Posts Tagged ‘ Tim Flannery ’

Face it, Melbourne, you need another dam


Brisbane’s beautiful Wivenhoe Dam

Was taking a look at Andrew Bolt’s latest round-up of Australia’s part-time, 180K/year climate commissar, paleontologist Tim Flannery.

You know, how his fear-mongering predictions about permanent drought and rains that would never fill our dams and rivers were so utterly wrong.

Anyway, what really cought my eye was the table Bolta put up a little ways down in that post.

I’m from Brisbane originally, and he’s from Melbourne, so I took a quick look at the two.

Brisbane has water storage capacity of about 2.2 million megalitres.

Melbourne has a capacity of only about 1.8 million megalitres.

Brisbane’s dams are about 90% full.

Melbourne’s dams are only at around 80% (and that’s being generous).

And yet, flick over to Wikipedia, and Melborne has a population of about 4.2 million.

Brisbane? Only 2.2 million.

Start doing some back of the envelope math, and it’s beyond obvious that Melbourne has far less water per person than Brisbane.

With dams at 100% capacity, Brisbane has enough for about 1 megalitre per person.

Melbourne at full capacity can can barely manage about 40% per person compared to what Brisbane gets.

Look at actual current capacity, and the numbers get even worse.

Currently, Brisbane can manage about 900 kilolitres per person.

Melbourne? A mere 330 kilolitres per person – barely over a third.

Now back when it was a bit dry, even Brisbane had to do it tough. Sure, no ridiculous buckets in the shower, but the only way Mum could keep her modest garden well watered, was thanks to Dad installing two water tanks in the back yard. Otherwise, Mum might as well have gotten some sand and desert rocks.

And folks in Bris Vegas still can’t use water like it’s endless. But, crikey, you guys in Melbourne currently have only around a third of the water per person as they do in Brisbane.

That’s nuts.

Long story short, it’s time to put the propaganda aside, and build another bloody dam, Melbourne.

It won’t be the end of nature. Heck, the habitat around Brisbane’s Wivenhoe dam is gorgeous. Nature is resilient. Nature adapts. Nature tends to like water.

How high can one hope, though? The Victorian premier seems about as non envirotard liberal as Mitt Romney smoking a joint at a John Lennon tribute concert.

Related: Yes, whole swathes of people CAN be convinced with dud “science”.

So where are these climate scientists, gurus, our government is so sure of?


A planet in peril, or a society?

On ABC’s QandA political affairs program last Monday, aside from GetUp!’s Simon Sheikh’s collapse, we were privilege to the dulcet tones of Climate Change minister, Greg Combet.

A major part of his reassuring argument is that the government simply cannot ignore the warnings of all the world’s top scientists.

Noted empirical evidence – namely that we haven’t seen any warming in at least ten years – was dismissed as a rubbish argument.

No, Combet smoothly argued the scientists had to be trusted.

So? Who?

The IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?

Even they’ve admitted they are just another UN body, and certainly not the “gold standard”.

They admitted they don’t necessarily promote views of the world’s “top scientists”, but rather, make sure every geographic region is represented as equally as possible.

Sorry, but that’s not the world’s top scientists.

No Frakking Consensus:

Leading scientists. Top climate scientists. The best scientific minds. That was the fiction. Now, at long last, the IPCC is admitting that its authors don’t, in fact, all belong to the highest echelons of the scientific community. Instead we’re advised that the IPCC has “always sought” to “achieve geographic representation.”

The end of Chapter 5 in my book reads:

Journalists say we should trust the IPCC’s conclusions because its reports have been written by the world’s finest scientific minds. But in order for that to be the case the IPCC would need to apply very different criteria when selecting its authors.

It would need an explicit policy that says something along the lines of: Even though we are a UN body, we are not influenced by UN diversity concerns. We select the world’s best experts and only the world’s best experts – regardless of where they come from or what gender they happen to be.

In fact, readers may recall that the crux of the IPCC argument, the one governments such as our own are rolling with (OK, well basically just ours), was written by a teenage boy.

The blurb:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) performs one of the most important jobs in the world. It surveys climate science research and writes a report about what it all means. This report is informally known as the Climate Bible.

Cited by governments around the world, the Climate Bible is the reason carbon taxes are being introduced, heating bills are rising, and costly new regulations are being enacted. It is why everyone thinks carbon dioxide emissions are dangerous. Put simply: the entire planet is in a tizzy because of a United Nations report.

What most of us don’t know is that, rather than being written by a meticulous, upstanding professional in business attire, the Climate Bible is produced by a slapdash, slovenly teenager who has trouble distinguishing right from wrong.

This expose, by an investigative journalist, is the product of two years of research. Its conclusion: almost nothing we’ve been told about the IPCC is true.

So?

Who?

What top climate scientists? Could Combet quote one? A credible one?

The “father” of global warming Gaia theory, perhaps?

No. Remember, James Lovelock came out recently and admitted much of the doom and gloom he’d forecast simply isn’t and hasn’t turned out to be the case.

Unfortunately, not so many other climate scientists are as free to revise their views as Lovelock is. You see, he doesn’t require government funding to keep him afloat.

That is a significant catch 22 that simply cannot be dismissed.

So?

Who?

Australia’s very own Climate Commissioner, Tim Flannery, who the government pays $180,000 per year for three days work per week?

Well, this is a bloke who predicted permanent drought for Australia’s three major eastern coastal cities.

Now the dams are as good as full, and the desal plants have been mothballed – at a cost of considerable billions.

So? Who?

That other government-paid climate expert, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, who predicted our thriving reefs would be wiped out by now?

Who, Combet? Who, Gillard?

Who are they, are they on your payroll, and have any of their predictions come true?

Of course, their argument is bunkum, like as if a trace gas, of which humans produce only a fraction of, somehow drives global climate.

Hence, you’ll see more arguments like GetUp!’s Simon Sheikh’s; that being, “to rise above the politics”, like he said on QandA last Monday.

You see, to them, it was never about the science, even though that’s of course what they claimed and possibly what they also believed to a point.

And when the science started riding home, the hard empirical data that refuted the models, they argued it was time to “move on from that”.

OK. So we’re back to the political argument many claimed it always was?

Oh no, now it’s “let’s rise above the politics”.

Utterly vacuous words and sentiments. Deceitful, too – and perhaps to themselves the most.

People like Sheikh I do believe mean well. But he’s trying to change the way the world works because essentially, he doesn’t understand how the world works (and he must have been asleep in history class).

I would argue, however, that he does see genuine problems such as real pollution but has unfortunately, like many of our politicians and scientists, been caught up in CO2=pollution nonsense hypothesis.

He’s stuck.

He, like the other 50,000 delegates at the Rio+20 convention, have made and staked their careers on this.

Families to feed.

For example, what would he and his wife, Australian Youth Climate Coalition (AYCC) chairperson, Anna Rose, do if this all came unravelled?

What would Combet do?

What would Flannery do?

What would Gillard do?

Looking at the big picture, that is hardly important. It’s what they’ve done, what they’re doing, and what they will do before time is up that actually matters in the broader sense.

Larry Pickering:

Now we know what Emerson’s “Whyalla” rendition was all about. It was a “get that up ya” celebration which wasn’t directed at us at all. He had already lost us.

Gillard’s old bed mate, Emerson, was serenading Abbott alone in a taunting display of ridicule.


*You know, if they’d actually just made it a big money-go-round – not a take from the rich, give to the poor – but an actual money-go-round, and admitted it as simply as that, something that might have stimulated the economy, I’d probably be half for it…*

Also, if this carbon tax did ANYTHING to lower global temperatures, then they might have a sliver of an argument. That said, the whole world could adopt it and not even Tim Flannery claims it would make an iota of difference.

Their argument of, “So what? We do nothing?” is fallacious. By wasting so much time, money, and endeavour on the carbon caper, there is in fact a lot we are not doing that we should be doing again.

Our great taxpayer-funded seer, Tim Flannery


Now perfessor Flannery reckons violence in Western Sydney will increase because of – you guessed it – global warming.

Tim has quite the reputation for getting scary predictions wrong. Take the one where he reckoned our dams would be empty by now.

But let’s not be too harsh on poor Flannels.

Actually, as a species, we love imagining the future.

But we don’t always get it right… not that that’s stopping the carbon tax that isn’t actually a carbon tax.

Must be that global warming…


Of course it’s just weather, however.

While winter is a distant memory for most Americans, it continues unabated in Anchorage, Alaska — where a new bout of precipitation this weekend helped the city break its record for seasonal snowfall, at more than 133 inches (3.38 meters).

In fact, if there actually were some global warming (we haven’t seen any in 15 years), you might see some happier natives.

“Okay…now the records broken [it stood for 57 years - bing], could you please make the snow go away??!!”

Can’t blame whoever said that. Usually Alaska sees an average of around 60 inches or a full one and a half metres less snow over the long winter season.

And no wonder with news like that, we’re seeing the following.

Green campaigners and climate scientists are losing the public debate over global warming, one of the movement’s leading proponents has admitted.

Dr James Hansen, director of the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who first made warnings about climate change in the 1980s, said that public scepticism about the threat of man-made climate change has increased despite the growing scientific consensus.

Consensus, eh? Well, James. Perhaps people’s growing scepticism maybe, just maybe has something to do with that consensus and your their years of grossly exaggerated computer model BS fear-mongering that time has allowed us to check out.

And boy oh boy have there been some whoppers, such as these by Australia’s own government-funded $180,000 per year part time Climate Commissioner, Tim Flannery.

Keeping it on the home front, it could be that folks became a little more cynical when the weather was used by a government that can’t balance the books as an excuse to impose a giant new tax on everyone.

Tuesday 6/3/12 open/twitter thread


To think; five years ago we were told by the likes of the government’s $1200-odd per day chief Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery that man-made global warming would leave us in permanent drought thus necessitating, among other things, expensive desalination plants. Today we see near full dams and threats of flooding. Yep, Australia’s climate carrying on as it always has – “a land of drought and flooding rains”.

BER fallout continues: $16 billion “worth” of buildings (if, for example, you can count open-air sheds as buildings) that schools never wanted nor needed now suffer even more cost overruns – the schools can’t afford to maintain them. There goes another $40 million.

Professor Bunyip whose been covering the government’s news media inquiry with quite some zest links to the UK’s James Delingpole (yes, this disturbing inquiry is unsurprisingly receiving international attention) who rightly notes the Ministry of Truth would be a more accurate name for the proposed government-run News Media Council. Government controlling what should be a free press, a pillar of Democracy; what could go wrong? And remember, a good 86% of the “public” submissions to the inquiry were from apparatchik groups closely linked to the current government. Descriptors such as “brazen”, “obscene” and “farcical” barely do this so-called inquiry justice.

Ho hum. What else is happening?

Arctic sea ice at 7-year high


Wait. Wasn’t global warming meant to be melting it all?

Good news from the Arctic. Sea ice extent (area covered by ice greater than 15%*) is at a seven-year high (See NORSEX SSM/I ). It’s nearly back to within one standard deviation of the 30 year normal at 14.5 million square kilometers.

This year’s ice extent is the highest since 2006 at this point in the year.

No worries. Temperature data for February released today show readings at a 32-year low.

Meanwhile, our government continues to spend about $5 million on the Flannery Centre, named after the bloke who predicted our dams would never be full again, the same bloke PM Gillard is paying $180,000 for three days “work” a week to peddle what the evidence has clearly proved to be nonsense.

 

 

Climate change: follow the money


The big story this weekend is what Jo Nova has dubbed FakeGate. On Thursday we saw the DeSmogBlog getting very excited that *shock horror* the anti global-warming-and-we’re-all-doomed mob The Heartland Institute received an evil $6.5 mil in funding. Never mind the likes of Greenpeace receiving $310 mil, no, the scandal of the day was directed at man-made global warming sceptics.

Also, to a lesser extent, we read the diabolical news that sceptic Professor Bob Carter is on the take to the tune of $1500-odd per month from private donors (but never mind the $1200 per day PM Gillard’s Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery receives courtesy of the Australian taxpayer).

Well, it turns out the leaked Heartland memos that DeSmog got all uppity about may well have been faked. Law enforcement officials have been contacted.

Nice try, well-funded doomists.

In other climate news over in the States, we read about researchers – this time courtesy of the American taxpayer – receiving “$850,000 to study the effects of climate change on prairie dogs in an area where the climate hasn’t changed in 50 years“. Good work if you can stoop low enough to get it, I suppose.

Still in the US, there is some good news however. Finally a step, albeit a small one, towards common sense; that is, not throwing good money at wasteful gimmicks.

The wind power industry is predicting massive layoffs and stalled or abandoned projects after a deal to renew a tax credit failed Thursday in Washington.

The move is expected to have major ramifications in states such as Illinois, where 13,892 megawatts of wind projects — enough to power 3.3 million homes per year — wait to be connected to the electric grid. Many of those projects will be abandoned or significantly delayed without federal subsidies.

Ahh, subsidies. Because in what should be a thriving free market economy, governments picking winners and losers – kind of like in the old USSR – is surely the way to go (/sarc).

R&D, R&D folks. Ideas like wind and solar power aren’t bad per se. But what I don’t understand is why more people can’t see that these two potentially excellent technologies need considerably more development before we can begin to even think about them as viable options for replacing base-load power.

For example, a far better investment for the UK (Conservative???) government would surely be to throw £35 bil at research and development of wind power technology rather than agreeing to new subsidies worth the same amount for yet another wind project that, sorry, will make a negligible yet intensely costly contribution to the island’s energy resources.

Ho hum. At least they’re not being completely mad (although I think I’m being very generous here).

Half of the UK’s houses may not be able to claim the full subsidy for fitting solar panels from April, under new government plans.

Again, who wouldn’t love it if they could buy a cheap solar panel and have their electricity bill slashed… without having to rip off their fellow taxpayer?

R&D, R&D.

Finally, back on home soil, I wonder how much flak this bloke is going to cop.

WakeUp2TheLies reports that ‘Former Bureau of Meteorology chief to hold forum arguing that “global warming is natural”‘.

Nasty, NASTY!

Cartoon by John Spooner at – wait for it – the Age.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 304 other followers

%d bloggers like this: