Resisting Climate Hysteria

[IFocus]

And exactly what will the temperature change by basilio by adopting these alarmist at the trough tax policies? You cannot answer this as nor can the "experts" that get paid a handsome sum to peddle this rubbish. Time to switch off the alarmist cool aid and the AGW gravy train - the AGW credibility is long gone.

I see the AGW great barrier reef card is being played yet again - yawn - the desperation continues to grow.

Well, it's freezing here in Canberra, even with all the hot air from the local alarmists that actually don't do anything themselves, right basilio?

WA dams set to dry up by summer's end, expert warns

WA Water Commission figures show the average amount of rainfall flowing into the dams has dramatically declined since 1974:

* 1911 - 1974 - 338 gigalitres
* 1974 - 2000 - 117 gigalitres
* 2001 - 2005 - 92.4 gigalitres
* 2006 - 2010 - 57.7 gigalitres


Read more: http://www.watoday.com.au/environme...xpert-warns-20110523-1f0ho.html#ixzz1NKrTurmD

 

[sails]

WA dams set to dry up by summer's end, expert warns

WA Water Commission figures show the average amount of rainfall flowing into the dams has dramatically declined since 1974:

* 1911 - 1974 - 338 gigalitres
* 1974 - 2000 - 117 gigalitres
* 2001 - 2005 - 92.4 gigalitres
* 2006 - 2010 - 57.7 gigalitres


Read more: http://www.watoday.com.au/environme...xpert-warns-20110523-1f0ho.html#ixzz1NKrTurmD

Hmmmm that's what they said about Eastern Australia for the last few years. That's why we have billions of dollars tied up in redundant desal plants that also cost a small fortune to maintain - as I understand it.

And then the rains came and came and came. People died because of so much rain. Dams couldn't hold the water. And some towns may have been spared if dams had been built in preparation for the eventual flood rains.

WA must be almost due for flood rains...lol

 

[Calliope]

Last time I looked the earth was a planet Calliope.

OK. What 'serious planetary problem" does the earth have?" I assume you mean a problem caused by it being a planet.

By the way have you had a chance to read the Climate Commission report yet ?

Yes, I have had a chance to read it, but I haven't bothered. Is it a good read?

 

[basilio]

Your comment about increasing floods did it. Only the most pathetically politically motivated zealot has linked the recent floods to climate change. Not one serious and sober climate scientist has done so. Wayne

And neither did I. Why am I not surprised that you either can't read a straight comment properly or chose to twist it to diss someone you can't win a logical discussion with ?

I made no mention of any recent floods. Zilch, zero. The comment was related to the commission analysis of what would happen to major cities on the coast if/when sea levels rise by 50-100cms. They didn't try and pin the recent floods on climate change either but they certainly have some evidence to show how sea levels will rise. How you can say with a straight face that the evidence for rising sea levels is still not there is beyond me.

Don't bother apologising for such a misread Wayne. It wouldn't become you.

 

[wayneL]

And neither did I. Why am I not surprised that you either can't read a straight comment properly or chose to twist it to diss someone you can't win a logical discussion with ?

I made no mention of any recent floods. Zilch, zero. The comment was related to the commission analysis of what would happen to major cities on the coast if/when sea levels rise by 50-100cms. They didn't try and pin the recent floods on climate change either but they certainly have some evidence to show how sea levels will rise. How you can say with a straight face that the evidence for rising sea levels is still not there is beyond me.

Don't bother apologising for such a misread Wayne. It wouldn't become you.

I was going to apologize if I misread, but after that last comment I decided you're not worth it. My point re flood/storm frequency still stands however.

On the point of misreads my very rude adversary, I didn't say that sea level was not rising, I said there was a debate about whether the rise is accelerating, with the debate favouring the no acceleration camp. To repeat myself, sea level has been rising since the little ice age, well before co2 increases.

Pot, kettle black.

 

[trainspotter]

Since the early 1990s, sea level rise (SLR) has been measured by high-precision altimeter satellites. Between 1993 and 2009, the mean rate of SLR was reported as 3.3 ± 0.4 mm/year. Naturally, to climate change alarmists, this suggests that SLR is accelerating because of warming climatic conditions.

Great stuff here ----------------> http://resilientearth.com/?q=content/sea-level-shenanigans

3.3 mm per year will take 303 years to rise to a 1 metre level forgetting the integer of the equation that is.

“For example, relative sea level is presently falling where land is uplifting considerably, such as the northern Baltic and Hudson Bay””the sites of large (kilometer-thick) glaciers during the last glacial maximum,” state the authors. “In contrast, relative sea level is rising more rapidly than climate-induced trends on subsiding coasts.” Fluctuation is also caused by the interaction of wind and ocean, and changes in the ocean gyres. The nonuniformity of change can be seen in the map below.

 

[trainspotter]

Just also wondering what we are going to do about all of these naughty volcanoes chucking CO2 into the air.

Iceland's Eyjafjoell volcano emitted between 150,000 and 300,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) every day when it erupted in 2010, a figure placing it in the same emissions league as a small-to-medium European economy, experts claim.

So does Iceland have to pay the tax on this eruption? Apparently the Grimsvotn volcano plume is double the size of Eyjafjoell eruption. Is this the Rapture finally ??

 

[IFocus]

WA dams set to dry up by summer's end, expert warns

WA Water Commission figures show the average amount of rainfall flowing into the dams has dramatically declined since 1974:

* 1911 - 1974 - 338 gigalitres
* 1974 - 2000 - 117 gigalitres
* 2001 - 2005 - 92.4 gigalitres
* 2006 - 2010 - 57.7 gigalitres


Read more: http://www.watoday.com.au/environme...xpert-warns-20110523-1f0ho.html#ixzz1NKrTurmD

Just read a bit more of this and the numbers look a bit fuzzy so take it with a grain of salt but the SW of WA has had long term decline in rain fall since white settlement mate who owns a farm int he Margret River area has trees dying on his farm due to lack of water same as around Perth.

A flood would be welcome Sails but I think our problem over here is a little different to what was seen over your way in the far east with Perth expanding at the same time we will run out of water even with 2 decel plants up and running..

 

[noco]

I couldn't resist having a look at just how our resident lying piece of xxxt would spin the Climate Change Commision report..

He dismisses the suggested 1 metre increase in sea levels as happening in 100 years when we are all dead ! Just somehow manages to miss the analysis of the ever increasing floods in Melbourne, Sydney , Brisbane and every other coastal area that will happen as the sea does rise over the time. Completely skips over the discussion of what is happening with rapidly increasing melting of Greenland and what that could do to the equation.

The rest of his stuff is typical cherry picked Bolt drivel. A scientific review of an issue of this magnitude will always point to some unknowns. But it also identifies what we do know in detail, how this is already impacting on us and what the likely effects will be in the short, medium and long terms.

I thought it was particularly insightful to see how Bolt managed to ignore the possibilities that bushfires could conceivably be more dangerous if we had longer and hotter summers.

Anyone like to buy the Brooklyn Bridge or a seaside shanty ? I'm sure Andrew will sell you down the river.

BUSH FIRES??????? WHAT BUSH FIRES?????????
The last decade bush fires were no worse than the bush fires in the 30's and every decade after that.
What has made it look worse in the past couple decades is some people were stupid enough to build in fire proned areas and the Grenns were even more bloody stupid in not allowing those same people to clear some bush around those houses. One couple cleared around their house and were fined $50,000. Perhaps that $50,000 may have been a good insurance policy for their house was the only one left standing the area.

Rises in sea levels have gone as high as an eight story building, to 10 metres to one metre to less yhan half a metre. OMG how can anyone seriously believe these so call climate change idiotic "experts".

Just about everyone believes in climate change and some 60% now believe it is not man made and increasing every year. IT'S JUST PLAIN CRAP.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Climate Commission Report - A Must read (the first page only required)

Here we go.......the regurgitated climate commission report that the alarmists bang on about...no need to read it, the contents page is plenty enough:

IMPORTANT NOTICE – PLEASE READ
This document is produced for general information only
and does not represent a statement of the policy of the
Commonwealth of Australia. While reasonable efforts
have been made to ensure the accuracy, completeness
and reliability of the material contained in this document,
the Commonwealth of Australia and all persons acting
for the Commonwealth preparing this report accept no
liability for the accuracy of or inferences from the material
contained in this publication, or for any action as a result
of any person’s or group’s interpretations, deductions,
conclusions or actions in relying on this material.​

Or in other words: This fairy tale contains magic and pretty pictures for climate alarmists and if you think we're wrong on our assertions, well you may be right as we don't stand by it anyway.

Here's some better words for this important notice....

A Royal Commission to open up this scam.

 

[noco]

Re: Climate Commission Report - A Must read (the first page only required)

Here we go.......the regurgitated climate commission report that the alarmists bang on about...no need to read it, the contents page is plenty enough:

IMPORTANT NOTICE – PLEASE READ
This document is produced for general information only
and does not represent a statement of the policy of the
Commonwealth of Australia. While reasonable efforts
have been made to ensure the accuracy, completeness
and reliability of the material contained in this document,
the Commonwealth of Australia and all persons acting
for the Commonwealth preparing this report accept no
liability for the accuracy of or inferences from the material
contained in this publication, or for any action as a result
of any person’s or group’s interpretations, deductions,
conclusions or actions in relying on this material.​

Or in other words: This fairy tale contains magic and pretty pictures for climate alarmists and if you think we're wrong on our assertions, well you may be right as we don't stand by it anyway.

Here's some better words for this important notice....

A Royal Commission to open up this scam.

The Climate Commission were hand picked alarmist by Labor and the end result was well and truly predicted before it even commenced.
With Tim Flannery heading the show, what else would any sane person expect the outcome would be.
Did any sane person expect the report to come out and say, "no, AGW is not man made, it purely a natural phenomenon".
Just another Labor Party beat up lie.
Oh for God's sake give us a break.

 

[sails]

Re: Climate Commission Report - A Must read (the first page only required)

The Climate Commission were hand picked alarmist by Labor and the end result was well and truly predicted before it even commenced.
With Tim Flannery heading the show, what else would any sane person expect the outcome would be.
Did any sane person expect the report to come out and say, "no, AGW is not man made, it purely a natural phenomenon".
Just another Labor Party beat up lie.
Oh for God's sake give us a break.

I guess this is all about Gillard being told to step up her sales pitch on carbon tax by Wilke. And will she also use public funds to advertise her pet tax?

Andrew Wilkie says Julia Gillard must improve carbon tax sales job to regain public confidence

“Clearly the government does need to do a better job at selling a price on carbon if it is to regain the broad-based support it enjoyed last year,” he told The Australian Online.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Cold here today - ice everywhere, an extreme weather event perhaps?


IMPORTANT NOTICE – PLEASE READ
This comment is produced for general information only and does not represent a statement of the policy of OzWaveGuy. While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy, completeness and reliability of the comment, OzWaveGuy and all persons acting for the OzWaveGuy preparing this comment accept no liability for the accuracy of or inferences from the material contained in this comment, or for any action as a result of any person’s or group’s interpretations, deductions, conclusions or actions in relying on this comment.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Perhaps the Climate master Tim Flannery needs a disclaimer notice whenever he speaks too....

In the Financial Review today (no link), Flannery is asked about these in passing by a journalist who fails to appreciate the significance of such a terrible record, or the implications of Flannery’s response:

I can’t remember everything I said back then but there may have been things that were prevalent in the science back then which today have changed… I readily admit that, but the stuff about rainfall is still valid.​

But aren’t we told to “accept the science”? So what must we conclude when the science turns out to be so fallible?​

So the science has changed? Exactly how so? There's a scientific "con-sensus", right? In fact, nothing has changed, just the fraud by the alarmists continues to grow.

 

[drsmith]

Regarding rainfall, Tim Flannery may be on the higher ground come the end of the year.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/

Not that shorter term variations in weather such as the recent La-Nina or a potential spring/summer El-Nino, as indicated by the computer models from the link above, should influence longer term thinking.

 

[noco]

Cold here today - ice everywhere, an extreme weather event perhaps?


IMPORTANT NOTICE – PLEASE READ
This comment is produced for general information only and does not represent a statement of the policy of OzWaveGuy. While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy, completeness and reliability of the comment, OzWaveGuy and all persons acting for the OzWaveGuy preparing this comment accept no liability for the accuracy of or inferences from the material contained in this comment, or for any action as a result of any person’s or group’s interpretations, deductions, conclusions or actions in relying on this comment.

You are spot on my friend. It's a load of "crap" that is coming out of the mouths of these so called climate change scientists purely to prop up Gillard's claim for a carbon dioxide tax.

 

[Calliope]

But aren’t we told to “accept the science”? So what must we conclude when the science turns out to be so fallible? [/INDENT]

Common sense (which the warmists on this thread don't have much of ) will beat "the science" every time.

 

[noco]

Common sense (which the warmists on this thread don't have much of ) will beat "the science" every time.

Absolutly Calliope, I don't understand, how for the life of me they have been allowed to get away with it for so long.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Absolutly Calliope, I don't understand, how for the life of me they have been allowed to get away with it for so long.

Very simple question to answer noco...there's an underlying mandate from the UN for all countries to drive the AGW agenda - it's part of Agenda 21. If they don't succeed with this Government, it'll be a mandate for the next. Alternatively it will be incrementally phased in over years if necessary so it's not so noticeable. Hence, it's not an issue with a government being Labor or Liberal, they are not in the driving seat.

The Copenhagen Treaty of 2009 was the smoking gun to adopt global governance, an aggressive treaty that failed but was a clear sign of the UN's intentions to encapsulate the world with a tax on life.

 

[sails]

Very simple question to answer noco...there's an underlying mandate from the UN for all countries to drive the AGW agenda - it's part of Agenda 21. If they don't succeed with this Government, it'll be a mandate for the next. Alternatively it will be incrementally phased in over years if necessary so it's not so noticeable. Hence, it's not an issue with a government being Labor or Liberal, they are not in the driving seat.

The Copenhagen Treaty of 2009 was the smoking gun to adopt global governance, an aggressive treaty that failed but was a clear sign of the UN's intentions to encapsulate the world with a tax on life.

That's about the only thing that does make sense with carbon tax. How else does the UN get money without imposing a tax of some sort on all developed nations and they get a percentage. I have heard that the UN would get 10% of any carbon tax proceeds - something that is not talked about too much.

The UN would need funds to pay their representatives. Another tier of government that the people in developed countries will be required to support....