Flights to get twice as bumpy due to climate change: study

[777]

Well what is he saying, that the dams will never fill up again or that we probably need to build at least a few small ones, or something to divert the last 3 summers worth of deluges, so we're not all routinely having to pay some levy to bail out parts of Queensland or NSW???

Its clear his crystal ball is a bit fuzzy...

He is talking specifically about declining run off and making the point that the decline in run off means that any given amount of rainfall is resulting in less water making it through to dams and reservoirs.

"a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas of Australia [is] translating to a 60 per cent decrease in the run-off into the dams and rivers. That's because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture. So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems [to the extent that the same amount would have previously]"

Translating that into that he "predicted that NSW dams would never be full again" is frankly nonsense.

 

[dragonman]

The rabid right strikes again. It seems that although the vast majority of the worlds more eminent scientists agree - the deniers are at it again. Let me ask you a question do you also deny the link between smoking and lung cancer too? Just curious.

 

[Pushka]

Let me ask you a question do you also deny the link between smoking and lung cancer too? Just curious.

You really think that helps convince others of your point? People who resort to such tactics usually know their argument is weak to begin with.

And motherhood statements don't do the trick either.

 

[dragonman]

You really think that helps convince others of your point? People who resort to such tactics usually know their argument is weak to begin with.

And motherhood statements don't do the trick either.

I note you failed to answer my question, serial denier? Just wondering.

 

[Pushka]

I note you failed to answer my question, serial denier? Just wondering.

I thought it was obvious by my comment. Serial denier? Sheesh.

 

[dragonman]

I thought it was obvious by my comment. Serial denier? Sheesh.

Nope not obvious at all - why are you obfuscating?

 

[casanovawa]

I think Pushka is taking the approach that just because a stupid question or accusation is asked, people aren't required to respond directly to it...

Funny i could work out the response...

 

[777]

I think Pushka is taking the approach that just because a stupid question or accusation is asked, people aren't required to respond directly to it...

Funny i could work out the response...

What about a perfectly sensible one like pointing out a blatant falsehood? I'm curious about whether you genuinely think Flannery claimed that NSW/ Sydney/Australia's dams would never fill again?

 

[Pushka]

What about a perfectly sensible one like pointing out a blatant falsehood? I'm curious about whether you genuinely think Flannery claimed that NSW/ Sydney/Australia's dams would never fill again?

It would be an interesting study to get a group of people who had never heard of Flannery, to read that statement and see what conclusion they drew about those words.

I read them again and still came to the same conclusion.

 

[777]

It would be an interesting study to get a group of people who had never heard of Flannery, to read that statement and see what conclusion they drew about those words.

I read them again and still came to the same conclusion.

Or anyone who came to the quote without reading Andrew Bolt et al's interpretation first. It's very clear what he's saying in context. You can try hard to contort it but that's essentially what all this denialist nonsense is about: picking selected things out of context and then building much larger but essentially non-sensical arguments around the dubious so-called facts. It's a house of cards if you take most of the claims back to their original sources they rarely if ever stack up.

Essentially the Bolt argument (to paraphrase) is that Flannery is a crazy person ranting and making over the top predictions to scare everyone. You go back to the source material and Flannery is a scientist speaking like a scientist explaining a particular and rather unexciting process: decreased run-off causing less water to flow through catchments.

It's hardly sky-is-falling and he is not talking about "Sydney's water supply" or any of the other things increasingly attributed to him based on the misquote. He is specifically talking (to a rural TV program *landline*) to farmers about the effects in their own dams and catchments of reduced run-off. You may wish to debate whether farmers are actually experiencing the effects Flannery describes but it's a bait-and-switch to turn it into an argument about whether Sydney's dams will ever fill again because he didn't say that.

 

[SeatBackForward]

Well I've never cared much for Flannery's work, nor Bolt, these are just names I've heard in the past. I also have never heard of this particular quote/mis-quote before, but after reading the text that 777 posted I didn't conclude it as being less water in dams. Then again I am a civil engineer who understands the concepts of rainfall, catchments, runoff, runoff rates and storage capacities.

 

[Pushka]

I don't read Andrew Bolts columns as I'm in Adelaide.

I think that the issue I have with people such as Flannery is that they go to extremes to get their message across. They seize on a very wet winter or very hot summer as being evidence they are correct. Nope, this is just weather. We have always had droughts and flooding rains, ask the indigenous population. But somehow this is contorted into affirming their arguments.

At home if there has been a weather event we always laugh that some expert will be on the TV spruiking climate change as being the cause. We're rarely disappointed. Bit weather events obviously have been occurring since the beginning of earth.

There is a point somewhere in the middle. Clearly our society is impacting on weather. And clearly we need to do something to ameliorate the effects. But currently there are too many snouts in the trough, on both sides, to get to the truth.

I never take an extremists point of view. The truth is always in the middle somewhere. We just never seem to find it and the pendulum swings back and forth according to which 'side' is in power.

 

[SeatBackForward]

This was a recent article I read, sure not from an authoritative figure, but some interesting points about the "debate"

Thoughts on Climate Change | Mosaicproject's Blog

 

[Pushka]

This was a recent article I read, sure not from an authoritative figure, but some interesting points about the "debate"

Thoughts on Climate Change | Mosaicproject's Blog

That's interesting. I'd also like to see a consideration that the temperature can also cool. And the role of Margaret Thatcher is a new one.

 

[Limewood]

It would be good if the major nations like USA, India and ASIA joined the non polluting club, until then absolutely nothing will change.

 

[777]

I think that the issue I have with people such as Flannery is that they go to extremes to get their message across./QUOTE]

Denialists *claim* that Flannery uses extreme examples but one of those claims is clearly debunked above by reading the context. Is there an actual example, with context, of Flannery being extreme? Most of this is straw man stuff. Take half a sentence, chop off the paragraph before and after and hey presto you've got yourself an extremist. It's lazy, it has nothing to do with the core arguments but it works.

 

[amaroo]

It would be good if the major nations like USA, India and ASIA joined the non polluting club, until then absolutely nothing will change.

Totally agree.

Australia still sits outside with the heavy smokers.......and will continue to do so until we stop sending our black stuff for others to burn. BTW I'm not advocating that we do this.....just illustrating the silliness of it all.

Having a wealth distribution scheme (Pigovian Tax - great name for the ALP) in place does nothing for lowering the worlds C02 levels.......it does wonders (at least they thought it would) for holding onto marginal seats.

 

[lovestotravel]

In context it is very clear what he's saying. I'm amazed that people pretend to be idiots to argue this stuff.

That dams are not going to be full again ?
That there is a 20% decrease in rainfall ? Floods anyone ?

 

[lovestotravel]

Totally agree.

Australia still sits outside with the heavy smokers.......and will continue to do so until we stop sending our black stuff for others to burn. BTW I'm not advocating that we do this.....just illustrating the silliness of it all.

Having a wealth distribution scheme (Pigovian Tax - great name for the ALP) in place does nothing for lowering the worlds C02 levels.......it does wonders (at least they thought it would) for holding onto marginal seats.

Exactly right!

I'd have no problem with massive investment in solar/wind/tidal/nuclear etc with the wealth distribution scheme, but instead a huge chunk of money is going to pay public servants and departments to push pieces of paper around

 

[Pushka]

It's an industry in itself now.