Guest post by Toaf
Tim Blair’s jihad against Tim Flannery continues. Today Blair’s picked up on a report which suggests that global warming (which doesn’t exist anyway) will enhance Australia’s agricultural output over the coming few decades.
Warming (which doesn’t exist anyway), he declares, will cause “fooding”. So it seems that global warming (which doesn’t exist anyway) will actually be a good thing. Those damn environazis have been yanking our chain again!
What does this have to do with Flannery? Well, Flannery is on the record as suggesting that climate change will have a disastrous impact upon “world food production”. And Blair reckons that the news about Australian agriculture has like totally pwned Flannery’s prediction.
Trouble is, Blair is not comparing apples with apples. Flannery is talking about global food production while the report which Blair cites is about Australian agriculture. Blair is comparing apples with out-of-season oranges.
It is acknowledged that climate change will impact different regions in different ways. Australia may indeed benefit in some ways from higher temperatures or changed weather patterns. This does not mean, however, that this benefit will offset the negative impacts felt in other parts of the world.
After all, Australia is a small contributor to world food production, accounting for 1.5% of cattle meat (our high value output), 1.4% of cereals, and 0.4% of fruit and veggies.* Blair is arguing that increased agricultural output in Australia means that the world food system is safe, which is like arguing that global warming isn’t occurring because it’s cold today in Wagga Wagga.
Needless to say, the two News Ltd boys were groupthinking on this one.
* Thanks to the FAO Statistical Yearbook.
90 Comments
12 May, 2008 at 10:26 pm
So much for supporting the facts, assholes.
13 May, 2008 at 1:21 am
The scope of the report was limited to effects in Australia.
It is a little disingenuous to suggest with no evidence that Australia will be the sole beneficiary of the scientific assertions forming the base of the report.
The Science suggests that vast tracts of Canada and Siberia will open up into the global foodbowls we once could only have dreamed about.
13 May, 2008 at 7:35 am
Private Tom, who is your comment addressed to?
Infidel, it was disingenuous of Blair to suggest, without evidence, that what holds for one particular region will therefore be true for the entire globe. If you would like, I can provide you with research about the expected harm that climate change will do to the vast agricultural zones in Asia and what it is already doing to agro-pastoral areas in Africa.
But that’s not really the issue here. The point is that Blair is cherry-picking, suggesting on the basis of localised projections that global warming is actually a good thing (while at the same time denying that it even exists). All so he can take a pot-shot at Flannery.
13 May, 2008 at 11:21 am
Feel free to link to research that shows the harm global warming is expect the reap upon Asia and Africa. That would be interesting.
The evidence you believe is lacking from the Blair comment is clearly visible in the original column. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23681267-11949,00.html
I hope you are not suggesting that the process know as “carbon fertilisation” is a phenomenon unique to the continent of Australia.
It would also be non sensical to suggest that the laboratory results showing a 30% increase in plant growth when confronted with increased atmospheric temperature, is a phenomenon that only occurs to plants while in “Australia”.
The evidence is common sense…….
13 May, 2008 at 12:21 pm
The Climate Change Evangelists can’t even get an attack on Blair right.
It’s no wonder that their AGW house of cards that is collapsing around them. The science & the climate refuse to conform to their flawed Computer Models.
All we need to know now is; When will Al Gore & Tim Flannery be forced to apologise for their dishonesty & deception all in the name of being “Profits of Doom”?
It won’t be long before these Natural Climate Change Denialists will be forced to account for their despicable actions.
13 May, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Damian-I was referring to the almost comical hypocrisy of the B’s (Bolt in particular) of talking about how greenes don’t support the ‘facts’ when they happily and above all knowingly refuse to abide to the factual standards they apply to their political opponents.
Marc-what you said makes as much sense as Philip Travers. First you attack the “Climate Change Evangelists” (because being concerned with how human activity might negatively impact on the environment, and by extension humanity makes you ‘religious,’ somehow), and how thousands of scientists can’t match amazing science of a couple of polemicists.
Then you end it by attacking the “despicable” denialists, which makes no sense given what you just said.
13 May, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Then you end it by attacking the “despicable” denialists, which makes no sense given what you just said
Most Climate Change Evangelists are Natural Climate Change Denialists.
13 May, 2008 at 1:31 pm
First you attack the “Climate Change Evangelists” (because being concerned with how human activity might negatively impact on the environment, and by extension humanity makes you ‘religious,’ somehow), and how thousands of scientists can’t match amazing science of a couple of polemicists.
It’s has nothing to do with being concerned with the environment. It has everything to do with the way Climate Change evangelists manipulate & distort science to mould into their evangelical Environmental mantra. They specifically ignore the science of natural Climate Change to preach a religious style Armageddon linked to humanities supposed “environmental sins”.
13 May, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Marc: “Most Climate Change Evangelists are Natural Climate Change Denialists.”
DO you have any proof of such a claim?
I think you will find that most scientists who have been working in climatology and meteorology would understand the difference.
13 May, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Relating to the actual topic of the discussion. The report suggests productivity will increase as a result of a combination of higher temperature, higher carbon dioxide and in some areas higher rainfall.
That all makes sense. The issue is that a lot of the climate models have indicated there will be increased rainfall in a lot of areas, but it will fall as less frequent, more discrete intense events (thunderstorms) rather than softer rain. The more intense storms do not result in available water for plant growth as it runs off the land into Rivers rather than soaking in.
It means that things will be ok for farmers who divert water from streams but not so good for others.
13 May, 2008 at 1:56 pm
DO you have any proof of such a claim?
Tim Flannery & Al Gore are proof that Climate Change Evangelists are also natural Climate Change denialists.
A British court proved that Al Gore’s film “An Incontinent Truth” was full of deceptive claims.
http://newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html
13 May, 2008 at 2:39 pm
But that does not prove they do not believe in natural climate change. Your assumption is that they do not think that the earth has ever changed temperature.
Doing about 2 minutes of research shows Tim Flannery does believe our climate has changed in the past:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/whither-our-weather/2007/01/01/1167500057951.html
“The climate of south-eastern Australia changed dramatically in prehistory.” as one quote.
The same accusation of ‘deceptive claims’ can be levelled at Bolt and Blair.
13 May, 2008 at 2:57 pm
But that does not prove they do not believe in natural climate change. Your assumption is that they do not think that the earth has ever changed temperature.
They are Natural Climate Change denialist because they deny any scientific information that is released to explain that current changes in climate are due to natural factors. Instead, like Gore’s film “An incontinent Truth” they manipulate science & use flawed computer modelling to push their evangelistic mantra of AGW.
Even the IPCC are beginning to learn that they got it wrong. The climate & science refuses to conform to their flawed computer modelling.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2352
Of course, all the Natural Climate Change denialist choose to deny the truth.
13 May, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Watch out, the zombies are here.
“AGW bad… Flannery bad… scienstisticians is rong and dum… Timmeh good… B-R-A-A-I-I-N-S!!1!11!!”
13 May, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Marc – sorry for my previous post-I now understand the lack of contradiction in what you said.
But onto more important matters; why are so many more scientists, trained in studying climatology and meteorology still say that climate change is occurring, and that the effect of climate change will be primarily negative? So much more negative then positive that it’s in humanity’s (ie not just the planet’s) best interest to avoid it?
And even if climate change was false, that doesn’t change the fact that humanity is still committing “environmental sins.” We are still destroying more rainforest (seen the Amazon lately?), pumping out more C02, depleting more of the ocean’s waterlife and sucking up more resources then the planet can give.
13 May, 2008 at 3:45 pm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/11/04/eaclimate104.xml
Look deeper Private Tom and you will see the veils of scaremongering regarding global warming just fall away. From the discredited “hockey stick” graph to the IPCC revising the “20ft ocean rise by the end of the century”, to a mere 4 inches.
Read closer, the impact studies such as the one referred to by Blair and you will see that the debate over the consequences of AGW is not over, it has not even begun.
The AGW myth has been perpeptuated by socialists and wealth redistributionists bent on using their brand new media sanctioned weapon….
The Carbon Credit.
13 May, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Private Tom
“But onto more important matters; why are so many more scientists, trained in studying climatology and meteorology still say that climate change is occurring, ”
I know of no climate scientists who do not say that the climate is changing. The climate is ALWAYS changing, it is a characteristic of equilibrium systems. ‘ if you change any of the inputs to a system that’s in equilibrium, the system will oppose that change. It’s not magic. That’s just what “equilibrium” means. If the system didn’t oppose change at that state, it would have moved to a different state until it arrived at one that was stable.’
“…and that the effect of climate change will be primarily negative? So much more negative then positive that it’s in humanity’s (ie not just the planet’s) best interest to avoid it?@
Avoid what? And how? And what for? From 100,000 years ago to 5,000, the Sahara was a verdant place, then the planet altered its axial tilt by a degree and it became a desert. Which is the ‘natural state’ of the Sahara region?
There is no evidence that humanity’s impact is causing any of the present global climatic cooling trend (it’s the SIM theory again, of course), and even if it was, the system would still move back to equilibrium. As for ‘global warming’, nobody has been able to find the heat yet (and not for want of trying), and the vaunted computer models have proven to be as clever, and as wrong, as phlogiston chemists.
MarkL
Canberra
13 May, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Like the inulgences of old, the Carbon Credit is something that celebrity environmentalists can purchase to enble them to escape the rigours of their new religion. Carbon Credits make Gaia smile.
13 May, 2008 at 4:04 pm
I see that no-one has debated my second point, regarding other environmental problems not GW related.
13 May, 2008 at 4:40 pm
PT – Neo cons don’t care about the future as long as their share portfolio increases in value.
If climate change is used as a means to get people to use less natural resources then what is the problem? Take Bolt’s argument about plastic bags at Borders Books. He still doesn’t get that Bunnings put a levy on years ago and reduced their bag usage by 99%. They also at the same time reduce the amount of wasted cardboard by people taking a box home (two uses are better than one) and have made the company overheads cheaper making products cheaper.
13 May, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Private Tom, your second point is obvious to a calm and rational person on this issue, however if you pressed the issue to Bolt/Blair type climate-change denialist idiots, you would find that many don’t care about the environment at all, instead preferring to draw some lunatic connection between caring about the environment and some evil anti-human ideology, largely as an excuse for continuing their selfish, uncompassionate and self-centred existences. And think much of this type of mentality runs at the fore-front of the AGW denialist religion.
Although I am a sceptic regarding some of the more dire predictions regarding AGW and cringe at the fact that some quarters who warn of its effects, try to point to every environmental disaster as being as a result of man-made climate change, it is obvious that there is a serious risk of AGW being and extremely destructive reality, and that given that the experts warn of this risk, we should respond to it. Even if it isn’t a reality, living a cleaner and more responsible existence will help to reduce damage in other areas that humans cause to the planet.
13 May, 2008 at 10:42 pm
sorry that should have been “I think much of this type of mentality runs at the fore-front of the AGW denialist religion.”
13 May, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Infidel, go for gold, old son! At this rate you’ll soon have your own blog! (I know, that ain’t a refutation at all, but to be honest I just can’t be fucked.)
Tom and Chris, you make valid points. A little while back I was reading a piece written by a community development worker in a less developed country. The author despaired about all the hot air (and money) spent debating global warming while real environmental issues with ready solutions – water pollution, deforestation, salinity, and so on – were neglected.
13 May, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Bolt is such a pissy little spoilt, selfish sook. He gets paid a handsome salary to post un-researched, pathetic quality, ideological political opinions and he chucks a tanty because he has to pay 10 cents for a plastic bag. When he should grow-up stop, being a spoilt arsehole and think about the effect his bag is having on the environment.
Does Bolt even think or care about the ways in which his plastic bags could and will impact on the environment? No he can just dream-up some self-serving and convenient belief or argument that to care about the environment really makes you anti-human, Nazi-like etc, so he doesnt have to care.
I was in Borders today, and Bolts selfishness helped me to put things into perspective a bit, when eco-friendly bags cost only 1 dollar. What an ugly selfish little moron he is. He needs a parental figure to give him a good kick up the backside and tell him to pull his head in.
14 May, 2008 at 12:02 am
is tim blair short? i ask this as a genuine question.
14 May, 2008 at 8:59 am
What? Maybe. Would this explain his need to control monkeys.
14 May, 2008 at 10:01 am
The author despaired about all the hot air (and money) spent debating global warming while real environmental issues with ready solutions – water pollution, deforestation, salinity, and so on – were neglected.
You hit the nail on the head their Damien. The problem with the Climate Change Evangelists is that they are so obsessed with indulging in their AGW mantra that attention is taken away from REAL environmental disasters like deforestation, water pollution & salinity. It is a crime against humanity that “profits of Doom” selfishly demand & take media attention away from these issues.
History will look back on the Climate Change Evangelists & they will not be kind in their condemnation of their behaviour. In very much the same way we look back on Christian Missionaries of the 19th century.
14 May, 2008 at 10:02 am
The “profits of Doom” being cretins like Al Gore & Tim Flannery
14 May, 2008 at 10:03 am
Marc, history will also condemn those who fought tooth and nail against every single effort to protect and preserve the environment on the basis that their precious way of life might need to change in some small way.
14 May, 2008 at 10:26 am
Marc, history will also condemn those who fought tooth and nail against every single effort to protect and preserve the environment on the basis that their precious way of life might need to change in some small way.
Please name those who are, as you have put it; fought tooth and nail against every single effort to protect and preserve the environment on the basis that their precious way of life might need to change in some small way
When there are genuine environmental issues & problems to be delt with, there are no groups or individuals in Australia at least that specifically fight against all environmental causes.
The only people I can think of that do is the Chinese Government.
14 May, 2008 at 11:13 am
Marc – “Please name those….”
I will give one name to start with:
Andrew Bolt
He complains he cannot water his garden and that he spent a fortune on a sprinkler system that he cannot use. Yet does not acknowledge how dire other industries are without water.
He also complains about having to spend 10cents on a plastic bag that uses fossil fuels to produce so he can carry a couple of books home.
14 May, 2008 at 11:23 am
Andrew Bolt
He complains he cannot water his garden and that he spent a fortune on a sprinkler system that he cannot use. Yet does not acknowledge how dire other industries are without water.
He also complains about having to spend 10cents on a plastic bag that uses fossil fuels to produce so he can carry a couple of books home
I’m sorry to burst your bubble but opposing a surcharge on plastic bags & complaining about water restrictions does not equate to;
fought tooth and nail against every single effort to protect and preserve the environment on the basis that their precious way of life might need to change in some small way
The reason why we have water restrictions is because of the incompetency of the state government to prepare the cities water infrastructure for a growing population. It has nothing to do with environmental disasters.
Melbourne has ALWAYS had periods of drought and it is the responsibility of the state government to prepare for it. Cast you mind back to the late 1960’s & the early 1980’s when Melbourne last was in drought & water restrictions were thrust upon us.
In 1984 the state government build the Thompson dam with the proposal to build the Mitchell dam in the late 1990’s to drought proof Melbourne for the next big drought.
The current ALP government cancelled the Mitchell dam which meant that when the ever predictable drought came in the early 2000’s we didn’t have the planned water infrastructure to cope. So Bolt is justified in complaining about the current water restrictions.
Dam Buster try again.
14 May, 2008 at 11:37 am
Marc, are you using the “name just ten” argument? Cute.
14 May, 2008 at 11:46 am
Marc, are you using the “name just ten” argument? Cute
Not at all. I am just wanting to know if there really is anyone or organisation in Australia that specifically sets out to oppose all efforts to preserve the environment.
There is active debate that accompanies environmental efforts & causes but this is healthy & good for society.
Not all environmental causes are for the greater good of the environment. The opposition to the recent channel Deepening in Melbourne is a good example of that. There has been NO evidence to support the claims made by the Blue wedges group which oppose the channel deepening.
14 May, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Oh Marc, Marc, Marc, Marc.. How do you think ‘Dam Buster’ came into being?
I have countered every argument Bolt has had on this topic for years. He has tried to ban me and block posts that I put on there because he does not like reasoned and researched debate opposing his views on such topics.
The whole issue of supply and demand for water is complex and constructing the Mitchell Dam would not solve the problems. Even when the Thomson was planned it was touted as solving all the issues, yet by the time it was completed Melbourne was still in water restrictions. This started the “Don’t be a Wally with Water” campaign.
His position is that HE should be able to use as much water as he likes even during a drought. That is ignoring the facts.
His viewpoint is that HE should be able to use what he wants and do what he wants and not have to pay a premium for it.
He could not change his life by:
a) buying a water tank;
b) planting alternate things in his garden;
c) recycle water;
or
d) use his own back pack or bag;
e) buy a recylable bag he can use again and again;
f) carry the books in his hands
to me the above means “fought tooth and nail against every single effort to protect and preserve the environment on the basis that their precious way of life might need to change in some small way”
14 May, 2008 at 12:05 pm
I am just wanting to know if there really is anyone or organisation in Australia that specifically sets out to oppose all efforts to preserve the environment.
That’s a silly request. As if there’s anyone that you could easily point your finger to – most (all) companies know that would be PR suicide.
If you think power companies relying on burning coal aren’t opposing efforts in preservation, you’re pretty damn naive…
14 May, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Even when the Thomson was planned it was touted as solving all the issues, yet by the time it was completed Melbourne was still in water restrictions. This started the “Don’t be a Wally with Water” campaign.
that’s not true Dam Buster. The water restrictions in the early 1980’s, the Thomson dam was completely filled by the mid-late 1980’s. Once the drought of the early 80’s was over & the Thomson dam was filled, the water restrictions ended. The “Don’t be a Wally with Water” campaign was around before the Thomson dam was completed & fully filled to capacity.
The Thomson dam DID solve Melbourne’s water problems from the late 1980’s right through to the early 2000’s as water restrictions were not put back in place until the early 2000’s when the next major drought occurred & when the Mitchell would have been due for completion.
His position is that HE should be able to use as much water as he likes even during a drought. That is ignoring the facts.
Dam please provide evidence where Andrew has stated this.
I have read that he blames the current water restrictions on government incompetency, but he has never stated that when we have water restrictions, he should be allowed to use as much water as he likes. Rather he argues that we shouldn’t have water restrictions in the first place if the stage government did it’s job & provided Melbourne with required water infrastructure.
14 May, 2008 at 12:26 pm
to me the above means “fought tooth and nail against every single effort to protect and preserve the environment on the basis that their precious way of life might need to change in some small way
With that level of thinking Dam you are no different to the religious zealots that claim that make claims that people who don’t believe in Jesus Christ are evil.
Just because someone dares to question a policy like a surcharge on plastic bags or who’s responsible for water restrictions, it doesn’t mean that they are intent on opposing all efforts to protect & preserve the environment.
This is in the same way that because a person doesn’t believe in Jesus Christ, it doesn’t mean they have evil intentions.
It is statement’s like yours dam that prove that the Climate Change movement more about Green Religion than science or real eviromental preservation.
14 May, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Marc – How the tripe do you get JC out of my comment??
as for Bolt:
“I’ll have to keep up that damn bucket-brigading thanks to a government so green-blind as to refuse to build the new dam our gardens need.”
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/2007/12/
“Think of it each time you’re forced into your garden at dawn to hand-water plants you’re banned from watering with your sprinklers. Think of it as you lug buckets from your bath to your wilting vegies.”
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_slaves_to_their_green_faith/
Why should vegetables be spared the water restrictions, but flowers not?
Hundreds of gardeners have signed an online petition asking the State Government to grant an exemption under the restrictions to allow them extra water for vegetable and herb plots.
There’s an arrogance in vegie growers, I fear. Flower growers strike me as less self-absorbed, which you’d expect, being more attuned to beauty.
But if we built a dam, such divisive squabbles as this would never break out.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/my_roses_are_as_worthy_as_any_brocolli/
that is to start with Marc.
14 May, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Marc,
The increase in water consumption while the Thomson was being built meant that when it was commissioned the demand had out-stripped supply. The wally with water campaign was implemented to reduce future potential restrictions or the need for further dams.
“During the 1970s Melbourne’s annual water consumption rose 35 per cent. Industrial use was relatively stable and industry had rarely faced restrictions during droughts. The increase was among domestic consumers especially outside the house, where it was up 52 per cent.” from http://thesource.melbournewater.com.au/content/archive/June2000/history.asp
14 May, 2008 at 2:12 pm
The increase in water consumption while the Thomson was being built meant that when it was commissioned the demand had out-stripped supply. The wally with water campaign was implemented to reduce future potential restrictions or the need for further dams
But the Thomson Dam was not completed & filled up until the late 80’s. You cannot consider a dam’s full potential until it has been filled with water. That didn’t occur for the first time until the late 1980’s. The “Don’t be a wally with water” was a campaign that was initiated in the early 80’s and finished in the late 80’s, just after the Thomson dam was filled.
Your following statement is clearly wrong;
The increase in water consumption while the Thomson was being built meant that when it was commissioned the demand had out-stripped supply.
Water restrictions were not required again until the early 2000’s. That means that the Thomson dam fully met Melbourne’s water requirements throughout the 1990’s. If demand out-stripped supply in the 1980’s then we would have had water restriction in place right through the 1990’s.
It is interesting to note that the Mitchell river flooded twice over winter 2007 and if the Mitchell Dam had been built, we would NOT have a need for water restrictions today.
This means that our water restrictions today are because the current government failed to build the proposed Mitchell dam in the late 90’s causing us to have water restrictions today. The Mitchell dam would have protected Melbourne’s water supply during the 2007 drought. Instead, all that fresh water that flooded the Mitchell river, ended up flowing out to sea.
14 May, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Marc,
The planning at the time of the Thomson Dam DID indicate that with the growth in consumption that there would be further restrictions without doing something fast.. i.e. water with wally. The 1970’s and 80’s average consumption per house was over 500litres per day
http://thesource.melbournewater.com.au/content/articles/200801311.asp?From=HotTopics&HotTopicID=5
If the use use use and bugger the lot of you (neo-con) ideal was to remain then, the thomson was going to be outstripped. It is taught in Hydrology 101 as a simple way to change people’s way of doing things and decreasing the demand on natural resources.
“flowing out to sea”… yep the Mitchell River is just one big drain to the ocean Marc.
14 May, 2008 at 3:02 pm
oh ps the Thomson Dam did not fully fill until 1992.
http://thesource.melbournewater.com.au/content/archive/May2003/long.asp
check your facts, it helps make a credible argument.
14 May, 2008 at 3:14 pm
“Dam please provide evidence where Andrew has stated this.”
Perhaps not about dams, but I can provide evidence that Bolt doesn’t give a shit about the environment.
‘To get over that hump, our teachers must push a new “secular” religion instead — environmentalism…’-that was from his ‘Lessons for Lefties’ article. He labels all of environmentalism as a “religion,” one that apparently is “anti-human” and cares for “beasts” more then humans. I think it says it all.
14 May, 2008 at 8:49 pm
“An incontinent Truth”
Ahahahaha. Who says wingnuts don’t have a sense of humour. Geddit! Hilarious stuff. How about how Gore’s movie was bankrolled by petro companies so as to deliberately skew the political climate in his favour.
Wait, no, sorry. That was the climate change denialists.
14 May, 2008 at 10:58 pm
“oh ps the Thomson Dam did not fully fill until 1992.”
But it did!
15 May, 2008 at 9:07 am
“oh ps the Thomson Dam did not fully fill until 1992.”
But it did!
Exactly Dam Buster & it still backs my argument that the Thomson dam satisfied Melbourne’s water requirements until the early 2000’s.
It also shows that your argument that the; The increase in water consumption while the Thomson was being built meant that when it was commissioned the demand had out-stripped supply. The wally with water campaign was implemented to reduce future potential restrictions or the need for further dams
.
The fact that water restriction ended in Melbourne in the mid 80’s & didn’t start up again until the early 2000’s, with the Thomson dam being filled in 92 shows that your statement above is crap.
You have just fully destroyed your own argument in one fowl swoop.
15 May, 2008 at 9:31 am
Marc, check the facts.
The only reason the restrictions were eased was due to the water consumption reducing from over 500 litres per day in the late 70’s and early 80’s to around 300 in the 90’s and now below 300.
When the dam construction was announced it was thought that it would “drought proof” Melbourne. So how do you expect another dam would do that Marc? Can you provide a shred of factual proof that reliance on rainfall alone will continue to provide enough water without restrictions?
15 May, 2008 at 10:15 am
The only reason the restrictions were eased was due to the water consumption reducing from over 500 litres per day in the late 70’s and early 80’s to around 300 in the 90’s and now below 300
for starters your data is wrong. melbourne’s average water consumption during the 1990’s was not around 300 litres per day. It was between 400 – 450 per day. Not far off the average of the 1970’s when you take into account that in the early 70’s it was below 400 litre’s per day.
http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/CA256F310024B628/0/0BD815869F628412CA257117001CA8CF/$File/Water+consumption+1.pdf
The main contributing factor that reduced water consumption after the mid 90’s was the introduction of CDAG water reforms which introduced new pricing measures.
It had noting to do with water conservation campaigns it was related to Market Reforms.
Also water consumption increase during the mid – late 1980’s once the Thomson dam was completed.
Daily consumption went from around 400 litres per day in 1982 to about 470 litres per day in 1990.
Once again this data proves that the Thomson dam fully met Melbourne’s water needs until the early 2000’s when the Mitchell dam was due for completion. The fact that it was cancelled is the reason why we have water restrictions today.
15 May, 2008 at 11:32 am
Marc,
A couple of things:
It is COAG not CDAG. Why do you think the reforms were put in place?
If I am using your logic the construction of the Mitchall Dam would only result in users consuming more water. Melbourne still uses much more per capita than equivalent sized cities around the world.
Can you show me a copy of a policy or document that said the Mitchell was due to be started in 2000? I am interested to know if it was ever on a forward look plan. The reason I say this is that it takes a long time to build a dam of that magnitude. Look at how long it took to construct the Thomson, let alone to fill it. (And don’t say the floods last year would have filled it because the moving bucket theory of “if we had a dam here, here or here aligning with any current flood does not stand).
15 May, 2008 at 11:51 am
It is COAG not CDAG. Why do you think the reforms were put in place?
Regardless of the reason’s of why they were put in place, they are the main reasons why water usage started to reduce in the late 1990’s. Melbournians started to use less water because the cost of it had increased.
This means that the ending of the water restrictions in the mid 1980’s had nothing to do with conservation campaigns to reduce water consumption. Which means that your following comment was wrong;
The only reason the restrictions were eased was due to the water consumption reducing from over 500 litres per day in the late 70’s and early 80’s to around 300 in the 90’s and now below 300
This is evident when you consider that water consumption was on the increase when the water restrictions were removed.
If I am using your logic the construction of the Mitchell Dam would only result in users consuming more water.
That’s not necessarily correct as the main reason for water usage going down was Market & Pricing reform.
What the Mitchell dam would have meant was that water restrictions were no longer required.
15 May, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Marc,
You cannot guarentee that the Mitchell “would have meant was that water restrictions were no longer required.” Do you have proof of this statement?
The state government of the time stated that the thomson would Drought proof Melbourne.
If you look here:
http://thesource.melbournewater.com.au/content/archive/June2000/history.asp
you will see Marc that:
“By mid-March consumption targets were consistently achieved and restrictions were eased until being removed in December 1983. However, the advertising campaign to persuade people to use less water continued through the summer of 1983-84 and in subsequent years.
The mood had changed. After 1983 there was much greater political and consumer determination to get to grips with water conservation. During the 1970s Melbourne’s annual water consumption rose 35 per cent. Industrial use was relatively stable and industry had rarely faced restrictions during droughts. The increase was among domestic consumers especially outside the house, where it was up 52 per cent.
Consensus was developing that it was not financially or environmentally realistic to attempt to provide for very severe droughts at this level of consumption.
In 1983, Sir Rupert Hamer, who had once announced that Melbourne would never have restrictions again, refused to score points over the Labor Government’s imposition of restrictions and said that “… it was impossible to make Melbourne drought-proof. In this sort of continent we will get shortages periodically”. ”
which is exactly what I said. Don’t misquote me.
15 May, 2008 at 1:33 pm
You cannot guarentee that the Mitchell “would have meant was that water restrictions were no longer required.” Do you have proof of this statement?
The proof is that the Mitchell river flooded twice last year which means it would have been topped up during the current drought. Also with a second major dam, the level of the Thomson would be much higher as there is more water in storage. Also with both the Thomson & the Mitchell dams in place, Melbourne’s water storages wouldn’t have fallen as fast.
The state government of the time stated that the thomson would Drought proof Melbourne
Of course they were only referring to the following few decades. It was always anticipated that a time would come when more dams (the Mitchell Dam) would be required as Melbourne’s population increased. Melbourne’s population has increased by over a million people since the Thomson was built, so it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realise that the government was only referring to the drought proofing of Melbourne until the population increased to a level where the Mitchell Dam would be needed.
However, the advertising campaign to persuade people to use less water continued through the summer of 1983-84 and in subsequent years. The mood had changed. After 1983 there was much greater political and consumer determination to get to grips with water conservation.
Well that’s clearly not correct because between 1982 – 1990 Melbourne’s water consumption increased from 400 litres per day to 470 litres per day. So much for the public mood changing, water consumption skyrocketed.
Maybe the public’s mood changed for a few months but the water consumption figures show that the public’s determination for water conservation dried up very quickly. It was only a reform of pricing that caused the cost of water to go up that really made a long term change in Melbourne’s water consumption.
15 May, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Marc,
Do you have streamflow measurements at the Mitchell Dam site to show how it would have performed? or were the floods downstream?
Have you considered the average infolow to storage ratio of such a dam and how long it takes to fill (like the Thomson)?
Also IF the dam was in place there would have been less water restrictions, higher water use and less water at the start of the drought anyway.
Dandenong Creek has flooded twice in the same time. Why don’t we put a dam on that too?
The quote about water usage is from Melbourne Water’s website so you better ask them for a correction. Oh and currently we are running at how many litres per day? last year was 277. That is nearly half of what it was at it’s peak. Soo technically we can have twice as many houses and use the same water without issue.
reform and pricing is your answer to it all isn’t it? the cost of water is still way too low to be valued adequately. Why do you think the only reason Bolt doesnt turn on his sprinklers for 3 hours a day is so that he doesnt get fined? If he can afford to spend thousands on a sprinkler system he certain can afford to spend thousands turning water into humidity.
15 May, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Apologies to Marc and Dam Buster for interrupting the argument (as riveting as it is), but is it too parochial to suggest from this side of the Murray that if you can’t keep a dam full in a place that rains with such monotonous fucking regularity as Melbourne, Plan B might be the go?
15 May, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Apologies to Marc and Dam Buster for interrupting the argument (as riveting as it is), but is it too parochial to suggest from this side of the Murray that if you can’t keep a dam full in a place that rains with such monotonous fucking regularity as Melbourne, Plan B might be the go?
The main problem here is an incompetent state government that has neglected Melbourne’s water supply in a city that has a soaring population.
The last piece of water infrastructure was completed in the 1980’s when Melbourne’s population was 2.6 million. The city is now fast approaching 4 million with the recent revelation that Melbourne’s population will hit 5 million by 2020.
Sure the planned desalination plant will solve the problem in the short term, but it is the most expensive solution. There was always a plan to dam the Mitchell river when the Thomson could no longer cope with Melbourne’s growing population. That time came several years ago & if that dam had been built it would have cost a quarter that of the desalination plant & provided Melbourne with an affordable water supply.
15 May, 2008 at 3:34 pm
MR: The issue is that it does not rain with as much “monotonous fucking regularity” as it used too in the catchments.
Marc – even if the dam construction started in 1999 ot 2000 it would only just be close to completion now. Sure there may have been some water diverted from a coffer dam but it would in now way be in full service for a couple of years.
And still the dam would need to rely on the ever un-reliable rainfall.
I agree the desal plant will be expensive and there were other options that could have been included but the Dam was not going to be the silver bullet to solve all the problems.
15 May, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Dam Buster: The issue is that it does not rain with as much “monotonous fucking regularity” as it used too in the catchments.
Geez, it must have REALLY sucked living there before then. Sorry, I was just taking the piss – it looked to me like sticking warm pins into your eyeballs might have been more productive than continuing the argument…
15 May, 2008 at 5:14 pm
MR – Melbourne has less rain than Sydney or Brisbane. The CSIRO has been following the trends of rainfall patterns over the Melbourne catchments and they have indicated that the rainfall is less reliable than what it used to be. Is that a temporary or permanent shift? I don’t know.
Does Andrew Bolt know? certainly not.
The CSIRO reports suggest that it potentially a loss in the type of rainfall that generates on going sustained runoff into the storages.
But let’s not start a debate on who has the best weather.
No need to apologise. The whole water subject is part of what I do for a proffession and something I have been passionate about for a looong time. Marc has raised some very good points in what he has posted. There are way too many “what if’s” in his argument about the Mitchell Dam that I have not seen the ‘proof’ to convince me. And trust me I have run the same counter arguments in Bolt’s blog for years.
15 May, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Lets not forget the environmental issues related to the Thomson Dam. These will surely arise with a new Mitchell Dam as well. I would love to see what the proponents of dams would be saying in about 50 years. Melbourne would need a new dam about every 20-25 years unless the population stops growing at the present rate.
15 May, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Those carbon dioxide levels just keep on going up.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
15 May, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Interesting read for the Bolt/Blair lovers.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121078520076792275.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
15 May, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Dam Buster in 2 sets 6 – 1, 6 – 0
16 May, 2008 at 2:57 am
You’re right John50, yet the globe has been cooling since 1998.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html
Sort of deflates the Carbon Dioxide/runaway temperature hysteria a little bit doesn’t it?
16 May, 2008 at 8:27 am
I think it’s time this blog had a new post. Who’s keen?
16 May, 2008 at 10:03 am
The title and rational behind this this post is quite notable for its cognitive dissonance and flat out incorrect assertions.
“Toaf” seems to imply that the relationship between Australia and the rest of the world compares to “apples and oranges”, a phrase reserved for detailing two objects that are totally different, with no inherent correlation whatsoever.
A thinking rational person would realise that this is not the correct analogy to describe Australia’s relationship with the rest of the planet. It is obvious that Australia is a “subset” of the whole, a particular part of the same larger entity. Blair is comparing a small part of the apple with the entire apple.
The laws of nature are the same around the globe. Carbon fertilisation does not just occur in select areas. The response to increases in CO2 and temperature are the same in plants worldwide, not just for Australia.
What is disingenuous is to describe two people commenting on the same Australian Farm Institute report, immediately after it is released to the public, and declaring this as “groupthink”.
Boring…….
16 May, 2008 at 10:19 am
Infidel – Blair is trying to discredit Flannery’s claim of global food production with a report saying some areas of Australia will increase production. Toaf has correctly used facts (something Blair often omits) to show that any increase of production in Australia is minimal due to the small nature of our production in the global market.
It is a bit like someone commenting that global oil prices are higher but Blair saying “but wait the fuel at my local servo went down yesterday”
16 May, 2008 at 10:37 am
Anyone remember Bolts argument that the Murray river is just fine and that the claim it’s dying is all part of his ‘green lefty religion’(TM).
I wonder if he watched that lefty show ‘Landline’ two weeks back, farmers down-stream (obviously lefties) leaving the land and stating it will never recover as far as they can see, backed up by scientists.
Another example of; “those who fought tooth and nail against every single effort to protect and preserve the environment”
16 May, 2008 at 10:39 am
Neither Blair nor the report make the claim that an increase in Australian production will make up for deficiencies in the entire world.
The ABARE report “Climate Change: Impacts On Australian Agriculture”, released by the Australian Farm Institute is a report detailing future climatic conditions in Australia, and was limited to Australia in scope.
This postings original beef seems to be that Blair has extrapolated, (entirely inline with the laws of physics, nature and common sense), that the natural process of carbon fertilization and increased temperature, will in fact be beneficial to crop life around the world, especially in frozen wastelands such as Northern Canada and Siberia.
Either way you slice it, we have “ONE” verified report that climate change will positively affect crop output and “ZERO” reports that claim it will be harmful.
Blair is right to expose Flannery’s (a mammalogist, and palaeontologist), lack of climatic expertise.
16 May, 2008 at 10:45 am
Anyone remember Bolts argument that the Murray river is just fine and that the claim it’s dying is all part of his ‘green lefty religion’(TM).
Please provide proof of your claim craigy. Until you can, your argument is worthless.
16 May, 2008 at 11:07 am
Marc
If you had watched a couple of key prrogrammes over the last 2 weeks, you world have all the proof you need. The Murray river is so drained that it no longer reaches the sea in SA. The lakes there are retreating at approx. 1m a day … if not faster.
The system is incredibly unhealthy … not just for the environment, but also for the people is SA who rely on the Murray.
16 May, 2008 at 11:18 am
If you had watched a couple of key prrogrammes over the last 2 weeks, you world have all the proof you need. The Murray river is so drained that it no longer reaches the sea in SA. The lakes there are retreating at approx. 1m a day … if not faster
RD I’m not disputing the claim that the Murray river has serious problems. I am disputing Craigy’s claim that Bolt thinks that the problems with the murray are all myth.
Craigy Claimed: Anyone remember Bolts argument that the Murray river is just fine and that the claim it’s dying is all part of his ‘green lefty religion’(TM).
I have asked him to produce proof that bolt believes that there are no problems with the murray river.
16 May, 2008 at 11:20 am
Marc,
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/murray_dead_but_the_cod_dont_know/P20/
16 May, 2008 at 11:24 am
The reason the Cod are being found in larger numbers is due to re-stocking, and construction of fish ladders to allow free passage especially in the Broken Creek which has been identified as a major breeding ground of the Cod.
16 May, 2008 at 11:30 am
This article still does not back craigy’s claim that Bolt disputes that the Murray doesn’t have problems.
Bolt is disputing Germaine Greers claim that: ” The Murray is already a salt lagoon and not a river at all. Our rulers are sitting around chewing the fat about a plan that they might one day arrive at. It’s a disgrace, and you should be angry.”
Technically she is wrong.
Especially when you consider the following; THE Murray cod is on the verge of a remarkable comeback — just five years after it was declared a vulnerable species
16 May, 2008 at 11:39 am
Marc – With all due respect BULLSHIT.
Bolt is using a report about the increase in Cod numbers to suggest the River is just fine and that any comment Greer has made about the condition is ill founded.
And technically Bolt is wrong when you consider the recent reports on the condition of the lower Murray. The Cod reports is based on the mid Murray closer to Echuca… Again Apple and Oranges
16 May, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Infidel, why can’t you let it go? You and I are not going to agree on this one. Aren’t you bored? I am. – Toaf
16 May, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Chris of Brisbane
13 May, 2008 at 10:55 pm
I take it then, that you are not overly fond of A Bolt?
16 May, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Marc … you are full of BS.
Bolt is of the ilk that he will not say exactly what he thinks, but he certainly infers his views and opinions via other means … and you know it. He is clever enough to know that if he makes a truly definitive statement in writing, then he is accountable to it.
He probably has ‘If it’s not written down, its a rumour’ plastered all over his toilet walls just to remind him.
Bolt will cherry pick the best parts of a good news story (e.g. the cod), then imply that the same good news applies for the greater region. The Echuca is a classic example.
16 May, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Infidel
16 May, 2008 at 2:57 am
You’re right John50, yet the globe has been cooling since 1998.
Don’t have any understanding of basic stats, do you?
17 May, 2008 at 3:57 am
Which stat be that “Just Me”?
17 May, 2008 at 8:50 am
It’s alright Toaf, we can agree to disagree. I’m more interested in showing the casual passerby that your position is untenable and just plain faulty. With evidence of course, and here is some more.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM150.pdf
This study conducted by the “Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine”, (resist the urge to scream “Big Oil”), comes to same conclusions as the Australian Farm Institute study and lends weight to Blairs underlying assertion.
It is great to see some actual study into the science of climate change. We need not just take the word of Al Gore and assume “the debate is over”. It is in fact only beginning.
The conclusion of this Oregon report is so poignant it is worth reading the entire thing;
“There are no experimental data to sup port the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide
and other green house gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape.
There is no reason to limit human production of CO2, CH4, and other minor green house gases as has been proposed (82,83,97,123).
We also need not worry about environmental calamities even if the current nat ural warming trend con tinues. The Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic effects. Warmer weather extends growing sea sons and generally improves the habitability of colder regions.
As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be released
into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people.
The United States and other countries need to produce more energy, not less. The most practical, economical, and environmentally
sound methods available are hydrocarbon and nuclear technologies. Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not harmfully warmed
the Earth, and the extrapolation of current trends shows that it will not do so in the foreseeable fu ture. The CO2 pro duced does, however, accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permits plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also flourishes, and the diversity of plant and animal life is increased.
Human activities are producing part of the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an in creasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of this CO2 increase. Our children will therefore enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed.”
Really…. who are we to question the science.
17 May, 2008 at 10:22 am
This is all bullshit anyway.
The increase in evaporation due to higher temperatures will offset any carbon fertilization in Australia. Most of Australias temperate cropping area is marginal, and would take only 2″ a year in either reduced rainfall or increased evaporation to turn it into semi arid grass land, at best, with almost zero cropping potential.
Tropical and subtropical agriculture will be similarly negatively effected by a reduction in rainfall. In the case of more intense rain events in tropical and subtropical areas you will see more leaching of fertilizer, more erosion and more soil borne disease and fungal problems.
Looking further afield the US, China, India and many others have depleted their aquifers to a dangerous level due to over use of irrigation (particularly central pivot irrigation) so when this resource runs out higher temps and more c02 are meaningless. There is no technological fix for this problem.
Finally, consider that fertlizers and most agrichemicals have almost quadrupled in price in the last few years, in fact i know farmers who have water but can’t afford to run their irrigation pumps due to high diesel prices and who cant afford to fertilize as often as they need to.
Does anyone know what you call a country without a productive and sustainable agricultural sector? Third world.
So forgive me if, as a farmer, im not overjoyed by the prospect of frozen tundra on the other side of the planet being more productive while watching the south of our country turn into a dustbowl and the north into a storm ravaged swamp.
Bolt and Blair and their ilk know about as much about agriculture as i know about being a Right wing nutcase.
17 May, 2008 at 11:04 am
“The increase in evaporation due to higher temperatures will offset any carbon fertilization in Australia.”
Feel free to provide to source of this assertion.
Forgive us if we don’t just take your word for it.
17 May, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Its very simple. Higher air temperatures cause the soil moisture to evaporate more quickly, due to osmosis in part. The soil is damp and the air is dry, it draws moisture out of the soil. The same is true of the plants themselves. Hot, dry wind and erratic rainfall stress the plant and cause susceptibility to disease, pests and overall lower yields. Its just common sense.
In tropical areas higher temperature and increased humidity/moisture are obviously going to cause more fungal disease problems. Also, considering most fertilizers are water soluable the extra rain will cause problems with nutrient leaching into the water table which is costly fiancially and environmentaly.
A point I forgot to make before about carbon fertilisation in both tropical and temperate areas, is that you don’t get something for nothing. More carbon may increase a plants growth rate but plants don’t grow on carbon alone. Increased growth rate means more water use and more fertilizer use.
The extra fertilizer and extra carbon will also promote weeds, not just crops. Weeds are plants able to out compete food crops in more varied field conditions, its why they call ‘em weeds. Any increased yield must have the extra weed competition taken into account and the cost of extra spraying and more frequent fertilizer applications.
Changes in rainfall patterns and temperature could also allow some pests and weeds to complete multiple life cycles in the one year or survive through the winter/summer into the next season. Early or late rains can ruin a crop if they come at the just the wrong time. All this means more variables injected into a racket with an average of 4% return on investment.
Me and my wife both have agriculture degrees, run our own farm and my wife manages a dairy herd. I know my shit mate.
18 May, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Infidel,
One of the beautiful things about the internet is the ability to conduct research. You quote at length the “Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine”. What is the point of this quote if the origin of the quote is a quack outfit?
Do you honestly think readers on a blog can’t use the internet? Here’s a few facts for the lazy reader:
1. The OISM describes itself as “a small research institute” that studies “biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging.”
2. It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, who is a biochemist with no published research in the field of climatology
3. OISM markets a home-schooling kit for “parents concerned about socialism in the public schools” and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war.
4. The OISM is located on a farm about 7 miles from the town of Cave Junction, Oregon (population 1,126).
5. In its early years, the OISM focused much of its attention on a new theory that Robinson had developed regarding “molecular clocks” that he thought might influence aging. It also became involved in issues related to nuclear war and civil defense.
6. The OISM website also offers educational links to a creationist website and an online discussion group called RobinsonUsers4Christ, “for Bible & Trinity-believing, God-fearing, ‘Jesus-Plus-Nothing-Else’ Christian families who use the Robinson Curriculum to share ideas and to get and give support.”
7. Fakhri Bazzaz, a plant physiologist at Harvard, has found that carbon dioxide-enriched air accelerates short-term plant growth, but his studies were carried out under controlled greenhouse conditions and are difficult to translate to a larger scale. Plant growth in natural systems may be constrained by a shortage of soil nutrients despite the greater availability of carbon dioxide. Moreover, Bazzaz’s experiments involved carbon dioxide concentrations at levels 100% greater than those now existing in our atmosphere, whereas the greenhouse warming we are experiencing right now results from only a 20% increase in world carbon dioxide levels. Clearly, it is irresponsible to predict “benefits” from increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere when such “benefits” may only appear after we suffer the consequences of a five-fold increase over current anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. Finally, Bazzaz found that different plant species vary dramatically in their response to increased carbon dioxide. Plants such as sugar cane and corn were not improved, but weeds were stimulated. There is not much real benefit in warming the planet by several degrees just so we can maybe make it easier for weeds to grow.
The above information comes from the following source – http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine
18 May, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Quoting from that OISM report to support an anti-AGW argument is akin to invoking Godwins Law! You lose!
19 May, 2008 at 5:03 am
And yet these are same conclusions drawn by the “Australian Farm Institute”. The topic of this thread.
How do we slime this institute. How do we use a website link to slime an unrelated topic? Which argumentative fallacy are we to use on them?
EAG, it would be beneficial for you to learn to argue properly. see here. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
Your particular argumentative fallacy is here.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html
19 May, 2008 at 12:11 pm
I just looked at the OISM website, these people are either retarded or are shills for oil and coal producers. Its almost embarrasing that people have taken it seriously.
‘Limits on greenhouse gasses would harm the environment’ Its not even funny, its so fucking stupid. http://www.oism.org/pproject/
I had never heard of them until now, but i guess you can find pretty much any opinion, point of view or perversion you want on the net, if you look hard enough.
We recently had a creation scientist visit our town for a Christian ’science’ presentation. His argument was that the behemoth of the bible was actually a brontosaursus and that cave men and dinosours lived at the same time, about 5000 years ago. The dinosour bones were not actually fossilized but calcined by lava or an comet or something. All sciencefictionally (oops) proven apparently. Similarly credible, i suspect to the oism’s claims regarding greenhouse gas.
Type the words ‘christian science institute’ into google for an example of who can get away with calling themselves a science institute these days.
19 May, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Infidel
16 May, 2008 at 2:57 am
You’re right John50, yet the globe has been cooling since 1998.
Just Me responded:
Don’t have any understanding of basic stats, do you?
Infidel asked:
Which stat be that “Just Me”?
The 10 year sample period. There is a rule in stats that says any sample size less than about 30 units (in this case years) usually does not give reliable information. Why do you think the standard sample period for global temp trends is 30 years? It is not an arbitrary choice, that is the sample size at which the real long term trend starts to reliably emerge from the normal stochastic variation (ie ‘background noise’). It is the long terms trends that count here, not short term variations.
That is a really important point to understand.
And why did you pick a ten year period? If you picked an 11 or 9 year period, you would not get falling temps. The truth is that only by arbitrarily picking the extreme outlier of 1998 can you try to claim that temps have fallen.
It is statistical nonsense, and a deliberate misrepresentation of the real situation.
Infidel’s result for Basic Stats 101: FAIL.
Comments are closed.