

Chewy14, you’ve made a lot of strange claims here, some too fanciful to bother responding to however, just to clarify things: not sure what you’re referring to as “a crock”: you didn’t say what you meant. You’re obviously very upset by the article which most people, other than a handful of climate change deniers, found quite reasonable. Children are seeing the impact of climate change unfolding before their eyes, it’s pointless lying to them. That point was quite clearly made by the author of the article. The metaphor of a melanoma is a very apt one – it’s the same scientific method that explains both cancer and climate change. The only difference is that, with climate change science, there has been a campaign (just as there was with the tobacco industry) to confuse science and politics. Is vaccination “left wing” or “right wing”? Neither of course, bur there hasn’t been the same campaign of disinformation about vaccination so most people accept the science. As the impacts of climate change are becoming obvious, the same is happening with climate change. However there is, of course a dwindling band of deniers who are doubling down. Your last claim about cutting out melanomas didn’t seem to be making any point at all other than showing that you don’t know much about treatments available for melanoma. Climate change response involves mitigation, adaptation and representation in international fora, (just in case you didn’t know this). Australia has been recognised internationally as not contributing sufficient response to a problem which is rolling out as was predicted. Sadly, Australia is in the frontline of deleterious climate change effects so this response has a lot of other countries’ representatives shaking their heads in disbelief.

My comment was a direct reply to yours which has now been split because of other comments in between.

So the “crock ” I refer to is your entire reply to capital Retro above..

There’s nothing strange or fanciful about my comment it’s actually a perfectly logical response to ridiculous pleas to emotion that have no basis in science or fact used by yourself and the author repeatedly.

And I’m unsure where you are going with your rambling response to my comment because you haven’t even remotely addressed the points made.

“Children are seeing the impact of climate change unfolding before their eyes, it’s pointless lying to them.”

This is beyond laughable. Are you seriously attempting to claim that a 7 year old has the intellect and experience to discern the impacts of climate change at a localised level without outside influence on their perception? Say from a family member, who might later attempt to write an article on it……

“The metaphor of a melanoma is a very apt one – it’s the same scientific method that explains both cancer and climate change”

And I explained why it isn’t remotely similar. Address the points.

You’re attempting to claim the results of complex models of future climate effects have the same level of certainty as skin cancers which kill thousands of Australians a year and have been studied with real world experiments for two hundred years.

How many controlled experiments have been completed on climate change? Perhaps you can point out the “spare” earth that we’ve used to measure the human induced effects and investigate the best mitigation measures.

And I’m struggling to see the relevance of vaccinations here, another area where the controlled effects have been measured in numerous experiments over hundreds of years.



“Your last claim about cutting out melanomas didn’t seem to be making any point at all other than showing that you don’t know much about treatments available for melanoma”

Surgery to cut out a melanoma and surrounding skin is one of the most common treatment methods, so what are you on about?

Regardless, my point about treatment methods with the melanoma analogy is that acknowledging that an issue exists does not automatically outline an appropriate treatment regime in the same way with climate change.

ie. You might listen to doctors telling you that you had a melanoma but you might baulk if one of them suggested cutting off your arm instead of less invasive treatment methods.

And considering the fact that total global emissions are all that is relevant, unless large emitters such as the USA China and India committ to reducing their carbon footprint, any action by Australia will have zero effect on the global impacts of climate change.

So if you want to actually follow the science you wouldn’t exaggerate the impacts of climate change through attempted emotional manipulation and ridiculous apocalyptic extremes like this article does.

Rather, you would present the most likely impacts rationally and promote mitigation and adaption measures that would actually achieve global outcomes whilst minimising impacts to our economy and way of life.

That’s if you actually wanted to follow the science rather than spouting harmful alarmism…..

The list acknowledges 166 invalid entries were removed – due to “an administrative error” but we both know it was mischievousness and I get that happens … in your article it says “The updated list of signatures now includes 11,224 names from scientists around the world, including more than 400 Canadians. Several of those very real Canadians have spoken out separately in favour of the initiative.”
I also note your article says “The letter itself includes 29 graphs that illustrate the scientific backing behind its warnings. The graphs illustrate shrinking arctic ice, rising sea levels, soaring greenhouse gas concentrations in the area and the steadily increasing global temperature.” So thank you for drawing our attention to that.
You ask what a PhD in social work or veterinary studies have to do with climate science. Well, to quote from a co-author of the paper (Thomas Newsome, an ecologist at the University of Sydney) “We received supporting signatures from a broad range of scientists which likely reflects that they are witnesses to the effects of climate change on the plants, animals and ecosystems they are studying.” A PhD student in veterinary science would investigate the impact on animals – a PhD (Social Work) student would investigate the emotional impact on humans.
Finally you deride the letter for its emotive content. It’s not an article in a science journal, it’s an open letter which the lead author, ecologist Bill Ripple, says (again quoting from your article) “… he rallied scientists behind this doomsday warning because humans need to take drastic action to curb the effects of climate change. He believes that scientists have a moral obligation to warn people about what the facts are showing.”
So chewy14, other than identifying there were errors in the initial list, you haven’t really demonstrated anything.

The whole issue shows the unscientific nature of what was attempting to be conveyed in the letter. It clearly wasn’t an administrative error, it was by design in an attempt to gain as many signatures as possible to claim some sort of “authoritative” statement on the issue through weight of numbers, when it is no such thing.

And your attempt to rationalise why scientists (i notice you didn’t mention the many unqualified people and students included in the list) from other disciplines provide value here is really drawing an extremely long bow.
It’s once again an attempt to inflate the overall numbers and is really just a political opinion letter masquerading as an authoritative scientific position. Anyone who saw the way it was reported in the media knows exactly what it was designed to achieve, which it did.

It’s a straight logical fallacy:


“Finally you deride the letter for its emotive content. It’s not an article in a science journal, it’s an open letter which the lead author, ecologist Bill Ripple, says (again quoting from your article) “… he rallied scientists behind this doomsday warning because humans need to take drastic action to curb the effects of climate change. He believes that scientists have a moral obligation to warn people about what the facts are showing.””

Good, we agree that it isn’t based on scientific findings but is rather a simple political opinion on what some people believe should be done to address climate change.

The scientific findings presented don’t match up with the proposed actions. The main point is that the proposed actions in response to these findings aren’t scientific in nature, there is no attempt to weigh up costs, benefits and outcomes of their proposed actions. As above, politics masquerading as science.

Hmm…no global temp increase for 20 years *and* all the IPCC models predicting run away temperatures have been shown to be wildly wrong….hmmm…


See heres the thing…if you can offer no proof its…well ….a bit sad…

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.