do the greens need a lesson in economics? news.com.au article

That Southern Australia graph does show a downward trend since the 1970s. I'm not sure why you would think that the BOM would make this up.

But again one of your core discussions points BV, is that because you don't understand it, because you can't imagine it, then it must be impossible.

The desal plant is a good idea if there was renewable energy to drive it. The financial terms around the whole project are dodgy, Labor was foolish and irresponsible to build it with those terms. The Naptime goverment did have a chance to renegotiate and get a better deal for Victorians but chose not to, hopefully Andrews is a better leader.

But a better idea is to build a pipe from western Tasmania and take waste water from the hydro projects and pipe that to Victoria. It was roughly costed a few years ago by engineers and it would be cheaper to build and much cheaper to run.
 
But again one of your core discussions points BV, is that because you don't understand it, because you can't imagine it, then it must be impossible.
I'm not saying GW or CC is impossible.

It is possible, and has been happening - in both directions - since god's grandfather was a baby.

I'm saying that if there is any of either; it is a natural occurrence and incremental anyway, and none of it caused or influenced by us silly humans to any noticeable degree.

Therefore, the whole hullaballoo over either CC or GW is a total waste of time, in my opinion.

Now, if it turns out that some areas are experiencing more rain, or less rain etc; then we as intelligent humans can address our needs for water and so forth at that time.

The difference between folks such as you and folks like myself is the level of emphasis we place on the information, and this is evident by the nasty PM's you've been sending to me and others (yes; they tell me what they got sent) - how passionate you and others are about it.

I admire your passion - just don't let it blind your objectivity.

Whereas folks like myself say; "Yeah; there maybe something in it, but no big deal; let's not get carried away just yet" - a much more detached and unconcerned view....especially when a lot of the information is based on a model or prediction.

We've seen a number of predictions by experts and spruikers already on this topic, and many have been proven to be wrong, or much less of a problem than was first thought.

I have my view because I've seen a whole lot more weather and rain and wind and all that stuff than someone who is say; 25. I see bugger all to concern me...and I'm not head in the sand as you think; I evaluate and place an importance on it as deemed warranted.

Doesn't mean I'm right or wrong; just the past history shows a different set of evidence, so when someone comes along and claims; "The sky is falling!", I am in the camp that will always say; "Oh; really? Let's calm down a bit and see".

It doesn't help your cause when findings come out such as the CO2 influence, the Tim Flannery type statements - that prove otherwise; and prompts folks like me to say; "See? What are folks going on about?".

It's the emphasis on the humans being the cause, and the fact that the changes are - at best - incremental, and how steamed up and serious about it your camp gets; that makes it all so laughable.

The desal plant is a good idea if there was renewable energy to drive it. The financial terms around the whole project are dodgy, Labor was foolish and irresponsible to build it with those terms. The Napthine goverment did have a chance to renegotiate and get a better deal for Victorians but chose not to, hopefully Andrews is a better leader.
I thought they canned it because the dams filled up again?
 
I'm not saying GW or CC is impossible.
It is possible, and has been happening - in both directions - since god's grandfather was a baby.

Correct.

I'm saying that if there is any of either; it is a natural occurrence and incremental anyway, and none of it caused or influenced by us silly humans to any noticeable degree.

Therefore, the whole hullaballoo over either CC or GW is a total waste of time, in my opinion.

And there is the problem. "none of it caused or influenced by us silly humans to any noticeable degree". The evidence is there. And yet you persist that humans can't possibly cause it.

nasty PM's you've been sending to me and others (yes; they tell me what they got sent)
TC can dish it out, but cries when people strike back. It's a human failing, we all do it. But it seems to be worse in right w(h)ingers.

I admire your passion - just don't let it blind your objectivity.

Science is mostly objective, but people who don't understand get involved and think they are armchair experts. There are people spending a lot of money to ensure the debate is muddled. Do you think that if there was cold hard proof, the fossil fuel companies wouldn't jump on it and hold massive news conferences? They have trillions to loose here, because the current scientific thinking is that we need to leave 60% of current discovered fossil fuels in the ground in just to achieve a simple 2 degree increase. They are using the same tactics that tobacco companies use to delay and obfuscate.

Whereas folks like myself say; "Yeah; there maybe something in it, but no big deal; let's not get carried away just yet" - a much more detached and unconcerned view....especially when a lot of the information is based on a model or prediction.

We are in a car heading toward a cliff. I keep yelling, tap the brakes now, because slamming the brakes later will achieve nothing. You keep saying, lets wait and see. We don't need the full picture to understand what is going to happen.

What about risk management. Do you only take out insurance if you know you will have problems? In time, CEOs will have to explain to shareholders, why they failed to take prudent timely actions. Some people will end up in court because the danger was actually foreseeable and predicted. That will be interesting. You can't lie in a courtroom, or in press releases to ASIC.

I have my view because I've seen a whole lot more weather and rain and wind and all that stuff than someone who is say; 25. I see bugger all to concern me...and I'm not head in the sand as you think; I evaluate and place an importance on it as deemed warranted.

So have I. It's windier and summer is usually longer. The last one was quite pleasant to not have a day over 40. Are your observations more valid than mine? You only have 6 years on me.

It doesn't help your cause when findings come out such as the CO2 influence, the Tim Flannery type statements - that prove otherwise; and prompts folks like me to say; "See? What are folks going on about?".

Flannery was wrong about the details, the long term trends are clear.


To be honest I shouldn't be so hard on you, TC and other deniers. You are victims who have been persuaded, like many good people, to do nothing.
 
What about risk management.
Risk management for what?

You are talking about doing something, and spending large amounts of money and time, to do something about which we have no control over....

The amount of energy, time, money, elections, promises, backflips, scientific reports, studies, protests and marches, etc - expended on the whole CO2 angle alone so far is astounding.

And it's the bloody ocean which is doing it for the most part.

You are victims who have been persuaded, like many good people, to do nothing.
I haven't been persuaded to do anything.

I have chosen to do nothing - on the topic of CC and GW.

I do, however, do as much as I can towards recycling and don't pollute the planet too much.

So have I. It's windier and summer is usually longer. The last one was quite pleasant to not have a day over 40. Are your observations more valid than mine? You only have 6 years on me.
Given all the hooha over GW/CC, doesn't this give you even the slightest doubt that much has changed at all?

I can (and I'm sure you can too) remember Melb summers where it was sweltering for 4,5 days on end - and everyone was happy for the usual cool change.

"Windier"? Fair go.
 
Last edited:
hang on, the IPCC said there is no increase over the last 100 years on frequency or intensity of cyclones in the South Pacific. The BOM categorically States the same for cyclones making landfall in Australia.
The frequency of storms in general is not increasing, but the frequency of very powerful storms (Cat 5) is increasing around the world. Many attribute this to increased ocean temperatures, which makes sense since this is what drives a storm.

2015 Cyclone Pam: one of the most powerful cyclones in history. sea temps 2 degrees above normal.
2014 Typhoon Nuri: the most powerful storm ever recorded off the coast of Alaska
2013 Typhoon Haiyan: the strongest storm ever recorded at landfall, strongest 1 minute winds ever recorded.
 
Frackin dopey ABC radio reporter is out on the streets today, interviewing folks about what they think about "Neighbors" (tv show), and is also going; "OMG! It's 31 degrees in March; whaddya think about that!?"

FFS; it was 35 degrees on my wedding day (March 26) in 1994.
 
What is your reference for that. It's not the IPCC. It's not the BOM for the Australian experience.

Observation that the most powerful storms the world has ever seen have been in the last 10 years, 3 record breakers in the Pacific in the last 18 months. Observation that Australia has only ever had 8 category 5 storms in its history, and 4 of those were in the last 15 years. Yes many scientific bodies will say not enough conclusive data yet but there does seem a clear trend.
 
Frackin dopey ABC radio reporter is out on the streets today, interviewing folks about what they think about "Neighbors" (tv show), and is also going; "OMG! It's 31 degrees in March; whaddya think about that!?"

FFS; it was 35 degrees on my wedding day (March 26) in 1994.

i suspect you may need a twitter or facebook account
 
I didn't check the temperature on my wedding day on 14 March 1981, but everyone told us that it was the hottest March day on record (at the time). Too friggin hot to be wearing a three piece suite for the fellas or a three layered dress with stockings for me. Easily 35 degrees back then, just like today.
 
I didn't check the temperature on my wedding day on 14 March 1981, but everyone told us that it was the hottest March day on record (at the time). Too friggin hot to be wearing a three piece suite for the fellas or a three layered dress with stockings for me. Easily 35 degrees back then, just like today.

Scroll down and you'll see this:
March maximum temperature
highest this month 36.1?C 5th
highest on record 37.9?C 11th 2007
average this month 30.6?C +1.7?C
long-term average 28.9?C

Not that a single high temperature event can be used to prove or refute climate change. But it's showing that the highest temperature has been quite recent and that this month is well above average.
 
Not that a single high temperature event can be used to prove or refute climate change. But it's showing that the highest temperature has been quite recent and that this month is well above average.


Probably due for some hot weather considering how cool all of summer was? And most of spring was hotter than average.


See ya's.
 
Probably due for some hot weather considering how cool all of summer was? And most of spring was hotter than average.


See ya's.

What gets me going is that whatever weather event happens that has some sort of catastrophic effect it's all blamed on CC or GW. Hot or cold, dry or wet.

It's all out saturation of blame on humans.

There is an agenda there for sure.

Climate has never been the same ever, year in year out. I'd like to know what it is that the weather should be doing on a daily, yearly, century basis? Any CC experts out there prepared to answer this as categorically, unmistakably, forever and a day never to be wrong,that the whole of humanity can trust as totally the ONLY way to view the climate debate?

No, we've seem many come out and be prepared to deliver the armeggedon message, only to be so totally wrong yet take offence that no one trusts them ?

It's so easy to say oh it's hot today,that's CC, or cyclone Pam was the result of CC. What rubbish, how stupid do you CC/GW people think the rest of the world are? Silly question I know as we are told on a daily basis right here and just about everywhere in media form.
Saturation, scaremongering without basis.
Where is the proof that the "severity" of the latest cyclone was a direct result of CC? Never is it stated in facts and figures, just spruik on the news. No backing evidence.
You will never be trusted when you straight out tell people they are totally responsible for any thing that is a disaster.

The argument always comes back to oh the science says it all therefore you. MUST believe it.
Well science has never been ALWAYS right.
Why should it be impeccable now?
 
Observation that the most powerful storms the world has ever seen have been in the last 10 years
How far does the data go back? I doubt there were many satellites measuring the strength of storms over Asia 50 years ago.

Can you show me the storm records for the past few millennia so we can be sure your statement is correct?
 
Observation that the most powerful storms the world has ever seen have been in the last 10 years, 3 record breakers in the Pacific in the last 18 months. Observation that Australia has only ever had 8 category 5 storms in its history, and 4 of those were in the last 15 years. Yes many scientific bodies will say not enough conclusive data yet but there does seem a clear trend.

So nothing then. No reference, just ludicrous claims.

I dont think even LibGS would claim that the worlds most severe storms ever, have occurred in the last 10 years. You seem to believe the IPCC on everything else except for this?

You are right that there is a clear trend though. You can find it on the BOM site. No increase in cyclones, no increase in severity.

You aren't including Marcia in your Cat 5 list are you?
 
I dont think even LibGS would claim that the worlds most severe storms ever, have occurred in the last 10 years. You seem to believe the IPCC on everything else except for this?

The IPCC said this:
There is low confidence that long - term changes in tropical cyclone activity are robust and there is low confidence in the attribution of global changes to any particular cause. However, it is virtually certain that intense tropical cyclone activity has increased in the North Atlantic since 1970.

BTW....

I don't claim these things, in the same way I don't "claim" 5 is greater than 1, I also don't "claim" the existence of owls.
 
Wow, this thread is still going? It is really a waste of time. There will always be a small hard core group of climate change deniers, motivated either by monetary reasons or just plain ignorance of the science. You know the saying about leading a horse to water...

We have seen this throughout our history, like tobacco, vaccination etc. This thread is looking a lot like those far out blogs with moon landing deniers. Climate change from man made emissions has agreement amongst the majority of scientists. Governments around the world are responding, including little Australia though it has taken a temporary backward step. Heck, even in my industry (finance) super funds and other trustee bodies are increasingly accepting climate change as a risk and slowly moving investments out of exposed industries.
 
There will always be a small hard core group of climate change deniers
I don't think anyone has denied climate change.

The question is the extent to which humans contribute to it.

What proportion of climate change do you personally believe is caused by humans? 1%? 50%? 99%?
 
I don't think anyone has denied climate change.

The question is the extent to which humans contribute to it.

What proportion of climate change do you personally believe is caused by humans? 1%? 50%? 99%?

Cute choice of words... consistent with the scientific evidence to date I don't know the proportion, just that it does and it is the major contributor to the rapid climate change that has occurred at least since the 1980s. In any event what I believe is irrelevant. The world is moving on and slowly dealing with it. Even the captains of industry are implementing risk management to deal with the issue, such as moving investments out of dirty industries.
 
Back
Top