There has been NO significant sea level rise in the harbour for the past 120 years, and what little there has been is about the height of a matchbox over a century.
Along the northern beaches of Sydney, at Collaroy there has been no suggestion of any sea level rise there for the past 140 years. Casual observations from Bondi Beach 1875 to the present also suggest the same benign situation.
A rush to judgement by local councils and State Governments by legislating harsh laws and building covenants along our coastlines now seems misplaced.
The falsehoods and mendacity of the IPCC and climate alarmists should be rejected out of hand, and efforts be made to ensure that science, not propaganda, defines our school curricula in matters of climate and sea levels
There is an old fake-science idea doing the rounds again at the moment. This is that cows are culprits in the global warming narrative. The problem, however, is that the scary image of cows destroying the planet with their carbon emissions doesn’t fit with how the planet actually works.
No cow alive today, nor any cow that has ever existed, nor any cow that will ever exist, can add single atom of carbon to the atmosphere that wasn’t already there in the first place.
At one point of the carbon cycle, it is true that cows emit carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) to the atmosphere, each of which contains one atom of carbon. This is a basic fact of biology – but what about some other basic facts to go with it?
It would seem the fact that ruminants emit carbon gases is regarded as the clincher argument by people like Rosemary Stanton and Kris Barnden, who recently published an article on the ABC News website damning cattle. The problem is they fail to put this isolated fact together with others to give it context and, in this way, create a misleading impression. They fail to describe how a cow exists within the carbon cycle. They fail to ask a fundamental question; ‘Is the carbon a cow emits new carbon to the atmosphere?’
FLOODPLAINS ARE PLAINS THAT FLOOD – SURELY THAT ISN’T TOO DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND.
Dr. John Happs
The recent flooding in Queensland has led to the not unexpected hand-wringing and wailing from the usual doomsayers including those green zealots who spread alarm about climate change, extreme weather and how any flooding in Queensland is the direct result of our trivial emissions of carbon dioxide.
Back in 2011 flooding in Queensland was declared the worst in 40 years with more than 26,000 homes impacted and, tragically, 16 people drowned. Green Party leader Bob Brown claimed that the coal mining industry was responsible and should pay for the Queensland flood damage. Seemingly unaware that major floods have always visited Queensland, Brown claimed that:
It’s the single biggest cause – burning coal – for climate change and it must take its major share of responsibility for the weather events we are seeing unfolding now.
Was the recent mass fish-kill in the Menindee Lakes along the Darling River the result of drought or poor water policy in the Murray-Darling Basin?
The mainstream media would have us believe that every drought is now the result of man’s burning of fossil fuels causing “dangerous climate change”. Meanwhile, the Greens are blaming a lack of “environmental flows” for the fish-kill. Read more.
Water conservation peaked in Australia in 1972 – our last big dam was Burdekin Falls Dam in Queensland built 32 years ago.
Elsewhere in Australia, water conservation virtually stopped when Don Dunstan halted the building of Chowilla Dam on the Murray in 1970 and Bob Brown’s Greens halted the Franklin Dam in 1983 (and almost every other dam proposal since then).
The Darling River water management disaster shows that we now risk desperate water shortages because our population and water needs have more than doubled, and much of our stored water has been sold off or released to “the environment”.
However, we regularly see floods of water being shed by the Great Dividing Range, most of it ending up in the Pacific Ocean, while somewhere to the west of that watershed is in severe drought. Then, under what should be called “The Flannery Plan for Water Conservation”, after letting flood waters run into the sea, they build squillion-dollar desalination plants to get water back from the sea.
97% of Aztec priests thought human sacrifice was necessary to end bad weather.
Things are much the same today.
Climate skeptic Tony Heller of Real Climate Science has pointed out parallels between Aztec sacrifices to stop bad weather and the modern global warming movement’s efforts to appease the CO 2 gods. In 1450, Aztec priests encouraged people to sacrifice blood to the gods to end severe drought that was decimating corn crops. They ended up sacrificing thousands of people in a few weeks.
Heller quipped, “Like the Aztecs, many scientists believe that sacrificial offerings are necessary to stabilize climate. But there are some key differences. 1. Aztecs correctly believed that the climate was controlled by the moods of the Sun. Modern climate scientists have not progressed that far yet. 2. Aztec priests believed that only a small percentage of the population needed to be sacrificed, whereas the modern priests believe that everyone (except for themselves) needs to sacrifice.”
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change, Marc Morano, Chapter 16.
Numerous dead fish now floating down the Darling River and in the Menindee Lakes is more evidence that the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) has mismanaged the basin, as the CEC has long documented. So-called “environmental flows” since the MDBA’s notorious “Basin Plan” commenced in 2012 have flushed precious water into swamps and out to sea, and in the process caused riverbank erosion previously never seen. Now there’s no water left when it’s needed most! And the failure to build the Clarence River Scheme—which has been on the books in some form since at least the early 1920s—means that water from the flash flooding that hit the Clarence Valley in October 2018 did not get to flow down the Darling River. Continue reading “Fish kill shows Murray-Darling Basin Authority failure”
The inclusion of unreliable energy sources such as wind and solar (“The Unreliables”) in our supply grids is causing massive fluctuations in electricity dispatch costs from $50-$100/MWh to $14,000/MWh and up to $60,000/MWh in South Australia in the Jan 2019 heat wave (Judith Sloan The Australian Jan 29, 2019) and see the graph below. This ultimately falls on consumer bills. Additionally, the locations for all of these unreliable generation sites are far from current transmission networks and new transmission lines have to be built and footprint cost and capacity factors have to be taken into account. People pushing for “The Unreliables” don’t factor these costs into their costings and neither do government pricing models. Nor do they include all of the subsidies paid to “The Unreliables” plus the state royalties on coal that forced Hazelwood’s closure.
The narrator is Rafe Champion. He has an honours degree in Agricultural Science, a MA in Sociology and a MSc in the History and Philosophy of Science. For some years he was a consultant with the Clean Waterways Programme in the Sydney Water Board. He is working with the Five Dock Climate Realists to produce a series of videos on the impending power crisis.