.0019%

[Stefan]

Do a search on desal 2007, it's all linked to climate change, lack of rainfall due to climate change, and its all based on Flannery's "predictions". To now say they are not linked is a load a bollocks. 5 years later when dams are overflowing and dumping water Flannery gets on his soap box and says it's due to climate change flooding.

The earth is not warming, sea ice is growing, rains are falling but we continue to throw money at an issue that does not exist.

I have no problem with more fuel efficient cars cleaner, exhaust pipes, management of waste, more efficient power generation, they are all part of human advancement.

[CoupeKing]

I rocked up in this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvgJB0E2-Z4

[Trump]

Originally Posted by coupeking

i rocked up in this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvgjb0e2-z4

Now thats classy.


WILL SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!

[Stefan]

HAHA, now we are redirecting $1 Billion of the aid budget to climate change as our third world beneficiaries are asking us to combat natural disaster resulting from the changing climate. The madness continues...

Don't worry about feeding them, or assisting with medicines they'd prefer us to build a few more wind mills.

This is not far off the same stupidity as hunting down witches in medievel times.

[superyob]

Terrorism is rampant but ideological interpretations of the weather takes precedence in Paris. Talk about getting your priorities right...

[GasoLane]

A snippet from former PM John Howard's speech in London 2 years ago......

He said policy makers were faced with attempts to "intimidate" them with the mantras of 'follow the science' and 'the science is truly settled'."

"The ground is thick with rent-seekers. There are plenty of people around who want access to public money in the name of saving the planet."

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-pol...20131105-2wzza

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by Stefan

HAHA, now we are redirecting $1 Billion of the aid budget to climate change as our third world beneficiaries are asking us to combat natural disaster resulting from the changing climate. The madness continues...

Don't worry about feeding them, or assisting with medicines they'd prefer us to build a few more wind mills.

This is not far off the same stupidity as hunting down witches in medievel times.

Actually giving people in African countries gas cookers instead of the coal heat beads they use actually would go a long way in reducing CO2.....also the rest of the health.

Or running solar to isolated town out there instead of trying to set up an expensive electric distribution system.

Sometimes the smallest things can make more of a difference.

[Trump]

Originally Posted by superyob

Terrorism is rampant but ideological interpretations of the weather takes precedence in Paris. Talk about getting your priorities right...

The war of terror and the climate change bandwagons are driven by the same outfit...

And yes I did say war of terror.

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by vztrt

Actually giving people in African countries gas cookers instead of the coal heat beads they use actually would go a long way in reducing CO2.....also the rest of the health.

Or running solar to isolated town out there instead of trying to set up an expensive electric distribution system.

Sometimes the smallest things can make more of a difference.

Ok they're buying a billion bucks worth of gas cookers....good stuff. They will cook up food they don't have and reduce their carbon emission of burning a few dried sticks.

I assume you are joking.

[karj]

Originally Posted by Stefan

Do a search on desal 2007, it's all linked to climate change, lack of rainfall due to climate change, and its all based on Flannery's "predictions". To now say they are not linked is a load a bollocks. 5 years later when dams are overflowing and dumping water Flannery gets on his soap box and says it's due to climate change flooding.

The earth is not warming, sea ice is growing, rains are falling but we continue to throw money at an issue that does not exist.

I have no problem with more fuel efficient cars cleaner, exhaust pipes, management of waste, more efficient power generation, they are all part of human advancement.

Your chronology is incorrect. Desal plants were being planned as far back as 2004, back when Flannery had little public profile, was director of the SA Museum and wasn't involved in the climate change movement.

Desal plants were not built on 'Flannery's predictions' but were a policy initiative to deal with the reality of the protracted drought we were in. Some states were more proactive than others and committed to desal plants earlier, and some states committed later when the drought showed no signs of breaking. The driving influence behind desal construction was not to mitigate the threat of climate change; it was to guarantee water supply during drought.

You are correct that there was a lot of chatter around 2007 onwards about climate change and its impact on rainfall and drought... but this was not what was driving the construction of the desal plants. Well before 2007, Australian States were devising water plans that involved desal plants.

The Millennium Drought was not blamed on climate change. Analysis of the climate data after the Millennium drought indicates that the drought was mostly due to multidecadal variability with a partial influence of anthropogenic global warming. Those findings came years after we had already committed to building desal plants.

The historical account and chronology of events is important because there is this myth that goes something like: "Flannery said it was never going to rain again and the damns would never fill, so we built desal plants and then it rained." That is just plain wrong; we were planning desal plants before Flannery came on the scene.

People whinge about desal plants because the drought broke around the same time construction finished and they were due to be turned on, so people think it was a colossal waste of money. But those desal plants will come on-line during our next major drought... and that was the whole point of building them; policy makers were seeking to guarantee water supply into the future because another drought is guaranteed.

[superyob]

Interesting counter point^^^

[Stefan]

Karj,

I don't disagree with your time line, having worked on several major NSW infrastructure projects over the years (and alot of collegues worked on desal) I know that we don't have a drought in January and start building a desal plant in November. It takes Govco the best part of 3-5 years to get their ...rs.. into gear (that is not a critisism). BUT even in 2004 all of the usual climate change jargon was being used as justification for building the plant (your link included). By 2007 Falennery was at the forefront of the desal announcement him being the Governments climate change mouthpiece, I'm sure his "science" had major influence in Govco pulling the trigger on the project.

At the end of the day it was not built due to the expanding population it was built due to a perceived increase in exreme weather. (ie climate change)

In any case I hope we do get some use out of it, I thought I read somewhere it was "on-line" feeding water into the system despite overfloweing dams as Govco guranteed it's use as part of the PPP. Not sure what the daily cost of that was/is.

[whitelion65]

The desal plant is another issue altogether.
For the money they spent, most buildings in Sydney could have been fitted with rainwater collection.
But anyway, big politicians like big projects.
Additionally, Flannery is a science populist (Like "Dr" Karl) (or communicator, if you like).
If you want to think about the subject, rather than simply rearrange prejudices, you may surprise yourselves.
Climate is a HIGHLY complex area, one that reporting snippets of can lead to misconceptions and confusion. And yes, because there are big dollars involved, the view gets skewed by those in power.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by Stefan

Ok they're buying a billion bucks worth of gas cookers....good stuff. They will cook up food they don't have and reduce their carbon emission of burning a few dried sticks.

I assume you are joking.

I'm saying there are many small areas that money can be spent to make big reductions and increase the standard of living. Its you saying 1 billion worth of cooker. But you would.

Also its not dried up sticks, but who would have thought improving the efficiency of how things are done could be beneficial for all.

[zilo]

There is no point in fitting rainwater collection tanks or building dams if it doesn't rain.

In a drought it doesn't rain for years.

It's also about population...it keeps exponentially increasing.

300 thousand EXTRA migrants a year all want to flush a toilet several times a day, shower, water the garden, wash the car, millions of extra litres a day every year.

A desal solution will in years to come be commended as the best long term water security measure for the world's driest continent.

Good thing about a desal plant is you can locate it right next to a population centre and feed the grid right there and then.

It takes vast amounts of electricity to desalinate, but make no mistake it also takes vast amounts to pump water hundreds of kilometres with many intermediate pumping stations along the way from a dam such as the Thompson....

It's no coicidence that they are often located close to waste water treatment plants as it takes less energy to desalinate sewage than it does sea water...

[nuthin' fancy]

Sitting here at my desk, it is hard to know the veracity of any side of the argument but treading more lightly on the planet is a good idea. My first car (in 1982) was a 6 cyl XY Fairmont wagon that consumed oil and petrol in equal quantities, I would get about 400km out of the (I think) 55l tank.

My EL Fairmont comfortably gets 650km out of each 68l tank in the mixed city an country driving I do.

Even without trying (or having a much newer car) I am treading more lightly. I'm not sure about the impact iof the lemons I saw yesterday imported from the uSA, though.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by Stefan

I can't believe we continue throw money at this climate change BS...

And we're spending it badly...

This guy gets it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXXNGjeNQTo

[LTD Ute]

The Earth is round, science has proven that, the numbers also stack in this here question.
Conspiracy theories only guise personal gain or worse, ignorance.

I'm a betting man, and the numbers stack up. We are in a predicament for our
future, enough to to make me consider nuclear and de-sal plants as viable
contributors to fixing our impending and real forecast problems.
Renewables are a given in any forward thinking society.
Rail and road transport infrastructure in our cities is also paramount.

If we don't insure with real tangible measures we are

[LTD Ute]

In so far as the vocal minority being louder than a silent majority?

It's a friggin democracy, speak your piece and back it up in public.

I see no rallies for the common good of coal over renewables for our future........

Other than someone making a buck!

[Maka]

I think someone is in the poo poo from their backbench when they get back home from the Paris climate summit, the next couple of days in Canberra will be interesting on the ABC.. Bravo Pm Turnbull, good job well done sir!!!

cheer's, Maka

[theunfairadvant]

That's why the government stop supporting climate change group run by Tim Flannery,
which cost the tax payers more than 10 million every year just for his services.

[superyob]

LTD Ute,marching to 'save' the planet from a natural occurrence is not democracy in action. It has nothing to do with any concerns for the betterment of humanity. It is a socialist totalitarian ideology in which the ultimate agenda is to wreak havoc on society by using the fiction of man made warming to 'redistribute' wealth and inflict socially corrupt wholesale changes upon a silenced majority. The evidence is there for all to see every time there is a protest march...

[Maka]

Not getting into politics, but the blue side are at the Paris conference too hey, just saying SY!

cheer's, Maka

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by theunfairadvant

That's why the government stop supporting climate change group run by Tim Flannery,
which cost the tax payers more than 10 million every year just for his services.

Why you would have a palaeontologist deal/talk about climate change is beyond me.

I'd bet there are much better people who actually would be much better specialists.

[superyob]

Originally Posted by Maka

Not getting into politics, but the blue side are at the Paris conference too hey, just saying SY!

cheer's, Maka

Ha ha! This is true Maka but there is a world of difference between the duties of office and screaming shrill obscenities at all who don't agree with your 'religion' in a quest for self entitlement...

I am sure there are some genuinely concerned people in the pack but if it looks, walks and quacks like a duck, it's a duck!!!

[SpoolMan]

Originally Posted by Maka

Not getting into politics,

This is a good idea or thread will close.

Again leave the politics for the ballot box..

[Harrison]

What I find disingenuous about the whole 'climate change' movement is that nobody is mentioning that some particularly influential group or organisation on this planet seems to have far more control of the weather than anyone is pointing out -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13-0HrV0pqs


Then there's the overpopulation business. Quite lucrative I would imagine...

.

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by LTD Ute

In so far as the vocal minority being louder than a silent majority?

It's a friggin democracy, speak your piece and back it up in public.

I see no rallies for the common good of coal over renewables for our future........

Other than someone making a buck!

The silent majority are probably at work and don't have time to march in the street.

But the reality is it's not that we or I am pro coal, wind and solar are fine in principal but the cost far out weights the benifit, power prices are going up because of renewables yet we still use coal for baseload anyway.Wind does not always blow and the sun does not always shine. The reduction in CO2 is negligable. Why not go neuclear and have zero CO2 if we are really that concrened with CO2. ADvancements on that front means less and less neuclear waste.

How about the stupidity of us reducing OUR CO2 emmissions at out expense and to the detriment of our economy and manufacturing only to send our coal overseas for someone else to burn and emit CO2, we are just effing our selves over.....How is that not an issue for the lefties?

That Bjorn video linked by Boson is a perfect example of what I am talkking about and first guy that makes sense to me. I'm not saying abandon reducing our impact on the environment, just that it needs to be done right.

[superyob]

Apparently the Sahara desert, an area that was once teeming with wildlife and jungle vegetation, now a huge wasteland, is a result of natural climate change. Either that or those damn ancient Egyptians had one too many cylinders powering their chariots...

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by Stefan

The silent majority are probably at work and don't have time to march in the street.

But the reality is it's not that we or I am pro coal, wind and solar are fine in principal but the cost far out weights the benifit, power prices are going up because of renewables yet we still use coal for baseload anyway.Wind does not always blow and the sun does not always shine. The reduction in CO2 is negligable. Why not go neuclear and have zero CO2 if we are really that concrened with CO2. ADvancements on that front means less and less neuclear waste.

How about the stupidity of us reducing OUR CO2 emmissions at out expense and to the detriment of our economy and manufacturing only to send our coal overseas for someone else to burn and emit CO2, we are just effing our selves over.....How is that not an issue for the lefties?

That Bjorn video linked by Boson is a perfect example of what I am talkking about and first guy that makes sense to me. I'm not saying abandon reducing our impact on the environment, just that it needs to be done right.

Remove the subsidies (4.5b) from Coal and see how cheap coal is. Also the massive price rises in power all came from infrastructure costs....that were later found to be over zealous.