A few years ago I tuned into Radio National. Patricia Karvelas, who claims to be a journalist, was hosting the show. She interviewed an author about his latest book—a fictional whodunit with a climate change back theme. I could already picture Karvelas, ever enthusiastic about the climate change narrative, rubbing her hands with excitement. Here's a paraphrased snippet of their exchange:
PK: "So, you believe climate change is upon us?"
Guest: "Well, yes, the sea has already risen a foot in the Maldives."
Karvelas let that go through to the keeper. If she truly upheld journalistic standards, she would have pushed back on this statement. The guest obviously got his information from the internet which is abound with foolish predictions. More than one predicts that by the end of the century, the seas will have risen by a metre and the Maldices submerged.
In reality, there’s been minimal, if any, significant rise in sea levels in the tropics. The Maldives, like most tropical islands, are shaped by natural island dynamics driven by monsoon shifts, which can alter coastal features like beaches and inlets. While some islands have marginally shrunk, others have expanded—a natural process not linked to climate change.
Have you ever heard an ABC interviewer question the data?
- Was the sample size sufficient?
- Are the data points relevant?
- What consideration was given to climatic events other than climate change?
- What assumptions were made?
Any of these issues can skew the model's outcomes.
Researchers are not immune to submitting to pressures to secure funding or prove a desired narrative. Think about this: how many research grants have been awarded globally to study the impact of climate change? Likely thousands. Now consider how many grants have been allocated to explore the opposite. The imbalance is worth noting.
Take Professor Tim Flannery, the 2007 Australian of the Year, often regarded as a leading voice in climate change advocacy. In my opinion, he is emblematic of climate exaggeration. Flannery, who is not formally trained in mathematics or science, claims he uses computer models to make his predictions. Flannery once predicted that bayside suburbs such as Altona and St Kilda would be submerged by rising sea levels.
Consider this article from Melbourne's Herald Sun, published on April 15, 2016:
"SUBURBS such as Albert Park, Docklands, and St Kilda would be swamped by rising sea levels if climate change continues unabated, says new computer modelling."
"And it claims popular beaches such as Bells, Brighton, and Ocean Grove would be washed away if levels rose by 0.74m by the end of the century." (love the word 'if.' a preposition designed to deny accountability. You can hear him now "Hey, I said if."
The article went on to promote the Coastal Risk Australia website, which allows users to visualize the potential impact of rising sea levels on their homes and communities. It also mentioned that the website was being pushed by the Climate Media Centre, a spin-off of the Climate Council—a group founded by Tim Flannery after the Abbott government dissolved the Climate Commission. The modelling even suggested iconic locations like Bells Beach and St Kilda would vanish into the sea.
This website, along with another (climatevaluation.com), claims to provide insights into how rising sea levels will impact coastal properties, even estimating changes to insurance premiums and property values. Yet, these predictions often originate from people with financial or ideological stakes in the climate change narrative.
At least the Herald Sun referred to Flannery as an activist rather than a scientist. But this trend of unchallenged claims continues. In January 2020, Flannery told a CNN reporter that the devastating bushfires that plagued New South Wales and Victoria at the time were "absolutely" caused by climate change. The reporter didn’t press him on why he was so certain, and Flannery didn’t elaborate. If he had, he likely would have cited "computer modelling" as his evidence.
Fast-forward to the summer of 2024-25 in Victoria. It’s been one of the warmest and driest in years, yet there were relatively few bushfires. Indeed, five years have passed without a repeat of the scale of the 2019-2020 season. So much for Flannery’s dire predictions.
In 2022, at a climate protest in Melbourne, a high school student from Castlemaine—around 15 years old—told a TV news reporter that she took the day off school to attend the marech to raise awareness. She said, "I don’t want to be around when the planet explodes."
Fear-driven narratives persist, and I believe our educators bear a significant responsibility in addressing this issue. Students should be encouraged to critically examine the evidence, rather than being presented with "the science" as if it were an unquestionable, sacred truth. Furthermore, it is crucial that researchers who propagate false claims are heald accountable for their actions. We deserve fact-based, balanced discussions on our taxpayer-funded ABC about climate change—free from fear, exaggeration, or activism disguised as science. We must put an end to our gullibility.
For the record, I'm not a climate change denier. Ice melts indicate that indeed the climate is warming. I accept that temperatures in Australia are rising but to what degree does it matter? And if it does matter, will denying industry access to fossil fuels and natural gas make a difference?
Add comment
Comments