Flat earth society approach flawed
I was most surprised to read Mr Corbett’s letter to The Border Mail (June 14) denying the correlation between global temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2).
The Swedish Nobel Prize-winning scientist Svante Arrhenius presented a paper to the Stockholm Physical Society in 1895 accurately describing the close relationship between CO2 and the earth’s temperature.
Since then, repeated hard scientific evidence of observation, measurement and experimentation has proved the relationship beyond doubt.
The latest high quality Australian survey carried out by Wallis Research on more than 3000 randomly selected Australians showed that 91 per cent understand that climate change is happening and that human activity is contributing to it.
More than 75 per cent believe urgent action is required now.
It also showed that only 4 per cent say there is no such thing as climate change and only 3 per cent believe climate change is entirely due to natural processes.
These findings show that people are now sensibly not listening to people like me (I am not a climate scientist) or politicians or Mr Corbett (I presume he is not a climate scientist either).
They are listening to the only people who have something other than “opinion” to support their view.
They are listening to those dedicated men and women who carry out independent, repeatable, demonstrable and peer-reviewed scientific research over decades on the physics, chemistry and biology of the atmosphere.
There are some people who, for various reasons, are never going to believe the scientists (which is because there is still a flat earth society).
However, this group is now so small we can all get on with it and take the appropriate action – such as an organised rapid transition from fossil to renewable energy – for a better future.
Lauriston Muirhead, Table Top
Independence needed to get the right advice
Australia's chief scientist, Dr Alan Finkel, said in response to a question from a member of his audience on television recently that he did not agree with the questioner that the carbon emissions target was more important than other things covered in his recent report.
Like nearly everybody else I had to go to Google to find out that Dr Alan Finkel is an engineer and was appointed by our present prime minister.
I might be getting a bit cynical in my old age, but I would have been happier if there had been some input by a climate scientist who is truly independent.
The report as I have been able to glean from the media was supposed to help us meet our carbon emissions target while keeping costs as well as the requirements of industry and households at a manageable level while maintaining a reliable and dependable energy source. A climate scientist might well have told the government that they have got Buckley’s chance of ever achieving this except on paper.
The climate scientist might have felt obliged to remind the government that there is not much point anyway in even having an emissions target if we are still even contemplating the continued burning and mining of coal into what the climate change doubters call “the foreseeable future”.
The climate scientist might well have reminded the government that the future has not been foreseeable for some time now and that they should get out more.
Joan Fairbridge, Albury
Letter of the week
The winner of the letter of the week is Ian Emslie, of Thurgoona. You can collect your prize from the offices of The Border Mail at 1 McKoy Street in Wodonga. Send your letter submissions to email@example.com.