Ignoring the danger? NASA warning from six years ago on how a hurricane would impact NYC

From Chris Mooney:

In 2007, I published a book called Storm World: Hurricanes, Politics, and the Battle Over Global Warming. It was inspired by what my family had been through in Hurricane Katrina (I’m from New Orleans), but at the end, I looked forward to what other families and other cities might have to experience—if we don’t start to think in a much broader way about our society’s stunning vulnerability to hurricane disasters.

As I wrote:

Even as we act immediately to curtail short-term vulnerability, every exposed coastal city needs a risk assessment that takes global warming scenarios into account…Scientists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York have been studying that city’s vulnerability to hurricane impacts in a changing world, and calculated that with 1.5 feet of sea level rise, a worst-case-scenario Category 3 hurricane could submerge “the Rockaways, Coney Island, much of southern Brooklyn and Queens, portions of Long Island City, Astoria, Flushing Meadows-Corona Park, Queens, lower Manhattan, and eastern Staten Island from Great Kills Harbor north to the Verrazano Bridge.” (Pause and think about that for a second.) 

No need to pause and think any longer—last night, just over five years later, much of it came to pass. And indeed, climate change, a topic embarrassingly ignored in the three recent presidential debates, made it worse. 

Our political leaders and mainstream media continue to ignore climate change – or perhaps even worse, appreciate the gravity of the situation but remain silent for fearing of being labelled alarmist.

Perhaps it is time to for more truth-telling and less reticence.

It is not a case of “we told you so” – it is now time to begin adapting to the Anthropocence.

Tagged , , , ,

111 thoughts on “Ignoring the danger? NASA warning from six years ago on how a hurricane would impact NYC

  1. john byatt says:

    Geoff TCS has had time to send a letter in as a reply to my letter in the port newspaper
    so I have put a comment there, about half hour ago, must still be googling or waiting for instructions from Cox.

  2. EoR says:

    Andrew Bolt is strangely silent on Sandy. As is Jo Nova. Surely they should be pointing out that global warming isn’t real, and now the Evil Climate Scientists (TM) are creating fake superstorms to try and fool the world!!1! And record breaking droughts. And floods.

    It appears only Watts is maintaining the valiant struggle, urging his disciples to disprove global warming by voting in an online opinion poll. That’ll stick it to those lefty commie pinko UN World Government overlords!!1!

    • When the real world intrudes and shatters their bubble of denial they go silent. Give them a week.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Actually we’re watching you guys make prats of yourselves, falling over each other in your enthusiasm to pin tropical storm Sandy on global warming. Next will come the overenthusiastic predictions “its the first of many more like it, if we don’t do anything”. You can’t help it – its what you believe.

        The ultimate outcome, when weather settles back into normal outcomes, will be even less enthusiasm and faith in your bizarre doomsday cult. The first time you predict the coming of Jesus, people listen. But after half a dozen bad calls, you become a laughing stock.

        And your fellow travellers have made hundreds of bizarre claims. People notice, you know. http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

        Ever wonder why politicians don’t want to talk about global warming? Its because, in a lot of people’s minds, talk of global warming is associated in people’s minds with hyped, exaggerated claims, and two faced politicians jumping on the bandwagon to find excuses for new regulations and higher taxes.

      • john byatt says:

        It was the same with the Arctic melt, then they grasped at the straw of sea ice in the southern hemisphere.

      • Nick says:

        Hey,Eric,your supreme leader Watts [now we’re looking at a real prat] has posted a list claiming that some prominent commentators and scientists say that Sandy was ’caused by’ global warming. He provides a link with each name to the places where he claims the proof of his charge lies.

        Thing is, none of the accused say anything of the sort. All their remarks state unambiguously that AGW has quite likely enhanced the storms potential,but not caused it. You know,the line that Trenberth has been saying for a few years.

        Most of the blithering monkeys of Wattsiland will not challenge his lie…what has the world come to,Eric? Do you know what ’caused’ and ‘contribute’ means,Eric? Do you need help with distinctions? Do you need help telling the truth?

  3. john byatt says:

    Updated list

    read the comments from that wuwt bootlicker imbecile Smokey


      • Eric Worrall says:

        Let me know when Briffa’s latest paper is added to the list – you know, the paper which demonstrates that the current warming is not unprecedented, and that natural variation is capable of producing warming events of the same magnitude as today’s warming.

      • Nick says:

        Melvin and Briffa 2012—[hey,why doesn’t Melvin get a credit in your campaign,Eric?]—will be added to the list. Either Ari will do it himself,or you are free to suggest it to him.

        The paper’s findings cannot be extrapolated to make blanket claims like yours…please try [READ THE PAPER] and respect the findings of the authors: they wrote the paper,you did not. You are not allowed to free-associate/extrapolate wildly/MAKE SHIT UP from their conclusions. What is about Wattsians and their limited reading ability?

      • Nick says:

        What is it about ‘regional’ you don’t understand ,Eric? What sort of person extrapolates from one [1] site in Fennoscandinavia to the entire northern hemisphere or the globe? Melvin and Briffa do not…and they did the leg work. So what makes you feel entitled? I could suggest intellectual dishonesty, or reading problems,a little desperation? What say you? Just cheeky high spirits?

        They talk about warmth equivalence between periods for the region of study only. I’ve no problem understanding that. You, on the other hand….

        Maybe if you showed some interest in studies that discuss why the high Atlantic and northern Europe show apparent periods of local variation out of sync with other parts of the NH,you wouldn’t try this sort of malarkey on. But you are probably not aware of that work’s existence.

      • Nick says:

        Interesting paper,Eric it does not show that your ‘global’ fantasy event was synchronous…according to their Figure 6,the period that represents the MWP is from about 1100-1450AD… Melvin and Briffa 2012 talk of warmth equiv to 2nd half 20thC at around 900-1100AD….hmmm. It pays to read,E. The abstract mentions ‘qualitative’ support for the effects of the MWP and the LIA to extend to the AP…’qualitative’ > not certain. With caveats. etc.

        Lead author Lu also released a statement calling out several media organisations for misinterpretations of his papers reach [like MB2012,just one site] and findings He said “the results should not be extrapolated to make assumptions about climate conditions across the entire globe.” But again,why listen to the lead author and his team of ocean geochemistry phDs? WTF would he know, when Anthony has his hand up your bum?

        And don’t the climate people keep telling you that strong regional variation is well known from the palaeo and geological record,and that the implications for climate sensitivity are not what you Wattsbots would like.

    • Nick says:

      Oh,that is priceless stupidity! Smokey is on fire! Pretty immoderate for a ‘moderator’.

  4. Eric Worrall says:

    Ha ha, Nick thinks Briffa is now a denier – he joined the dark side.

  5. Eric Worrall says:

    Still its getting interesting, isn’t it?

    Here’s a Climategate email, which indicates Briffa et al were aware that there were strong indications that the MWP and LIA were global, at the same time as they were trying to tell us it was a regional event.


    Hi Keith [Briffa], Here is the Oroko Swamp RCS chronology plot in an attached Word 98 file and actual data values below. It certainly looks pretty spooky to me with strong “Medieval Warm Period” and “Little Ice Age” signals in it. It’s based on substantially more replication than the series in the paper you have to review (hint, hint!).

    Oroko Swamp is in New Zealand.

    I wonder what was meant about the replication comment?

    So we have 3 regions which show similar periods of warming, at least one region of which (according to Briffa) got as warm as today. Shall I look for some more?

    • zoot says:

      Stop it Eric or you’ll go blind.

    • Nick says:

      What was ‘spooky’ for that emailer was that they actually managed to find at this SH site some—some– rough correlation with NH MWP and LIA time periods,NOT THE ACTUAL MAGNITUDE OF THE WARMTH. D’ya understand ,Eric?

      Cook et al 2002 at Oroko show that modern warming is greater than in the MWP they detected. Their MWP only exceeded LIA warmth between 1100 and 1300 AD and was matched by warming in 1500AD—post MWP by definition— and the early 1800s—ditto. The warm spikes are dwarfed by 20th C warming in Oroko. The coldest periods were the century 1000 to 1100AD–when the MWP should have been well started,then the early 1500s and around 1600,all of these periods colder than the LIA signal they detected. . IT’S A HOCKEY STICK.

      Which you’d know anyway if you acknowledged the glacial retreats in NZs Southern Alps.

      Why don’t you read papers,Eric,if you insist on citing them?

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Briffa’s re-analysis shows previous analysis may have been wrong, due to uncorrected bias in the proxy data.

        So lets sum up:-

        We have at least one substantial region (the arctic) which, according to Briffa, was as warm as today.

        We have warming signals from distant locations showing the MWP was global, though we are not certain if other regions were as warm as today.

        Taken together, these points cast doubt on claims that the current warming is “unprecedented”, and strengthen the case that natural variation can cause warming events of the same magnitude as today’s warming.

        Obviously this is not proof that today’s warming is a natural event – but it does indicate a requirement for a better explanation of how natural variation can produce warming events of a similar magnitude to today’s warming (at least in some regions), and how we can reliably distinguish between natural and anthropogenic warming.

      • john byatt says:

        No eric we have been through this. it was the MXD that was biased, the study confirmed the TRW data which we have known about for years, nothing has changed except confirmation of the tree ring data.

        this is not hard eric

      • Nick says:

        No Eric, you cannot extrapolate Tornetrask summers to be representative of the whole Arctic all year. If so,Melvin and Briffa could have and possibly would have made such a claim…please don’t make stuff up.

  6. catweazle666 says:

    So a tropical storm hit New York, not even a hurricane, and you are all getting orgasmic and claiming it’s incontrovertible proof of AGW, right?

    Perhaps i should point out that it is not the first, nor the worst such event to occur to that city, for example the 1938 event – prior to the generally accepted commencement of anthropogenic influences on climate – was considerably more damaging, as was at least one 19th century event.

    Here’s a list.


    Further, as Sandy was no longer classed as a hurricane when it made landfall in the US, it did not conclude the period, now in excess of seven years, since the last time a hurricane made landfall.

    I suggest that you avail yourselves of the IPCC SREX report, and read, mark, learn and inwardly digest its contents.

    Incidentally, your clearly obvious satisfaction and lack of compassion for the victims at this occurrence does you no favours, and reflects badly on you and the Warmist community as a whole.

    • zoot says:

      So a tropical storm hit New York, not even a hurricane, and you are all getting orgasmic and claiming it’s incontrovertible proof of AGW, right?

      What is it with trolls and their comprehension? Do they all have English as a second language?

    • Catweazle

      No, we are not claiming that Sandy was caused by your 4×4. But the size of sandy is influenced by the warmth of the sea that it passed over. This is due to a positive phase of the AMO, but as the oceans warm, more positive phases are to be expected. Its path is influenced by the shape of the jet stream, which is influenced by a blocking high over Greenland way, which is influenced by the Arctic warming that we have witnessed this year.

      We have compassion for the all victims of Sandy, including those in the Caribbean.

      I hope this helps.

    • EoR says:

      So a tropical storm hit New York, not even a hurricane

      So why was it called Hurricane Sandy?

      Also, it may have only been category 1, but it’s most energetic tropical cyclone in history.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        It was a cyclone, but it ran out of puff before it hit New York. Still caused a substantial storm surge though, which is why the flooding is happening.

      • Nick says:

        Oh,Eric,that is a silly comment. If you followed the details the storm actually intensified in the last twelve hours as it gained energy from the trough to the north west. A record low pressure was set at Atlantic City.

        The storm surge was caused by wind field strength and width,compounded by low barometric pressure lifting the sea surface..It may not have carried the point wind speeds of 1893 or 1821,but it’s clear they were much smaller,tighter circulations. Sandy carried more energy in a much broader strong circulation, damaging and frequently destroying shorefront property over a thousand kilometer length of coastline. That scale was enabled by sea warmth,enhanced by atmospheric moisture potential …and sea level rise,which is in the order of 30 to 50cm in that region in the last 150 years. No, the storm was a typical hurricane season creation,but it certainly got a leg up from anthropogenic influence.

      • Nick says:

        Jeff Masters points out that the path of the storm in its last day was unusual,and that its very existence as a powerful storm was unusual for late October,so it’s not such a typical creation as I claim. He also goes into some detail on the blocking high that set the continental trough to meet up with Sandy:Arctic sea ice loss.

  7. James says:

    It was inevitable that the desperate climate warmists would clutch at Sandy as ‘evidence of man made global warming. But it is ridiculous to read that silence on Sandy from the skeptics on Sandy must be proof that they have been outflanked or snookered. Why would it occur to the skeptics to say anything when there is clearly no connection to climate change. Do they comment on every tropical or extra tropical storm?

    I am gratified to at least see many climate scientists come out in the face of outlandish claims that Sandy has anything whatsoever to do with human caused or natural climate change. There was no point in me parapfrasing the following which says it all:

    Martin Hoerling, a meteorologist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration focused on the forces influencing extreme weather, sent this note:

    Great events can have little causes. In this case, the immediate cause is most likely little more that the coincidental alignment of a tropical storm with an extratropical storm. Both frequent the west Atlantic in October…nothing unusual with that. On rare occasions their timing is such as to result in an interaction which can lead to an extreme event along the eastern seaboard. As to underlying causes, neither the frequency of tropical or extratropical cyclones over the North Atlantic are projected to appreciably change due to climate change, nor have there been indications of a change in their statistical behavior over this region in recent decades (see IPCC 2012 SREX report).

    So, while it will rain like “black cats and Frankenweenies” over the midatlantic, this is not some spell conjured upon us by great external forces….unless you believe in the monster flicks of Universal Studios fame!

    • Nick says:

      All very good,James,except no one has claimed that Sandy was caused by AGW.
      That’s strawman work from the Watts axis.

      • James says:

        You are kidding Nick? These pages are full of ‘new normal’, ‘climate change’, ”deniers quiet on Sandy’ etc etc all alluding to Sandy being evidence of AGW.

      • Nick says:

        James, there is a difference between “AGW contributed to the storms effect” and saying “AGW caused the storm”…can you pick it? Watts has been lying with breathtaking abandon about climate scientists comments on the storm… either he’s a bit simple or he’s off on the Big Lie strategy again.

        Lots of storms travel those paths:it is typical of cyclones in the west Atlantic.Why would it not be? But it covered above average SSTs in its northernmost days,and it got fed by a continental trough that may well have had extra oomph from jet stream distortion and Arctic warming. The Arctic is a lot warmer than most people appreciate,and less sea ice in summer is changing the Arctic sea and uncovering it to release more energy to the atmosphere..where it energises weather patterns.

  8. john byatt says:

    catz “Further, as Sandy was no longer classed as a hurricane when it made landfall in the US, it did not conclude the period, now in excess of seven years, since the last time a hurricane made landfall.”

    that is deep denial, Sandy does not count, brilliant

    What the deniers hate is that the discussion is even taking place about the role of climate change and sandy,

    they know that they have taken a king hit over Sandy, basically in damage control big time.

    more to come, the new normal

    • eworrall1 says:

      That’s what Al Gore thought in the wake of Katrina. He was wrong.

      So talk it up guys – every lie, every exageration, helps us to defeat you.

      We don’t need “a big oil funded climate denial machine”, when you guys are doing it all for us.

      • Nick says:

        The big oil funded lie machine exists –it files tax returns– and it doesn’t just attack on the climate front. It’s a common-or-garden variety lobby effort with the intent of keeping its community granted benefits no matter how unnecessary,paying as little as possible and generally behaving in a FU way to state and federal needs.

        Then there are chumps like you who argue gratis against their own interests because you’ve bought some of the deranged Randian fantasy that motivates modern Republicanism.. You’ve heard the expression ‘cut off your nose to spite your face’…that’s very much what the deregulators are doing. You do know what Romney/Ryan propose for emergency management and NOAA don’t you? They’ll make it harder to respond to weather-caused problems,whether AGW influences them or not.

        • James says:

          “The big oil funded lie machine” – another climate alarmist conspiracy theory which Lewandowsky failed to list.

  9. john byatt says:

    Geoff Brown TCS does not wish to offer free speech on his blog anymore,

    this was his reply to my letter that appeared in the port Macquarie newspaper

    classic geoff reply

    One has only to look at the name of our AEC registered party to see that Mr Batty cannot quote the full party name nor get the correct spelling of Sceptic. The name of the party is the NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics. The rest of his letter contains similar inaccuracies.
    Geoff Brown
    NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics

  10. john byatt says:

    Geoff brown’s new blog TCS policy?

    All agreeing comments published after moderation.
    Comments should be polite, and respect our views.
    No bad language. Facts never make it!

  11. john byatt says:

    Wondered where on earth Geoff TCS got his nonsense post in defense of the allan Jones moronic lack of understanding about Australian GHG contribution

    It was a blog comment from cohenite , Anthony Cox


  12. EoR says:

    Governor Andrew M. Cuomo: “Anyone who says there’s not a dramatic change in weather patterns, I think, is denying reality.”

  13. James says:

    Nick on your connection between Sandy and AGW supposedly contributing to it – show us the scientific evidence. Not the “may well haves”.

    I love it how people say this is ‘exactly what was predicted’ and go to a section of IPCC AR4 to quote a bit about where we were warned that storm surges would become more of a problem. It was written so that virtually any extreme weather event could be blamed on AGW – hot, cold, wet, dry, snow, wind, you name it! But of course they don’t point out the thousand and one predictions made in the same report that haven’t been happening, or we have had the opposite happen. Global temperature rise, glacier melts, Antarctic ice, number and intensity of hurricanes, droughts in various parts of the world, lack of snow in other parts, sea level rises, you name it. The IPCC AR4 has become like the Bible or the Quran, you can find a passage which will support whatever position you want to take! And it involves about as much blind faith too!

    • john byatt says:

      IPCC model predictions that have eventuated
      That the globe would warm, and about how fast, and about how much.
      That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.
      That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.
      That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.

      Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).
      That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.
      The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
      They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.

      They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.
      The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.
      The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.
      The expansion of the Hadley cells.

      The poleward movement of storm tracks.
      The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.
      The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.
      The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.
      That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase.

      denier predictions that have eventuated

      FUCK ALL

      • Eric Worrall says:

        You forgot to add “Himalayan glaciers will all melt in 35 years”.

      • john byatt says:

        Shit it is two years since we put this to bed ,

        read the full text,

        do we really have to chase it up again

        you find it this time eric full text from IPCC ,

      • James says:

        The above list is inaccurate and exaggerated and does not prove any connection between Sandy and AGW, But you can keep obfuscating if it makes you feel better. It isn’t up to those who you term ‘deniers’ to make any predictions, just to ask that those who claim human greenhouse emissions will cause ‘catastrophic’ climate change actually provide scientific evidence to prove that is so, and empirical evidence to prove their modelling has been correct. They have done neither.

        I have no problem agreeing that human greenhouse gas emissions will cause some initial warming, but given science is still a long way from working out the net effect of positive and negative feedback mechanisms, much of which are not even included in the climate models as the IPCC concludes they are “poorly understood”, we are a long way from being able to make a conclusive connection between Sandy and AGW.

      • john byatt says:

        And eric is a person that laps up WUWT’s errors every day


      • john byatt says:

        What is it about eric and james that they cannot follow a simple debate
        james “But of course they don’t point out the thousand and one predictions made in the same report that haven’t been happening, ”

        give him list of predictions that have eventuated

        jumps to

        “does not prove any connection between Sandy and AGW”

        who said it did, were you born stupid ?

      • john byatt says:

        James, you are claiming some type of religious doctrine that we can increase the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere with little effect to the temperature of the planet

        this is straight from creation science 101

        The physics rule it not some magic planet that knows the temperature that humans like

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Not so. The physics suggest CO2 should cause around 1c warming / doubling, from just the CO2 forcing itself. Everything else – the feedback mechanisms – is uncertain.

          Alarmists take the view the basic 1c / doubling will be amplified by water vapour.

          Skeptics like Lindzen take the view that any increase in water vapour is more likely to form more clouds, increasing the Earth’s albedo, and reducing the actual warming below 1c / doubling.

    • Nick says:

      Maybe you’d like to list “the 1001 predictions made in AR4 that haven’t happened or the opposite occurred” Should be easy if they are so numerous and you are so familiar with the work…..

      The IPCC reports are not bibles but periodic revised and expanded repositories for a lot of research that is then integrated and brought a little closer to the general public’s reach and attention. Not all research gets in.

      Bibles don’t get revised,just translated.

      Climate change is an evolving reality with an evolving discussion,and before evolutions of climate there are discussion papers built on observed and predicted change and modelling study. There’s a lot of post 2006 [AR4 deadline] papers on the connections and mechanisms. They will always be cautiously framed discussions. There are really too many papers to list.

      These changes in circulation were being discussed in the late 1990s in works like Fyfe et al 1999,Thompson et al 2000,Gillett et al 2002. There is a host of more specific study of the Arctic Oscillation and relationships with neighbouring climate modes since then. there’s also over a decades work on ice-albedo feedbacks

      “Does Arctic Amplification Fuel Extreme Weather in Mid-latitudes” was a recent pre-pub talk by Dr Jennifer Francis of Rutgers. and her paper “The Recent Shift in Early Summer Arctic Atmospheric Circulation”.

      She had a piece back in March in online mag Yale e360. “Linking Weird Weather to Rapid Warming of the Arctic” where she discusses where the extra energy released from unfrozen Arctic waters goes, working up more blocking events that affect mid latitudes…which is what has contributed to Sandy’s track and melding with a continental trough.

      At the base of all this is the physics of GHGs,the effect of adding more of them and their relative properties ,persistence and distribution. Which leads to the changes that warming allows in atmospheric moisture potential, changes in albedo from warming allows in energy gain and distribution and what happens when oceans warm.

      if a sea-ice change mediated increase in blocking events–static highs/lows,slower movement of highs and lows relative to a given point on the surface–causes jet stream excursions north and south to accommodate the change,then we get odd weather. Intense wet spells,longer wet spells,sudden droughts etc. Then powerful moving point events like tropical cyclones run up against these blocking events or fall in with systems that are more static than usual. Sandy should have recurved away over the N Atlantic like most storms hitting a more predictable ridging tendency in mid -latitudes.

  14. john byatt says:


    A paragraph in the 938-page 2007 Working Group II report (WGII) included a projection that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035. This projection WAS NOT INCLUDED in the final summary for policymakers which highlighted the importance of the glaciers for freshwater availability,


  15. James says:

    John Byatt quoted me “does not prove any connection between Sandy and AGW” and then stated:
    “who said it did, were you born stupid ?”

    Firstly John, it doesn’t take any intellect to sling an insult, so I assume all of yours is on display and do wonder about the occasional requests to “keep it polite” on this site. Or does that only apply to those who don’t agree with the believers?

    Secondly, the connection between Sandy and anthropogenic global warming has been made continuously over the last couple of days or so in the media and at this site. Here are just some examples from this site:

    Three new Posts recently – ‘The New Normal’ Nos. 24, 25 and 26: ‘New Normal’ posts have been used at WTD to highlight anything from extreme weather events, coral bleaching, reduction in ice coverage and this time Hurricane Sandy which we are told are totally or largely the result of anthropogenic global warming.

    And then there were these:

    The content of these posts were clearly about the connection between Sandy and climate change and the latter being caused by AGW. To claim otherwise would be too coy by half especially if you care to trawl through the readers comments and see them make the connections too. But I won’t bore readers by doing that!

    John Byatt, you often tell us that you live in tropical Queensland. That you don’t need air-conditioning, and you’ll be going totally solar soon (with connection to mains as back up no doubt). And also with the benefit of all the goodies which hydrocarbons have helped produce to make your house and life-style comfortable. You also have a small pool for those warm days. That is all wonderful. The irony is that the climate which you enjoy is much warmer than the climate most of the world is running scared of. The Queensland tropics are ideal for human, plant, terrestrial and marine life; and yet it is much, much warmer than the dizzy heights of global average temperatures which you wish to save the world from.

    Would it actually be so bad if the earth warmed a little more and those poor souls who spend much of their year bunkered up against the harsh cold weather, unable to grow anything, who share their shelter with their livestock to stay alive, were able to enjoy some of the comforts which you take for granted?

    If Global Average temperatures fell by 1.0C – 1.5C causing tree growth to stunt, livestock to die, harvests to fail, humans to suffer from famine and disease wiping out more than a third of the world’s population, not to mention the impact on the environment, wouldn’t you want the planet to warm up again? Of course you would! At least a compassionate person would.

    Well the fact is the Earth did suffer a global cooling called the Little Ice Age (LIA), which did bring on the calamity described above. The crazy thing is that the recovery from the Little Ice Age (LIA) is now being painted as a bad thing. And because the timing roughly coincided with human industrialisation, this warming is being mostly attributed to the rise in atmospheric CO2; even though CO2 levels are poorly correlated with global average temperatures, as evidenced by no rise in temperatures over the last 16 years. Meanwhile climate science is only just beginning to understand some of the other natural variables which impact on our climate and which are not properly factored into climate models upon which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change rely so heavily. This is an absurd situation.

    Human instrumental temperature records only date back to about 1880 just after industrialisation got started, but also around when the Little Ice Age ended. Is it any wonder the Earth has gradually warmed since then? When you understand the timing and impact of the Little Ice Age, then ‘sensational’ quotes like “the last decade was the warmest on record”, not only make sense, but are completely unremarkable.
    The Little Ice Age was a time of cooler climate in most parts of the world. Although there is some disagreement about exactly when the Little Ice Age started, proxy records combined with historical records suggest that temperatures began cooling around 1250 A.D. The coldest time was during the 16th and 17th Centuries. By around 1850 or so the climate began to warm.

    During the Little Ice Age, average global temperatures were 1-1.5 degree Celsius (2-3 degrees Fahrenheit) cooler than they are today. The cooler temperatures were caused by a combination of less solar activity and large volcanic eruptions. Cooling caused glaciers to advance and stunted tree growth. Livestock died, harvests failed, and humans suffered from famine and disease.

    The cooling affected areas around the world but we have the most written records of how it changed daily life in Europe. Some of the records and events that occurred during the Little Ice Age include:
    • Most areas currently covered by sea ice remained covered for at least 3 – 5 weeks longer then compared to now.
    • Fishermen reported much larger amounts of sea ice and ice bergs in the North Atlantic.
    • British people saw Inuits (Eskimos) paddling canoes off the coast of England.
    • Alpine (mountain) glaciers grew larger and in some cases, the ice engulfed mountain villages.
    • Winters were longer and growing seasons shorter according to tree ring data and records of cherry tree flowerings as well as written records.
    • Wet weather caused disease that affected people, animals and crops including the bubonic plague. This disease killed more than a third of Europeans.
    • Farms and villages in Northern Europe were deserted because the farmers couldn’t grow crops in the cooler climate. During the harshest winters, bread had to be made from the bark of trees because grains would no longer grow.
    • Limited crops and unhealthy livestock caused famine in areas of northern and Eastern Europe.

    So when someone tries to shock me by telling me how much the Earth has warmed in the last 130 years, or how this decade is the warmest on record, I respond by saying “since 1880, of course it is, and thank goodness for that!”

    Human greenhouse gas emissions may have contributed a small amount of warming, but until scientists are able to tell me to a reasonably provable margin what the net effect of additional greenhouse gases (which after all are simply being returned to the atmosphere when we burn fossil fuels), are; and what global average temperature is the most desirable for the planet based on some proper analysis, rather than just saying we want things to stay the same (which will never happen), then I cannot see a morally or scientifically justifiable reason to reduce CO2 emissions or to tax emissions or trade in emission credits.

    Yes I care for the environment, I care about biodiversity, these are issues I have been tackling most of my life. And yes, I have children and grand children and I care about their future!

    • john byatt says:

      I do not live in tropical Queensland,

      I do not suffer fools

      Of course Sandy was bigger and stronger due to AGW

      Now try to read and digest

      What is it about eric and james that they cannot follow a simple debate
      james “But of course they don’t point out the thousand and one predictions made in the same report that haven’t been happening, ”

      give him list of predictions that have eventuated

      jumps to

      “does not prove any connection between Sandy and AGW”

      who said it did, were you born stupid ?

      who said that the list of predictions that eventuated proved the connection between sandy and AGW

      no one

      • Eric Worrall says:

        I wish you could see how silly you sound. You’re basically saying there isn’t a proven connection, but we’re going to hype it up anyway, because in the future there might be a connection.

        People can see through this sophistry – they aren’t fools. Every day city dwelling Americans have to deal with lunes wearing sandwich boards predicting the end of days, and what they’re hearing from you is not terribly different.

      • James says:

        John you stated “I do not live in tropical Queensland,”

        Do you care to tell us roughly where in Queensland you do live so we can quibble about what represents ‘tropical Queensland’? Because ‘have a high confidence level’ of belief in recalling one of your comments where you talk about living in Queensland, going totally solar, having a small pool, (for your wife of course not for you), and within that comment you mentioned the word tropic or tropics. I can’t be bothered finding which post it was in, but if you don’t live in ‘Tropical Queensland’ then you are only playing semantics anyway because you will live in the sub-tropics and the entire content of the rest of my comment stands – you live in an environment at an average temperature far higher than the global average temperature you and the IPCC are telling us we should fear. You live in an environment which would be the envy of many people who live in colder, harsher, drier, climates but you want to reduce their ability to be comfortable at a reasonable cost – something you take for granted.

      • john byatt says:

        I said that i have spent half my life in QLD, even in the tropics
        I did not say that i spent half my life in the tropics

        ARE you kidding we are looking at heat waves of 40DegC lasting over a week
        going from one day a year to nine days a year

        most people do not live in the tropics, I spent time at manus island that is a fucking sauna and you reckon it would be great


  16. James says:

    Nick, in response to your: “Maybe you’d like to list “the 1001 predictions made in AR4 that haven’t happened or the opposite occurred”

    That would be a much longer and far more detailed comment than the one above and I doubt most if any of the people here will read the one above, so I’m hardly going to waste further effort. Clearly “one thousand and one” is an expression used to describe A LOT. But the number is probably closer than the date at which the Himalayan glaciers were said to potentially disappear.

    But anyone who is up to date on these matters will know that for instance the current global average temperature isn’t anywhere near the projections for the climate model scenarios where CO2 emissions continued not just unabated but to rise exponentially. Nor are sea levels. Antarctic Ice has not done as anticipated, not have hurricanes. With regards to coral reefs results are conflicting around the world and migration is happening faster than anyone anticipated. Recovery from bleaching events is faster than predicted and growth in reefs in some areas is seeing coral attolls which were supposed to be sinking stabilise.

    Of course the high priests of climate in Australia and around the world who have used the IPCC reports as their bibles have continuously made predictions and pronouncements which have been found to be wrong or had to be later withdrawn or weasled out of.

    I shouldn’t have to remind readers of all of those because they are well documented, but at present we have over $10 billion dollars invested in mothballed desalination plants and most dams at healthy levels which we were told would never fill again because Australia was in a permanent drought. Meanwhile we didn’t build dams to mitigate flood because we were told the rains wouldn’t come, so we had billions of dollars of property damage and avoidable erosion, and lost cheaper, environmentally friendlier sources of water.

    I could go on, but it’s late!

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Here’s one of my favourite Climategate emails – CRU Climate scientists taking direction from the World Wildlife Foundation, on the level of exaggeration to put into their presentations, to avoid embarrassing the wild claims of the Australian CSIRO:-


      They are worried that this may present a slightly more conservative
      approach to the risks than they are hearing from CSIRO. In particular,
      they would like to see the section on variability and extreme events
      beefed up if possible.

      • Nick says:

        It’s not the first example of an exchange where climate specialists think that some sections are underdone. To you, its ‘exaggerate’. To others, it’s ‘reflect the reality’.

        You’ve introduced that email selection with clear bias: you’ve already decided that beefing up means ‘exaggerating’,when it could just as easily mean ‘give substance’.

      • john byatt says:

        Exactly Nick

        Beef something up
        to add strength or substance to something. Let’s beef this music up with a little more on the drums. They beefed up the offer with another thousand dollars

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Nice try, but no.

          They were worried the CRU position represented a slightly more conservative view than CSIRO statements on extreme weather, and wanted the CRU scientists to increase the level of alarmism, to ensure the CSIRO publicly supported their position.

      • Nick says:

        Once again,Eric,you cannot pretend to not have prejudged the remarks.

    • john byatt says:

      James “But anyone who is up to date on these matters will know that for instance the current global average temperature isn’t anywhere near the projections for the climate model scenarios”

      all that proves is that you do not follow the models, projections and temp are well within confidence levels

      In other words you are writing crap

      “most dams at healthy levels which we were told would never fill again because Australia was in a permanent drought.

      who told you that?

      see James you just regurgitate the crap you are fed, you do not do your own research.


      • James says:

        OK John, you tell us which models based on exponential increase in CO2 emissions projected stable global average temperatures for the last 16 years?

        Have a read of the climate modelling in the IPCC Reports at http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_first_assessment_1990_wg1.shtml#.UJM_dm-85yx then compare it to the empirical evidence. They are nowhere near the confidence levels. When climate spin sites claim they are, they use the confidence intervals of projections based on CO2 emissions being reduced, not substantially increased! So yes, current global temperatures are within the confidence intervals of one climate modelling scenario, it’s just the wrong one!

        The IPCC models predicted in 1990 with a high degree of confidence (described as “very accurate”, that if CO2 emissions stayed the same then temperatures would rise by 0.3 C per decade, and would be at the very least 0.2, and the most 0.5. Of course CO2 emissions have increased at a much greater rate and temperatures haven’t increased at all. So no – not within confidence levels John!

        Also, you prove my comment about dams wrong i.e. “most dams are at healthy levels.” Of course I know there are exceptions – that is why I wrote most – not all. So pointing out the exceptions won’t do it!

        Of course, being good politicians, they have good CYA statements in their reports so that just about every eventuality can be claimed to be ‘as predicted’, but it is of course, extremely unscientific. An example for instance is:

        “There are many uncertainties in our predictions particularly with regard to the timing, magnitude and regional patterns of climate change, due to our
        incomplete understanding of:
        • sources and sinks of greenhouse gases, which affect
        predictions of future concentrations
        • clouds, which strongly influence the magnitude of
        climate change
        • oceans, which influence the timing and patterns of
        climate change
        • polar ice sheets which affect predictions of sea level
        These processes are already partially understood, and we are confident that the uncertainties can be reduced by further research However, the complexity of the system means that we cannot rule out surprises”

        This allows cheerleaders like yourself to say that everything is going according to predictions no matter what happens. But it is hard for even the IPCC ideologues to avoid putting their heads in the noose from time to time as they did with this quote from the above referenced WG1 report.

        “Our judgement is that:
        • Global – mean surface air temperature has increased by 0 3°C to 0 6°C over the last 100 years, with the five global-average warmest years being in the 1980s Over the same period global sea level has increased by 10-20cm These increases have not been smooth with time, nor uniform over the globe.
        • The size of this warming is broadly consistent with predictions of climate models, but it is also of the same magnitude as natural climate variability. Thus the observed increase could be largely due to this natural variability, alternatively this variability and other human factors could have offset a still larger human-induced greenhouse warming. The unequivocal detection of the enhanced greenhouse effect from observations is not likely for a decade or more.”

        So in their own report in 1990 the IPCC have admitted that the magnitude of the warming experienced over the last 100 years is the same as can be expected from ‘natural climate variability’. But they indicated that in their judgement, based on their modelling, they would get unequivocal detection of the enhanced greenhouse effect (by their definition caused by humans), in a decade or more.

        So it’s nearly 13 years since then and global average temperatures have remained stable. That is hardly living up to their expectations!

    • Nick says:

      You ‘could go on’—but you can’t because you are just repeating superficial talking points, all just as rhetorical as ‘1001 examples’.

      The most absurd claim is we didn’t build flood mitigation dams because we were told the rains wouldn’t come. Ignoring the ludicrously false claims,what if we take some of that statement at face value? How quickly are dams planned proven up built and commissioned? All large dam building of the last half century has been dual purpose: water supply AND flood mitigation. So that’s bullshit as a premise. Then you need to nominate where the new dams sites are that will justify the economics of being built solely for flood mitigation. How much agricultural land will be compromised by being used as a retention basin now and then,as well as the outright and ongoing costs?

      Where are the dam sites that are being ignored? Don’t you realise that if a site is genuinely good for a dam,it has already been used? Or have the engineers over the last century been that stupid?

      What happened on the Murrumbidgee at the end of 2010 saw a swing from the depths of drought to enormous flooding through record rainfalls in a La Nina. Without the dam infrastructure built from the 1920s through to the 1970s,the flood would have been a record breaker.instead of being merely severe. Tell me how you would have mitigated that flood further,with infrastructure and sites of your choice.

  17. john byatt says:

    James here is the model update end of 2011


    point out why the projections are not within 95% confidence level

    you claimed that you were told that dams would never fill again due to a permanent drought

    I asked you who told you that, you ducked the question,

    IPCC 1990, no wonder you lot have lost all credibility

    IPCC AR4 got sea level rise wrong also, if you ignore the caveat

    cut our throat or what?

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Oh the hilarious spread bet again – any warming between near zero to 0.8c is within the “95% confidence trick” band.

      • john byatt says:

        Thought that you may have had a basic understanding,

        but it is not zero warming is it? the range allows for ENSO and solar

        If you wish to disregard the back to back LA ninas, then be consistent and ignore the 1998 EL nino, this is what you people do not get,
        you claim that the science ignores the natural variability but over and over again we see that it is the deniers who ignore that,

        the models remain within the 95% probability range, they actual give me cause for concern that we may be underestimating Climate sensitivity.


  18. john byatt says:

    So here are a few things that are all equally true, conveniently plotted for your amusement:

    The linear trend in HadCRUT4 from August 1997 to August 2012 (181 months) is 0.03ºC/decade (blue) (In GISTEMP it is 0.08ºC/decade, not shown).

    The trend from August 1975 to July 1997 is 0.16ºC/dec (green), and the trend to August 2012 is 0.17ºC/dec (red)
    The ten years to August 2012 were warmer than the previous 10 years by 0.15ºC, which were warmer than the 10 years before that by 0.17ºC, which were warmer than the 10 years before that by 0.17ºC, and which were warmer than the 10 years before that by 0.17ºC (purple)
    The continuation of the linear trend from August 1975 to July 1997 (green dashed), would have predicted a temperature anomaly in August 2012 of 0.524ºC. The actual temperature anomaly in August 2012 was 0.525ºC.

  19. James says:

    John Byatt – you know damn well that it has been claimed by people who use the IPCC as their guide and who claim expertise in climate science, that any event which suits them is evidence of human caused climate change and make scary predictions accordingly. Your insistence in asking me to name ‘who said it’ is probably because you are hoping that you have some ‘gotcha’ trap because you will play semantics. But the whole proposition that the dams wouldn’t fill and the drought was permanent climate lead to the building of the now mothballed desalination plants. Don’t tell me that if the politicians had been able to look into the future, they would still have built the desal plants and insisted in not building dams they were told wouldn’t fill. You can read the many references on the justifications for the desal plants and the justifications for not building the dams. You can dig deeper if you are interested and look at the expert committee reports to Governmet. But I know you know all that stuff and you are really just playing games. For other readers, they may be interested in, by way of example: extracts from a good article at: http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-and-floods-flannery-is-no-expert-but-neither-are-the-experts-5709

    Australia’s Chief Climate Commissioner, declared rather bizarrely in 2007 that hotter soils meant that “even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems”. http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2006/s1844398.htm

    Immediately following the 2002-3 El Niño and Murray Darling Basin drought, Professor David Karoly authored a report under the auspices of the WWF-Australia. In this he noted that whilst rainfall had been low, the air temperatures had been particularly elevated. This led Karoly to claim that:
    The higher temperatures caused a marked increase in evaporation rates, which sped up the loss of soil moisture and the drying of vegetation and watercourses. This is the first drought in Australia where the impact of human-induced global warming can be clearly observed.
    While this may sounds intuitively correct, it is wrong. It completely ignores the known science of evapotranspiration and boundary layer meteorology. That is, when soil contains high moisture content, much of the sun’s energy is used in evaporation and consequently there is limited heating of the surface. However, during drought, soil moisture content is low and consequently nearly all of the incoming radiation is converted into heating the surface. The result is that air temperatures rise significantly.
    David Karoly, a Professor of Meteorology at Melbourne University, confused cause and effect with regard to the fundamental basics of boundary layer meteorology. Obviously, Tim Flannery without the background in meteorology had no way of knowing just how incorrect this simple sounding mechanism was.
    Dr David Jones is the Head of Climate Monitoring and Prediction Services at the Bureau of Meteorology. He stated that, “Of course, the drought has not been helped by rising temperatures, which have increased losses through evaporation,” and, “It is very difficult to make a case that this is just simply a run of bad luck driven by a natural cycle and that a return to more normal rainfall is inevitable, as some would hope.” In an interview with the Sydney Morning Herald, Dr Jones mused that “Perhaps we should call it our new climate.”
    A similar line was adopted by another Bureau climatologist, Dr Bertrand Timbal, who has been quoted as saying “In the minds of a lot of people, the rainfall we had in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s was a benchmark … But we are just not going to have that sort of good rain again as long as the system is warming up.”
    So when Tim Flannery cites the hotter soils as leading to less runoff into our dams and reservoirs, he was not alone in misunderstanding the physics of climate, or in speculating about the role of CO₂ in causing the drought.

    The mistake that Tim Flannery, as well as the numerous expert commentators made, was that they confused climate variability for climate change. The future impact of climate change is very uncertain, but when one “wants to believe”, then it is all too easy to get sucked in and to get it spectacularly wrong.

    As far as the IPCC model updates you present – well of course if you keep updating your model projections to take account of what has actually happened, then of course current temperatures will be closer to projections. But the purpose of climate model projections is not to confirm what we know has happened, but to predict the future and they have done a very poor job of that indeed. What you want to do is to be able to keep changing your bet on the winner of the Melbourne cup during the running of the event so that when you make your final pick in the last 50 metres if you don’t get the winner you can say at least you were close!

  20. James says:

    John Byatt is good at the foul mouthed rants. In the latest he says among all the impoliteness and name calling;

    “most people do not live in the tropics, I spent time at manus island that is a fucking sauna and you reckon it would be great”

    Well John, ‘the tropics’ currently make up most of central and southern America, most of the populated African continent, the bulk of India and a large part of the populated southern China, all of SE Asia and the Pacific Islands. There are some different ways of classifying the world’s climatic zones but the most common is along the following lines:

    Polar – very cold and dry all year
    Temperate – cold winters and mild summers
    Arid – dry, hot all year
    Tropical – hot and wet all year
    Mediterranean – mild winters, dry hot summers
    Mountains (tundra) very cold all year

    In fact the climatic zone which by far has the greatest number of humans in the world is THE TROPICS with around 40% of the world’s current population. It is also the fastest growing population area and it is projected that by 2060 the tropics will contain 60% of the world’s population. It may be humid John Byatt – but that’s not going to kill you and it is great for plant life. Humans congregate around the tropics because that is where it is easier to live. Great access to food and water.

    We also find that in the rich western world it is the tropics where the wealthy choose to have their holiday homes, and where those who can afford to chose to retire. In Australia, the move of retirees to Queensland is well documented, in the US it is the southern states, particularly Florida. In Europe it is at least to the warmer Mediterranean countries. Certainly the trend is to go for places which would tend to have a higher average temperatures than those global average temperatures the IPCC tells us we should fear.

    It is clearly a waste of my time continuing this correspondence with you John. I have sometimes thought about the irony of the coincidence of the end of the Little Ice Age, the start of major industrialisation, and the period in the Art world known as ‘Realism’ (1850 – 1880). Realism was a reaction to the previous period of ‘Romanticism’ where artists tended to show things in a softer, more idealistic light. Perhaps because things were so bad. But by 1850 artists had revolted against this and decided to depict life as it really was in Europe – cold, dark, hard, a struggle for the poor. They must have been so please when the world started warming and life started getting better. If only they could see the debate now – how silly they would think it!

    • john byatt says:

      James I knew what you have said already
      now check out the number of people that live south of the tropic of capricorn compared to those lower

      people spending their holidays in the tropics with air conditioned flats cars and polls
      is not what the local have to put up with,

      what on earth does your last para of nonsense have to do with the science of climate change?

      It may be humid John Byatt – but that’s not going to kill you

      want to bet? how would you go at 36Degrees C and high humidity?

      What is the wet bulb temp that triggers black flag alert ?

  21. john byatt says:

    There is no gotcha trap about Tim Flannery’s comment James,

    here it is

    SALLY SARA: What will it mean for Australian farmers if the predictions of climate change are correct and little is done to stop it? What will that mean for a farmer?

    PROFESSOR TIM FLANNERY: We’re already seeing the initial impacts and they include a decline in the winter rainfall zone across southern Australia, which is clearly an impact of climate change, but also a decrease in run-off. Although we’re getting say a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas of Australia, that’s 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, and that’s a real worry for the people in the bush. If that trend continues then I think we’re going to have serious problems, particularly for irrigation.

    so it is you that is doing the distortion isn’t it James ?

  22. john byatt says:

    October 2012 Adelaide plant, to mothball or not

    It also costs a lot of money to “mothball” a desalination plant. You need chemicals to preserve reverse osmosis membranes and skilled operators to ensure the plant is maintained in a suitable condition so that it is available when needed in the future.
    A sensible alternative to “mothballing” would be to operate it continuously at say 10-20 percent of its capacity. In this way, no preservation chemicals are needed, operators and their considerable skills are retained, some value is derived from the plant and less water is taken from the Murray. The Gold Coast desalination plant, for example, has been operated in “hot standby” mode at 5% of its capacity for the past two years.

    • eworrall1 says:

      My point is the plant was built at enormous expense because of the defective predictions of climate alarmists. The plant itself also suffers substantial defects according to the wiki entry – so not only were billions wasted on construction, millions on fixing construction defects, but millions more operating the plant at a loss.

      Job well done.

      • john byatt says:

        The plant was also used during the Brisbane floods as the filtration systems could not handle the amount of debris, dirt etc.

        It was a blessing that we had it, it is capable of producing about 27% of brisbane water. and future generations will acknowledge Bligh’s courage

        What you are saying is that we also have more water in dams than required so we should demolish a few, after all we do not need them at the moment.

        I have a few issue with desal plants but not as many as i have with people going without water.

        • eworrall1 says:

          Perhaps if all that money hasn’t been wasted on a desalination white elephant, there would have been more money available to upgrade the filtration system.

      • Nick says:

        Eric,the Brisbane desal was built in response not just to the crisis of the time but in anticipation of water demand over the next decades.

        If another million people settle in the SE Qld region over the next thirty years,existing dam infrastructure will not be adequate. There are no more catchments and dam sites of any size and yield that will make any significant contribution to total capacity and system yield.The desal also provides room for Wivenhoe to increase the proportion of its capacity reserved for flood mitigation.

        You cannot blame the climate for poor project management and outrageous costs.That’s a whole other issue that bedevils Australian major infrastructure work.

      • john byatt says:

        Correct nick , the government had already started the Traveston dam project buying up most of the Mary Valley in anticipation of the growth in population, when the Federal government knocked it on the head, the future water problem still remained,

        Brisbane and south east QLD’s future water growth will have to be de sal , as you say there is nothing more that can provide enough water for the future.

        Traveston was the cheap option at the time.


  23. john byatt says:


    nearly every state now has desal .

    perth would be stuffed without theirs.

    • john byatt says:

      The Gold Coast Desalination Plant is part of the Queensland Government strategy for providing a long term water supply solution to South East Queensland. The complex consists of a number of differing building types, processes and scales and is sited on a brownfield strip of land between the Gold Coast Airport and the new Tugun Bypass. The design celebrates the water purification process by wrapping the roof over the walls so the buildings are rendered as super scaled pipes or conduits seen from eye level as well as from above. A striped graphic is applied to the roof / wall element which enables the complex to be read at a number of scales.

  24. john byatt says:


    In April 2006, former Premier Peter Beattie named the Traveston Crossing area near Gympie in south-east Queensland as a possible site for a new dam on the Mary River.

    In July that same year, Mr Beattie announced the dam would go ahead.

    supposedly 12 months later Tim Flannery had said that our dams would never fill again

    well he did not say that did he?or the Dam construction would not have been taken up by Bligh , It would have filled twice , in 2010 and 2011.

    • john byatt says:

      There is some great stuff out there

      By early 2005 the Gold Coast was well on the way to the strictest water
      restrictions in its history. Lord Mayor Ron Clarke announced in April that
      Southeast Queensland needed at least six mini-desalination plants, but a Brisbane
      City Council spokesman pointed out that using recycled water at Swanbank
      power station would save as much potable water as one of Clarke’s projected
      plants. By September 2005 Clarke was pushing heavily for a fast-tracked desal
      plant, allegedly necessary because the coast’s population would increase from
      500 000 to 1.2 million within 50 years. The Gold Coast Council decided to bankroll
      a $165 million desalination plant to create a ‘bulk water source’, ‘regardless of
      the drought’.

      • john byatt says:

        That comes from this bloke at anu


        sticks it up em.

        have not read it all but I will,

      • john byatt says:

        What a great resource and read that was. prof. of history

      • Eric Worrall says:

        You’re blind if you don’t see it. Large public works project, substandard construction. Someone walked off with the swag, right under your noses, under cover of “preparing the Gold Coast for future climate change”.

        Look up details of the UK parliamentary expenses scandal, if you don’t think politicians are as venal as I am suggesting. Almost every MP in Britain was caught with their hand in the till – only a handful of them escaped the scandal with their integrity intact. But only a handful of MPs are actually facing court action – the well connected escaped with a minor slap on the wrist.

      • john byatt says:

        You seemed to have missed the point that the gold coast desal was being touted in 2005 , more than two years before the deniers claimed Tim Flannery induced panic

        IT was because the population projection was for 1.2 million within fifty years on the GC

        nothing to do with Tim

        Of course we knew that you would just yell “look squirrel”

  25. john byatt says:

    Here eric

    ’. As part of the water grid, the state government agreed in June
    2006 to partner with the Gold Coast City Council and in November that year
    they formed a 50–50 joint venture company to develop and own the desalination
    plant, to be built on council land to the immediate west of the Gold Coast airport.

    Tim Flannery comment was 2007

    well I guess that it puts that myth to bed

  26. john byatt says:

    eworrall1 says:
    November 3, 2012 at 3:54 am
    My point is the plant was built at enormous expense because of the defective predictions of climate alarmists.

    So can you now admit your mistake eric ?

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Let me know when the plant starts operating normally. What did it cost, 2 billion to build? Every year it operates at 5% (effectively mothballed), is around $50 million in interest payments which could have been made from investing the construction cost. And we’re not even counting the extra costs of maintaining it, fixing the construction defects, and operating it.

      Like I said, a white elephant.

      • john byatt says:

        Plant has never stopped operating to my knowledge, but you still have not apologised for making this claim

        “My point is the plant was built at enormous expense because of the defective predictions of climate alarmists”

        then you have the hide to claim that if you accepted climate change you would pay 50% more for fuel

        If you cannot even accept that you were wrong re alarmists then you will never accept the science. and you would never be willing to pay

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: