Quick Message Post Q&A

ImageThanks to the people who have sent such lovely, supportive messages re: the documentary and Q&A. If you want to learn more about the journey Nick and I went on, and some of the VERY interesting interviews that didn’t make it into the final cut of the documentary, you can order my book from AYCC’s online shop or buy it at most bookstores from tomorrow. You can learn more about the book at www.madlands.com.au 

It’s been a long day of media interviews, so I’m going to sleep now – but for the people who have been emailing asking what they can do to help, I would suggest:

1. Learning about the science, impacts and solutions so you can answer questions from people in your own lives who aren’t sure about climate change.

2. Donating to the Australian Youth Climate Coalition to help build a generation wide movement to solve climate change before it’s too late. And as of tomorrow I’ll have a fundraising page up raising money to give copies of my book to every federal politician to help them understand the science better.

3. Getting involved in your local climate action group and supporting campaigns like the 100% Renewables community campaign!

Goodnight all 🙂

About annastarrrose

Author & environmentalist
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Quick Message Post Q&A

  1. Greg Harrison says:

    Hi Anna, Keep up the good work. For a bright future it has to be Solar. Your right about Nick Minchin being a conservative first. The problem is conservatives around the world are stifling any change because they believe the status quo is the best way to be. They think it is the cheapest way of doing things. ‘Change’ costs money and they have to look to far into the future to see the benefits.
    I don’t know if you realize that Climate Change is not the biggest problem we face. Over population is by far the biggest problem the world faces. We need to educate people into having smaller families especially in the third world countries where there is a lot of famine, soil degradation, deforestation and wildlife habitat destroyed.
    The main problem though is you have to get around Religion in a lot of places. The Catholics are slowly coming around to the use of condoms, but the Islamic world is encouraging big families, to make their religion more dominant. You’ve only got to look at Egypt. It was at one stage 50/50 between Muslims and Christians. Now it’s 60/40 in favour of the Muslims. Also look at Yemen. It is practically a failed state. The country is overcrowded and has not got enough water for the population. The little water they have is being sqandered on the growing of “Chat” trees, because it was more profitable to grow, than fruit and vegitables. “Chat” is a mild narcotic and is as close to alcohol as you can have in the Islamic world.
    We are only going to succeed with changes to our environment if we can reduce the population, by natural attrision of couse. This will reduce the pollution and help the changing climate. Also we should plant more trees, That’s my motto “More Trees – Less People”.
    I subscribe to a Web Site called “Population Matters”, a U.K. based action group. You may know of its work. The famous naturalist Sir David Attenborough is a patron. Isn’t he a treasure.

  2. Duncan Sheils says:

    Anna! You are an Angel, I have not stopped smiling since I watched part of the documentary last night. I was so proud that you took everybody on and I was disappointed at them for behaving and speaking so destructively. Weakness bands together while strength stands alone. So proud and so happy to see this. Never give up, there are lots and lots of others like me around the world and I would stand by you and argue against pig-heads forever. If they knew inside that they were right, then they would not get so upset and out of control. Nothing has ever, nor will ever beat the truth. You are totally amazing and I am very proud to be human because of you. Add my email address to the huge line of supporters please and anytime you need to be reminded how awesome you are or if you want a soldier for the frontline then let me know! I know you are busy but just remember you are an angel and what you are doing is perfectly correct. Never ever doubt. You are so cool and I am still smiling, thankyou so much. Mornington, Vic

  3. Eric Smith says:

    Absolutely fantastic! Well done, Anna…

  4. Kate says:

    Hi Anna, I was really impressed with your professionalism and grace during the documentary. Particularly in the face of Nick Minchin losing it (that scene after you’ve spoken with the guy who believes second-hand smoke is not detrimental to your health). It was clear from the beginning that you believe climate change and what we do about it is a moral issue while Nick believes it is an economics/political issue. And the two just don’t weigh the same. You are a breath of fresh air in this debate 😉

  5. John Sullivan says:

    Anna, you are way out of your depth. Your refusal to enter into debate with Marc Morano demonstrates you do not have the evidence to back up your alarmist claims.

    Just like Al Gore, Tim Flannery and many other alarmists, you are quick with motherhood statements but fail to produce facts and figures.

    Your hyperbole is just hot air, and that’s about the only hot air this planet is seeing right now.

  6. Pat Barry says:

    Anna, I congratulate you and Nick Minchin on last night’s presentation. It should help to get parties to see the other’s point of view, and encourage a more rational interaction between them. Well done!
    Without wishing to sound negative, I note that your choice of 4WD when you visited your uncle doesn’t do much to minimise CO2 emissions. It’s just like the Federal government – we’re about to experience the impact of Juliar’s carbon tax but they continue to jetset around the country in VIP jets, often for little more than a photo opportunity and government propaganda dissemination, and use luxury limousines, often with just one passenger!
    Makes one wonder, doesn’t it?

  7. Mec Goudron says:

    While I am a big supporter of you and your cause I have a mixed reaction to the documentary; there were a number of wasted opportunities e.g. “no empirical evidence for global warming” when SkepticalScience.com has countered every single denialist argument and although I wouldn’t expect anyone to have these at their fingertips there a general bread and butter set piece counters that could have been made and prepared for.
    For example, 97% of climate experts do in fact assert the planet is warming, and multiple lines of evidence (land, sea, satellite, atmospheric observational data) is constantly confirming modelling etc. I am not great shakes at the science but I would have expected retorts like this – ready made, keeping on the message stuff about the science being settled i.e. the basics and the debate amongst the climate change scientists is about the extent i.e. timing, degree of change etc.This would have countered absurd claims about modelling from Evans and urban hotspots etc
    Your caution in ensuring Jo Nova did not distort what you said was spot on. However, I think it appalling that you then did exactly what you asked her not to do by distorting and taking out of context Nick Minchin’s replies in the promo for your book. The full commentary was your claim about Richard Linzen’s smoking lobby support and that his claims had a bearing on climate change. I agree wholeheartedly with Minchin on this – Lindzen needs to be debated on the science; whether he was a child murderer or apologist for lobby groups is irrelevant – for the logical fallacy Google ‘Tu quoque’.
    Your ‘debate’ with Marc Marano was handled brilliantly – again I have some reservations based on my partner’s response who didn’t know Marano’s background as you and I do. Instead of telling us, he is a Republican attack dog etc, I think it would’ve been better to ask him directly – to get himto declare his vested interests and expertise – and then to ask him a climate science question “Do you (personally) believe climate change is man-made?” And whatever he replied answer with “let’s be clear, this is your opinion and not that of a climate change scientist?” This tack would not have suited him as he was itching to spout his sub-prime nonsense so the general viewer could really only agree with Michin who cleverly and innocently said this was a ‘debate’ and you weren’t debating – again to those who didn’t know Marano this was the appearance. And again this was a set piece to counter non-science denialists. Evidence, evidence, consensus, consensus.
    Finally, there really was no movement by Minchin on energy issues on the beach; it was clear as soon as he said it (call me cynical) he could agree with action on energy issues; it was obvious he was making no substantial concession here when he had in mind 100 – 200 years (a stalling tactic on par with the Direct Action bogus plan) and you were looking at ideally tomorrow as subsequent comments on Q&A made clear. With a willy operator like Minichin you have to pin him down on the the specifics – when, what, how much, do you precisely mean? otherwise he will agree on generalities (quite genuinely) til the cows come home.
    Again I am a big supporter of you and all you are doing and wish you well for the future; I hope these comments are not too harsh but I couldn’t see any other way of expressing them.

  8. brianloffler says:

    A superb effort Anna. Well done. Great to know the future is in good hands in your generation.

    I shared your agony over whether you’d done the right thing in agreeing to give the sceptics more air-time. But I think overall it was well worth it, particularly if many more people can read your book as a follow-up.

    At the New Internationalist magazine we’ve been banging on about climate change for decades, as you’ll see if you Google “magazine guide climate change”. We’d like to affiliate sales of the eBook version of Madlands when it is available on the iBookstore, so let me know when it is up there. I think affiliate selling of important books like yours might be one of the ways that we can generate a bigger groundswell to move more people to understand that the climate challenge simply must be faced full-on.

    All power to you (renewable, of course).

    Cheers, Brian (New Internationalist Co-operative)

  9. Douglas Jones says:

    Anna,

    It is good to know that the younger generation gets it.

    Thanks for your grace and courage under such significant pressure.

    Douglas Jones

  10. TW says:

    Anna,
    Thank you.
    Toby.

  11. Jon Richardson says:

    Dear Anna

    Good on you for receiving and publishing (I assume) comments on your website. I’m convinced of the climate change danger, broadly speaking, but I have to agree with Mec Goudron above. I found your inability to counter any of the arguments of the sceptics with a solid set of counter-arguments nearly as equally infuriating as Minchin’s approach (grasping for anything that might prove anthropomorphic climate change unfounded). Your only response seemed to be to say most scientists disagree with them or that their motives or history was questionable. As these people seem to be pretty famous sceptics shouldn’t you have rebuttals at your fingertips? When Mark Marano says the warmest year was 1998 and that later findings that recent years were the hottest are based on tiny differences much lower than margins of error, I would have preferred you to tell us why he might be wrong rather than see the posturing that occurred.

    Why?: its about the science. In one sense we should all be sceptics, and all good scientists are. And we should all hope that climate change fears are unfounded, and have been praying that Minchin’s side had the better arguments. However, I believe, with a degree of – but not absolute – confidence, that those fears are justified, not because I have thoroughly studied or understand the science, but a) because of the apparent overwhelming weight of numbers of serious scientists pointing to the dangers, and b) because the simple explanation of the mechanism makes intuitive sense – i.e. huge rise in emissions plus the greenhouse effect. Unfortunately, my brain is ageing and not so good at retaining the relevant bits of evidence. But I would have expected someone acting as an opinion leader in this field to be on top of that detail. By not doing so you came across as a true believer, uninterested in facts. The barely suppressed look of satisfaction on your face as “your” experts explained how serious climate change is and how its going to do bad things was, albeit understandable, indicative of exactly the thing that Minchin and many other sceptics suspect is at the heart of the climate change “movement” – a leftwing or green desire to deindustrialise (though why he thinks the left is intrinsically anti-industrial I’m not sure – the Soviet Union was a great example of worshiping industrial development and despoiling the environment worse than any advanced capitalist country.

    I’m probably being overly critical – your heart is in the right place, and you are obviously very smart. As a lawyer you can no doubt master a brief, so I was a bit surprised to see the approach you took. Perhaps it was partly a result of editing? I’m just a bit fed up with the dialogue of the deaf on climate change which might as well be between fanatical religious groups or football fans. But we do need to get the facts right: the media experts should put up against experts,not interview them individually, nor should it be a debate between partisans. The truth (or perhaps more accurately, the probable degree of risk?) is the core question. If that risk is low, then we should be happy, and there is no need for action other than in terms of conservation of resources.. Remember coal isn’t intrinsically bad (or good), despite local pollution effects: I’d be happy to phase it out if its a cause of climate change – but we do need to remember, without coal there would have been no industrial revolution, and the technological basis to support a global population several times bigger than 200 years ago, with vastly better outcomes in terms of life expectancy, literacy, health, food security, life opportunities. (a whole other debate, but happy to have it).

    kind regards

    Jon Richardson

  12. RM says:

    After watching Q&A last night and repeating the same debate with my parents tonight, I realise it makes little progress. People only hear what suits them. It is time to Stop the discussion. A saucepan full of water doesn’t boil just by looking at it! Let the sceptics watch the water and wait while those who want development turn on the power! Let’s focus on finding the power. Talk to those who CAN DO something and leave those who want to watch the water talk to themselves.

  13. Mark says:

    Hi Anna, I too want our world (and my childrens world) to survive. But to be honest….I cannot buy it. Sure the CO2 levels have risen as shown by the data produced on the top of the mountain in Hawaii over the last Million years…..but what about the 399 million years before that? Were CO2 levels any higher then ? The answer is Yes, levels have been higher. Were there humans producing CO2 output at that time…No there were not. It’s all very nice to throw data around that scares ppl into a fenzy, and I know that ppl respond to that (as you do too), but then again there are dumb ppl and there are smart ones. It only takes ONE person to prove millions wrong..it will happen. I’m not sold on the whole thing as I believe propaganda is alive and well when it comes to this issue. I’ll make my own mind up when somebody finally shows proof that man made CO2 output (that is 3% of the Earths NATURAL output) is affecting the climate. I’ll be the first to admit I’m wrong but in the mean time maybe we should look at the Earths natural 97% of CO2 output and try to limit that?

    • Ben says:

      The reason that this argument is flawed is that natural sources have not changed their CO2 output over the last 50 or so years, yet the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have increased by 40%. If natural sources did contribute to 97% of emissions then the levels would not have increased (or, find me something in nature that has for some reason or another increased its emissions by 40%). We know that fossil fuel burning has increased in this timeframe.

      Humans are causing the 40% increase by burning fossil fuels. There’s nothing else that can explain the increase and there’s nothing natural about it.

      • Mark says:

        I’m pretty sure that 97% is on the money for natural CO2 output, at least from all I have read in this debate. I’m no scientist, but from my own research I believe this is the agreed figure. Not sure about your 40% rise claim, read an article tonight saying 22% (even that figure I concede is disturbing). But in parts per million we are talking about not much of the stuff, and there has been more of it here well before man was producing it. I’m just saying for me, the jury is still out.

  14. JB Hewitt says:

    Anna I thought you were fantastic on Q&A and has inspired me to engage with AYCC.

    As a side note I thought it was a nice touch that you wore the same dress on Q&A as you wore on the final scene in the documentary 😛

  15. pbltyrrell says:

    Anna, brilliant work.
    BTW the link to purchase your book isn’t working.

  16. pbltyrrell says:

    The first link to buy your book on your blog isn’t working. I found a working link on the Madlands page. http://ayccshop.spiffystores.com/products/anna-rose-madlands

  17. Steve A says:

    Hi Anna,

    I think your strategy was OK. I don’t agree with the people who say you should have debated Mr. Minchen’s skeptics. Unless you have training in, or a gift for argument it is best to avoid such debates. Mr. Morano really wanted you to engage with him and if you had it is likely that he would have seemed to have won.

    I thought it was interesting that except for Professor Lindzen, Mr. Minchen chose communicators as his advocates instead of scientists. Maybe that is typical thinking for a politician. That is, it is more important to convince people of your point of view than to demonstrate the reasons for your beliefs with evidence and analysis.

    Perhaps a better strategy would be to first educate Mr. Minchen in the workings of genuine scientific debate and then take him through the history of the science of climate change. Let him see the arguments and criticisms that led to the apparently overwhelming scientific consensus that exists today on the subject.

    General ignorance does not bother me too much. I am ignorant of many subjects myself. What really frightens and depresses me is to see politicians who fail to see obvious truths and fail to accept well made arguments. Their responsibility is perhaps too large for too much personal bias.

    I don’t know what action should be taken on climate change but the effect of the denialists can only be to prevent any action. They will surely get their wish so we’d better hope they are right. I’m waiting to vote for anyone who seems to know what they are doing.

    In the meantime let us all cross our legs and cross our fingers. Less children and more luck.

    Oh, by the way Anna. When the paranoid bloggers made their own tape you asked them for assurances that they would not use the film to portray you in a bad light. I think they had exactly the same fears about the film you were making and in this age of modern journalism such fear is probably too often justified.

    Good luck!

  18. ConcernedFutureParent says:

    Great work Anna!

    It was awesome to see a young person putting herself out there to confront the issues impeding action on an issue which will affect all of us.

    Every person that I have talked to about the show since it was aired has commented on how well you held yourself, presented your arguments and how well you handled those tough situations with all of those haters and deniers.

    The show as a whole had a great positive outcome for climate change action in Australia, and when viewed as a whole, was a clear win for those wanting a safe climate future for their children and grandchildren.

    I applaud you for taking some responsibility for your actions and your un-dieing efforts to take action on climate change. Our children thank you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s