Science conflicts with revealed truth. The history of science is littered with discarded theories. Phlogiston disappears with the discovery of oxygen. Newton’s laws of motion no longer apply in the space-time continuum of Einstein’s cosmos. Revealed truth is independent of evidence.

Democratic Australia harbors science deniers. Two deniers of science in democratic Australia are the Christian Reformed Church (CRC) and the Australian Greens. CRC maintains the earth was created in six literal days and is around 6,000 years old. What can we do about the denial of science by the CRC? In my view we have to live with it. The creation of an informed and well-educated citizenry and the elimination of restrictions on scientific investigations will deal with the denial of science.

In the Greens platform is the following:

Stop the extinction crisis through setting a goal of Zero extinction by 2030 and investing in a mass greening and restoration program, to ensure we are protecting habitats for our native animals and plants.

Extinction is as much part of the process of evolution as the generation of new species. The extinction of the dinosaurs led to the rise of the mammals and the existence of our species. Some species will become extinct without humans even knowing of their existence. To set a goal of zero extinction assumes that all species play some positive part in the web of life, and we know when a species becomes extinct. Positive part means more than being useful to humans although that can play a part.

We depend on bees to pollinate many crops. Without honey bees our food production would precipitously drop. Honey bees are affected by varroa mite, Tropilaelaps mite, Tracheal mite, Braula fly, American foulbrood, European foulbrood, Leafcutter bee chalkbrood, small hive beetle, Stonebrood and A. fumigatus.If any of the foregoing species have no other part in the web of life than being parasitic on honeybees and we can eliminate them it seems worthwhile to do it.

Fundamentalist Christianity and the Australian Greens are bedfellows in the promotion of scientific ignorance.

Dear David,

I'm not familiar with the policies of the Greens. I have
never voted for them. From the little I know is that they
are concerned about the need to protect Australia's
threatened species.

Australia's record is not good - we're know for habitat
destruction, changes to traditional land management,
our introduced species - (rabbits, cats, foxes) are doing
harm, and all are threatening the environment. The
concern by the Greens is understandable as once our eco-systems
are gone, they're gone.

CSIRO tells us that our planet is currently experiencing
the worst wave of species die-off since the loss of the
dinosaur 65 million years ago. And here in Australia with
more than 86 of our native flora and fauna now critically
endangered we run a real risk of losing some of our most
iconic species forever.

It is a reasonable goal to cut down the rate of extinction. It is a reasonable goal to live longer in good health. It is denying reality to get rid of extinction or death.

And the problem continues to grow. Take the Flat-earth Society.
They now claim to have adherents all around the globe.

Hi David,

I would like to see research into fertilising oceans for the potential purposes of developing fisheries, reducing atmospheric CO2, and influencing rainfall on adjoining land masses. Such research is banned on the basis that no one knows what effect it might have.

Putting sulphur particles in the atmosphere over the poles has been suggested as a means of reversing polar warming. The Greens are opposed to that idea as well. The Greens are also largely opposed to nuclear power.

I don't see the sense in having solutions satisfy an ideology when it is being claimed that the world is on the verge of catastrophe.

Dear David,

Who is denying the reality of extinction
or for that matter - death? As far as I'm aware
scientists are trying to improve things. Both of
the real risks of losing some of our
most iconic species, and human health. We can do
with help in both areas

Dear Foxy,

The Greens are denying the reality of extinction when they advocate zero extinction. Those who believe in life after death are denying death.

Dear davidf,

This is what the science says:

"The strong focus on species extinctions, a critical aspect of the contemporary pulse of biological extinction, leads to a common misimpression that Earth’s biota is not immediately threatened, just slowly entering an episode of major biodiversity loss. This view overlooks the current trends of population declines and extinctions.

Using a sample of 27,600 terrestrial vertebrate species, and a more detailed analysis of 177 mammal species, we show the extremely high degree of population decay in vertebrates, even in common “species of low concern.”

Dwindling population sizes and range shrinkages amount to a massive anthropogenic erosion of biodiversity and of the ecosystem services essential to civilization. This “biological annihilation” underlines the seriousness for humanity of Earth’s ongoing sixth mass extinction event."

http://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1704949114

As your objections do seem a little ideological perhaps we need to get back to basics.

An extinction phase is when the number of species going extinct notably outnumber the number of new species created through evolution. The above article and others support the premise that is happening now.

Dear Steele Redux,

I do not deny that the extinction rate is too high for ecological sustainability. However, the goal of an extinction rate of zero iS unattainable and denies reality. Would you keep foul brood or the smallpox virus?

Dear David,

I'm not sure what the Greens mean by "Zero extinction,"
Perhaps they are simply trying to save our endangered species
and our eco-systems?

As for denying death by believing in life after death?

Again - Perhaps that's simply people trying to find the meaning
and purpose of their lives? And not death denial?

Just a few thoughts.

The great extinction is just another of that ever growing list of really really bad things that are going to happen 'soon'.

'Soon' is rarely defined but its always soon enough that we have to do something today. That something almost always entailing spending money and subsidising those who want to do something.

The great extinction scare has been around since at least the 1980s and probably longer. We have all sorts of critters added to the threatened, critically endangered, really-really critical endangered and OMG-endangered list, but few actually go extinct. But once funds have been made available to subsidise those working to save said critter, they never seem to go off the various endangered list. (“Nothing lasts longer than a temporary government program.”).

According to a WWF and US government report in 1979, 1 million species would go extinction by 2000 at the rate of 40000 per year. Not only didn't it happen, it didn't come close to happening. But the anxiously gullible will continue to buy it. And think they're following the science.

david f,
Is that the Christian Reformed Church where they speak Afrikaans?
Or is there a different CRC that shares a name with them?

Anyway, I very strongly disagree with you about the Greens. Extinction rates are, as a result of human action, many orders of magnitude higher than they would otherwise be. And it's reasonable to want to address this problem. It is not anti-science to set a goal of zero extinction by 2030. The differences between zeroed the natural rate is tiny, resembling a rounding error. And in practice the chance of a species going extinct because we fail to meet the goal we set would be much higher than a species naturally going extinct in the same timeframe.

It's local extinction, not biological extinction, which makes room for new species, and the Greens aren't planning to eliminate that.

Dear Foxy,

What the Greens mean by Zero extinction is Zero extinction, no extinction - zilch - no nothing. It's not an ambiguous phrase, and means just what it says. It means preserving the tubercle bacillus. It means preserving European foul brood. It means stopping attempts to get rid of disease bearing organisms. It means stopping attempts to deal with fungus that rots grain. It means stopping attempts to eliminate rodents which destroy grain stores. Zero extinction is a stupid and thoughtless concept.

david f,
Well stated !

Dear davidf,

The almond farmers on the Murray are not only using obscene amount of water they have planted vast almond orchids in vast monocultures which they heavily treat with pesticides. Many of the farms have replaced extensive tracts of native vegetation.
http://goo.gl/maps/AnEUdzSyywe3nPDv8

As a result the native or other bees are unable to naturally pollenate the crops.

So semitrailers loaded with hives from all down the east coast are trucked onto the farms. Bee farmers are paid well for this service but there are some who do not send bees. The reason is the rampant spread of disease among the hives sent there. Hives are then returned and in turn spread those diseases to other colonies.

European Foulbrood only came to Australia in the 1970s.

Removing it from the country if we could isn't causing it to go extinct. However depleted rivers and land clearing has removes habitat and put species under threat. As populations of animals become fewer and more isolated that risk increases substantially.

Zero extinctions may sound like no child shall be left in poverty, but surely it is a worthy aspiration ... leaving aside the semantics.

Dear SteeleRedux,

I assume words have meaning, Zero extinction means zero extinction. It does not mean opposing environmental degradation. It does not mean using water wisely. It does not mean avoiding monocultures. It does not mean getting rid of invasive species. It means what it says. It is not a worthy aspiration. It is stupid and wrong.

If no child were left in poverty our society would be the better. If we eliminated extinction evolution would stop. It is not a worthy aspiration.

«CRC maintains the earth was created in six literal days and is around 6,000 years old.»

They have not even read their Bible!

The figure of 6,000 years (actually 5783) is derived by adding the ages of all Biblical ancestors, beginning with Adam, at the time their son (the subsequent ancestor) was born, that until trusted historical records replace that method.

However, Adam was created separately in Genesis chapter 2, while humans in general were already created in chapter 1, and no time-frame is provided between the initial 6-day creation and the later creation of Adam.

However one interprets what a "day" means before the creation of the sun, this still allows for the world to be at least 2-3 million years old (i.e. as long as humans were present).

Regarding extinction, anything that is born at one point in time must die at a later point in time. This includes humans, animals, species, humanity, planets, galaxies and the universe itself, but does not include consciousness. The objects we perceive all born and die, their memory too, but not us the observers who were never born.

Regarding denial of science, it makes no sense to question the objective findings of material science, but it does make sense to question their importance since they all relate to finite objects which can only last and be remembered for that long.

"The almond farmers on the Murray are not only using obscene amount of water they have planted vast almond orchids in vast monocultures which they heavily treat with pesticides. Many of the farms have replaced extensive tracts of native vegetation."

Parts of Australia get obscene amounts of water on occasion which evaporates or flows into the ocean quite quickly. "Use it or lose it." comes to mind.

The worry for me are the consequences of poor decisions that come from bad reasoning. Sri Lanka's economy collapsed within a year as a consequence of banning fossil fuel dependent fertilizer. The farmers weren't consulted.

I fear that the pursuit of zero carbon could be just a harmful as Sri Lanka's agricultural experiment.

Well, I have always put my trust in what the experts
and scientific specialists advise. We have so many
experts in this country and as far as I know our
science is not corrupt. CSIRO and our other research
organisations will surely be able to advise our
government in the correct approaches to take regarding
our environmental and land management problems.

I do know that so far our track record is not good and
more needs to be done.

Hi David,

I fail to see any correlation between the beliefs of a crazy mob of religious fundo's, and the aspirational policy of 'The Australian Greens'. Modern mans environmental impact is unique in history, no animal before us has had the ability to choose to alter the natural environment to the extent that humans can. Then human induced climate change should be dismissed as simply part of the planetary evolution.

"Extinction is as much part of the process of evolution as the generation of new species" As a natural process it is, but with our ability to act in a way to upset the natural process then its not.

Dear Paul,

You wrote, “no animal before us has had the ability to choose to alter the natural environment to the extent that humans can.”

That is not true.

https://asm.org/Articles/2022/February/The-Great-Oxidation-Event-How-Cyanobacteria-Change

“According to the noted biochemist Leslie Orgel, who pioneered research on the origins of life, the earliest onset of life on our planet occurred around 3.8 billion years ago. Since oxygen was projected to be absent from the earth at that time, metabolism in living organisms would have been anaerobic, involving the use of minerals present in the ocean to generate energy. However, around 2.7 billion years ago, a peculiar group of microbes, known as cyanobacteria, evolved. Phylogenetic analyses based on 16S and 23s rRNA, genome reconstructions and fossil evidence have been used to understand the evolutionary characteristics of these early living organisms. These microbes possessed the remarkable ability to perform photosynthesis, (i.e., they could generate energy from sunlight). Cyanobacteria possessed the machinery to utilize water as a fuel source by oxidizing it. More significantly, the by-product of photosynthesis happened to be oxygen.”

The change in the atmosphere so that it contained oxygen allowed oxygen breathing organisms to develop. Cyanobacteria made a more profound change than anything humans have done.

You also wrote, “I fail to see any correlation between the beliefs of a crazy mob of religious fundo's, and the aspirational policy of 'The Australian Greens'.

I do. I believe with David Hume that reason is the slave of the passions. We have opinions formed by our social milieu, and then we find reasons to support them. That is true for religious fundos and Australian Greens.

Yes, the great oxidation event.

https://asm.org/Articles/2022/February/The-Great-Oxidation-Event-How-Cyanobacteria-Change

"Well, I have always put my trust in what the experts
and scientific specialists advise."

A sentiment I strongly agree with Foxy, but decisions are much more guesswork without research. A US citizen in Mexico recently burned a few grams of sulphur then sent the collected sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere in a weather balloon. The Mexican government then rushed through legislation to ban attempts at geoengineering. Last year industrial processes released about 1.8 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/green-tech/a42624183/mexico-bans-solar-geoengineering/

In 2012 in Canada a fellow dumped about 100 tonnes of dirt into the ocean, creating an algal bloom. A world ban on such practices followed swiftly, yet a vast amount human effluent flows into the worlds oceans causing huge algal blooms great ecological damage.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/huge-algae-bloom-canada-triggered-companys-fertilization-experiment-flna1c6500992

Wouldn't it be better to understand these processes by researching them instead of imposing bans? Those indiscriminate releases of waste could bring benefit instead of harm, yet without research nobody will know and the harm will continue.

David is not far off the mark likening the Greens to a fundamentalist cult.

Dear Fester,

I did not liken the Greens to a fundamentalist cult. I just think there are certain ways of thought we all share. I am not wise. If I were I wouldn't say anything. If one says anything it will probably be misinterpreted.

Hi Fester,

I worked for CSIRO for several years.
Their research is first class.
I would trust their recommendations.

We all believe as we choose...facts and science are mere distractions.

How many religions are there? Many!
How many are verified by science? None!
What percentage of the world's population believe in a Deity? Majority!

so I say again, 'we all believe as we choose' and truth has nothing to do with it....ignorance is alive and flourishing.....
Anyone with half a brain knows it.

My apologies David. A shared value of science denial then?

Dear Foxy,

I am sure the CSIROs research is first class. I have concerns with the research that they are not allowed to do.

Hi Fester,

The solution has to be to improve the knowledge of people
across the board. However in 2006 , leading climatologists
within CSIRO were forbidden by the organisation's management
from publicly discussing the implications of climate change.

Management was acting on behalf of the government. In 2006, the
Australian government's position was to cast doubt on global
warming and refuse to enter into the UN agreements such as the
Kyoto Protocol.

With the release of the Stern Report on climate change, the
Australian government's position changed. So as we can see
new ideas, instead of being welcomed for the opportunities
they opened up for the improvement of the human lot, were
threats to those who had become comfortable in their ideologies
(religious or otherwise).

Today, the renewable technologies we get excited about: the
carbon-neutral lifestyles we aim for are the inventions of
humans - and their success depends on an understanding of them
and a wish to implement them.

Our education will provide the necessary means. It is in our hands.

Hi Foxy,

I am grateful for a separation of powers. I can remember an ANSTO engineer speaking of the promise of nuclear power and critical of the CSIRO's dismissal of it, so who is right there?

I am a technical optimist, but I am also aware of how hard and haphazard progress can be. There are also many many spin artists chasing a buck with appealing stories which makes picking winners even harder.

Everyone wants a result, but it is a red flag for me when someone suggests that all that is needed is faith. If viable technology were there people would be doing and not arguing.

Hi Fester,

Some things take time.

But non-action is not an option.

Hi Foxy,

And some things don't work. Sometimes doing nothing is an excellent option. Queensland has billions of never used rusting infrastructure as testament to thinking that doing nothing wasn't an option. That money could easily have built a few nuclear power plants, and Kev's broadband dream could have built a few more again, all at a time when wind and solar were expensive as well as non-dispatchable.

davd f,
Cyanobacteria aren't animals. They also lack the ability to make choices.
So Paul's claim is correct.

You shouldn't assume what people say should be interpreted in a literal way that defies common sense.

And you seem unable to get your head around your enormous error that I've already pointed out: it's local extinction, not biological extinction, that can be considered an evolution enabler.

___________________________________________________________________________

Fester,
Please tell us more about the infrastructure Queensland has but hasn't used!

Dear Aiden,

You are correct. It is local extinction that is a biological enabler. However, humans with their intelligence seem so far little more able to cope with climate change caused by human activity than cyanobacteria. Some humans recognize the cause but other humans motivated by short term economic interests prevent action.

Cyanobacteria aren't animals. They are living organisms which have made profound changes to the environment.

However, eliminating extinction remains an impossible and questionable goal.

Hi David,

Unfortunately taking a small fraction of Greens environmental policy, without reading all is unfair. I read the Greens environmental policy again, this is your area of scientific contention.

"Stop the extinction crisis through setting a goal of Zero extinction by 2030 and investing in a mass greening and restoration program, to ensure we are protecting habitats for our native animals and plants "

That is certainly aspirational policy directed towards Australians. One could reword it and say "through setting a goal of 50% extinction by 2080", that's too wishy-washy, so for impact you word it like it is.

As for the "cyanobacteria" I fail to see their relevance as well. Their 1.1 billion years and our few hundred years of environmental degradation. I agree with the Christian fundos in one regard, humans have the ability to make choices through rational decisions, something unique to our species.

A challenge David, I invite you to reword that part of Greens policy so it is scientifically correct. The proviso is, it has to have relevance, impact and electoral appeal.

Dear Paul,

It doesn't matter what words I use to change the Greens policy. I can't change it. It doesn't matter whether a part of it is wrong. It should all be right, and that small part betrays a profound ignorance.

Humans have the ability to make choices through rational decisions, something unique to our species. I don't think that any choice that is scientifically correct will have relevance, impact and electoral appeal. That is not how you win elections in our milieu.

I would like to see a population that appreciates scientific correctness. That is not what we have. However, if you want to not only win an election but also to educate the populace you have to be scientifically correct.

We can only hope. My present hope is that the war in Ukraine will not lead to a greater nuclear war.

I am not sure if your are confusing a poor understanding of science with rhetoric. For example few would deny that the earth orbits the sun yet we still refer to sunrise and sunset. We regularly use non scientific language to describe the world. That language then gets adopted in the way we write policy.
The real danger with using non-scientific language to describe the world is that we confuse that description with reality. As you rightly point out we find that ideologies ie religion, party policy platforms fail to distinguish between our understanding of the world and the way we choose to describe that understanding.

Dear BAYGON,

Political parties regularly use rhetoric to rouse voters. It is part of the game. However, I am a Green. I feel that the Greens have an obligation – not only to win the next election but to educate the voters to the dangers that threaten life on the planet – climate change, loss of biodiversity, sea level rise, over population etc.

Other parties appeal to sections of the electorate – business, unions, religious interests etc. They use rhetoric appropriate to those groups and hope enough others can join them so that they win elections. Their rhetoric is appropriate to their base.

However, I feel that the Greens constituency is not only the voters but the planet itself. I feel the Greens function is not only to win elections but to educate people to the threats to the continuation of our life on the planet.

In the United States the Socialist Party under Norman Thomas was concerned with worker’s rights. They never won a presidential election, but they educated people to think of worker’s rights. When Roosevelt won the 1932 election he took many of the ideas concerning unions and worker’s rights into the New Deal.

I don’t expect the Greens will ever win government, but I hope some of their concerns will be adopted by the major parties. If the concerns are expressed by such nonsense as zero extinction I certainly would not want that adopted as a policy by another party.

The Greens must eschew rhetoric for rigorous science