Thank you all for your recent letters to the editor. There was not enough room in print to cover them all. Here is all of this week’s letters.
Australia can do better
Hold tight - we’re checking permissions before loading more content
Aref is a name nobody knows. He died a number of years ago in Adelaide. He was 47 years old.
He was born in Iran, a Christian. Fleeing persecution, he arrived in Australia in 2000. He came by boat.
He was put in detention centres for five years. Five years of isolation, confinement, no freedom, no opportunity for work or education. He was given a number and called as a number. His name was discarded.
It is beyond belief that a number was his identity. We carry our name so it recognises who we are. Our past, present and future is in our name. All Aref had was a number. Tell me how that is even possible in this day. The past tells us why this happens — to dehumanise, to damage people.
He was released. He was found to be a genuine refugee. He fled for a better life and we gave him psychological damage and a sense of worthlessness. Part of his life was stolen by us. He was an artist and he would have been a benefit to many communities. Sadly he died a sad, silent and lonely man. He had given up. He had enough. He faded away. This was, and still is, being done in our name.
Much is made of the notion of this Australian word ‘mateship’. This meaning of friendship, giving people a hand, is a failed word. Why do we fail asylum seekers? Why do we fail Aboriginal people? Mateship is not a word that embraces any of the above.
Please, if you need support, call Lifeline on 131 114.
Robert Bird,
Winton
Max responds
Robert Bird, in his letter (19/06/24), takes issue with my letter of the previous week which stated the self-evident fact that the climate is always changing.
My letter also stated that the two primary considerations concerning climate change are the rate and magnitude of climate change. Again, the self-evident fact is that the temperature rise we have experienced of 1.1°C over the past 170 years is neither rapid, alarming, nor at odds with natural variability over that time scale.
Mr Bird states “both those letters are based on omissions, distortions and misinformation”, but he offers no evidence to refute the facts I stated in my letter. Does Mr Bird expect to be taken seriously when he states “none of this nonsense about climate is always changing”, inferring that climate change is a recent phenomenon?
What about the Medieval Warming Period, 900-1300 AD, or the Little Ice Age, 1300-1850 AD, when the River Thames in London used to freeze over and ice fairs were held on the frozen river? Sea level 20,000 years ago was 120 metres lower than the present level due to extreme cold. The climate has always changed, that is what it does.
Mr Bird’s letter is a classic example of the ad hominem fallacy — attack those who disagree with your view, rather than providing logic and reasoning to refute their arguments.
Max Rheese,
Benalla
Free at last
Real journalism should not be a crime. Julian Assange is a hero, he needs to be looked after and cared for. And a monument not only for Australia but for the world to see, to recognise Julian and the sacrifice he made for us, for the freedom and truth in journalism.
Roman Kaminski,
Benalla
In response
Robert Bird has written an interesting letter. In it he has shown a strong emotional reaction to my recent two contributions to the conversation about the hypothesis of man-made climate change.
This letter illustrates an unfortunate recent development in social discourse — that is, binary thinking plus personal attacks on those whose views differ from one’s own. The subject under discussion is very complex and cannot be covered in a couple of hundred words, but let me say a few things anyway.
The question of who funds what scientific research is a pertinent one, and we have the right to know how this affects the published conclusions. We have a situation now where governments (particularly through subsidies) and private enterprise are funding research work that brings them political advantage or monetary profit. The motivation in this domain is not a left-right binary but utilitarian ethics. I think it's fair to say that the petro-chemical giants have been investing in ‘renewables’ — after all, having a finger in two pies is bound to bring you something to eat in the end — and the scramble of political figures to appear ‘green’ serves the plate well.
The legitimate aim of scientific inquiry is to try to disprove a hypothesis; without testing it, how do you know that it is sound? If there are no contrary voices allowed, the hypothesis remains an opinion, a political directive, or a fantasy.
The high temperature of the current climate change non-debate reveals fear, and fear is often manifested as anger. Both emotional states get in the way of rational thinking. When a contrary opinion to the most publicised one is aired, it needs to be considered calmly; it should not necessitate name-calling or threats.
Grace Beer,
Moorngag
Cold mornings
Locals would have noticed some very cold mornings recently. At our place these temperatures, of around -6°C or below, have occurred twice previously in my nearly 50 years living at Benalla. Once was about 30 years ago and the other time was about 10°C years ago.
In my opinion, these cold bursts highlight the cyclical nature of our weather. That is, we have hot periods and we have cold periods, we have wet periods and we have dry periods .
My point in raising this matter is not to argue that there is not long-term changing climate but to point out that there are also cyclical fluctuations.
Accordingly, it is important that there is not selective use of data to support a position.
For example, temperature records for the last 50 years do show an increasing trend.
However, if you look at the records for the preceding 50 years, there was a declining temperature trend.
All of that said, I conclude by strongly endorsing reducing waste, maximising recycling and planting more trees and shrubs.
Bill Sykes,
Benalla
I don’t think anyone has the answer
No-one has all the answers. The most effective and beneficial decisions are made when all relevant information is presented in an unbiased, honest and transparent manner. This enables open, mature, rational and intelligent debate and discussion, rather than division and angst.
Demonising and silencing other opinions and viewpoints through derogatory name-calling and fearmongering is a dictatorship. Re: Who Funds What — peel back a few layers and it becomes quite apparent that the Australian and giant transnational corporations and bureaucrats with their lucrative vested interests in green energy/net zero agenda profoundly influence and effect funding, narrative and propaganda of this agenda. Their decisions ensure the continuance of their vested interests and profits, rather than environmental safety. The imminent demise of Planet Earth through the use of extremely emotive words has been the effective rhetoric for a great many years. Instilling ‘fear’ always a well-used method of ‘control’. ‘Catastrophic, — a great and sudden calamity. ‘Crisis’ — an abrupt and sudden change.
Neither words describe the gradual, cyclical cooling/warming of the planet. Planet Earth does not exist in isolation but is an integral part of the Solar/Planetary System and well studied by cosmologists and astrophysicists, revealing, therefore, Planet Earth is subjected to influence and effects from Sun activity and all external and internal forces, movement, shifts, and changes. Geophysicists study the physics of Earth and its processes that take place on and within it, including the movement of Earth’s axis and the North/South Pole shifts, whereby the glaciers retract from the earlier position and expand at the new position (currently occurring).
Hypocrisy knows no bounds when claims are made to save the environment, and our prime agricultural land and food production, our pristine rainforests and wildlife habitat, our spectacular coastline and precious marine life are being irreparably damaged and destroyed by the implementation of thousands of solar panels, wind turbines and transmission lines, which will have no effect on global emissions, nor solve our present energy supply problems. Toxic, rare earth minerals are mined and used in the production of all these structures, defacing thousands of kilometres of land and soil degradation in the process. Where is the outrage over this?
B. Jenkins,
Cooinda Village
Climate scientist sets out the facts
Benalla Sustainable Future Group was proud to have Benalla’s own Dr Lynette Bettio from the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) address us recently on the current and future risks to our region of climate extremes. Subsequent letters indicate that the topic continues to generate great interest and debate. I concur with Robert Bird’s suggestion (letter in the Ensign on June 26) that unfortunately omissions, distortions and misinformation recur regularly whenever the topic is raised.
Reference has been made to My Climate View, a tool developed to assist farmers understand and plan for the effect of the coming climatic changes on their operations. For Benalla, the finding on rainfall changes by month out to 2050 was “inconclusive”. More generally, the BOM’s 2022 State of the Climate reports that:
• In the south-east of Australia, there has been a decrease of around 10 per cent in April to October rainfall since the late 1990s.
• There has been a decrease in streamflow at most gauges across Australia since 1975.
By contrast, monthly maximum temperatures for Benalla show an inexorable increase throughout future years (source myclimateview.com.au) for all months. Benalla’s agricultural production is not immune from the forecast changes, and planning is essential to address this future.
At the global level, devastating floods have been occurring in virtually every continent, followed by heatwaves and “heat domes”, often in many of the same places. Recent deaths of pilgrims in Saudi Arabia are a stark example of the impact of climate change.
While the media remains hypnotised by live feeds of raging floodwaters, tornadoes and people dying from heat stroke, a greater danger lies in the potential collapse of the global agricultural system. A new study projects that world food supplies could decline by up to 14 per cent by 2050 due to heat and water stress alone, exposing nearly 1.4 billion people to dire hunger.
It’s been suggested that “the world is about to find out what climate change really means — and blistering days, sweltering nights, furious floods, raging fires and violent tempests are the least of it”.
Continued global warming is inevitable, and well-founded strategies (local, national and global) are needed to help humans, other animals and crops avoid and manage exposure to heat and other impacts. As Robert Bird aptly said “We all need to act. We all need to press our leaders, councillors and politicians about this issue”.
Let’s hope that as part of the adoption of the Climate and Environment Strategy (with important, much-needed revisions), our council will act on this critical issue and belatedly declare a Climate Emergency as a simple, symbolic demonstration of leadership, as more than 600 ratepayers sought back in 2020.
David Blore (President of the Benalla Sustainable Future Group),
Benalla
Contributed content