In releasing a report by the Department for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency on Climate change risks to Australia’s coasts, Senator Penny Wong told ABC Insiders on November 19, 2009 that “1.1 metres … is about the upper end of the risk”.
But the report said this was only a plausible value and the upper limit was 1.9 metres from 1990 levels: “Recent research, presented at the Copenhagen climate congress in March 2009, projected sea-level rise from 0.75 to 1.9 metres relative to 1990, with 1.1–1.2 metres the mid-range of the projection. Based on this recent science 1.1 metres was selected as a plausible value for sea-level rise for this risk assessment”.
It also added: “Very recent research also suggests that a 1.1 metre scenario by the end of the century may not reflect the upper end of potential risk, and that risk assessments could be informed by a higher level”.
Thus although relevant expertise was referred to by the government, it was subsequently misrepresented and the 1.1 metre figure has since gained extensive currency.
The practice of grabbing isolated facts and phrases in isolation and then putting them together without understanding is becoming prevalent and is confusing the debate to the extent that valid statements are lost in the confusion. Shock jocks and editors alike are contributing in irresponsible ways.
