http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/science-is-in-on-climate-change-sea-level-rise-17mm/story-e6frg6nf-1225795202916

Shame you can’t see the position and size of photos to really appreciate the significance of this kind of story in the MSM!!

Report this

00

If you Google Earth, Dubai, you will see the development of man made islands, marina and canal developments, all at a level not very far above sea level.
These developments are only recent (Palm Jumierah was started in 2001 and residents started moving in late 2005), and with the most recent pictures on Google Earth of Dubai, shows massive building developments and massive infrastructure such as highways, and a mono-rail system. Trump International Hotel and Tower are on the entry to the Palm Island.

The project also includes 300 man made islands, further up the coast to the East, dredged from the sea floor to form another part of the development titled “The World”. At this stage there is a large resort on one of these islands.

I would consider that the Arab engineers, planners, developers and financiers of these projects are not incompetent, and sea level,sea surge and “Global Warming ? ” would have been taken into account.
Dubai is on a similar latitude to India, Bangladesh and the Maldives, which according to the Gore, will be inundated.
Al Gore hosted a conference in Dubai recently on finance and carbon trading, presumably because of all that Arab oil money. From the reports I have read, there was no mention of alarming sea level rise.

Report this

00

Failiure in Copenhagen equates to a big win for the free world.

Give your Government no reason to smile at the Copenhagen love-in, wherein Capitalist countries are expected to protrate themselves before UN criminal syndicates and gangsters (for no good reason whatsoever)

Report this

30

… it is the science that matters.

Could not agree more observable evidence has falsified AGW theory.

And that consensus hasn’t changed.

Since when has consensus had anything to do with science. Apart from alarmists who cares what a bunch of scientists playing with faulty computer models agree upon. The “its worse that we thought” predictions are becoming a joke.
Seen the polls lately, consensus like AGW theory will soon be “worse that we thought” for alarmists.

Public perception shapes political action and on that basis AGW will soon be past it’s tipping point, although I expect that you and your ilk will continue to avoid the obvious.

Hiding behind a pseudonym is for those lacking the courage to identify with their convictions.

Report this

00

Report this

10

Well, if National Public Radio concluded that, who are we to argue with them?

“Who cares what people think?”

Would you have said that if the poll had come out with figures more to your liking, Ray?

“it is the science that matters. And that consensus hasn’t changed.”

Oh? Did the world’s scientists take a vote recently? Did we miss it?

Report this

20

http://people-press.org/report/485/economy-top-policy-priority

Who cares what the people think, it is the science that matters. And that consensus hasn’t changed.

Report this

00

http://www.latrobe.edu.au/news/articles/2009/podcasts/climate-change-politics-with-clive-hamilton/transcript

Matt Smith: Like they put their fingers in their ears and yell very loudly over the top of everyone else sometimes.

Clive Hamilton: There’s a strong element of that. But here you’ve got people who sometimes are well educated who develop these often bizarre reasons for repudiating the scientific evidence. And you think, “Why? What do they get out of denying the science?” Frequently, they claim they are denying the science because they’re more intelligent and rational than everyone else. And they need an explanation for why the vast majority of scientists and particularly those who study the issue take a very different view. So, they have to come up with bizarre notions about how all of these scientists are in some conspiracy to inflate their incomes or advance their own careers or they just get caught up in herd behavior.

Now, anyone who knows the scientific community knows that any scientist who could come up with a believable, sustainable case which undermined one or more of the main elements of climate change signs would have his or her reputation made. I mean, they’d probably get the Nobel Prize for it. So, there’s a strong incentive to find evidence against it, but no one has come up with anything persuasive.

So, it really is a very puzzling phenomenon, but it’s a dangerous phenomenon because, of course, those in government and industry who want not to act or to act slowly feed off their arguments even though the arguments have no scientific credibility.

… then later on, out comes the other side of the coin …

Matt Smith: You’re insinuating pressure from corporations?

Clive Hamilton: Absolutely. The fossil fuel lobby in Australia, they call themselves the Greenhouse Mafia, is an extremely powerful political lobby and I think the most powerful industry lobby that we’ve ever seen in Australia. And with the election of the Rudd government, some of those corporations that previously funded and promoted climate science denial shifted their strategy when they knew that some policy was going to be introduced to try to water down the policy.

… and again later …

Matt Smith: Is he as a politician being influenced by outside organizations with other agendas, do you think?

Clive Hamilton: Well, political leaders have an endless strain of lobbyists through their doors. In fact, there’s a whole industry in Canberra whose job can be summarized as opening doors into politicians’ offices. That’s what they do. They use their contacts, they use their connections, and they get paid very well in order to open those doors. And one of those doors is Peter Garrett’s. And so, he has inevitably influenced by the sorts of lobbying that he gets day in day out from corporations who want to try to avoid or water down environmental regulations. And many people had expected that with the labor government environment organizations would have a greater influence in Canberra. And they undoubtedly do have some more influence compared to the Howard government. But I think some environment organization leaders have been dismayed with the extent to which they appended to but not really listening to.

So in summary: people who agree with Clive are honest, forthright and incorruptible. People who disagree with Clive are sneaky, suspicious, clearly corrupt. Those (like Peter Garratt) who basically do agree with Clive but are not sufficiently extreme to satisfy Clive’s personal taste are compromised and “inevitably influenced”.

Report this

60

The blog associated with this survey has a comment from Andrew Glickson. I replied…
http://ambit-gambit.nationalforum.com.au/archives/003593.html

Andrew, please, since the planet’s health depends on it, let’s leave no stone unturned. Demand immediately that all global data used at the East Anglia CRU be made available – so the results can be checked and verified; that Nature uphold it’s own standards of free access to data; that the IPCC consider all the evidence; that someone somewhere finds THAT mystery paper which has empirical evidence that carbon dioxide causes a major change to our climate.

$79 billion in funding for climate related science and technology ought to have produced ONE paper in support. Where is it?

Simulations of the climate are not The Climate. Models are based on assumptions and estimates and raised to the power of a good guess. Models are extraordinary, but their task is huge. They are unverified, and there are gaping holes in their predictions.

We are simply talking about the life support system of science… that science is based on observation, not opinion, not authority, and not on hidden data, hidden adjustments, or “simulations”. We are talking about the right of citizens to expect their governments and government scientists to make decisions based on logic and reason.

With major financial institutions standing to make billions in profits from a carbon market ought not the citizens of Australia have the right to be protected from exaggerated claims?
Carbon trading world wide in 2008 was $126 billion. The forecasts suggest it will become THE largest “commodity” traded. All the more amazing since it isn’t a commodity, but a government “permit”. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf

Our very democracy is at risk. We hand over control of our economy to an unaudited unelected committee in Geneva.

JoNova

Report this

90

The phrase “Baptists and bootleggers” describes how special interest groups with opposing views can come to support the same government policy.

The classic example is Prohibition in America, applauded by Baptists because they thought alcohol was evil, while bootleggers supported it because it eliminated most of the competition (i.e, legitimate liquor companies). This alliance was enough for the politicians to impose prohibition on the public. They were able to use the arguments of the Baptists to support a policy that ensured them the bribes of the bootleggers, who stood to make money from Prohibition.

In today’s climate change vaudeville show, the Baptists are of course played by the environmentalists and the bootleggers are bankers, politicians, carbon traders and everyone else who stand to make lots of money or otherwise benefit greatly from carbon regulation.

“Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it.” (Edmund Burke)

Report this

20