JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Councils become climate experts too. (Now Big-government insanity comes from small councils)

The answer seems so bleeding obvious.
Local governments are ruling on what people can do with their own land if it happens to be near seas recorded as rising at a frightening 1mm per year. Home owners are losing options and home value, not because of the rising water, but because of rising nonsense.

Let’s assume that IPCC projections might, incredibly, actually come to pass — why don’t the councils just get all residents to sign a clause before they buy or renovate. We the residents and potential residents, won’t mind signing that we have seen The Official Council Climate Warning:

—————————————————–

“The IPCC estimates the oceans may rise by (insert wild prediction here).

The council cannot be held responsible for the weather, and will not hold back the ocean.

Buy or renovate at your own risk!”

—————————————————–

Who has more incentive to assess the threats to a house (your house): a/ you, the homeowner who just hocked yourself to the grave and wants to live in it, hand it to your kids, or on-sell it for a decent quid; or b/ the local councillors who will never set foot in it, and won’t be councillors by the time said threat may or may not occur?

Not to mention that Councillors are equipped to assess complex coastal threats just like any bricklayer, newsagent, pharmacist, teacher, unionist or minor career politician would be. In other words — Not.

In a true free society, people could make up their own minds about the likelihood of the predictions made by UN committees which quote Greenpeace reports, and whose own lead authors say things like: “All the models are wrong” (but only when they don’t think anyone is listening).

If the IPCC are right, only silly skeptical fools will have wasted their money (and why would the council care about them?). If the IPCC are wrong, the only losers are the bed-wetting patsies who believed them and sold out a bit cheap to move for an uphill house.  I say, let the people decide.

Fifty years from now, no one would blame the current council if erosion, or even a storm surge led to property damage. In 2062, disgruntled home owners who have to fork out for a small sea-wall certainly won’t be suing the 2012 Council.

It’s time elected representatives stopped treating voters as if they were children.—————————————————————————————————–

Owners fighting on the beaches

WITH its pristine golden beach and picturesque lagoon, it’s no wonder people like Heather McDonald consider Lake Cathie on the NSW mid north coast a dream place to live.But for Mrs McDonald and others living close to the water those dreams could soon be washed away – not by rising sea levels but by “alarmist” government policy. Among the options Port Macquarie Hastings Council is considering to combat dire predictions of sea level rises in the suburb over the next 50 to 100 years is a “planned retreat” - the forced eviction of waterfront residents as a pre-emptive measure. More than 70 homes are in the firing line, many occupied by retirees who have put everything they own into living there.

————————————–

UPDATE: Reader Lawrie reports on legal action against the Lake Macquarie Council:

Jeff McCloy is a property developer here in NSW. He is taking Lake Macquarie (near Newcastle)Council to court over the councils sea level rise policy. Mr. McCloy stated at a public meeting, reported in the Newcastle Herald and I sent Jo a copy, that the science the council relied on was faulty and therefore their decision was faulty. The meeting of local business people gave Jeff a resounding acclamation as he told Mayor Greg Piper of his plan. As Jeff said he had been to court several times over such issues and won.

Best of luck to McCloy!

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.2/10 (93 votes cast)
Councils become climate experts too. (Now Big-government insanity comes from small councils), 9.2 out of 10 based on 93 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/cadurkx

137 comments to Councils become climate experts too. (Now Big-government insanity comes from small councils)

  • #
    Z

    Damm as a “denier” can the goverment please make my super (pissweak) fund invest in some really bad coastal developments.
    I know i will lose money on it “when” the sea rises, But I do like A Wading Pool.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DougS

    Councils are expert at everything – particularly if it has a ‘green’ side to it.

    They simply see it as a way of intruding into our everyday lives to control us – and of course, there’s lots of council jobs to be had.

    Climate Change Officers (what on earth do they do?), Recycling Advisers, Equality and Diversity Coordinators etc, etc.

    Lots of (Public Sector) jobs for the boys.


    Report this

    10

    • #
      Cookster

      Doug,

      “Lots of (Public Sector) jobs for the boys.” –

      You’ve nailed it one. Councils concern with rising sea levels is just an excuse to create work and jobs for local government workers. When I pay my rates I expect appropriate developments to be approved, the streets to be clean, the roads to be maintained and my garbage to be picked up. Anything else is a waste of my taxes.

      This has been going on for far too long and Jo’s article is timely and welcome.


      Report this

      10

    • #
      Bulldust

      It’s bloody amazing … local councils are basically a law unto themselves. I don’t remember if I related my experience with the City of Perth Planning Committee before, but it seems apropos now.

      As some of you may recall I live in an apartment in East Perth (ironically low carbon footprint hehe). The virtually derelict building called The Carlton Hotel is near me. About two years ago they proposed to rennovate the front of the hotel and requested bonus plot ratio* to build a 75m tall apartment block at the rear of their lot.

      The planning process in the City Council is as follows:

      1) Design Advisory Committee (“experts”) look at the design and critique it, and provide recommendations for the Planning Committee.
      2) Planning Committee (councilors) considers the DAC recommendation and makes further comment and may recommend the plan go before the Council.
      3) Within a week of the Planning Committee recommendation the plan normally goes before the City Council for an approval vote.

      Feedback on the plan was solicited from nearby residents, and we wrote on behalf of the strata of our building (I am on the strata committee). One of the main bones of contention (and there were many others) was the height of the building – local planning guidelines stipulate 25.5m as the maximum height for that area of town (Town Centre of the Goderich Scheme). The DAC agreed and described the proposed building as “grossly” exceeding the height guidelines.

      About a year later a revised (and uglier) proposal was proffered, which was to be 61.5m tall. This sailed through the DAC with no mention whatsoever about height, despite being 140% over the height guideline.

      I made a deputation to the Planning Committee (the only time at which the public may speak regarding such proposals) and stated my case in a couple minutes. They then blithely ignored my main objections and blathered on about irrelevent fluff. Needless to say the proposal sailed through Council the next week.

      I could point out here that one of the owners of The Carlton seemed very chummy with one of the councilors prior to the meeting and that she absolutely gushed about the revised proposal, but I am sure that isn’t relevent *cough*

      Short version: Councils ignore the rules they want to and impose the rules they want to. There is no consistancy at all.

      * One of the regulations in building is the amount of floor space per m^2 of your lot … the “plot ratio.” A higher plot ratio therefore means you can effectively add more floors to an existing building footprint.


      Report this

      10

      • #
        Bulldust

        PS> The Carlton is still merrily decaying away … I assume the owners did not manage to get any investors for their proposal yet.

        PPS> The same owner who was at the Planning Committee meeting also ran for Council in the preceeding elections and lost. He did not run in the recent election… I wonder why not… nothing to do with getting the project approved, I’m sure…


        Report this

        10

      • #
        cementafriend

        Bulldust, you should get your politicians to endorse a Professional Engineers Act (similar to the act in Queensland) which has been mooted for some time. Only thing make sure that the PE board actually prosecutes anyone who is not registered including public servants who supply an engineering service (which includes rainfall runoff, flood levels, coastal management, roads, drainage etc and also engineering data ie preciptation, sea levels, tidal changes, temperature etc).
        I am hopeful that the enquiry into the Floods in Queensland will lead to prosecution particularly in Toowoomba were councillors prefered the advice of a landscape architect to advice from the local engineer about the size of drains. Toowoomba is an inland city,in the Darling ranges, at an elevation of about 700m. Dramatic film was shown of cars floating away down the main street (and people drowned) were shown on TV. Local flooding should no be possible if drainage had been adequately designed by registered engineers.


        Report this

        10

      • #
        Len

        Why didn’t you make a complaint to the State Administration Tribunal. They are often reversing ridiculous decisions of dick head councils.


        Report this

        10

        • #
          Bulldust

          TBH I couldn’t be arsed. I didn’t want to push it any further, even though I could have made a stink at the Tribunal. The Hotel is such a hole that anything will be an improvement, even a monstrosity 140% over the height guidelines.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          MattB

          Len an aggrieved 3rd party has no appeal rights with the SAT. Only the developer. SAT invariably only approves heights above and beyond those deemed acceptable by councils.


          Report this

          00

  • #
  • #
    Jaymez

    A very sensible approach Jo, and one you would think would be blindingly obvious to hundreds of councils with all their advisers. It amazes me that Brisbane and nearby councils did not stop people building on known flood areas. Meanwhile Port Macquarie Hastings and many others like them can ban building based on modelled projections which are already proven inaccurate!


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Streetcred

      There was a reason why the old Queenslander was built up on stumps. LA planning and obsession with small blocks crammed in is to blame for the explosion of inappropriate residential design and construction. Ridiculous infrastructure headworks charges on residential development just made the situation so much worse. Purge those unnecessary non-value adding positions in LA’s and the need for high rates and taxes will diminish quick smart.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Cyril of Gladstone

        The reason that they are all obsessed with small blocks is because they have all signed up for the UNs agenda 21. The planning regime within this agenda is to have high density housing along publc transport corridors. this is to minimise the impact of evil humans of the environment and the poor little animals. The idea is the opposite of the anti battery hens issue. Stack all of the Humans up into cages and allow the animals to be free range.


        Report this

        10

    • #
      Lawrie

      Jeff McCloy is a property developer here in NSW. He is taking Lake Macquarie (near Newcastle)Council to court over the councils sea level rise policy. Mr. McCloy stated at a public meeting, reported in the Newcastle Herald and I sent Jo a copy, that the science the council relied on was faulty and therefore their decision was faulty. The meeting of local business people gave Jeff a resounding acclamation as he told Mayor Greg Piper of his plan. As Jeff said he had been to court several times over such issues and won.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      bananabender

      You’d be very hard pressed to find a worse site for a large city than the Brisbane Valley. It has a massive catchment, is surrounded by steep hills, has impermeable clay soils and extremely high rainfall over short periods.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        elsie

        Plus it has had a history of many floods which people don’t recall. 2 main bridges (Victoria) were washed away before a strong enough one was built. The 1893 flood was really 2 floods each much higher than 1974. In 1823 the explorer, Oxley, noted and was told by natives of much higher floods in the past. If we do get one like those again the AGWs will shout”We told you!” even though CO2 was not relevant then. The Greens and other NGOs succeeded in having the Wolfedene Dam scuttled thus negating the flood action of Wivenhoe Dam.


        Report this

        00

        • #

          That Wolfedene Dam is still a sore point with some Queenslanders who know what happened here, and while the ‘airbrush’ of trendiness has caused it to perhaps diminish into almost fable, the truth is still there, plain for all to see.

          When Wayne Goss was first elected in 1989, his Chief of Staff was Kevin Rudd. Rudd’s very first act on the Monday following the result was to ‘can’ the proposed Wolfdene Dam, despite the fact it was believed to be absolutely essential for water supply in SEQ for the 21st Century.

          Rumour is that Rudd did this to ‘thank’ The Greens for their support, and preferences, not that they were needed really, because Goss won quite a healthy majority.

          Rudd still placed the proposal in the trash can.

          Try and find mention of it these days, and you’ll be looking, even if it is there. That ‘leftist’ air brush ensures any mention is more along the lines of conjecture.

          This had a secondary impact not many people realise.

          With Wolfdene in place, then it would have provided for an extra water supply for SEQ, and then Wivenhoe would have a better chance of fulfilling one of its main tasks, probably the most important of them, that of flood mitigation. (not flood prevention, but mitigation)

          What this then does (almost subliminally) is to give the impression that Wivenhoe, as huge as it is, provides all the water needed for SEQ, so there was no real reason to add to that with Wolfdene.

          That thinking then became the established policy, that being Wivenhoe providing water supply only, and the thinking of flood mitigation receded as the immense value of that water supply became part of the Government’s assets, the value of that water for sale to the public.

          Hence Wivenhoe at 100% represented a huge resource, not of the water, but of Government dollars.

          If Wolfdene had have gone ahead, then Wivenhoe ‘may’ have had more room to hold water that would then better mitigate any major flood.

          One reference: The Wolfdene Dam (pdf document) (Note the date here, 2007, long before any flood inquiry.)

          Tony.


          Report this

          10

  • #
    Jim Barker

    Of course, these councils have no ulterior motives in seizing prime real estate. That could never happen. Or are they only thinking of the children? Their children.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    I seem to recall that MattB is such a “Councillor”.

    Not to mention that Councillors are equipped to assess complex coastal threats just like any bricklayer, newsagent, pharmacist, teacher, unionist or minor career politician would be. In other words — Not.

    Yes MattB, I think Jo is “outing” some Dunning-Kruger try not to take it personal.

    PS ever since I was told that I was demonstrating my DK at Deltoid (a place I don’t go anymore), I just can’t resist a chance to return the favor to any warmist I can.

    PPS, OT but the above link to Deltoid has our own “CO2 is not evil” George doing battle with the worst of them. It is a useful example of how bad that team is. If you read the whole thread you’ll see outright insanity in some of the posts.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Having been treated to an all out assault by Jakerman in all his glory I don’t think I’ll do much reading on your Deltoid link, Mark. His arguments are inexplicable. It would waste my time. But to be fair, at least he can be more civil if he wants to be.

      Seeing Jakerman butting heads with George is almost pathetic. No, it is pathetic.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Maran

    RSS came in at 0.0C for November 2011, so yes it ain’t warming at all LOL


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Lionell Griffith

    When the “condemned” properties are sold for one cent on the dollar, guess who will be in line for the buying. Then guess how easy it will be for them to get “permission” to build on and/or use without restriction the newly “acquired” property. Hint: it won’t be the current owners. It will be people who have the “proper” connections.

    Corruption? No way. Governments can’t be corrupt because they define what corruption is. They define corruption as people who have earned what they have actually using their wealth for their own purposes rather than turning it over to the government.


    Report this

    10

  • #

    LOL.

    Local Councils have no “authority” – They only have Authority if you give it to them via consent.

    This question was posed to the Attorney General in Jul last year. People who use AussieSpeedingFines.com.au will use the Attorney General’s response to have unlawful parking fines from councils canceled.

    Web Page—> http://www.aussiespeedingfines.com/pages/About-Parking-Fines.html

    Attorney General’s response –> http://www.aussiespeedingfines.com/attachments/3/Attorney%20General%201988%20referendum%20letter%20K%20T.JPG

    “The Constitution does not currently recognize local Government”

    Local Councils are private companies operating for profit. They have no jurisdiction, hence they will obtain jurisdiction by your consent Challenge them!


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Kevin Moore

      Police are merely incorporated policy enforcers for Corporate Governments – they are not peace officers. Every government in Australia is a registered for profit Corporation. It is up to the individual who was registered at birth to claim their right as stock holders and benefit from this.

      One could ask the question – are our governments lawful,or just a fact.

      A knowledge of the difference between a ‘person’ and a flesh and blood living being helps ones understanding of the legal deceptions greatly.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Gnome

      I distinctly remember we all voted against local government in a referendum back in 1988 (or was it 1987) and I am told this happened some time before then too.

      If we all opposed local gumment then, how come no-one has done anything about it yet?


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Len

      The statement that Local government is not recognised in the Constitution is very misleading. Local governments are recognised in the State Constitutions. Their authority comes from the State governments. The current act for WA is the Local Government Act 1995. It also has various regulations with which to apply their power.
      The push for so called recognition is the Federal Government interfering in State matters. The sensible and informed coucillors are against this federal recognition as they can see the harm which would flow on. Interestingly, the federal government is funding the yes campaign with quite an amount of money. Conversely, the no campaign is receiving no funding as I am lead to believe.


      Report this

      10

      • #
        denis

        What do you mean by “not recognised in the Constitution is very misleading”,because you either know full well that it matters not what the State Constitutions say or you sir are being misleading.I put it to you that the Commonwealth Constitution does not march to the beat of the state constitutions,never has never will.In 1988,a second attempt to alter the Constitution was asked of the people with the aim of incorporating local government(councils) into the contract between the people and the crown,it was unsuccessful and it obtained majority in no State and an overall minority of 3,084,678 votes,a massive fail and of course as we all know the result of a referendum is legally binding,thats it game over so to speak.State govts do not have sovreignty that went out the window in 1901.To put it simply the elected parliment of any state in this country cannot validate what is denied to the commonwealth parliment via section 128 of the Constitution.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Kevin Moore

          Denis,

          “In 1988,a second attempt to alter the Constitution was asked of the people with the aim of incorporating local government(councils) into the contract between the people and the crown,it was unsuccessful…”

          There is one square mile in London which is also called the Crown.


          Report this

          00

    • #
      Juliar

      Of course it isn’t recognised in the constitution because Local Government is a subordinate authority. The State and Federal Governments create legislation to form suboridinate authorities such as councils who are given an enabling act on what their jurisdiction is. Like others have mentioned, the councils often make council laws that are ultra vires.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        denis

        Councils have absolutely no authority and no one but the people of this country can give it to them via section 128 of the Constitution.Forget about the fed or state govt as neither of these parliments have the authority to create another tier of govt.Everything that councils do is ultra vires


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Juliar

          Please read both sources:

          http://australia.gov.au/about-australia/our-government/local-government-councils

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_referendum,_1988_(Local_Government)

          I’ve got various text books which say that Federal and State government establish acts which give councils the power to administer the affairs of municipalitiesand create delegated legislation thorugh an enabling act.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            denis

            Thanks Juliar for that brilliant and irrefutable proof that the only two legitimate tiers of govt which do so by our CONSENT can somehow work some back room jiggery pokery with one another and create a legitimate third tier of govt.Could you also please,tell me what the enabling act is called and we will continue the lesson from there


            Report this

            00

        • #
          Kevin Moore

          Is the Admiralty law enforcing Corporation called the Commonwealth of Australia a de-facto or a de-jure government?

          Certainly the people of Australia are misinformed.

          What is the difference between De-Jure vs. De-Facto Sovereign? .

          This distinction is generally made in times of revolution or war when the lawfully constituted govern­ment is overthrown and a new authority assumes power by force, having no lawful claim to power. The former would be known as de-jure and the latter as de-facto sovereign.

          Thus de-jure sovereign is one who has a legal claim to sovereignty but does not possess it in fact while de-facto sovereign is one who has no lawful claim to sovereignty but possesses it in fact and exercises necessary force [Admiralty Law] to make and enforce its laws.

          After the lapse of some time, when the de-facto sovereign shows sign of permanence and continuity and is able to acquire popular consent, either by democratic methods or by force, it will become de-jure sovereign as well and will be so recognized by other states.

          The difference is thus temporary. Either the de-jure sovereign regains its authority or the de- facto acquires legal sanction and becomes de-jure sovereign.


          Report this

          00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    My local council was pretty good until they were infected with the CAGW virus. Now they (a) have an enormous Sustainability Department (b) are actively preventing developers from developing (thereby forsaking the fees the developers and ratepayers pay) and (c) have horrible budget problems. Doh!

    Some gems in the 1st link:

    “Lake Macquarie mayor Greg Piper said the council did not need evidence but a ‘basis’.”

    A basis eh? And a cause perhaps?

    “A council statement said the science on sea level rise was based on ‘global sea level satellite measurements and tide gauge data’.”

    Must be different tide gauge data from the data that the ALP prevented Doug Lord from publishing. And different satellites from Jason, Topex and Envisat. Maybe he means the satellites orbiting Ms Gillard?

    “‘The data is analysed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the CSIRO to make projections,’ the statement said.”

    Oh, my aching sides!

    My message to Lake Macquarie City Council is stop listening to Mr Combet and his department’s lunacy, start listening to scientists like Doug Lord, and GET REAL.


    Report this

    10

  • #

    Hoist them by their own petard – ask them for local recorded evidence showing this dangerous rate of increasing sea level. Then ask them why if in the past at rate of change X there was no need to legislate yet at the rate of change Y now (given X is very close to Y) what evidence do they have to justify the legislation? if they cannot factually prove the danger, say you will take them to court for adversely effecting the value of your property by undertaking unjustified actions which are not demonstrably in the interest of the larger electorate.

    I don’t stand for this silliness – nor should you.

    Also if this is such a dangerous thing to do (building close to water) then why has Tim Flannery bought water front property? http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sydney-nsw/tempers-rise-over-tim-flannerys-waterside-wrangle/story-e6freuzi-1226204140999 even his neighbor has a problem with him.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    KeithH

    What radical ideas you’re putting Jo. Proposing that Councils (and governments) actually start using commonsense and that individuals be allowed to exercise their own judgment and make their own decisions!

    Wonderful concepts which go completely counter to the aims of supporters of the UN global governance/Green revolution which envisage complete control of everything and everyone from cradle to grave!

    They will fight it tooth and nail, as we must fight against them getting and retaining that type of totalitarian control!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Thought I am not in favour of those ubiquitous compulsory warning labels, how about this one:

    If the incumbents of the local council (insert a name) get re-elected, the value of your property WILL diminish.

    The real estate agents ought to love it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Paul79

    For NSW, and probably other states, the state government has enacted these particular restrictions on coastal buildings and the Councils have to obey.


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Dead right Paul, so it’s going to take us an eternity to get all these silly laws, by-laws and compliances taken out of all facets of government. Why didn’t someone do a due diligence on this stuff before it was decided upon, it’s quite a head shaking ordeal to think we are left with this mess.

      I think an injunction into to IPCC functions to stop this is essential but they are above the law and can’t be touched. Whoever thought this was a good idea??? It’s insanity plan and proper.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    wes george

    There’s another coastal town, not much more than a collection of old beach shacks tacked together mostly by intrepid inlanders who wanted a pristine fishing spot on the Wooli river.

    Without a care in the world they built their holiday houses on a long narrow sand bar running between the dark tannin waters of Wooli river in the west and the Pacific in the east. The 3km long sand bar is slowly undulating, as it has been for thousands of years, back and forth with the floods, king tides, tsunamis and storms. At its widest point the sand peninsula is less than 300 meters wide, fortunately littoral bush and planted trees tack it down.

    In fact, about 10 km inland from Wooli is a linear rise of prehistoric sand dunes now covered with bush in the national park. That was the beach thousands of years ago. It’s clearly visible in Google Earth. (Lat 29°48’31.50″S, Long153°10’18.18″E)

    Wooli is perhaps the most remote sports fishing/holiday village on the east coast of Australia south of Tin Can Bay. It’s mind-blowingly beautiful, surrounded by national park with probably the last untouched river in NSW, which flows out of the wilderness of the national park. To go there is to step back into time to what the Australia beach fishing experience must have been in the 1960′s.

    The Wooli old-timers don’t care much for geomorphology, they’re here for the lifestyle, they know sand moves, they built their beach shacks for a few pounds. But now property values range up to a million dollars, so things aren’t as laid back as in the 1970′s. All that money makes one a bit more precious about the old fishing shack.

    Now Wooli has a massive head ache. The cynical political operatives at Get Up have targeted little Wooli as their best hope to exploit Wooli’s precarious position as the poster town for climate change catastrophe due rising sea levels. Get Up! is making an example out of Wooli, hoping that a massive cyclone will come too far south and bend the narrow Wooli sandbar just enough so that some of the houses will be damaged and condemned. Wooli might well still be a town in 2100, but its just as likely the long sand bar it’s built upon will move or even be cut off from the mainland by a change in the course of the Wooli river someday. All having nothing to do with sea level changes.

    So Get Up! has mendaciously painted Wooli as the typical NSW coastal village and started a campaign to Save Wooli! But Wooli is really a unique situation, there is no place on the whole east coast of Australia so exposed to the whims of ocean, river and sand. The utter cynicism of the campaign is revealed by the idiots at Get Up! who sincerely believe in the warmist dogma of a 1 to 2 meter sea level rise before 2100, so by their own lights places like Wooli are doomed. Yeah right, Save Wooli Now!

    The effect of Get Up! campaign to save Wooli has destroyed property values and froze development in the area. No investor looking for a holiday house in his right mind would buy in Wooli today because a simple Google search shows Wooli is a political and media football for Global Warming activists. Townie morale has crashed and about 20% of the houses are up for sale, while buyers are few and far between.

    http://blog.getup.org.au/2010/12/17/save-wooli/


    Report this

    00

    • #
      janama

      I’ve always wanted a place at Diggers Camp just north of Wooli. Another pristine spot is Red Rock to the south – crystal clear river with white sandy bottom that emerges from a national park like Wooli.

      GetUp is starting to get dangerous. Instead of working to stop coal seam gas they are proposing that land owners get royalties.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Cyril of Gladstone

        I think that it a good idea that land owners get royalties. What is wrong with this. The property rights of Australians have been under attack for the past few decades and this erosion of roghts is the main issue. The fact that a lot of people can not see that the “CSG will destroy the great artesian basin” scare has no more validity that the “Global Warming will destroy the planet” scare is disheartening. It means that this endless environmental scare mongering which wastes endless amounts of public resources is likely to go on forever. The CSG issue is primarily a property rights issue and to conflate it with a campaign by radical greenies will only end in tears. The environmental groups who are involved in this are the same groups who have been at war with the farmers for the last couple of decades. These are the same groups who championed the vegitation management laws which drove thousands of farmers of their land. If they do run off the miners they will immediately turn back to harrassing the farmers. As the saying goes: If you are going to sup with the devil be sure to take a spoon with a long handle. Perhaps in a few years the CSG scare will be added to the long list of bogus environmental scares we have had to suffer through.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      janama

      I just checked and there are beach front properties selling for $640,000 – when I checked a year ago similar beach front properties were $1.2 mil.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        wes george

        I recently returned from a fishing trip to Wooli and the locals are in the pits.

        Lots that sold from 300,000 to investors in 2007 are being dumped for 150,000 and that’s just what the real estate bloke there will admit to. But the buyers are few, as soon as they Google ‘Wooli’ they flee. Buyers have to flee because the council says they are not going to spend another quid in Wooli, they just hope it tumbles into the sea on schedule. There simply isn’t going to be any new civic development of the area, no parks, no roads, no footpaths, no toilet blocks, no electrical or water upgrades. Wooli has been unofficially condemned but the residents still have to pay rates (on property values that are rated too high) which are then spent elsewhere in the shire. I reckon 20% of the town is listed for sale and another 20% would like to sell but don’t believe they’ll find a buyer.

        Even a really far sighted investor with bags-o-money wouldn’t buy into the community hoping that someday it will make a comeback because any comeback will have to wait for institutional regime change in Canberra’s technocracies, which short of a revolution might take decades. Before then beach frontage dunes, roads, beach parking and maybe even whole houses are going to be allowed to go derelict and property values fall even more.

        The sad part is the rural Clarence Shire Council is run by nice local yokels who are scientifically illiterate and so have to go with the “IPCC consensus” and “experts” like the government appointed climate spokesperson, Tim Flannery who toured the region earlier this year with his climate-doom lecture presented as hard science to gullible audiences assembled at town halls. Rural councils simply aren’t capable or have the self-confidence to evaluate the climate evidence for themselves. They in good faith can’t believe the CSIRO or the BOM aren’t fair dinkum authorities any more. It seems unAustralian to suggest that sea-level predictions are all part of a great big confidence game perpetuated by a political system spinning out of control. How can that be? In Australia?

        As far as ocean exposed councils are concerned the best practice MUST be based on the latest government supported science because that’s the only way they can be sure they are covered. If the Federal Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change says that the oceans are going to rise by 1 to 1.5 meters by 2100, then by God that’s what the local council bloody needs to plan for. The debate is over, the science is settled.

        It’s here at the interface between the Pacific and sand dunes on the most beautiful and iconically Aussie beaches where we can most directly feel the damage done by the political, economic and cultural institutionalisation of the Global Warming mythology. It might take a generation to undo the damage already done.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          wes george

          From the Coffs Harbour City Council’s Coastal Processes and Hazards Definition Study, which is the guideline for all coastal and beach front undertakings the council might have an interest in.

          Notice that the poor sods that wrote this gospel suffer the symptoms of severe Warmist Derangement Syndrome (WDS). First they take the mildly alarmist predictions from the IPCC (2007) for sea level rises of 0.18 to 0.59 m by 2090-99, then they round UP by 0.14m for the CSIRO claim the East Australian Current will swell dramatically, Then they rounded UP again to 0.4m and 0.9m because they are certain that estimates are uncertain. (in other words they just make shyt up.) Then just to be super-duper PC fashionistas, they rounded everything UP again based on nothing more then the fact that they have the power to do so “from a risk perspective,” to finally arrive at 1.4m for 2100.

          Bloody hell. Why not just go the Flannery full monty to 8.0 m? By the end of two paragraphs they’ve almost tripled the IPCC (2007) best high end estimate of 0.59m and moved the coast line of Coff Harbour area inland by several kilometers in places, inundating the Pacific highway and eliminating every beach and whole sections most of the townships in the shire, by 2050. Now that’s a very clever study to base shire civic and economic development upon!

          Can’t they see “from a risk perspective” that possibly over-estimating sea-level rises by an order of a magnitude is an exceedingly costly error to shire development, while the danger of underestimating sea level rise can be easily corrected for IF evidence of faster rates arrive? We’re talking about many decades in the future here. Given that timescale council policy can quickly adapt. Institutionalising planning for sea level rises of 1.4m before there is any empirical evidence for rates of rise more than 1mm a year is truly failure of due diligence.

          Sea Level Rise

          The NSW Sea Level Rise Policy Statement (DECCW, 2009a) has adopted levels of 0.4 m by 2050 and 0.9 m by 2100 to be used in planning and associated assessments in the coastal zone of NSW. DECCW (2009b) has based these levels upon the most recent IPCC (2007) projections for sea level rise (0.18 – 0.59 m by 2090-99), the IPCC’s (2007) assumed linear trend in global ice melt causing 0.2 m sea level rise by 2100, plus up to 0.14 m regional sea level rise by 2100 associated with the East Australian Current on the NSW Coast (CSIRO, 2007; McInnes et al., 2007). The projections for 2100 were compared with the sea level rise trend projections to derive a 2050 sea level rise estimate of 0.4 m. The projections for 2100 were rounded (to 0.9 m and 0.4 m) to acknowledge the uncertainty in projection estimates (DECCW, 2009a).

          From a risk perspective, it is important to consider changes beyond that given within the current predictions. Thus, we have analysed a potential higher than predicted sea level rise, of 1.4 m by 2100, representing 0.5 m higher than the prescribed NSW Government levels (or, 0.7 m by 2050, assuming the same rate of increase as given in predictions). The use of the higher than predicted sea level rise levels does not override the use of current predictions, but rather provides for an extreme or very unlikely scenario impact. Greater discussion of the use of these levels is outlined in Section 3.4.

          It is widely acknowledged that sea level rise will result in the recession (or transgression) of sandy shorelines, such as described by the Bruun Rule (1962). This assessment utilises world’s best
          practice Shoreline Evolution Modelling to determine the extent of recession due to sea level rise in the Coffs region, as discussed in detail in Section 3.4.

          Oceanic inundation of low lying and back beach areas may also increase in frequency with sea level rise. Potential impacts of elevated water levels and thus the coastal inundation hazard are outlined in detail in Section 2.5 and Section 3.5.

          Wave Climate

          CSIRO (2007) has predicted an increase in storm intensity and frequency under a future climate. McInnes et al. (2007) have provided predictions for future wave heights (mean and maximum) and future wave directions due to climate change for Wooli Wooli Estuary (closest location to Coffs). The CCM2 and CCM3 modelled wind speeds and directions were converted by McInnes et al. (2007) to significant wave height (Hs) and wave period (Tp) using empirical relationships, to provide predicted changes to wave height and direction. Winds near to the coast were used to generate storm waves and winds further offshore to generate swell waves. The projected changes are given in Table 2-2.

          An increase in storm intensity or wave height means that beaches may experience greater erosion of sand during individual storms, while increased storm frequency means that beaches have less time to recover and accrete sand upon the upper beachface before the next storm occurs. Any increase in storm intensity or frequency due to climate change will be coupled with a rise in sea level, further intensifying potential storm erosion.

          http://www.coffsharbour.nsw.gov.au/places-for-living/our-coast/Documents/Coastal%20Processes%20and%20Hazard%20Defintion%20Study%20Section_2.pdf

          http://www.coffsharbour.nsw.gov.au/places-for-living/our-coast/Pages/coastal_processes_and_hazards_definitionStudy.aspx


          Report this

          00

  • #
    pattoh

    Perhaps Port Macquarie Hastings Council could host their own Climate Change Summit so all the local government Eco-Nazis (who could not get tax payer/rate payer funding to go to Durban) could have some sort of a fact finding tour. They probably deserve a chance to kick up their heels without the gum boots

    They could even run a workshop with a senior pollie on how to use your public funded expense credit cards (as a carrot for registrations).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John from CA

    Forbes: 12/07/2011
    Climategate’s Michael Mann Channels His Inner Palpatine

    “The ongoing Climategate scandal, including 5,000-plus Climategate 2 emails released two weeks ago, reveals prominent global warming advocates acknowledging flaws in the theory that humans are causing dramatic climate change, coordinating efforts to hide such flaws, coordinating efforts to misrepresent scientific data, coordinating efforts to destroy evidence of these inconvenient truths, and coordinating efforts to blackball or induce the firing of scientists and editors of peer-reviewed science journals who publish evidence contradicting the alarmist storyline. The most important revelation from the Climategate scandals is that global warming scientist-activists are misrepresenting the scientific data regarding global warming. The second most important revelation is that scientist-activists are waging a brutal and dirty war of personal and professional destruction against skeptical scientists who disagree with them.

    “Make no mistake, the scientific misconduct revealed in the Climategate emails is severe and undeniable. The Climategate scientist-activists openly acknowledge substantial scientific evidence that contradicts their theories, then work to together to hide that evidence from the public.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wes george

    The Fallacy Of Retreat For Coastal Zone Management

    The New South Wales (NSW) State Government has identified Nineteen New South Wales coastal communities as “Coastal Hot Spots”. To the great concern of local communities, this designation was followed in 2010 by direction from State Government that Councils quickly adopt Coastal Zone Management Plans (CZMPs) requiring “Retreat” from coastal areas where properties are threatened by beach and dune erosion. In addition, the adoption by State Parliament of the “Coastal Protection and other Legislation Amendment ” (the “Sartor Legislation”) in early 2011 further unsettled residents along the coastline where, understandably, these Government measures are not acceptable to the many Australians who live, work, and vacation in these beautiful coastal areas. The new State Government has not yet declared its stand on this issue of mandated Retreat which affects not only the thousands of property owners who may be forced to abandon their homes, but also entire communities and potentially billions of dollars worth of property.

    Read the whole article here:

    http://www.menzieshouse.com.au/2011/06/the-fallacy-of-retreat-for-coastal-zone-management.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    spangled drongo

    Following king tide day just recently in SEQ I submitted my half century of comparisons of king tide levels at observable benchmarks to the Gold Coast City Council engineers as well as my local councillor to try and prevent GCCC from going down this path that Jo describes.

    The latest obs showed current KTLs between 15 and 30 cms lower than half a century ago even with the recent year of strong La Ninas which generally increase local SLs.

    It seems that GCCC engineers are told to work on the basis of SLs being 90 cms higher by 2100 even though nothing is happening. This is pointlessly devaluing huge areas of the city’s assets and rare base not to mention what it is doing to individual property owners.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    spangled drongo

    Wes,

    Northern NSW and SEQ have not had a cyclone cross the coast in 35 years where prior to this they had up to half a dozen every year. I used to find myself in the ’60s often trying to save those now multimillion dollar houses in Hedges Avenue from falling into the sea.

    Since “Global Warming” began SEQ/NNSW has never had it so good.

    If they behave this way now, what will they be like when it returns to global cooling?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      wes george

      Good point, Spangles.

      Imagine if Byron Bay gets whacked again like it did by the cyclone of February 1954…. From the BOM:

      Severe tropical cyclone crossed the coast at Coolangatta/Tweed Heads with a reading in the eye of 973 hPa. Worst damage in that area around the Cudgen in NSW where some houses were blown apart and trees more than 1 metre in diameter were twisted out of the ground. The floods and cyclone hit the Lismore district with gales whipping up large waves on the then 11.3 km wide Richmond River. 30 people tragically died from these unprecedented effects. The outer section of the jetty was swept away at Byron Bay taking with it all 22 vessels comprising the fishing fleet. The sea broke through and flooded parts of the town in Byron Bay.

      The Warmists are all scheming, just waiting and praying for a catastrophic cyclone. They nearly wet themselves last year when they saw satellite imagery of Yasi, which sadly was a dud in an under-populated region. Not a single person killed. If only a Yasi would take out Brisbane is the fondest hope of Warmenista ABC propagandists.

      Or how about the 1950 so-called Sydney Cyclone:

      This tropical cyclone tracked from Gulf to Sydney. 3 horseman were drowned on the 18th when Washpool Creek (80 km from Grafton) rose rapidly. Another 4 lives lost in NSW from cyclone including girl swept by storm surge and waves off Esplanade at Cronulla, a boy electrocuted by fallen power lines at Gordon in Sydney, a man drowned near Goulburn and another man drowned in the Macleay River at Kempsey. Seven yachts completely wrecked in Sydney Harbour. Record pressure reading of 988 hPa in Sydney. 10 lives lost in total.

      If a storm like that hit Sydney today there’d be more than 10 lives lost and 7 yachts wrecked. A greenie’s wet dream.

      http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/history/nsw.shtml


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Sean McHugh

    A few days ago I submitted to “Climate Progress” a comment on the matter of melting ice and rising seas. It was in a thread on polar bear endangerment. My response was to a comment made by Chris Ho-Stuart. Here is that page, titled: “Heartbreaking Photo of Polar Bear and Icebreaking Expedition Ship“. Quoting Chris Ho-Stuart, I replied:

    Chris said:

    “Long term, I certainly agree that the prognosis for that polar bear is grim, given how well she is adapted to an environment now in rapid decline.”

    Hi Chris,

    It’s been a while. I recently read a newspaper report that provided a scientific warning of rapid melting of Arctic glaciers. The main concern was the inundation that resultant rising seas would cause:

    http://tinyurl.com/6lgu6bm

    “All over the world, even in the tropics, the temperature is rising, he says, adding that the Arctic glaciers are melting so fast that if something does not happen to retard the rate vast areas of inhabited coasts and low-lying country tn various sections of the world may become flooded.”

    The newspaper report isn’t from the IPCC. It was written in nineteen forty-seven.

    I received the message, “Your comment is awaiting moderation“. I scrolled back up to the top and read what I hadn’t previously noticed, “Edited by Joe Romm”. The article itself was also written by Joe Romm. Recalling experiences in JN with people posting on warmist blogs and given that here I had a well-known ultra-alarmist as the editor, I wasn’t too hopeful. The notice remained there there till the next day when it and my comment disappeared. What it really meant, was that my comment was awaiting censorship. Other comments were posted in the meantime. I tried the next day, adding this to the top:

    “[To the moderator: This was submitted yesterday and awaited moderation till today, when evidence of it was removed. Other comments were posted in the meantime. The comment was very much on topic and was not offensive. If the same happens this time, I will have to assume it's due to censorship rather than moderation.]”

    There was no returned message. My comment would just instantly vanish. I tried again the next day with the same result. Perhaps one day there could be a thread on censorship by warmist sites. A name and shame.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John M

    And at the root of the problem is residential concerns of excessive development, which has lead to councils being stacked with Green’s candidates. Now we see the double edged sword effect.

    In the Lake Cathie area, there have been many rediculuous development proposals, including a canal development which would have destroyed the wetlands habitat. These proposals have eventually been defeated on environmental grounds but disturbed residents have gone ‘Green’ as an insurance policy to protect their lifestyle. What has happened in this area is repeated all around the country and highlights the problem of both greed driven, corrupt councils trying to take advantage of the coastal land values with the big developers, and now the intellectual deficiencies of ‘Green’ candidates who are elected on emotional grounds but lack competence to make rational decisions. The unfortunate part now is that many of those who voted green to see the wetlands preserved, will lose everything.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    handjive

    If the IPCC are right, only silly skeptical fools will have wasted their money…

    Setai South Beach Penthouse Sells for Record-Setting $21.5M.
    Breaks Multiple Miami Beach Real Estate Records
    Reckon you could see the sea levels rises from there!

    So far this year there have been four properties that have sold at or about $20M in Miami Beach:

    1736 W. 28 -Sold for $19.8M in July*
    4570 & 4580 North Bay Road- Sold for $20 in September*
    13 Star Island Drive- Sold for $25.5M in April
    101 20th Street PH ‘A’ -Sold for $21.5M in December*

    No perceived crisis there.

    Meanwhile, in Oz, the real fools are in control…

    Only 400 clicks down the road from this example of Australian bureaucratic climate science madness fraud, another one ignores it’s own advice:

    Barangaroo to earn NSW govt millions. December 21, 2009

    Apparently sea level rises are selective for our catastrophic frauds.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Treeman

    Jo
    Planned retreat has been Byron Shire Council policy since 1998 Greens Mayor Jan Barham was quoted.

    Byron Mayor Jan Barham believes Sydneysiders who own waterfront property will be keenly watching the outcome of the debate engulfing her coastal community. Her council’s planning adaptation model is seen as a pacesetter in NSW.

    The Greens mayor said she felt strongly about the council’s stance on Belongil Beach and other shire suburbs including Suffolk Park, South Golden Beach and New Brighton.

    She said the idea of planned retreat had been council policy since 1988 after the wild cyclonic storms of the 1970s tore away large tracts of land never to be replaced.

    However in February 2010 Council lost in court.

    The NSW Land and Environment Court found the council was “obliged to monitor, maintain and repair the interim beach stabilisation works” on Belongil Beach, just north of the town of Byron Bay. Byron Shire Council had put itself at odds with residents and the NSW government by denying beachside householders the right to erect or reinforce storm walls under the “planned retreat” policy, which was aimed at pushing development back from the seafront. The decision came as Byron Shire Council considers a coastal development policy that would institutionalise the policy of planned retreat. The NSW government, which must approve such a policy, has already signalled that it is unlikely to do so.

    Success in my business depends on good relationships with Council ecologists and planners so I’m aware of the regular meetings they have with bureaucrats from other councils. The UN IPCC policies have been embedding in Northern NSW for at least a decade and Byron and Tweed Councils have embraced them with glee.

    The greatest of ironies for me as a climate sceptic is that much of the revegetation work done has been so embellished in the name of biodiversity and saving animal species that the resulting “greened areas” are growing into a nightmare for nearby residents and a biomass that Council workers will never have the budgets to maintain. On the other hand some of the work has been done to such a poor standard and at such high cost to the developers that it would have been far better to allow natural recruitment to take place.

    The heartening thing for me is that from the coalface I can see that the perpetrators of this nightmare are boxing themselves into a corner. The fires in Victoria are a classic reminder of just how impractical these policies are and there are examples aplenty all over Australia that are entering the greater public awareness as the debacles they were always going to be. From where I sit there is a growing awareness that Councils need to be more practical in their approach to planning and environmental issues. Some councils have lost many cases in court with costs running to millions of dollars. There’s nothing like the school of hard knocks to deliver a bit of common sense!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Did you-all see that cannibalism among polar bears is caused by global warming?

    http://www.commondreams.org/further/2011/12/08-4

    They used to be so cuddly…

    BTW, Jo, I love the way Australians still use London slang


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross

    C’mon Jo give them a break. If the Copanhagen , Cacun and now Durban talkfests cannot achieve anything they have to rely on someone to carry one the scare campaign. It might as well be local councils. sarc off/

    This reprint of a UK Indepenedent article suggests Durban has been a waste of time , money and carbon credits

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10772211


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Lake Macquarie council near Newcastle is at the forefront of council efforts to regulate and prepare for imminent inundation; all the arguments [none] in support of this position are canvassed in this article from the NMH, a fairfax outlet and itself at the forefront of promoting alarmist agitprop about sea levels:

    http://www.theherald.com.au/news/local/news/environment/lake-calls-for-intervention-on-rising-sea-levels/2348399.aspx

    One resident and ratepayer has had enough and is preparing to take legal action:

    http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2011/11/jo-nova-blog-science-is-out-on-whether.html

    McCloy is no doubt fortified by the successful action against Byron Bay council which wanted to demolish sea-side homes which the green council declared in risk by sea level rise.

    The most alarming thing about all this is the delay by the O’Farrell government to abolish the state legislation which allows alarmist and green councils to make such policy.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Bruce of Newcastle

      Well said Cohers! Bronze for you. Well said Lawrie! Silver!

      Well said…me! Gold Gold Gold!

      Er, sorry guys. With Lawrie’s glory I couldn’t resist.

      Well, hopefully the gold will actually go to Jeff if he’s successful, even if it comes out of my pocket in rates.

      No, Jo, please don’t change your post. ‘S fine as it is.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Jim

    As a recently retired Victorian Councillor I have watched “from the inside” how councils manipulate information to suite their own agendas.

    As a newly-elected Councillor in early 2009 I attended a Council “training” session at which a speaker from the Bendigo Bank was presenting.

    This person spent his time informing Councillors and Council Staff of the imminent danger global warming / climate change would wreak upon the Victorian coast, including Port Phillip Bay.

    Aided by highly-detailed maps, he informed us of the devastation that would befall huge areas of land if the temperature rose by a smidgen (due to man-made CO2 emissions of course).

    This presentation set the scene for the years to come. The Council in question (in Central Victoria) is now a radically-green organisation from the CEO down. Money is hurled at any “green” project while business is virtually given a “not welcome” message loud and clear by practical example.

    Post #9 from OzWaveGuy was especially interesting, as there is currently a very big “push” throughout Local Government to get “LG Constitutional Recognition” pushed through the Federal Government.

    The link provided by OzWaveGuy suggests Councils cannot legally impose parking fines. I was provided documentation years ago which suggested a legal case for Councils throughout Australia not having the power to do anything at all – including impose annual rates on property owners.

    I am not aware of this ever being challenged in court – it would cost a fortune to do so – however if all Councils were declared by the High Court to be powerless, one can understand why they are so anxious to see the Constitution altered.

    Needless to say, such alteration is highly likely to contain many “nasties”.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Kevin Moore

      The Australian Constitution!

      http://www.ozexposed.com/high-court

      Wayne Leonard has discovered is in fact invalid. Australia is not a sovereign nation and remains a colony of the United Kingdom. This obviously has massive ramifications, most notably that it has never legally been a member of the United Nations because it is not in fact a nation meaning that all treaties involving Australia are void and invalid.

      The implications of all this are immense, effecting not only Australia but New Zealand and Canada.

      Information Website – http://basic-fraud.com/


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Streetcred

      ” … speaker from the Bendigo Bank was presenting.

      This person spent his time informing Councillors and Council Staff of the imminent danger global warming / climate change would wreak upon the Victorian coast, including Port Phillip Bay.”

      Typical of the warmista brigade … a bank employee is hardly a credible source of scientific discourse. There’s a good reason why they are called “banksters”.


      Report this

      00

    • #

      Yes it’s all very interesting isn’t it.

      It actually doesn’t cost a fortune to challenge corrupt organizations. There’s nothing stopping anyone from using their god given rights and with due diligence challenge these corrupt organizations. Just send them a lawful notice asking them to prove the sea levels will rise from man’s CO2 contribution – response to be an affidavit, under their full personal commercial liability. You will not get a response.

      I have already done this to: Tim Flannery, Greg Combet and Will Steffen. They have all defaulted, and have created an operation of law – this is fully documented and witnessed. This evidence package with a Notice was sent to the Climate Change Committee (who ignored it). Each member of the committee will be sent a followup notice to understand exactly what they did with my evidence since they have a duty of care to properly investigate the facts.

      If it is demonstrated that the committee members have acted improperly and cannot substantiate their actions, then they will be in default also. All respondents in default will become personally liable for any harm or loss from their actions according to contract law since.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Dave N

    Sean McHugh:

    There are sometimes posts on WUWT highlighting Romm’s censorship, and that of other blogs like RealClimate. I myself would like to see a blog devoted solely to highlighting posts censored by alarmist blogs. I’d do it myself if I had enough time..


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Sean McHugh

      Dave N:

      A blog for posts that have been censored by warmist blogs sounds like a great idea. In the meantime, what I am doing is posting this episode in several relevant threads. I think if everyone who had a post censored, did that, the censorship would be seen to be a failure. One needs to copy the post before submitting it. Another aspect of highlighting a censored post, be it through a dedicated blog or otherwise, is that it might cause some embarrassment and future reluctance on the part of the intended recipient. Of course that would require that, unlike the warmist moderator, the intended warmist recipient has some integrity.


      Report this

      00

    • #

      The idea of recording somewhere the expressions of the opposition to various politically correct and plain stupid proposals is good. Not only e-mails, but letters to the editors, politicians and government authorities simply disappear. I having been ignored by the ‘best’ of them, in desperation, in August 2008 I wrote to Andrew Bolt. Thought he responded to my letter generally, he did not react to the following specific suggestion: “Has anybody thought of some central register, where the politically incorrect people could send copies of their naïve and futile attempts? Haven’t you some rich friends? It probably would have to be established in some free country.”

      Since then we have run out of free countries.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    Hey Guys, Durban looks like it might have been a success for the feeble minded check out this http://climatedepot.com/a/14072/Exclusive-UN-Climate-Draft-Text-Demands-New-International-Climate-Court-to-compel-reparations-for-climate-debt–Also-seeks-rights-of-Mother-Earth–2Cdeg-drop-in-global-temps.

    The Human race has no future with these guys leading, they are certifiable !!


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Llew Jones

      As I mentioned on another topic we once, sensibly, used to lock up megalomaniacs in lunatic asylums. Now we give them powerful nation destroying positions in government and academia. The NGO staffers who are exhibiting *delusions of grandeur symptoms in Durban by their claimed ability to change Earth’s climate are prime examples of this disorder.

      *Grandiose delusion or delusions of grandeur is principally a subtype of delusional disorder (GD) that can occur as a wide range of mental illness, including in … Wiki


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Mark D.

        Lew Lew Lew, do you mean Hitler? Stalin, Mussolini? C’mon we’re bad at locking up megalomaniacs until it is much too late.

        Otherwise I agree ……


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Llew Jones

          It was “Now Big-government insanity comes from small councils” along with listening, on the radio coming home from work this afternoon, to a screaming Kenyan female NGO abusing the attitudes of representatives from the developed countries at Durban who “wouldn’t act to stop the climate changing” that confirmed the diagnosis. Can’t answer for the Germans, Ruskies or Italians though.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Llew Jones

          Incidentally I recently learned of a dark little family secret dating back to the early 20C. We always wondered what happened to great grandfather Jones who seemed to just disappear in his late forties. The story line was that he had died of Bright’s disease. Great grandmother Jones, who was formerly a Thwaites, related to a former more recent Victorian ALP minister of the same name, was determined to be sole head of her family so had her husband, great GF Jones, whose only “illness” it appears was being a bit of a whinger, committed to the Kew Asylum in Melbourne. That’s where the poor old fellow finished up and stayed there until his final departure.

          I think they were the sort of “good old days” I had in mind.


          Report this

          00

    • #
      Ross

      rjm385
      The idiots had draft proposals like this at Copenhagen and Cacun. I agree that what they are looking for is unbelievable. It might be expected from Greenpeace or WWF but for the UN to have these documents floating around shows how much we need to get the UN closed down. ( I know it will never happen )


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Hasbeen

    A major part of the problem has to be laid at the door of our higher education sector.

    Our universities have leaped upon the growth of “Environmental Sciences” sector with glee.

    It picks up the lower end of high school graduates, unlikely to be able to handle a demanding course. Not only that, but they are a very cheep course to run, so highly profitable to run.

    I have seen the course notes for one such unis course, & the subject matter is almost exclusively propaganda, with a little junior high school math thrown in.

    Now try dealing with the dept of primary industries, since the take over by the Environment department, & you will find yourself talking to dozens of the dills who have come through such courses.

    Try your local council, & you will find the same “highly qualified” dills inhabiting the corridors of power, with so little gray matter showing, that it could be a meeting of old time street sweepers.

    The numbers of these people are growing rapidly, & their only source of employment is government of some description. It is almost as if government, including councils is bound to employ these graduates.

    At the last WOMP, water management plan for the Logan & Albert rivers, there no less than 7 of them from various government bodies, & probably more that I failed to identify. It was like talking to a different species. Few if any understood common English, or had any idea of what happened in a flood.

    I feel better now.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Who has more incentive to assess the threats to a house (your house): a/ you, the homeowner who just hocked yourself to the grave and wants to live in it, hand it to your kids, or on-sell it for a decent quid; or b/ the local councillors who will never set foot in it, and won’t be councillors by the time said threat may or may not occur?

    But, the plan is to create a green police with inspection powers to enter your own home to make sure you are ‘doing your bit’ to save the planet like a good little sheeple. Of course, they won’t be searching for C02 reduction compliance. No no no. They will be looking for evidence of sedition with which to haul you off to the clink in the middle of the night. I’m going to start getting worried when the Oz Gubmint institutes a national task force with powers to pull your clanker off the road. That’s when you know it has begun.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jake

    I think that any council with coastal property can rest easy until it is noted that the AGW high priest is selling his San Francisco sea level water front property for reasons of the water coming in through the back door, if he needs to sell pre maturely because of matrimonial or other issues no action needs to be taken.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Well this looks like a great opportunity for me to put my money where my mouth is.

    Gonna get ready this year to make the move. Literally.

    It should end up being a sweet inheritance to my kids and my kids kids.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    jl

    As many of the comments demonstrate, councils are damaging the resale value, and therefore the ability to sell, or raise loans against property, for a great many people. That councils do this based on projected effects of climate-change must surely leave them wide open to class actions.
    In court, I expect that the offending council would have to show that its actions were based on the best information available. And that would be what…dud models, a vague IPPC summary, Tim Flannery?
    I doubt any council has done due-diligence beyond watching ‘An inconvenient truth’ on TV.
    I am at a loss to explain why a class action has not happened already. Am I missing something?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Bruce of Newcastle

      As Cohenite says a class action is underway.

      But one problem is our PM is an ex-lawyer from class action specialists Slater & Gordon. I suspect the bottom feeders of the class action industry have a similar lefty bias in their political persuasion. So Jeff McCloy’s action is brave. I hope he is successful.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Pete H

    Jo, (I speak as an ex-UK resident here) I have found through my life that very few councillors go into public life with the thought of the electorate in mind. Most start as members of local parties, having a drink in the club and then realise that they can pick up easy money for attending a few meetings. That said, I have known a few dedicated people involved.

    Now, have these proposals actually come from the councillors or have they been pushed by the civil servants who actually hold full time council jobs and need to build their empires? I found very few councillors that were capable of original thought, never mind having any understanding of technology/science.

    As you know, Booker has just had his report out but the real bones of this post are in the forward by Sir Anthony Jay, responsible for co-writing the TV series Yes Minister and he was a founder and editor of the BBC’s legendary Tonight program. He certainly knows how this sort of thing came about. Councillors can be removed by the voter but the bureaucrats are the evil that continue and cause the most harm!

    The Booker report published by the GWPF can be found at
    http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/booker-bbc.pdf

    and Sir Anthony Jay’s forward starts on page 5 and though it deals with the BBC it covers the mindset of these people.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    will gray

    sometimes we sceptics feel alone-
    A winging post could be in order.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ralph Prestage

    I think many correspondents are on the wrong track. They should be looking at wealth creation and follow a person who has done this in WA.
    They joined every environmental, renewable and sustainability group, became the spokesperson and has been living in luxury ever since due to the massive unlimited and unaccountable funds being thrown at these groups from our Federal, State, local councils and public support seeking businesses.
    In addition where property owners are prohibited from demolishing their house due to heritage values they were able to demolish their prestine late 1800′s cottage with government and council approval.
    They were succesful in having 16 rural land owners having their land placed as Bush Forever (unusable in any form) whilst excluding their own rural hills property.
    All you need is to lack any morals, enjoy thuggery and be a first class hypocryt.
    This is what and who we are up against plus the whim of ignorant councillors.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    Perhaps I’ve missed the point but wont the brilliant environmental policies, including the carbon tax, implemented by our present federal government prevent these dramatic sea level rises?

    Why then should those small councils worry about future sea level rises when our PM has implemented policies that will stop global warming and hence sea level rises? Don’t they trust her?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    brc

    Everyone in Queensland should be aware local government elections are due in March next year (I think).

    It’s high time to contact your local candidates and find out about their views in this area. If they are of the alarmist variety, please ensure you write into your local papers with both their alarmist veiws and the actual research. So if they are saying to stop coastal development bcause of a 90 cm sea level rise by 2100, you should alert people to the fact that at current rates, the sea level rise will be something like 18 cm – if the current trend doesn’t reverse.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    I’m a local councillor:) I’m sure that sets your minds at ease:)


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Lionell Griffith

      MattB,

      You mean you admit that you ARE a political hack in on the take like we thought all along but were too polite to say? I will give you a small point for finally being honest about your conflict of interest position. That and a thousand other like them might actually earn you some respect.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      MattB,

      That doesn’t say much for the good judgment of those who voted for you.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      wes george

      Really, Matt? You’re a local councillor?

      So as some one living on the public purse, don’t you have a vested interest in the expansion of government power, say, like in a carbon tax?

      As a politician do you have higher career ambitions?

      What shire are you a councillor for?


      Report this

      00

      • #
        cohenite

        Mattyb a councillor? I don’t believe it, do you wes? Then again we get the politicians we deserve and we Aussies have been fairly slack of late.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Mattyb a councillor? I don’t believe it, do you wes?

          cohenite,

          MattB once used his full name on this site so it wasn’t hard to find out about him. And yes he is a “councillor”. He shows up complete with a photo — good one too.

          Now don’t go worrying Matt, I’m not revealing anything you haven’t said already, not even your full name, which would be fair game since you used it here instead of MattB for a while.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            MattB

            Roy I really have no problems if people know who I am. But MattB is by blog name generally. I’d like to think I don’t have to start worrying about the wellbeing of my kids and property – but heck it’s a crazy world.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Matt,

            The people who’re trying to save your children and your property are more of a threat to them than the problem they want to solve.

            It’s time to take a break, sit back and do some critical thinking. I’ve seen you posting about being an ardent believer and then almost in the same breath, displaying your doubt by asking for, almost begging for some proof. Then I read what was offered to you as a proof — a bunch of fluff for the gullible. You aren’t convinced, are you?

            The world may be crazy but that doesn’t mean you have to join the craziness. There’s enough real trouble to go around. Why are you so willing to help invent a nonexistent problem when there’s so much real trouble to deal with?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            wes george

            Councillor MattB,

            I wonder about the ethics of a politician publishing anonymous opinions and lobbying anonymously in a highly contentious political debate?

            After all, posting online comments at Jo’s blog — which is the most high profile climate blog in the country — is the same as writing letters to the editor or buying advertisement promoting a political cause. Indeed, because of Jo’s blog uniquely empowering and democratic format, her comment section can be use as a virtual soapbox, and as such more resembles the opinion page of a newspaper than other comparable blogs.

            On a personal note, the fact that Councillor MattB is an obsessive Jo Nova follower, yet one who never constructs rational point-by-point argument, but constantly engages in negative attacks and disingenuous snark, while no amount of new information presented on topic seems to ever effect his opinion speaks transparently about who he is, his ability to think, learn and adapt to new information and ultimately what he stand for, yet his constituency is denied this information trove about their elected representative, even though his activities here are entirely political, engaged as we are in debating what our former PM called the greatest moral challenge of our generation.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            wes george

            May I present the Councillor a list of questions?

            * * *
            Isn’t it a corruption of the democratic process to have an elected official chronically engaged in a surreptitious political project concealed from his electorate?

            Do you think this is a breach of the ethical standards one should expect of an elected official?

            Don’t you think your voters might be interested in how things are going in your personal crusade to save the planet from destruction?

            Are you a full or part time Councillor?

            Do you post comments on a council owned or supply computer or Internet appliance? Do you access Nova’s blog on a council-paid ISP account?

            Have you posted anonymous comments during working hours while being funded by your local rate-payers?

            If so, how can you work as an anonymous political activist, concealing your activities from your constituency even while on the clock?

            * * *

            Thanks in advance for directing your attention to the above questions, Councillor. I look forward to your reply.

            –Wes George


            Report this

            00

          • #
            MattB

            Isn’t it a corruption of the democratic process to have an elected official chronically engaged in a surreptitious political project concealed from his electorate?
            Nope

            Do you think this is a breach of the ethical standards one should expect of an elected official?
            Nope

            Don’t you think your voters might be interested in how things are going in your personal crusade to save the planet from destruction?
            Lol.

            Are you a full or part time Councillor?
            Part-time.

            Do you post comments on a council owned or supply computer or Internet appliance?
            Nope – but I would if I had one
            Do you access Nova’s blog on a council-paid ISP account?
            Nope

            Have you posted anonymous comments during working hours while being funded by your local rate-payers?
            Nope

            If so, how can you work as an anonymous political activist, concealing your activities from your constituency even while on the clock?
            I am not working as an anonymous political activist. I’m posting as an interested individual. Would you prefer that pollies not interract with blogs like this and become (perhaps) better informed.

            It seems VERY strange to me that a reader of this blog would feel the need to try and pressure a poster of opposing views to cease posting based on the fact that said poster gives a shit enough to try and get involved in his local community at a Council level.

            I’m a politically unaligned local councillor posting on a blog. Shove it up your fat rats clacker if you don’t like it Wesley.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            wes george

            It seems VERY strange to me that a reader of this blog would feel the need to try and pressure a poster of opposing views to cease posting…

            Patently False, Councillor Matt. In fact, I have often vigorously defended you and other Warmists when calls for you to be kicked off Jo’s blog come up. I believe in a free, open and TRANSPARENT debate. In fact, only a few days ago I defended you against accusations that you’re a troll. Click here.

            Note that I do not have to like you or agree with you in the slightest, but I vigorously defend your right to free expression.

            One of the great benefits of free expression is it allows idiots to self-identify themselves by exercising their right to make complete fools of themselves in public. Free political expression allows the citizens of Australia to make an informed vote. However by hiding your political self expression from the people who elected you, you’re corrupting the democratic process by short-circuiting the role of free expression.

            How can your community cast an informed vote at the next election if they are denied knowledge about your political activities?

            Ultimately, Councillor MattB, it is you who are denying the power that free speech bequeaths to the electorate in the form of knowledge and awareness, which is why you are concealing your comments from your community.

            I’m a politically unaligned local councillor posting on a blog.

            Really, is that what the people of your community elected you believe? That’s what they thought they were electing? My goodness.

            Councillor MattB, in fact, you are highly politically aligned as witnessed by your hundreds of comments here which reveal a very consistent political philosophy. What you mean is that your political alignment is being kept a secret from your electorate. It’s dishonest in the extreme and totally unfair to the community who you represent.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            wes george

            Shove it up your fat rats clacker if you don’t like it Wesley.

            Councillor MattB, even this unbecoming emotional reaction reveals heaps about your management style, people skills and professionalism. Yet this information is denied your electorate, because you are posting anonymously.

            Isn’t it a corruption of the democratic process to have an elected official chronically engaged in a surreptitious political project concealed from his electorate?
            Nope

            Do you think this is a breach of the ethical standards one should expect of an elected official?
            Nope

            Don’t you think your voters might be interested in how things are going in your personal crusade to save the planet from destruction?
            Lol.

            Nope, nope and LOL aren’t answers, but evasions, Councillor. The are serious ethical questions asked in good faith and you need to consider them with a level of professionalism and respect for the people of your local community that they deserve from their elected representative.

            It seems VERY strange to me that a reader of this blog would feel the need to try and pressure a poster of opposing views to cease posting based on the fact that said poster gives a shit enough to try and get involved in his local community at a Council level.

            As I’ve shown… I support Councillor MattB right to freely express himself online so that his constituency can better know his true political alignments.

            But focus on the last part of your statement, Councillor, where you indigently say you at least “…give a shit enough to try and get involved in (your) local community at a Council level.” Is that a sense of entitlement, that your community should be grateful you even give a shit about them? They’re lucky to have great bloke like you, are they?

            This elitist attitude (also concealed from your public, no doubt) might well be the root of your ethical problems. As a public servant you’ve been honoured by and should graciously accept the civic duty of serving your community deeply respectful of the trust your constituency has bestowed upon you by electing you to office.

            You serve them, not the other way around. And by hiding your true political identity from your constituency you are not only failing to serve them, but deceiving them and perverting the course of the democratic process as well.


            Report this

            00

    • #
      Sean McHugh

      Hey MattB

      Did those who voted for you realise they were getting someone more interested in political activism than in their shire?


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Jim

    Actually, the government should not underwrite insurance for any private entity. This happens in the US. Don’t know about Oz. That does not excuse these people for spreading FUD though.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    The first part of this article is directly relevant to ‘climate change’.

    http://www.veracitynow.com/home/alternate-reality/media/5168-george-orwells-guide-to-the-news


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Garry Stotel

    I am so excited – WE ARE WINNING, people. I know my post is not relevant to the article, but hey, it is sure relevant to the cause.
    Just look at this – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16124670
    This is one of the latest articles by our beloved Richard Black of BBC, and LOOK AT THE COMMENTS – there is a swell of public disgust at the AGW hysteria.
    I am printing the comments out, and sending them to my MP and the CC minister Chris Huhne, demanding answers.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    My comment to MattB at #41.2 points out the problem. No matter where, it’s the people who put their persecutors into office at the ballot box.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    Alex Jones interview with Monckton on eco-fascist takeover by the UN (New World Order) and Carbon criminals attack the entire planet!
    http://www.infowars.com/lord-christopher-monckton-the-coming-new-international-climate-court/


    Report this

    00

    • #

      TRU I totally agree with Chris Monckton these guys are certifiable but it appears the rest of the world is following. Our Government should have had the Cojunas to see this but are so blind. How can giving 1 organisation such power be called Democracy this is beyond belief and I am heartened by Christopher’s mettle. I respect the man greatly he seems to be the only one willing to take the UN head on but can he win? I think he can but only with our support. We must tell out Councillors, Politicians and the Media that this is NOT acceptable especially based on a disproven theory.

      The next election may be too far off to stop this in it’s tracks !!


      Report this

      00

  • #

    Councils are making decisions based on IPCC reports.

    I am not a lawyer.

    Did they not read the legal disclaimers? Councils cannot use the IPCC’s reports to support such things without seeking preofessional, expert, independent advice that signs off on it, accepting liability; with public liability insurance to back it.

    Just a little while ago, I was doing work for councils and they always insisted on qualified, Professional Engineers signing off on e.g. structural designs for anything that they bought; even if it was a standard design out of a catalogue. Which is fair enough because it transferred liability from the council to the Engineer.

    Attitudes seem to have relaxed a lot in 20 years. Lackadaisical could describe the present situation.

    With the legal standing of councils in question, everybody in councils who makes or works to implement decisions could be held personally liable. That is especially so if there are records of them having been provided with plausible information advising them of problems that can arise out of implementation.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Streetcred

      Bernd, when considering the quality of ‘councillors’ in local government I am not at all surprised at the direction that they are headed in. In most councils if councillors had a brain between them it would be lonely … I mean these people are in general not ‘the sharpest tools in the shed’ and easily swayed by popularist ideologies.

      Consider also the quality of the council employees, save for a handful of professionals, they too are not ‘the sharpest tools in the shed’. The smart ones are out there doing the commercial thing and the rest of them are sucking off the ratepayers teat creating their little empires. In short, rent-seekers.

      Do we really wonder why local authorities are merely blowing in the wind with very important strategic policies? Make all of them accountable in law(councillors and employees) and let’s see how quickly they come back to reality.


      Report this

      00

      • #

        Make all of them accountable in law(councillors and employees) and let’s see how quickly they come back to reality.

        As I understand it, they are already. The problem is that they don’t grasp the concept of responsibility and the consequences for their decisions and actions. The Nuremberg Defence didn’t even work at Nuremberg. Personal responsibility for actions still applies when “following orders”.

        Consequences that “the ordinary man” can perceive, must be considered. There’s a bunch of “tort law” which is accepted and applied … in civil cases — e.g. Breach of Public and Statutory Duties and Innocent misrepresentation or negligent advice.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    val majkus

    no idea how accurate this is
    http://news.yahoo.com/climate-conference-approves-landmark-deal-014244802.html

    DURBAN, South Africa (AP) — A U.N. climate conference reached a hard-fought agreement early Sunday on a complex and far-reaching program meant to set a new course for the global fight against climate change for the coming decades.

    The 194-party conference agreed to start negotiations on a new accord that would put all countries under the same legal regime enforcing commitments to control greenhouse gases. It would take effect by 2020 at the latest.

    The deal also set up the bodies that will collect, govern and distribute tens of billions of dollars a year to poor countries to help them adapt to changing climate conditions and to move toward low-carbon economic growth.

    Currently, only industrial countries have legally binding emissions targets under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Those commitments expire next year, but they will be extended for another five years under the accord adopted Sunday.

    read on at the link

    Stupidity!!!!


    Report this

    00

    • #
      MikeO

      The BASIC countries will never sign they are not driven by the Green religion. They may well be behind Climategate besides we have a depression to get through before then.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    MikeO

    I do not think you can blame dumb councillors. Let us look at the NSW Illawarra the Dept. of Environment has made this advice available. If a council contradicts this and allows building in an area they are advised not to then surely they can be sued for any subsequent damage. That puts them in a bind even if they believe it or not. I doubt a property owner can sign away their rights on this issue. The overall risk due to the sea actually rising because of AGW is slight but for individual properties at any one time there probably is a considerable risk. The whole thing is a can of worms which should not have been opened. Personally I would never buy a house close to sea level on sand near the coast. Exceptional storms, subsidence, winds and expansion of the ocean are only a few of reasons for flooding and erosion. Long term there are many areas at risk from the sea, maybe an insistence on appropriate insurance could be the answer? Sobering knowledge on this is that tectonic forces are far more than the sea level, for instance Australia is moving approximately north at the rate of 5.5 cm per annum.


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Easy to ignore: Inside front cover

      Disclaimer: While every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that this document is correct at the time of publication, the State of New South Wales, its agencies and employees, disclaim any and all liability to any person in respect of anything or the consequences of anything done or omitted to be done in reliance upon the whole or any part of this document. No representation is made about the accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose of the source material included in this document. Readers should consult the source material referred to and, where necessary, seek appropriate advice about the suitability of this document for their needs.

      Boldness mine. ;-)


      Report this

      00

      • #
        MikeO

        Are you saying that the dumb councillors can do as they like!


        Report this

        00

        • #

          As per the quoted text with the salient part in bold, the State government publication explicitly refuses to accept any liability for the use and abuse of the contents of the publication. Their disclaimer basically says that the publication isn’t worth the paper on which it’s printed in terms of the State government accepting liability.

          Therefore a councillor or council employee that accepts the publication as gospel; without seeking the (independent) expert advice or investigating the source material on which the publication is based; exposes themselves to potential litigation. If their actions result in a detrimental effect which was foreseeable by an expert (or other reasonable person) but not allowed for in the implementation, then there could be a prima facie case for legal action against the individual.(See #47 above)

          So yes; the councillor and/or employee can do as they please; but they are legally liable, perhaps personally.


          Report this

          00

      • #
        MikeO

        Logically I agree with you but this sort of thing and many others in this world is not rational. You will see such disclaimers on just about everything these days. Sometimes they do absolve someone of responsibility but if a lawyer looks at this the advice would be take notice since this can not be ignored. I realise the risk in general of living by the sea has not changed for thousands of years but if I were a councillor I would have to recognise as a risk to me. The reason being damage from a storm could mean the council could be sued. I would not want to invite litigation even though the alarmists win. If I was put in that position I would have to resign and say nothing. I worked creating a web site that gave students their HECC status. We were the authority on the data and yet we had a similar disclaimer. So here is the data directly from the only database but we will not assert we think it is correct quite mad. So FUD at the highest level wins when it gets down to the property holder bureaucracy is the pits.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    pat

    this is the entire Reuters’ article on the OUTCOME OF DURBAN…NOT HAPPY REUTERS!!!

    11 Dec: Reuters: UN climate conference extends Kyoto Protocol
    A U.N. conference on climate change approved on Sunday a measure to extend the Kyoto Protocol, which binds some developed countries to legally binding cuts of greenhouse gas emissions.
    The timeline of the next commitment period is expected to be decided next year. The first commitment period also expires next year.
    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/12/11/climate-kyoto-idUKL5E7NA05D20111211


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Ross

      Pat I hope this turns out to be some lame face saving exercise to allow the attendees to walk away from Durban thinking something has come out of it.
      But if it is fact then you’d have to say Durban has not been a failure (unfortunately !!)


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Llew Jones

        The real business is about what national economies will do rather than the sort of emotional nonsense that goes on at these talk fests. Despite Durban there is little doubt that CO2 emissions from most economies will continue to increase for the rest of this century. The concession from China and India and other developing economies will be about greater fuel efficiency which of course only guarantees that fossil fuel reserves will last longer than if using less efficient technologies.

        If our current understanding of historic GHG theory is correct, then there is little chance of those increasing CO2 emissions having any future significant effect on global warming. By 2020 maybe we will have a better handle on the interaction of the many climate drivers of weather events and thus human produced CO2 driven climate change will no longer be a consideration.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Jake

      Agreeing to come up with another agreement to take effect in 2020 and leaving kyoto in place for another 5 years sounds like a commitment to keep everyone in their jobs for 8 more years. And by then it will be properly clear that it was all smoke but no fire. What is going to be interesting is that the UN will become tax collector, the 23 don’t have the money. It will end up coming from the foreign aid budgets the rob Peter to pay Paul scenario.
      Good luck to them, but the gravy train will run out of steam soon.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Ross

        Remember Jake at Copenhagen these guys pledged $100s millions of funds to various causes/projects. 90% of it never saw the “light of day”.
        Some the vague wording in these announcements have a similar ring to them –well thats what I’m hoping it will turn out to be.


        Report this

        00

  • #
  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    Global Ocean level measured from Topex and Jason satellites has dropped about 5 mm in a recent period of 12 months (2010 data, awaiting the end of 2011).


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Bruce

    Not sure if this has been posted before.

    http://www.theherald.com.au/news/local/news/general/mccloy-to-mount-climate-class-action-against-council/2338650.aspx?storypage=0

    Seems like some sort of coordinated legal action is required.

    Perhaps Nils Axel Morner could be called as an expert witness!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    J.H.

    Good on you Mr McCloy. Give ‘em hell.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    KeithH

    To MattB, Catamon, Tristan, John Brookes and other AGW believers who still think the scam is really about CO2 levels and “climate change”, Google ‘Ad-Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action Under the Convention’.

    You may choose to wade through the document and try to make sense of it yourself rather than accept the help of Christopher Monckton, who for the rest of us attempts to put all the mumbo-jumbo into plain English.

    Of course, it has nothing to do with the UN concept and ultimate aim of ‘global governance’/sarc!

    http://www.icecap.us/

    Extract:

    “Behind the scenes, throughout the year since Cancun, the now-permanent bureaucrats who have made highly-profitable careers out of what they lovingly call “the process” have been beavering away at what is now a 138-page document. Its catchy title is “Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action Under the Convention – Update of the amalgamation of draft texts in preparation of [one imagines they mean ‘for’] a comprehensive and balanced outcome to be presented to the Conference of the Parties for adoption at its seventeenth session: note by the Chair.” In plain English, these are the conclusions the bureaucracy wants.

    The contents of this document, turgidly drafted with all the UN’s skill at what the former head of its documentation center used to call “transparent impenetrability”, are not just off the wall – they are lunatic.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    KeithH

    Re my post @ 56

    Google ‘Climate Depot’ which has the relevant article set out in a better format than at ICECAP.

    Durban – what the media are not telling you.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robert Holmes

    SEA LEVEL CHANGE by 2100 by credible scientific papers and
    estimates will be somewhere between -10cm and +20cm.
    (The IPCC’s estimates are outliers, way off and alarmist at 30cm-80cm+)

    Supporting evidence;
    1)SEA LEVEL CHANGE is 1.61mm/year -+ 0.19mm/year
    i.e.; by 2100 the sea level should rise by between 12.8 cm and 16.2 cm. (4 to 6 inches)
    GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 36, L12607, 6 PP., 2009
    doi:10.1029/2009GL038720

    2) Paper by; Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner world’s sea level expert (40 years of experience), predicts -10cm to +15cm by 2100. see; http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf
    He says that the IPCC’s sea level estimates are; “NONSENSE”.

    3) Current satellite data from Jason 1+2, ENVISAT; Sea levels are currently FALLING at 2.5mm/year. (The trend from 1992 to now, is heading for an 8cm rise in sea levels by 2100)


    Report this

    00