Key tourist spots will be wiped out - warning

[NM]

From news.com.au:

SUPER cyclones. Heatwaves. Catastrophic coastal flooding in north Queensland. Ski slopes with no snow.

This is the grim scenario being laid out as a warning to Australian tourism leaders as they plan strategies for the industry's survival over the next 40 years.

 

[samh004]

It says less snow but this year we've got lots of early-season snow, which although most of it has probably melted by now, there have been some big falls.

 

[drron]

And the boffins not so long ago were saying Brisbane should get used to drought conditions!So the dams are about to hit 74%-best levels for over 6 years.

 

[NYCguy]

The Earth has been cooling since 1998, so I'm not terribly worried.

 

[JohnK]

”There will be less rain in the south but an increase in rain events, storms and stronger cyclones in the north.

”Cairns has been lucky not to have been hit directly by a cyclone, but the odds are that it will be hit at some time in the future.

And unfortunately there is not much anyone can do about where a cyclone hits no matter what we try.

I know it may sound like a silly question but if key tourist spots are wiped out wouldn't new spots become popular among tourists and then be considered key tourist spots?

 

[mysavings789]

The Earth has been cooling since 1998, so I'm not terribly worried.

Before I'm not worried on the climate change. But upon watching some educational videos on globalwarming I realized I must contribute something to our mother earth before it's too late. Tree planting or having an indoor plants are just only a few steps to make. Have you imagined how many trees could be planted by a total population of the earth?

 

[NYCguy]

Before I'm not worried on the climate change. But upon watching some educational videos on globalwarming I realized I must contribute something to our mother earth before it's too late.

I have seen all those propaganda videos too, and I was convinced until I read "Heaven and Earth: Global Warming - the Missing Science", by Ian Plimer. Warming and cooling have occurred for billions of years, long before the rise of humans and the industrial revolution.

The Sun, volcanos & plate tectonics, and even Earth's position relative to the centre of the galaxy are the drivers of climate on this planet, and the whole CO2/warming link is nothing more than a monument to bad science and human narcissism.

 

[Soundguy]

So scary I'm trembling.....

No, wait - I'm actually shaking with laughter!

The MSM hacks cook up some kooky stuff to flog their rags, this should be in the comedy section. Must bug the alarmists each day the climate continues to refuse to play their game, God messing with them and all.

Should be time soon to recycle the global cooling scam from the 70's.

 

[albatross710]

From news.com.au:

some tourist spots should be wiped out.

 

[Walter Plinge]

Doomsayers have been predicting the imminent death of the Great Barrier Reef from various ailments for as long as I can remember - three decades at any rate. It's healthier than ever. When I read over-the-top bilge like this from experts I just yawn and think, "Remember the Y2K experts".

 

[Moody]

Doomsayers have been predicting the imminent death of the Great Barrier Reef from various ailments for as long as I can remember - three decades at any rate. It's healthier than ever. When I read over-the-top bilge like this from experts I just yawn and think, "Remember the Y2K experts".

We put up with NYCGuys' ridiculous drivel on this subject because we need a Wilson Tuckey character to give us all a laugh. But we don't need two.

Even with climate change having no impact on the reef (which I doubt you will find many experts to back), the overall health is being impacted by other natural and non-natural damage from sediments, agricultural waste, the odd ship spillage, etc.

I have no problem with people that say that they don't care about the impact of human-controlled climate change. But to deny it is happening and make some moronic connection to Y2K ... not a good start.

 

[NYCguy]

Professor Plimer's book is hardly drivel. Believing something other than the dubious, methodologically flawed proclamations of the IPCC does not make one a maverick. Plimer's work quotes more than 4000 papers that have been published in peer-reviewed journals such as Nature, Science and the Proceedings of the Royal Society. This contrasts with the majority of the works published by the IPCC, which were subjected to peer-review by other members of the panel itself.

Perhaps if you took the time to read Plimer's book; may I suggest you borrow a copy from a library if you can't bear the thought of buying it; you might be able to make a considered argument, rather than resorting to ad hominem attacks on my intellect.

There are a huge number of intelligent, educated people who are unconvinced by the CO2/greenhouse/disaster scenario. Unfortunately they are drowned-out by the shrill wailings of the doomsayers.

Let's see where we're at in forty years. It will be my pleasure to say "told you so". In the meantime, I'm going to keep driving my V12, keep the heat turned up in winter and the cooling on in summer, and keep the self-satisfied smirk on my face when I hear the misguided bleating of climate-change evangelists.

 

[Soundguy]

In the meantime, I'm going to keep driving my V12, keep the heat turned up in winter and the cooling on in summer, and keep the self-satisfied smirk on my face

Brilliant! That's the stuff old chap.

Besides flora loves a little extra CO2, positively laps it up in fact. Sometimes I actually wish this AGW guff wasn't the total crock it is because a couple of extra degrees or so would actually be great.

 

[pauly7]

And unfortunately there is not much anyone can do about where a cyclone hits no matter what we try.

I know it may sound like a silly question but if key tourist spots are wiped out wouldn't new spots become popular among tourists and then be considered key tourist spots?

I could nominate a few, predominantly in QLD that should be levelled and started from scratch anyway

 

[straitman]

We put up with NYCGuys' ridiculous drivel on this subject because we need a Wilson Tuckey character to give us all a laugh. But we don't need two.

Even with climate change having no impact on the reef (which I doubt you will find many experts to back), the overall health is being impacted by other natural and non-natural damage from sediments, agricultural waste, the odd ship spillage, etc.

I have no problem with people that say that they don't care about the impact of human-controlled climate change. But to deny it is happening and make some moronic connection to Y2K ... not a good start.

Moody,

It requires two sides of a story to get the facts but unfortunately we rarely hear the 'other' side of the Global Warming argument and all we do hear is a bunch of unsubstantiated ramblings that don't stand up to scrutiny.

If those bearers of doom and gloom actually presented themselves and their arguments properly they would probably get many more people on side and help their argument.

By labelling someone else's views 'ridiculous drivel' only weakens your argument, gets people off side and in any case is totally unnecessary and inappropriate on the forum :!:

 

[codash1099]

We put up with NYCGuys' ridiculous drivel on this subject because we need a Wilson Tuckey character to give us all a laugh. But we don't need two.

Even with climate change having no impact on the reef (which I doubt you will find many experts to back), the overall health is being impacted by other natural and non-natural damage from sediments, agricultural waste, the odd ship spillage, etc.

I have no problem with people that say that they don't care about the impact of human-controlled climate change. But to deny it is happening and make some moronic connection to Y2K ... not a good start.

Using Y2K in an argument is a real Red Herring. The reason Y2K didn't eventuate as a problem was that millions of dollars were spent in taking measures to overcome the problem before it occurred. It didn't just go away.

That in no way reflects on the arguments for or against climate change. I am a dual sceptic - I'm not sure that it is happening, and if it is, I'm not sure that it is anthropogenic.