Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists

[boomerangutang]

So what is the problem with the 2 degree goal?

The fact that it was pulled out of thin air (as its inventor admitted) and has now acquired a false "truth" which is used to drive an absurd political agenda which damages the lives of all except the well-recompensed political elites.

Let me see if I can un-convolute your sentence structure.

If the 2% proposal 'damages' the lives of nearly all people - how does it 'damage' those who depend on cities built at near sea-level?

Can we agree that a rise in average global temperature (even a seemingly small 2 degrees) would result in higher sea levels?

If we can't agree on at least that, then that leaves little else to agree upon.

[FiftyTwo]

So what is the problem with the 2 degree goal?

The fact that it was pulled out of thin air (as its inventor admitted) and has now acquired a false "truth" which is used to drive an absurd political agenda which damages the lives of all except the well-recompensed political elites.

Let me see if I can un-convolute your sentence structure.

If the 2% proposal 'damages' the lives of nearly all people - how does it 'damage' those who depend on cities built at near sea-level?

Can we agree that a rise in average global temperature (even a seemingly small 2 degrees) would result in higher sea levels?

If we can't agree on at least that, then that leaves little else to agree upon.

Why not all agree an alien invasion would spoil our day.

It's just as likely to happen as a 2 degree temperature rise.

No, hang on, thought of a better one.

Let's all agree God turning the sun off would ruin our world.

Now let's all plan on what we could do to stop that happening, just in case.

Do you see where the 'let's all agree' can take us!

Edited November 27, 2013 by FiftyTwo

[F430murci]

So what is the problem with the 2 degree goal?

The fact that it was pulled out of thin air (as its inventor admitted) and has now acquired a false "truth" which is used to drive an absurd political agenda which damages the lives of all except the well-recompensed political elites.

Let me see if I can un-convolute your sentence structure.

If the 2% proposal 'damages' the lives of nearly all people - how does it 'damage' those who depend on cities built at near sea-level?

Can we agree that a rise in average global temperature (even a seemingly small 2 degrees) would result in higher sea levels?

If we can't agree on at least that, then that leaves little else to agree upon.

Why not all agree an alien invasion would spoil our day.

It's just as likely to happen as a 2 degree temperature rise.

That's silly. Your typical add nothing, ridiculous post. The 2 degree temperature increase will occur based on reliable models and scientific data. I linked the data and models to support this and no one has provided models or data to the contrary.

The temperature increase is not the issue. The issue is whether the rise is due to human factors and whether anything can be done to prevent it.

People like Rick cherry pick short term data and ignore basic climate and weather factors, as I have shown, to try and convince those with zero knowledge about basic weather patterns that there temperature is not on an increasing trend.

Trying to convince people there is no warming (there is no problem) is easier than trying to convince people that warming is not man made and nothing can be done to stop it.

Edited November 27, 2013 by F430murci

[FiftyTwo]

That's silly. Your typical add nothing, ridiculous post. The 2 degree temperature increase will occur based on reliable models and scientific data. I linked the data and models to support this and no one has provided models or data to the contrary.

Reliable models?

I though the main alarmists problems were that none of the models came anywhere near predicting the real world situation for the past 20 years.

Oh, and are we talking 2 degrees C or 2 degrees F.

Because the wildest range the alarmists used was 0.6 degrees c over the last 150 years.

Edited November 27, 2013 by FiftyTwo

[wilcopops]

Here's a nice article....recognise anyone in this?

“Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States” - Aaron M. McCright and Riley E. Dunlap

► Conservative white males are more likely than other Americans to report climate change denial. ► Conservative white males who self-report understanding global warming very well are even more likely. ► Climate change denial is an example of identity-protective cognition. ► System-justifying tendencies lead to climate change denial. ► Climate change denial increased from 2001 to 2010.

[FiftyTwo]

Climate change denial increased from 2001 to 2010.

Let me see,

Alarmists in the 90s predict large temperate increases.

Between 2001 and 2013 it doesn't happen

As it doesn't happen, more and more people realise it's a scam.

You call it denial.

I call it extrapolation.

(Not forgetting Alarmists in the 70s predicted large temperature decreases, they didn't happen either)

Edited November 28, 2013 by FiftyTwo

[boomerangutang]

So what is the problem with the 2 degree goal?

The fact that it was pulled out of thin air (as its inventor admitted) and has now acquired a false "truth" which is used to drive an absurd political agenda which damages the lives of all except the well-recompensed political elites.

Let me see if I can un-convolute your sentence structure.

If the 2% proposal 'damages' the lives of nearly all people - how does it 'damage' those who depend on cities built at near sea-level?

Can we agree that a rise in average global temperature (even a seemingly small 2 degrees) would result in higher sea levels?

If we can't agree on at least that, then that leaves little else to agree upon.

Why not all agree an alien invasion would spoil our day.

It's just as likely to happen as a 2 degree temperature rise.

No, hang on, thought of a better one.

Let's all agree God turning the sun off would ruin our world.

Now let's all plan on what we could do to stop that happening, just in case.

Do you see where the 'let's all agree' can take us!

It's easy to fly off on tangents - of imaginative wonderments.

So, let me see if I can pin down a writer who is determined not to be pinned down:

You think it's impossible for there to be a 2 degree rise in average global temperature in, let's say, the next 60 years?

I know you're not going to give a straight yes or no answer to that. It's easier (and more fun) to fly off the handle and talk about aliens or 'God turning off the sun.'

[wilcopops]

Climate change denial increased from 2001 to 2010.

Let me see,

Alarmists in the 90s predict large temperate increases.

Between 2001 and 2013 it doesn't happen

As it doesn't happen, more and more people realise it's a scam.

You call it denial.

I call it extrapolation.

(Not forgetting Alarmists in the 70s predicted large temperature decreases, they didn't happen either)

As the basis for your argument, the OP, is false, what can I say? You are clinging to nonsense.

Edited November 28, 2013 by wilcopops

[thaibeachlovers]

The most recent National Geographic has a feature about global warming. There's a wealth of scientific data attesting to it happening - too much to copy and paste here.

If a person wants to gauge what's happening, look at the trends, the data from scientific studies. One could also tune in to what scientists are saying - their summaries on their and others' data.

To be a GW denier, in lieu of the mountains of evidence backing the concept, is to be a person who is strongly fixated on not wanting to believe it.

Whether one believes in man made global warming or if it is a naturally occuring fact of nature, does any sane person actually belive that without the total cessation of all carbon use a few wind turbines and electric cars are going to make an iota of difference. There are 7 billion people on planet earth ( and rising rapidly ), and they all want to live a western life style. Do that without burning carbon if you can, but you can't, can you! Humpty is broken, and all the GW conferences in the world won't put him back together again.

That's like saying: perhaps eating lots of sugar is bad for people, but we as a species, already eat hundreds of tons of the stuff every day, so what's the use of trying to lessen the amount ingested?

Re; carbon emissions: It's not a black and white scenario. Nobody is saying humans can or will or need to quit using internal combustion machines or coal-fired utilities tomorrow. It's a matter of degrees. Like the sugar analogy, if people lessened their use of fossil fuels (or sugar) by an average of 5% each year for the next decades, then improvements would be had.

BTW, the 2 degree thing is a guidepost. Seas have already risen 7 inches in the past 100 years. The guideline could be 1 degree or 2.5 degrees, or whatever. The 2 degree mark is what's on the table now. It appears to be a reasonable goal. If anyone has been in business, they know that goals are part of what motivates positive results.

When I see a field like climate science, rife with malpractice, incompetence, lying, deception, hypocrisy, secretiveness, vindictiveness, data fudging, agit-prop, corruption and plain bad science, I choose to be very cautious about what claims of theirs I will blindly accept.

First off, that's denigrating to a lot of scientists who are working on this issue. You're like someone who gets an unfavorable message, and rebukes the messenger, or a soccer player who is losing a game, so he' denigrates all the refs as being <deleted>.

You're not being cautious. From all your posts, you've been very fixated on one side of the issue.

Your sugar comparison is inapropriate. I can make a change in my health directly merely by not eating sugar. No other person is involved on any level.

Only if ALL of humanity stopped using ANY form of carbon energy would it make a difference, and then there is the problem of volcanoes, bush fires and those pesky cosmic rays to consider.

The problem for all the pro GW people is that humanity will NEVER give up enough carbon producing activities to make any real difference. Never mind, as if it really is a problem, Gaia will solve it by killing off humanity anyway.

<that's denigrating to a lot of scientists who are working on this issue>

Perhaps they need denigrating.

< you've been very fixated on one side of the issue.>

Perhaps because you are unable to convince us that there is merit to your argument, and you can't actually prove your theories any more than we can prove the opposite. It's all theoretical at the moment.

Edited November 28, 2013 by thaibeachlovers

[thaibeachlovers]

Let me see if I can un-convolute your sentence structure.

If the 2% proposal 'damages' the lives of nearly all people - how does it 'damage' those who depend on cities built at near sea-level?

Can we agree that a rise in average global temperature (even a seemingly small 2 degrees) would result in higher sea levels?

If we can't agree on at least that, then that leaves little else to agree upon.

Why not all agree an alien invasion would spoil our day.

It's just as likely to happen as a 2 degree temperature rise.

No, hang on, thought of a better one.

Let's all agree God turning the sun off would ruin our world.

Now let's all plan on what we could do to stop that happening, just in case.

Do you see where the 'let's all agree' can take us!

It's easy to fly off on tangents - of imaginative wonderments.

So, let me see if I can pin down a writer who is determined not to be pinned down:

You think it's impossible for there to be a 2 degree rise in average global temperature in, let's say, the next 60 years?

I know you're not going to give a straight yes or no answer to that. It's easier (and more fun) to fly off the handle and talk about aliens or 'God turning off the sun.'

The question isn't whether there will or will not be a temperature increase. It's whether it's caused by mankind or not, and if it is, is there anything that can realistically be done to stop it.

I say the former is unproven and the latter unlikely.

BTW, have Ban Ki Moon, Al Gore et al given up using carbon energy based transportation. Wanna guess?

[FiftyTwo]

So, let me see if I can pin down a writer who is determined not to be pinned down:

You think it's impossible for there to be a 2 degree rise in average global temperature in, let's say, the next 60 years?

I know you're not going to give a straight yes or no answer to that. It's easier (and more fun) to fly off the handle and talk about aliens or 'God turning off the sun.'

I think there will be a 1/2 degree Celsius change in average world air temperature over the next 100 years.

(Not saying plus or minus, but statistically that's the change in the previous 100 years)

You didn't specify Celsius or Fahrenheit, do you know the difference?

Do you understand alarmists never state which because Fahrenheit figures seems so much more when people are thinking Celsius.

[meand]

Let me see if I can un-convolute your sentence structure.

If the 2% proposal 'damages' the lives of nearly all people - how does it 'damage' those who depend on cities built at near sea-level?

Can we agree that a rise in average global temperature (even a seemingly small 2 degrees) would result in higher sea levels?

If we can't agree on at least that, then that leaves little else to agree upon.

Why not all agree an alien invasion would spoil our day.

It's just as likely to happen as a 2 degree temperature rise.

No, hang on, thought of a better one.

Let's all agree God turning the sun off would ruin our world.

Now let's all plan on what we could do to stop that happening, just in case.

Do you see where the 'let's all agree' can take us!

It's easy to fly off on tangents - of imaginative wonderments.

So, let me see if I can pin down a writer who is determined not to be pinned down:

You think it's impossible for there to be a 2 degree rise in average global temperature in, let's say, the next 60 years?

I know you're not going to give a straight yes or no answer to that. It's easier (and more fun) to fly off the handle and talk about aliens or 'God turning off the sun.'

The question isn't whether there will or will not be a temperature increase. It's whether it's caused by mankind or not, and if it is, is there anything that can realistically be done to stop it.

I say the former is unproven and the latter unlikely.

BTW, have Ban Ki Moon, Al Gore et al given up using carbon energy based transportation. Wanna guess?

You need to go love another beach. Ignorance is bliss I suppose.

I don't think the questions you have posed are correct. The question is not whether man has caused a warming trend of the earth or not. That has been answered for all reasonable intents and purposes. If you are not following, this is much like a jury that has to decide on a verdict based on the preponderance of the evidence, and whether there is a "reasonable doubt". "Reasonable" being a very key word there.

One of your questions that is pertinent however is when you asked "can we do anything about it?". Perhaps it isn't such a bad question after all, let's think about this for a minute. We caused it, can we help to alleviate it? That is your question. Well, when you (ie a person, or people) cause something, usually you can counteract that to some extent. Think about it. Oils spills: not perfect, but we can help to clean them to some extent. Radiation from a nuclear power plant accident: not perfect, but we can help to some extent. The list could go on and on. If we caused it, by golly I am certain we could help alleviate it. I really don't think it is too great of a question after all

I am an odd one I suppose. I think we as humans, have altered the climate, yet I don't really give a toss if we do anything about it or not. I suppose it would be nice if we did. The people who refuse to accept the fact that humans have affected the world's climate are, in light of the evidence, are obviously biased, self serving, braindead, pseudo "scientists" who have nothing better to do than spout off about something they know nothing about. Think about what is going on, really think about it. We have the best scientists in the world studying this stuff, and some of them have been studying it for decades. Yet, we are supposed to listen to some guy that is sitting on a couch eating fritos who just read a Sean Hannity blog. What has the world come to, really? We don't listen to NASA and the world's top scientists, but we will listen to a frito eating nobody who hates big government and subscribes to Bill Oreily as a premium member.

[Till]

[thaibeachlovers]

Why not all agree an alien invasion would spoil our day.

It's just as likely to happen as a 2 degree temperature rise.

No, hang on, thought of a better one.

Let's all agree God turning the sun off would ruin our world.

Now let's all plan on what we could do to stop that happening, just in case.

Do you see where the 'let's all agree' can take us!

It's easy to fly off on tangents - of imaginative wonderments.

So, let me see if I can pin down a writer who is determined not to be pinned down:

You think it's impossible for there to be a 2 degree rise in average global temperature in, let's say, the next 60 years?

I know you're not going to give a straight yes or no answer to that. It's easier (and more fun) to fly off the handle and talk about aliens or 'God turning off the sun.'

The question isn't whether there will or will not be a temperature increase. It's whether it's caused by mankind or not, and if it is, is there anything that can realistically be done to stop it.

I say the former is unproven and the latter unlikely.

BTW, have Ban Ki Moon, Al Gore et al given up using carbon energy based transportation. Wanna guess?

You need to go love another beach. Ignorance is bliss I suppose.

I don't think the questions you have posed are correct. The question is not whether man has caused a warming trend of the earth or not. That has been answered for all reasonable intents and purposes. If you are not following, this is much like a jury that has to decide on a verdict based on the preponderance of the evidence, and whether there is a "reasonable doubt". "Reasonable" being a very key word there.

One of your questions that is pertinent however is when you asked "can we do anything about it?". Perhaps it isn't such a bad question after all, let's think about this for a minute. We caused it, can we help to alleviate it? That is your question. Well, when you (ie a person, or people) cause something, usually you can counteract that to some extent. Think about it. Oils spills: not perfect, but we can help to clean them to some extent. Radiation from a nuclear power plant accident: not perfect, but we can help to some extent. The list could go on and on. If we caused it, by golly I am certain we could help alleviate it. I really don't think it is too great of a question after all

I am an odd one I suppose. I think we as humans, have altered the climate, yet I don't really give a toss if we do anything about it or not. I suppose it would be nice if we did. The people who refuse to accept the fact that humans have affected the world's climate are, in light of the evidence, are obviously biased, self serving, braindead, pseudo "scientists" who have nothing better to do than spout off about something they know nothing about. Think about what is going on, really think about it. We have the best scientists in the world studying this stuff, and some of them have been studying it for decades. Yet, we are supposed to listen to some guy that is sitting on a couch eating fritos who just read a Sean Hannity blog. What has the world come to, really? We don't listen to NASA and the world's top scientists, but we will listen to a frito eating nobody who hates big government and subscribes to Bill Oreily as a premium member.

Sadly, Thai beaches are a good example of why the "crusade" to stop mankind's contribution to the carbon buildup are doomed to failure. Way bad when I first started going to Thai beaches, human impact was low, with natural wood huts and no AC or swimming pools. Couldn't be different now with huge concrete monstrocities ruining every once nice beach, little natural materials used for construction, AC, satellite tv, 24/ 7 electricity, concrete all weather roads and *&^^%%$%^^ horizon pools everywhere. Also, the car has invaded everywhere big time.

< yet I don't really give a toss if we do anything about it or not.>

I really hope you don't have children, as if you do, you obviously don't care what happens to them.

[boomerangutang]

The sugar comparison fits, because I hear from deniers that GW is an all or nothing scenario. In other words, they ask half-baked questions like "How is it ever going to happen that everyone will stop using internal combustion motors..." etc. Of course, that won't happen. But positive incremental changes, regardless of the veracity of GW, are possible.

Ok, let's look at the dirty beach comparison which was mentioned in a few recent posts. We'd all like to see clean beaches (I suppose, though GW deniers, who want to be contrarian on everything, might argue otherwise). Is it possible for all Thai beaches to be litter-free? No. Will incremental clean-ups and responsible behavior (by those who go to the beach) have a positive effect? YES. In other words, it's not an 'all or nothing' scenario. Similar with GW, no one is saying humankind will stop pumping CO2 in to the atmosphere. Some of us are saying that there can be improvements nevertheless.

It's also acknowledged that CO2 emissions from natural causes, such as volcanoes and forest fires, will continue, year by year, regardless. And it's true that mankind's contribution to CO2 is far less than natural emissions. However, lessening human CO2 releases, will lessen the overall accumulation, and therefore lessen the overall greenhouse effects. Methane has been shown to be 8 times more effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2, and its increasing release rates are a big topic also.

[boomerangutang]

Interesting that, because the title of the OP claims the planet is cooling, it's brought a lot of deniers in to this thread to discuss the issue.

If the title had been something like; "Global Warming Continues..." the deniers would not have hung in there for 26 pages.

Also interesting, the scientists who claim they're observing some cooling, are among the same scientists who have been claiming the planet is warming. When scientists say there are warming trends, the deniers come out to denigrate them as incompetent or worse. When some scientists say they've noticed some cooling, the deniers applaud them.

[RickBradford]

Recent UK Met Office predictions:

"..exceptionally cold British winters such as the one that occurred in 1962-63 were now expected to occur “about once every 1,000 years or more, compared with approximately every 100 to 200 years before 1850.”

“It [warm 2006-7 winter] is consistent with the climate change message. It is exactly what we expect winters to be like – warmer and wetter." [since then, there have been 5 cold ones in succession]

"Snowfalll will become a rare and exciting event. Children just aren’t going to know what snow is."

... and then from today's British press .....

LONG-RANGE weather forecasters have warned that Britain should prepare for heavy and persistent snow for up to THREE MONTHS with winter 2013 set to be the worst in more than 60 years.

The latest detailed forecasts for winter 2013 ALL point towards months of relentless extreme cold with heavy snow 'extremely likely' across the country. Arctic air will roar in from the North Pole later this week, triggering the start of the worst winter in many people's lifetimes.

Experts in long-range weather forecasting said the WHOLE of Britain should be prepared for this winter to be the most severe since 1947, which saw the UK hit by relentless snow and some of the lowest temperatures on record.

"We should listen to the scientists — and we should believe them," said Ed Davey, the UK Climate Secretary, spruiking climate change policies earlier this year.

Cold, snowy winters and cool wet summers are climate change – just as warm, wet winters and hot dry summers are climate change. Everything is climate change. You know it makes sense.

[TomTao]

A few years ago my father and I were talking about the global warming fallacy, he said then that it was all rubbish, he went on to say that the weather patterns that we were experiencing at the time we had our conversation (about five years ago) were the same as fifty years ago. All global warming/climate change is, is a way to generate fear amongst the populace, and fear generates money.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[boomerangutang]

increased snowfall doesn't necessarily mean colder weather. Antarctica gets very little snowfall. Snow is a measure of precipitation.

As for 'my father says....' ....that's fine for sitting around the Thanksgiving table, but it's not quite science news.

Edited November 30, 2013 by boomerangutang

[thaibeachlovers]

increased snowfall doesn't necessarily mean colder weather. Antarctica gets very little snowfall. Snow is a measure of precipitation.

As for 'my father says....' ....that's fine for sitting around the Thanksgiving table, but it's not quite science news.

Antarctica gets minimal precipitation and is classified as a desert. The air is so dry, it has to be humidified in sleeping quarters for comfort. The snow underfoot is so "dry" it actually sqeaks when you walk on it ( that was at the base I was stationed at- I don't know about in other parts of Antarctica ).

While we did get snowstorms, it was just snow blowing around that had been deposited ?thousands of years ago. We NEVER had an actual snowfall.

If the temperature rises, it is possible that new snow will fall on Antarctica, thus preventing a further rise in sea levels.

[boomerangutang]

A few years ago my father and I were talking about the global warming fallacy, he said then that it was all rubbish, he went on to say that the weather patterns that we were experiencing at the time we had our conversation (about five years ago) were the same as fifty years ago. All global warming/climate change is, is a way to generate fear amongst the populace, and fear generates money.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I don't like embedding the word 'fear' in this debate, but if you want to, here goes:

Sometimes a bit of fear is a good motivator. Why do people lock the doors on their cars when parked downtown? Fear of getting stuff stolen.

When the extreme storms of recent years hit N.Orleans, NYC and east coast of Philippines, it caused fear among some people. That fear has prompted some action. Examples: N.Orleans has built a higher sea wall. Just yesterday, Phil authorities have declared that no new residences will be allowed to be built along the recently storm-ravaged beaches. One climate change expert (sorry, I don't have his name or specialty on-hand) predicts that roughly half of all construction jobs by 2100 will be in the field of dealing with rising sea issues: He didn't elaborate, but I would guess that translates to sea walls, levies, large pump systems, water gates, etc. Already, London and St. Petersburg and Holland have massive tidal dams built. Bigger dams are planned for Golden Gate region of S.F. and also for the strait of Gibraltar at the opening to the Mediterranean.

Deniers can call it wasteful spending based on fear. Like any municipal projects, there will be gouging on contracts, etc. If the Gibraltar dam gets going, it will be hotly debated, and will be the largest man-made item on the planet. GW Deniers will say it's a big scam. But look at the upside: Such a dam could help protect every seaside city in the Mediterranean - up through the Bosporus in to Ukraine and beyond.

Deniers would say, "NO NO NO, don't do anything to protect against the fallacy of global warming. It's all a scam perpetrated by bad science and scamming scientists!"

[thaibeachlovers]

A few years ago my father and I were talking about the global warming fallacy, he said then that it was all rubbish, he went on to say that the weather patterns that we were experiencing at the time we had our conversation (about five years ago) were the same as fifty years ago. All global warming/climate change is, is a way to generate fear amongst the populace, and fear generates money.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I don't like embedding the word 'fear' in this debate, but if you want to, here goes:

Sometimes a bit of fear is a good motivator. Why do people lock the doors on their cars when parked downtown? Fear of getting stuff stolen.

When the extreme storms of recent years hit N.Orleans, NYC and east coast of Philippines, it caused fear among some people. That fear has prompted some action. Examples: N.Orleans has built a higher sea wall. Just yesterday, Phil authorities have declared that no new residences will be allowed to be built along the recently storm-ravaged beaches. One climate change expert (sorry, I don't have his name or specialty on-hand) predicts that roughly half of all construction jobs by 2100 will be in the field of dealing with rising sea issues: He didn't elaborate, but I would guess that translates to sea walls, levies, large pump systems, water gates, etc. Already, London and St. Petersburg and Holland have massive tidal dams built. Bigger dams are planned for Golden Gate region of S.F. and also for the strait of Gibraltar at the opening to the Mediterranean.

Deniers can call it wasteful spending based on fear. Like any municipal projects, there will be gouging on contracts, etc. If the Gibraltar dam gets going, it will be hotly debated, and will be the largest man-made item on the planet. GW Deniers will say it's a big scam. But look at the upside: Such a dam could help protect every seaside city in the Mediterranean - up through the Bosporus in to Ukraine and beyond.

Deniers would say, "NO NO NO, don't do anything to protect against the fallacy of global warming. It's all a scam perpetrated by bad science and scamming scientists!"

Actually, given that there are far too few real jobs remaining for the excessive number of people on the planet, building flood defences will be one way of increasing real wealth in the lower end of the population, as opposed to the "market" and banker scum that create money by shuffling paper around.

I hope they pay for it by taxing all income over a million $ at 95%.

[boomerangutang]

Just for the record, the massive dams mentioned in my post above are not static dams. In other words, they don't just completely restrict water flow each way. There are provisions for pumping large volumes of water (from rivers, rainfall within the watershed) out to sea - through massive pipes at the lower parts of the dams.

[RickBradford]

They wanted some dams in South-East Queensland, too, but that arch-poser Tim Flannery persuaded the government that south-east Australia was entering a semi-permanent drought.

"Since 1998 particularly, we’ve seen just drought, drought, drought. Even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems," said this narcissistic nitwit. "Forget dams and flood mitigation programs -- build desalination plants instead”.

So, what do we get? Massive floods in the area in 2010, 30+ dead, billions of dollars of damage, because no dam had been built in 30 years, on the specific advice of self-aggrandising climate alarmists.

Not to mention a $1.2 billion mothballed desal plant on the Gold Coast, to go along with a $1.8 billion mothballed desal plant in Sydney and the $5.7 billion desal plant in Victoria which went on standby before it was even opened.

It's a good case study on how listening to these puffed-up alarmists costs lives and wastes billions of dollars of taxpayers' money.

Of course, Flannery couldn't care less; he got a $180,000/year job -- part-time, no less -- to "advise the government on climate". That's like asking the Pope to advise on abortion; you're only ever going to get one answer.

Flannery couldn't care less about sea-level rise, either. While telling viewers that sea level might rise to the height of an eight-storey building, he quietly bought two luxury properties right on the tideline of the Hawkesbury River.

Moral: I'm all right, Jack.

EDIT: Actually, I shouldn't call Flannery a 'nitwit'. Anyone who can parlay drooling ignorance into an $2,000/day make-work job clearly has more than a modicum of political skills.

Edited November 30, 2013 by RickBradford

[canuckamuck]

A few years ago my father and I were talking about the global warming fallacy, he said then that it was all rubbish, he went on to say that the weather patterns that we were experiencing at the time we had our conversation (about five years ago) were the same as fifty years ago. All global warming/climate change is, is a way to generate fear amongst the populace, and fear generates money.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I don't like embedding the word 'fear' in this debate, but if you want to, here goes:

Sometimes a bit of fear is a good motivator. Why do people lock the doors on their cars when parked downtown? Fear of getting stuff stolen.

When the extreme storms of recent years hit N.Orleans, NYC and east coast of Philippines, it caused fear among some people. That fear has prompted some action. Examples: N.Orleans has built a higher sea wall. Just yesterday, Phil authorities have declared that no new residences will be allowed to be built along the recently storm-ravaged beaches. One climate change expert (sorry, I don't have his name or specialty on-hand) predicts that roughly half of all construction jobs by 2100 will be in the field of dealing with rising sea issues: He didn't elaborate, but I would guess that translates to sea walls, levies, large pump systems, water gates, etc. Already, London and St. Petersburg and Holland have massive tidal dams built. Bigger dams are planned for Golden Gate region of S.F. and also for the strait of Gibraltar at the opening to the Mediterranean.

Deniers can call it wasteful spending based on fear. Like any municipal projects, there will be gouging on contracts, etc. If the Gibraltar dam gets going, it will be hotly debated, and will be the largest man-made item on the planet. GW Deniers will say it's a big scam. But look at the upside: Such a dam could help protect every seaside city in the Mediterranean - up through the Bosporus in to Ukraine and beyond.

Deniers would say, "NO NO NO, don't do anything to protect against the fallacy of global warming. It's all a scam perpetrated by bad science and scamming scientists!"

So fear (even if it is founded on a lie) is good because you can make people do things they wouldn't choose to do. All former dictators agree.

And what good is this fear doing? You listed a number of projects that are being built because of the fear of sea level rise. So far the sea hasn't risen to match those fear based models. What is it, like 9mm in the last 100 years? What if we start cooling? What a tragic waste of resources. Wouldn't it be better to use resources for things we can prove are beneficial?

[FiftyTwo]

When the extreme storms of recent years hit N.Orleans, NYC and east coast of Philippines, it caused fear among some people. That fear has prompted some action. Examples: N.Orleans has built a higher sea wall. Just yesterday, Phil authorities have declared that no new residences will be allowed to be built along the recently storm-ravaged beaches. One climate change expert (sorry, I don't have his name or specialty on-hand) predicts that roughly half of all construction jobs by 2100 will be in the field of dealing with rising sea issues: He didn't elaborate, but I would guess that translates to sea walls, levies, large pump systems, water gates, etc. Already, London and St. Petersburg and Holland have massive tidal dams built. Bigger dams are planned for Golden Gate region of S.F. and also for the strait of Gibraltar at the opening to the Mediterranean.

Just to point out N.O. isn't a victim of 'climate change'

It's a victim of people building a city on a swamp then pumping all the groundwater out.

[boomerangutang]

I don't like embedding the word 'fear' in this debate, but if you want to, here goes:

Sometimes a bit of fear is a good motivator. Why do people lock the doors on their cars when parked downtown? Fear of getting stuff stolen.

So fear (even if it is founded on a lie) is good because you can make people do things they wouldn't choose to do.

There you go again. Twisting words and phrases, and trying to paint everything as either all black or all white. I prefaced my benign muse with the word 'sometimes' which is a conditional word. Look up; 'conditional.'

Personally, I live free of fear. But I'm a rarity, because nearly everyone has things their afraid of. I don't like bandying the word around, but here we go again:

Fear is a great motivator. It's the reason people build walls around their houses, why they put money in banks, why they fasten seat belts, why they read labels on food items, why they get roofs engineered, ....the list goes on and on. I'd rather use the word 'concern' or the phrase 'common sense.'

Governments do a lot of things which all citizens don't agree with. Indeed, there's probably not a government project anywhere which has across the board approval from everyone. What am I arguing such basic tenets for? It's like trying to talk sense with a 5 yr old. Some deniers are so fixated on being contrarian, that it's almost a joke. However, if the deniers are wrong, the consequences of not being prepared could be calamitous, ....but deniers could never admit being wrong. Impossible.

[boomerangutang]

When the extreme storms of recent years hit N.Orleans, NYC and east coast of Philippines, it caused fear among some people. That fear has prompted some action. Examples: N.Orleans has built a higher sea wall. Just yesterday, Phil authorities have declared that no new residences will be allowed to be built along the recently storm-ravaged beaches. One climate change expert (sorry, I don't have his name or specialty on-hand) predicts that roughly half of all construction jobs by 2100 will be in the field of dealing with rising sea issues: He didn't elaborate, but I would guess that translates to sea walls, levies, large pump systems, water gates, etc. Already, London and St. Petersburg and Holland have massive tidal dams built. Bigger dams are planned for Golden Gate region of S.F. and also for the strait of Gibraltar at the opening to the Mediterranean.

Just to point out N.O. isn't a victim of 'climate change'

It's a victim of people building a city on a swamp then pumping all the groundwater out.

Perhaps not a 'victim' of climate change (did anyone actually say that?) but certainly affected by climate change - big time. It would just burn your biscuit to agree with any of the things mentioned in my prior post, so you had to try to find some dithering little thing to twist and dis. Expected.

[TomTao]

A few years ago my father and I were talking about the global warming fallacy, he said then that it was all rubbish, he went on to say that the weather patterns that we were experiencing at the time we had our conversation (about five years ago) were the same as fifty years ago. All global warming/climate change is, is a way to generate fear amongst the populace, and fear generates money.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I don't like embedding the word 'fear' in this debate, but if you want to, here goes:

Sometimes a bit of fear is a good motivator. Why do people lock the doors on their cars when parked downtown? Fear of getting stuff stolen.

When the extreme storms of recent years hit N.Orleans, NYC and east coast of Philippines, it caused fear among some people. That fear has prompted some action. Examples: N.Orleans has built a higher sea wall. Just yesterday, Phil authorities have declared that no new residences will be allowed to be built along the recently storm-ravaged beaches. One climate change expert (sorry, I don't have his name or specialty on-hand) predicts that roughly half of all construction jobs by 2100 will be in the field of dealing with rising sea issues: He didn't elaborate, but I would guess that translates to sea walls, levies, large pump systems, water gates, etc. Already, London and St. Petersburg and Holland have massive tidal dams built. Bigger dams are planned for Golden Gate region of S.F. and also for the strait of Gibraltar at the opening to the Mediterranean.

Deniers can call it wasteful spending based on fear. Like any municipal projects, there will be gouging on contracts, etc. If the Gibraltar dam gets going, it will be hotly debated, and will be the largest man-made item on the planet. GW Deniers will say it's a big scam. But look at the upside: Such a dam could help protect every seaside city in the Mediterranean - up through the Bosporus in to Ukraine and beyond.

Deniers would say, "NO NO NO, don't do anything to protect against the fallacy of global warming. It's all a scam perpetrated by bad science and scamming scientists!"

Yes, fear can be a motivating force, for both good and bad reasons. Can you remember not living with fear, being able to leave your house and car unlocked without fear of theft? I can. Can you remember when people listened to thier elders talking about how the weather at the time they were talking was just like when they were young so many years ago? That was before scientists were paid to conduct experiments aimed at achieving a result with an agenda, and before the press stopped simply reporting the news instead of sensationalising it. I understand the press has always reported current events in such a way as to sell papers, but not to the extent that is done now.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[FiftyTwo]

When the extreme storms of recent years hit N.Orleans, NYC and east coast of Philippines, it caused fear among some people. That fear has prompted some action. Examples: N.Orleans has built a higher sea wall. Just yesterday, Phil authorities have declared that no new residences will be allowed to be built along the recently storm-ravaged beaches. One climate change expert (sorry, I don't have his name or specialty on-hand) predicts that roughly half of all construction jobs by 2100 will be in the field of dealing with rising sea issues: He didn't elaborate, but I would guess that translates to sea walls, levies, large pump systems, water gates, etc. Already, London and St. Petersburg and Holland have massive tidal dams built. Bigger dams are planned for Golden Gate region of S.F. and also for the strait of Gibraltar at the opening to the Mediterranean.

Just to point out N.O. isn't a victim of 'climate change'

It's a victim of people building a city on a swamp then pumping all the groundwater out.

Perhaps not a 'victim' of climate change (did anyone actually say that?) but certainly affected by climate change - big time. It would just burn your biscuit to agree with any of the things mentioned in my prior post, so you had to try to find some dithering little thing to twist and dis. Expected.

Almost your entire post was about sea level change caused by mankind.

I just pointed out it was complete &lt;deleted&gt;.