Great Barrier Reef Doomed says new gospel
Australians simply aren’t panicking enough. After Al Gore’s piece of theatre, Nicholas Stern’s “Pay out 9 trillion or your all dead” and Tim Flannery being appointed Aussie of the Year you’d think we’d get the message.
But no. More obviously needs to be done. Lets see…tell the Aussies that their beloved Great Barrier Reef will cease to exist in 20 years. Now that should bring them to the pews of the Church of Global Warming and Latter Day Alarmists on Sunday
From the Age
THE Great Barrier Reef will become functionally extinct in less than 20 years if global warming continues at its current pace, a draft international report warns.
A confidential draft of the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), obtained by Melbourne’s The Age newspaper, says that global warming will cause billions of dollars of damage to coastal areas, key ecosystems and the farming sector without massive greenhouse gas emission cuts.
Not enough? Try this then. Kakadu and the Murray Darling basin will dry up and the alpine snow field will melt. Snow fields…mmm…that should panic the yuppies.
The fact that the rise in temperature over the past century has been in the order of 0.6C (plus or minus 0.2C) then we are looking at maybe 5 centuries before we have a problem; and that presumes that in all that time the human race couldn’t come up with an answer. They may even come up with a computer model that us sceptics can believe. Even if we double the rise in temperature rate then in 20 years the temperature in the Great Barrier Reef might rise as much as .12C.
The report quoted by the Age is to be released soon by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In looking through the website I can’t see any mention of the Australia-specific disasters and think it may be Liz Minchin’s interpretation in an attempt to convert the public.
Sorry, not panicking or converted yet.
Well said Kev, this is smelling more and more like a witch hunt to me.
If the debate is over and consensus achieved, are they now going to shut the hell up about it?
Some people like to live in minority situations…….apparently. What would it take for you to believe the evidence presented? Mass extinction?
Some evidence to start with. It’s one thing to say that weather is changing; it’s another to say it’s all caused by us.
There are scientific opinions that are not quiet as alarming and some have suggested that a weather cycle, as yet unknown to us, may have some impact as well. At the moment it’s a UN/Greenies cacophony of exaggeration and conjecture and that causes some hesitation in accepting the report at face value.
Where is your evidence that mass extinctions are occurring because of climate change?
The fear mongers are always throwing out lines that hundreds of species are disappearing everyday yet when challenged to name 2 or 3 – blankout.
The fact is species have disappeared and appeared over the eons of time as a fact of nature. It has been forever so.
The climate has also changed over the eons of time being influenced by forces far greater than man can probably ever hope to emulate. Just one volcanic eruption dwarfs the levels of man made emissions into the atmosphere. The mantra here is man-made – bad, nature made – good.
It’s about time these twerps returned to the vagaries of nature and left the rest of us alone.
a UN/Greenies cacophony of exaggeration and conjecture
Have you actually read the scientific reports on climate change? Clearly not. Ah well……God, whomever he/she may be, blesses the ignorant. Apparently.
Kev, you need to watch “An Inconvenient Truth”. Once you do, you will not be able to suggest what we are seeing is a “cycle”; because current atmospheric CO2 is waaaaaay outside the boundaries of the “cycle” we have recorded going back a long long way.
All of that being said, its not important to argue that we are all of the problem, or just some of the problem. The fact is there IS a problem, and we could be doing a hell of a lot more to mitigate it.
“Kev, you need to watch “An Inconvenient Truth”.”
Al Gore …
Sigh, wipes tears of laughter from his eyes …
A report – well actually a 21 page `policy makers’ summary of the first part of a four-part scientific report to be released sometime later this year, has been held up by the usual suspects as supporting the dogma of the new religion of `global warming’ and predictably got the greens and other warming weather wallies all damp and quick breathed.
The IPCC’s political summary was written by policy makers (not climate scientists) from 113 governments who reviewed data selected from a not yet released scientific report.
This report the IPCC tells us will be made public after it’s 600 scientist authors have ‘refined’ their findings so as to comply with the `truths’ included in the summary.
Little Kevvy Rudd the 24/7 air conditioner running, dam blocking ex DFAT womble and Peter `I hate the USA’ Garrett (one of the silliest political appointments in Australian parliamentary history) were like members of Monty Python’s `the Spanish Inquisition’ in Parliament today.
“Skeptics’ they hissed, “dissenters they is” they shrieked, “to the stake to be burnt” – it appears no one must challenge the great wisdom of the Rwanda mass murder complicit, Darfur obfuscating, oil for food money bribed, Iranian nuke ignoring United Nations.
If the UN is so infallible why do the priests of `Global Warming’ in the ALP not accept its report on the number of deaths in Iraq since 2003 instead of the 655,000 figure they chant religiously from that other discredited report?
Because they seek, not the truth about our planet’s future, but merely another stick with which to feebly and predictably attempted to strike at the Howard Government.
Rudd exhorted the members of Parliament to read the IPCC report today – sadly his monotone sotto voce questions showed that it is he who not only has not read the report, but also does not understand it’s genesis.
In fact a detailed look at the IPCC political summary shows the alarmist claims of air conditioner Rudd et al to be fiction – no to Al Gore and `Aussie of the Year’ Flannery’s 6m to 8m sea level rise, the report suggests at most a rise of 18cm or about half the claimed endowment of John Holmes.
The Arctic might be a bit warmer, but for Antarctica no change or colder – the world, the report claims, has `warmed’ overall by approximately 0.74C during the past 100 years.
However, given the maximum temperature recorded yesterday reached 42C at my location, but barely made it to 22C today and is currently sitting at 12C a 0.74 degree fluctuation is insignificant, as is the claimed global temperature rise during the next century of between 1.8C and 4C, we can adapt along with the Great Barrier Reef.
As for the `90% confidence’ that human caused CO2 emissions have caused the 0.74C temperature rise claimed for the last 100 years, the report also states “sensitivity of climate to greenhouse gases may be overestimated …”, by how much we ask – the IPCC however claims not to asign any probability to such estimates!!!!
It also contains many other qualifications regarding; the unreliability of climate models, the inflated economic growth rates used to estimate emissions and particular uncertainties associated with clouds and their interaction with radiation and aerosols.
Perhaps this flawed report serves some purpose as one report amongst thousands addressing the subject of climate change be it to predict cooling, warming or none of the above, but to announce “the debate is over’ after its release is simply stupid.
Speaking of stupid, Rudd’s pitiful parliamentary performance today reminded me of one of Latham’s attempts to mislead parliament which Rudd defended to the death of his credibility.
Latham claimed to have received a lengthy, `full briefing’ on Iraq when it was clear all he was provided with was the short and superficial brief on Pine Gap, ASIO, ASIS, DSD and other security and defence matters customarily provided to a new leader of the opposition.
Rudd’s hubris today further exposed him as weak and as unfit for government as the hand crushing bully boy from Werriwa.
There is no consensus on climate change and its alleged causes except amongst those instituted acolytes selected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The stated aims of the IPCC are to assess scientific information relevant to: human-induced climate change, the impacts of human-induced climate change and options for adaptation and mitigation.
It’s clear that in order to fulfil those `funded’ aims the panel ignores heretical ‘dissenters’ and ‘sceptics’ and chooses to only to listen to those in the scientific chorus that harmonise with its pre-written tune.
We will know when it’s on – when they start selling that useless coastal real estate for a song.
Which will be never….
Peter W. Thanks for some reasoned debate. The crescendo is dying down as we speak as people move onto to fixing existing and believable problems letting the media/ALP/UN circus carry on with their scaremongering.