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
Last time I looked the earth was a planet Calliope.
By the way have you had a chance to read the Climate Commission report yet ?
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.
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.
“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.
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
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?