The climate change deniers get nasty

My strongest critic wrote this week claiming that "Jim Reiher's reply ..on global warming is so full of holes that it just does not hold water. For one thing, Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth, has been proved 'an inconvenient lie' by reputable scientists. This time, Jim still did not produce any reliable scientific evidence. ... He digressed at that point a little confusingly into a discussion about the Greens opposing dams and the water crisis (a water crisis due partly to climate change I would add).

 

And then he started getting nasty:

 

"Radical Greens, especially those of the department of Sustainability and the Environment, in their zeal to keep the Australian environment 'beautiful' have stopped the building of new dams as well as the back burning of land around homes to clear ground against the threat of bushfires. The results of this suicidal policy now stare us in the face, with the tragic loss of human lives and the utter destruction of homes, property, whole towns and countryside. Along with arsonists, responsibility for this tragedy lies heavily with the radical Greens and the DSE. Mr Reiher should instead focus on helping to reverse this disastrous policy instead of chasing any unproven global warming theories." 

 

Ouch! Now we greens (I guess just the "radical" ones - but hey, who will try to distinguish them when it comes to the crunch?) are to blame for the fires.

This is an appalling letter for so many reasons! My reply initially was way too long for letters to the editor to consider it, so I reduced it to the following.  (I have changed it here, only to remove the name of the specific critic who I was replying to.)

 

 

I have been asked to provide names of scientists who believe in climate change.  The same critic also (horribly and unbelievably) blames the recent deaths of 180 Victorians not just on arsonists, but also on “radical Greens and the DSE” (Dept of Sustainability and the Environment).

 

Firstly: there are thousands and thousands of competent scientists with genuinely earned PhD’s, who believe that climate change is happening. Check this web site for one of the best such lists you could ever want: http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/climate_authors_table.html

 

That list includes each scientist and their area of expertise. Everyone from Dennis Baldocchi (eco systems and rates of gas exchange) to Sergej Lebedeff (sea levels) to Thomas Stocker (ice core data) to Keith Briffa (temperature history) and hundreds of others. Besides all of those listed, think about our own CSIRO. Some of our best Australian scientists: they believe that climate change is happening.

 

Secondly: I take deep offense at the accusation that Greens were to blame for the recent fires. But this is not the first nor the last time we will see the Greens being used as the whipping boy for the fires.

 

To set the record straight: The Greens do NOT oppose controlled back burning! It is a lie to state otherwise. Green’s policy expressly supports controlled and appropriate fuel reduction burns that have been part of Australia’s landscape and indigenous culture for tens of thousands of years.

 

Our critics need to get their facts right. And they really should not use the recent tragic deaths here in Victoria as a way to get a dig in against the Greens. Such statements reflect bad timing, insensitive grandstanding, and false information.

 

 

There was so much more I wanted to write! Word limits and the fear of ruthless editing caused me to keep it short. But I wanted to add things like the following:

 

-         The Greens have never held power anywhere in Victoria to make the decisions that say where houses can be built; or where forest plantations can be planted; we have never had the power to make the call when it comes to when to back-burn and when not to; we have never been in power in this state to make decisions about if dams get built or not; we have never had the authority or power to decide what happens to National Parks and forests. How can a group that has never controlled state of council governments get the blame for things when they go wrong?

 

-         More importantly we do not oppose controlled back-burning. How the belief is “out there” never ceases to amaze me. But we don’t oppose it. In fact we recognize that our Aboriginal people controlled the landscape incredibly well and it included the correct use of back-burning at the right times, in the right way.

 

-         At the same time, back-burning is not necessarily the be-all and end-all of stopping fires. Marysville had considerable back burning exercises take place over the last 10 years – but sadly it did not stop a fire of such ferocity. Back burning helps – but with the climate changing for the worse, fires will be more intense than in the past. When such conditions happen, there is very little that can really be considered “the instant answer”.    

 

-         Regarding dams, it is true that we Greens are not keen on “more dams”. We certainly do NOT see more dams as the answer to future water needs. With less rain, and an already thirsty river system, more dams will put more pressure on the already exhausted rivers, and they will not necessarily fill. Digging more holes in the ground does not create more rain! There are better ways to fight the drought than “more dams”. Better use of the water we have; conservation; recycling; water tanks – and fighting climate change - these are the kinds of things we should be doing.

 

-         Would some more dams around the place have helped the fire situation in Victoria? There would have been a few more spots where “Elvis” could have picked up a water load. But lack of dams has not been the reason for the spread of these shocking fires. And it would not have prevented them. (Dams and the water crisis deserve more discussion than they are getting here).

 

Finally I wanted to tell my critic that he has written slander against the Greens, and in fact he might even have crossed the line with Victoria’s vilification laws. To spread fear and hatred of others is banned in Victoria. That letter could be seen to be spreading fear and hatred of the Greens to those who are not educated or to those easily swayed. But I resisted that in my brief reply, because I had a feeling it would open up a whole new area of angry people who “hate the vilification laws”. It would take us off the topic at hand.

 

Hope you found this interesting!

 

Jim