From the ‘if it bleeds it ledes’ department, this masterpiece of campfire self-intimidation appeared in Tuesday’s Herald.

One can’t help but be impressed by the gullibility of any reporter who still takes the word of David Karoly, the most litigious liar in Australian climate science, at face value. It’s not as if we didn’t try to warn them in The History of the Climate Debate:


Climate academics’ jobs just became easier this morning, with the invention by David Karoly, Prof. (U. Melb.) of an ‘organized campaign of death threats’ against them.

We’ve reproduced it in full, because Fair Use is far too good for such, well, yellow journalists.

masthead The_Sydney_Morning_Herald_logo.svg

With extinctions even fewer and farther between than scientists expected, some are beginning to ask the awful question: are there any species left?

In 2016 the International Union for the Conservation of Nature famously added species to its red ‘endangered’ list, in a move one critic likened to “bolting the stable door when the horse was already extinct.”

“Twenty, 30 years ago, when the climate issue first appeared on our radar, the big question was: can we name a single species killed off by global warming?” recalls Dr Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, a Professor at the University of Queensland.

“Today it’s become: can we name a single species?

It may be harder than you think, adds Guldberg, a marine climatologist who’s forged a reputation for discovering the annihilation of the Great Barrier Reef more often than anyone else. He now opens all his public lectures on the climate tragedy by challenging his audience for the full Linnaean name of the last species they saw in the wild.

“A lot of umming and ahhing ensues,” he says with a chuckle. “After a minute I let them off the hook. Relax, I say—there’s a reason you’re struggling to think of one.

“Species have been extinct for years. If my team is right, then the planet ran out [of them] sometime in the early noughties.”

It’s a disturbing thought. But it’s backed by the latest math, he assures me—and better still, it passes muster on the fastest computers taxpayers’ money can buy.

“Look at these beauties,” Dr Guldberg whispers reverently during a tour of the server room at UQ’s Centre for Excellence in Extinction Modelling. He’s been the Director of the $95m facility since it opened last year on the site of a repurposed Brisbane hospital.

But you don’t need to understand the models—and even the scientists who programmed them would be hard pressed to do so—to grasp that the basic conclusion is beyond legitimate doubt, says Professor David Karoly, a science expert.

“Remember the basic high-school maths that describes the decay of radioactive materials?” Karoly asks me in his office at the Institute for the Understanding of Systems Catastrophe at Melbourne University.

“Well, those same equations tell us,“ he says, scribbling them on a whiteboard, “that the rate of species loss has to be proportional to the number of species left, don’t they?

“Which is why every ecobiologist worth their salt was telling us, a long time ago, that extinction rates were going to fall rapidly as the impacts of climate change began to be felt.”

And the rest, says Dr Karoly—who says he’s also a historian—is history.

“You’re an environmental reporter,” he explains. “So I don’t have to tell you that nothing’s going extinct these days. But what happens when we plug zero [extinctions per year] into the left-hand side?”

Karoly, a showman at heart, waits a beat for the full horror of the right-hand side of the equation to sink in.

55 full length
Prof David Karoly (pictured) admits he’s “probably too honest for [his] own good,” a weakness science-deniers have concertedly exploited.

“I’m not going to tell you this result is easy to accept. But what’s the alternative? Denial?” he asks, grimacing involuntarily.

“You look like you’re, what, about 35, 36? Let’s say you learned about exponential decay in Year 10, which would make you fifteen or sixteen at the time, then—can I have the whiteboard back for a sec?

“That means you’d have to deny… twenty years of mathematics [in order to pretend there are still species out there]!”


Such grim realism isn’t limited to mid-career Professors either. The same requiem for the planet’s species seems to be echoed all the way up the academic food chain.

Even Lifetime Former Gillard Government Climate Commissioner Prof. Will Steffen, Australia’s leading climatologist, is forced to concur with Dr Karoly.

“Climate change is now happening even faster, and its impacts are even more devastating, than the scientists warned us,” Dr Steffen tells me at Canberra’s ANU, where he mentors the next generation of planetary obituarists.

On a continent where climate experts are expected to cut their teeth on the question of prehistoric wombat stride lengths, Steffen broke the mold by coming from a completely different continent and lacking any qualifications beyond a chemical-engineering doctorate. But his unconventional career path was rewarded in 2013 with the rank of Scared Scientist, Australia’s highest climate honor.

“Not that they were wrong, of course,” he hastens to add. “They were just being good scientists. They [made a mistake because they] Erred on the Side of Least Drama, as [the historian] Naomi Oreskes puts it.”

Other scientists, meanwhile, had been measuring drama levels in the ecosphere directly, in real time. And the picture they saw was so alarming that, if not for the fear of being attacked as ‘alarmist,’ they might have raised the alarm in time.

“Tragically, society’s response was a day late and $95m short,” says Dr Steffen. Last-ditch efforts to preserve species in a captive state were doomed by the perennial bane of all life-forms: biology.

“Species just didn’t seem to want to mate. We discovered the hard way that you can’t just put two of them in a cage, light some scented candles and hope for the best.”

It’s not known what role species played in the ecosystem, if any, but one thing is certain: it was a critical one. ■


  1. It’s not really worth responding – there’s no one there. Homo sapiens was a well known species but Karoly’s mathematical acumen cannot be denied. We are gone, along with all those cuddly wombats.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Brad,

    That is a brilliant deconstruction of the folly of believing that species still exist. However, let us not forget that they never have existed.

    In principle, anyone of my generation could have mated with someone of the previous generation. That is what it means to be of the same species. Similarly, the previous generation could have mated with their antecedents, making us all of the same species. You can re-apply this logic all the way back to the days when we were swinging in trees, but I ain’t gonna fuck no gorilla!

    Liked by 1 person

  3. > but I ain’t gonna fuck no gorilla!

    If the Gorilla wants to, I don’t think you’d get much of
    a choice! 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Alan, JONA,

    Hey, what is it with you guys? I make a perfectly valid observation regarding the paradoxes one can encounter when dealing with non-transitive relationships within vaguely defined sets and all you can focus upon is my sexual fantasies. This is not the sort of debate I thought I’d signed up for 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  5. “Somebody told me how frightening it was how much topsoil we are losing each year, but I told that story around the campfire and nobody got scared.”

    – Jack Handey

    Liked by 2 people

  6. Michael,

    the key to campfire terror is to wait until dark BEFORE telling your story. The number one mistake of the amateurs is talking about daysoil then wondering why nobody is buying it.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. John. I think it entirely inappropriate for you to blame JonA and my good self for commenting upon your feverish imaginings regarding those mythical gorillaz that swung from trees. Your protestations then and subsequently were and are so strident and absurd that all knew that something was seriously awry.
    The thought of your pongid fantasies has amused and thrilled many, and should become source material for many a future campfire terror.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Alan, in case you’re interested, I belatedly saw, and have now countered, your serious objection at the bottom of the Brad Keyes Does Angry thread.

    (Forgive the crass intrusion of substantiveness into divine comedy’s playground.)


  9. “Your protestations then and subsequently were and are so strident and absurd that all knew that something was seriously awry.”

    Now I know how Brad feels when his imagery is taken too literally.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. You can’t take my imagery too literally. Nobody has taken it literally enough yet. That’s my dream as a writer and I’m not about to give up dreaming.

    Liked by 2 people

  11. There is a type of fungus that infects ants. This invades the ant’s nervous system and alters its behaviour. In particular, it causes the ant to climb to the upper branch of a tree, something it would never willingly do. The fungus then grows a thread like extension with a blob on the end, out from the ant’s former body. This waves about and attracts a bird which consumes the ant-fungus amalgam – so allowing the fungus to start the next phase in its life history.
    A close inspection of the video clip of Professor David Karoly reveals him to be an infected ant with a fungal growth growing out of his left ear. Perhaps this explains his mathematical “logic”, and there are indeed still extant species.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.