Extreme heat, floods likely as weather evolves

EXTREME weather events in 2009 and March this year provided the people of NSW with an indication of what the state is increasingly likely to face as the climate changes, a report by the federal government's Climate Commission says.

The year 2009 was the hottest year on record in NSW and a rise in the number of similar heatwave events is predicted. The number of days reaching more than 35 degrees in Sydney is expected to triple by 2070.

Climate change ''cannot be ruled out'' as a factor in recent heavy rainfalls, such as the flash flooding in Sydney on March 8, the wettest March day for more than 25 years, the report says.

Advertisement: Story continues below
The state, on average, is expected to become drier, increasing the risk of longer, harsher droughts and of bushfires, but the intensity of downpours could also increase in a hotter climate, due to warmer ocean temperatures.

The report, The Critical Decade, NSW Climate Impacts and Opportunities, is released today. At a public forum at Parramatta Town Hall tomorrow night the public can question members of the commission, which is an independent panel of climate scientists and policy and business leaders.

The chief commissioner, Tim Flannery, said NSW was highly vulnerable to climate change.

''Changes in Sydney's climate will have far-reaching implications for health, agriculture, tourism, water security and biodiversity,'' said Professor Flannery, who will attend the forum.

But the state also had the opportunity to benefit from a boom in clean energy, he said.

NSW is a world leader in research on solar photovoltaics and has produced the heads of four of the six top global manufacturers of this technology, including Shi Zhengrong, the chief executive of the world's largest solar company, Suntech.

The report says an estimated $20 billion would be invested in solar power in Australia by 2020 and NSW was ''well placed'' to capitalise on this.

''Even if solar panels are imported from overseas, around 30 to 40 per cent of panel installation costs will go to local installers,'' it says.

The climate commissioners Will Steffen and Lesley Hughes, who will also attend the forum, said a shift to cleaner energy sources was needed to help minimise climate change risks.

''This is the critical decade for action. The longer we wait, the more difficult and costly it will be,'' Professor Steffen, of the Australian National University, and Professor Hughes, of Macquarie University, conclude in their report summary.

They say the coastal areas of NSW face significant risks from sea level rises. ''A 1.1-metre rise by the end of the century could put between 40,000 to 60,000 houses, 1200 commercial buildings and 250 kilometres of highway in NSW at risk of inundation.''

With a sea level rise of 0.5 metres, storm surge flooding in Sydney that is now considered a one-in-100-year event could occur every few months.


http://www.smh.com.au/environment/water-issues/extreme-heat-floods-likely-as-weather-evolves-20120513-1yl1y.html

See the very disgraceful reporting of this in today's Daily Telepgraph.

Once again they turn it into their personal crusade against Flannery.  Shooting the man is easier than the message.

Appalling journalism.

____ wrote on May 14^th, 2012 at 7:52am:

Climate change ''cannot be ruled out'' as a factor in recent heavy rainfalls, such as the flash flooding in Sydney on March 8, the wettest March day for more than 25 years, the report says.

True: climate change "cannot be ruled out".

In fact, I'm not aware of anyone who says otherwise.

Human involvement, however ... that's a whole different story.

Uncle Meat wrote on May 14^th, 2012 at 12:06pm:

____ wrote on May 14th, 2012 at 7:52am: Climate change ''cannot be ruled out'' as a factor in recent heavy rainfalls, such as the flash flooding in Sydney on March 8, the wettest March day for more than 25 years, the report says. True: climate change "cannot be ruled out". In fact, I'm not aware of anyone who says otherwise. Human involvement, however ... that's a whole different story.

Of all the questions in this area like, is climate change happening, or how fast is it happening, that may be slightly difficult to quantify, the question of whether man is responsible is a no brainer.

Where do you think all these millions of tonnes of c02 we are digging up out of the ground is going ?

::)

People seem to fall into three camps:

1) Climate change is crap.

Dont believe the climate is changing at all. They take evidence is when they look out the window, the weather seems like any other winters day.  End of story.

2) The climate is changing but not by man.

The most untenable position. They see the world wide measurements and realise that the climate is changing, but rather than admit we can do something about it (vested interest, political views, or pure laziness), try to blame-shift away from man.
Fact. Climate is warming. Fact. Co2 warms the climate. Fact. We are releasing millions of tonnes of previously stored co2.

3) Climate change is real, and man is a significant contributor.

If you possess a brain where logic can override your political views, this is where you are.

Once you are in group 3, and everyone will eventually get there,  you are then left with 2 options

3a.  Do something. price coal, or invest in renewables.

3b. Do nothing. Blame someone else. (chinese, americans, previous generations, etc)



I'm 3a all the way baby!

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 14^th, 2012 at 12:14pm:

Of all the questions in this area like, is climate change happening, or how fast is it happening, that may be slightly difficult to quantify, the question of whether man is responsible is a no brainer.

Only to the closed-minded AGW disciples.

Open-minded sceptics, however, are willing to consider all possibilities.

So, while the AGW disciples dogmatically follow their religion, the sceptics will continue to look at the science.

(hmmm, "no brainer" seems appropriate)  :-/

Uncle Meat wrote on May 14^th, 2012 at 12:41pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 14th, 2012 at 12:14pm: Of all the questions in this area like, is climate change happening, or how fast is it happening, that may be slightly difficult to quantify, the question of whether man is responsible is a no brainer. Only to the closed-minded AGW disciples. Open-minded sceptics, however, are willing to consider all possibilities. So, while the AGW disciples dogmatically follow their religion, the sceptics will continue to look at the science. (hmmm, "no brainer" seems appropriate)  :-/

You have no other possibilities.  You just hope there is one. You dont know what it is, but you hope it exists.

Untenable position.

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 14^th, 2012 at 12:43pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 14th, 2012 at 12:41pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on May 14th, 2012 at 12:14pm: Of all the questions in this area like, is climate change happening, or how fast is it happening, that may be slightly difficult to quantify, the question of whether man is responsible is a no brainer. Only to the closed-minded AGW disciples. Open-minded sceptics, however, are willing to consider all possibilities. So, while the AGW disciples dogmatically follow their religion, the sceptics will continue to look at the science. (hmmm, "no brainer" seems appropriate)  :-/ You have no other possibilities.  You just hope there is one. You dont know what it is, but you hope it exists.

Ah, this is a perfect example of the closed-minded AGW disciples. 

Quite frankly, unbelievable: hard to imagine how an educated person can ignore science in order to push their political agenda.

::)

Perhaps Rupert Murdoch caused global warming. He was apparently behind the QLD floods.

SOB

PS for the idiot that take me seriously this is a joke - although the link is real

Uncle Meat wrote on May 14^th, 2012 at 12:50pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 14th, 2012 at 12:43pm: Uncle Meat wrote on May 14th, 2012 at 12:41pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on May 14th, 2012 at 12:14pm: Of all the questions in this area like, is climate change happening, or how fast is it happening, that may be slightly difficult to quantify, the question of whether man is responsible is a no brainer. Only to the closed-minded AGW disciples. Open-minded sceptics, however, are willing to consider all possibilities. So, while the AGW disciples dogmatically follow their religion, the sceptics will continue to look at the science. (hmmm, "no brainer" seems appropriate)  :-/ You have no other possibilities.  You just hope there is one. You dont know what it is, but you hope it exists. Ah, this is a perfect example of the closed-minded AGW disciples.  Quite frankly, unbelievable: hard to imagine how an educated person can ignore science in order to push their political agenda. ::)

What are they then ?    Aliens ?
;D

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 14^th, 2012 at 1:18pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 14th, 2012 at 12:50pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on May 14th, 2012 at 12:43pm: Uncle Meat wrote on May 14th, 2012 at 12:41pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on May 14th, 2012 at 12:14pm: Of all the questions in this area like, is climate change happening, or how fast is it happening, that may be slightly difficult to quantify, the question of whether man is responsible is a no brainer. Only to the closed-minded AGW disciples. Open-minded sceptics, however, are willing to consider all possibilities. So, while the AGW disciples dogmatically follow their religion, the sceptics will continue to look at the science. (hmmm, "no brainer" seems appropriate)  :-/ You have no other possibilities.  You just hope there is one. You dont know what it is, but you hope it exists. Ah, this is a perfect example of the closed-minded AGW disciples.  Quite frankly, unbelievable: hard to imagine how an educated person can ignore science in order to push their political agenda. ::) What are they then ?    Aliens ? ;D

Yep, that's about the level of ignorance I expected.

Unvbelievable.

::)

Just to recap on the AGW "science":

" ... no other possibilities."

"Aliens ?"

Disturbing, to say the least.

Option (2) of my categorizations is really a trap for right wingers trying to have a bit each way.

Some fall into it easy. Some need to be coaxed.

;D

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 14^th, 2012 at 12:19pm:

People seem to fall into three camps: 1) Climate change is crap. Dont believe the climate is changing at all. They take evidence is when they look out the window, the weather seems like any other winters day.  End of story. 2) The climate is changing but not by man. The most untenable position. They see the world wide measurements and realise that the climate is changing, but rather than admit we can do something about it (vested interest, political views, or pure laziness), try to blame-shift away from man. Fact. Climate is warming. Fact. Co2 warms the climate. Fact. We are releasing millions of tonnes of previously stored co2. 3) Climate change is real, and man is a significant contributor. If you possess a brain where logic can override your political views, this is where you are. Once you are in group 3, and everyone will eventually get there,  you are then left with 2 options 3a.  Do something. price coal, or invest in renewables. 3b. Do nothing. Blame someone else. (chinese, americans, previous generations, etc) I'm 3a all the way baby!

Some people fall into Camps 1,2 and 3b in the space of a few posts. It depends on where they cut and paste from.

muso wrote on May 14^th, 2012 at 3:53pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 14th, 2012 at 12:19pm: People seem to fall into three camps: 1) Climate change is crap. Dont believe the climate is changing at all. They take evidence is when they look out the window, the weather seems like any other winters day.  End of story. 2) The climate is changing but not by man. The most untenable position. They see the world wide measurements and realise that the climate is changing, but rather than admit we can do something about it (vested interest, political views, or pure laziness), try to blame-shift away from man. Fact. Climate is warming. Fact. Co2 warms the climate. Fact. We are releasing millions of tonnes of previously stored co2. 3) Climate change is real, and man is a significant contributor. If you possess a brain where logic can override your political views, this is where you are. Once you are in group 3, and everyone will eventually get there,  you are then left with 2 options 3a.  Do something. price coal, or invest in renewables. 3b. Do nothing. Blame someone else. (chinese, americans, previous generations, etc) I'm 3a all the way baby! Some people fall into Camps 1,2 and 3b in the space of a few posts. It depends on where they cut and paste from.

I've never met anyone in Camp 1.

I'm not so sure they exist.

Uncle Meat wrote on May 14^th, 2012 at 1:39pm:

Just to recap on the AGW "science": " ... no other possibilities." "Aliens ?" Disturbing, to say the least.

Well, now's your chance. The issue is the projected climate change as opposed to what we've experienced up to now of course, and that is projected on the basis of different emission scenarios. 

This is your opportunity to correct our alleged misconceptions with regards to atmospheric physics.  Don't waste it.

Uncle Meat wrote on May 14^th, 2012 at 3:58pm:

muso wrote on May 14th, 2012 at 3:53pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on May 14th, 2012 at 12:19pm: People seem to fall into three camps: 1) Climate change is crap. Dont believe the climate is changing at all. They take evidence is when they look out the window, the weather seems like any other winters day.  End of story. 2) The climate is changing but not by man. The most untenable position. They see the world wide measurements and realise that the climate is changing, but rather than admit we can do something about it (vested interest, political views, or pure laziness), try to blame-shift away from man. Fact. Climate is warming. Fact. Co2 warms the climate. Fact. We are releasing millions of tonnes of previously stored co2. 3) Climate change is real, and man is a significant contributor. If you possess a brain where logic can override your political views, this is where you are. Once you are in group 3, and everyone will eventually get there,  you are then left with 2 options 3a.  Do something. price coal, or invest in renewables. 3b. Do nothing. Blame someone else. (chinese, americans, previous generations, etc) I'm 3a all the way baby! Some people fall into Camps 1,2 and 3b in the space of a few posts. It depends on where they cut and paste from. I've never met anyone in Camp 1. I'm not so sure they exist.

You mean those who claim that the world stopped warming in 1998? They exist. They just keep changing their minds.

muso wrote on May 14^th, 2012 at 3:53pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 14th, 2012 at 12:19pm: People seem to fall into three camps: 1) Climate change is crap. Dont believe the climate is changing at all. They take evidence is when they look out the window, the weather seems like any other winters day.  End of story. 2) The climate is changing but not by man. The most untenable position. They see the world wide measurements and realise that the climate is changing, but rather than admit we can do something about it (vested interest, political views, or pure laziness), try to blame-shift away from man. Fact. Climate is warming. Fact. Co2 warms the climate. Fact. We are releasing millions of tonnes of previously stored co2. 3) Climate change is real, and man is a significant contributor. If you possess a brain where logic can override your political views, this is where you are. Once you are in group 3, and everyone will eventually get there,  you are then left with 2 options 3a.  Do something. price coal, or invest in renewables. 3b. Do nothing. Blame someone else. (chinese, americans, previous generations, etc) I'm 3a all the way baby! Some people fall into Camps 1,2 and 3b in the space of a few posts. It depends on where they cut and paste from.

I think Tony Abbott has been in all 4 camps.

He's been overhead saying "climate change is crap", so camp 1.

I can recall him claiming to be in camp 2 (probably his favoured camp, and the official line of republicans)

His direct action policy must reside in Camp 3a.

But his approach to not do anything unless the US and China does something implies Camp 3b.

Weathervane.

muso wrote on May 14^th, 2012 at 4:04pm:

You mean those who claim that the world stopped warming in 1998? They exist. They just keep changing their minds.

Camp 1 says climate change, not warming.

I haven't met anyone who doesn't believe in climate change.

Uncle Meat wrote on May 14^th, 2012 at 6:53pm:

muso wrote on May 14th, 2012 at 4:04pm: You mean those who claim that the world stopped warming in 1998? They exist. They just keep changing their minds. Camp 1 says climate change, not warming. I haven't met anyone who doesn't believe in climate change.

I'd say that the intent of Camp 1 is to claim that some people don't believe that there is any evidence of systematic changes to the climate that are beyond normal natural variation. It's just a shortened form of that. 

Camp 2 is claiming that there is evidence, but that it's due to other indeterminate natural causes, (without actually suggesting what those causes might be)

Going back to the original post, it's not actually claiming that the hot conditions in those two years were caused by AGW. It's just saying that it gives us a preview of what's to come.

I don't disagree with the original article. It's not claiming a definitive cause of the extreme weather events, which is fair enough. 

I'd add another subcategory

3c - They believe that it's due to fossil fuel burning and other generally accepted causes, but they claim that it will be entirely beneficial and take the do nothing option.   

Uncle Meat wrote on May 14^th, 2012 at 12:41pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 14th, 2012 at 12:14pm: Of all the questions in this area like, is climate change happening, or how fast is it happening, that may be slightly difficult to quantify, the question of whether man is responsible is a no brainer. Only to the closed-minded AGW disciples. Open-minded sceptics, however, are willing to consider all possibilities. So, while the AGW disciples dogmatically follow their religion, the sceptics will continue to look at the science. (hmmm, "no brainer" seems appropriate)  :-/

You seem to be able to accept any other possibility other than the most likely possibility. That doesn't make you a skeptic.

muso wrote on May 14^th, 2012 at 8:43pm:

I'd add another subcategory 3c - They believe that it's due to fossil fuel burning and other generally accepted causes, but they claim that it will be entirely beneficial and take the do nothing option.

I cant believe there is anyone in camp 3c. Surely not ?

MOTR wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 3:37am:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 14th, 2012 at 12:41pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on May 14th, 2012 at 12:14pm: Of all the questions in this area like, is climate change happening, or how fast is it happening, that may be slightly difficult to quantify, the question of whether man is responsible is a no brainer. Only to the closed-minded AGW disciples. Open-minded sceptics, however, are willing to consider all possibilities. So, while the AGW disciples dogmatically follow their religion, the sceptics will continue to look at the science. (hmmm, "no brainer" seems appropriate)  :-/ You seem to be able to accept any other possibility other than the most likely possibility. That doesn't make you a skeptic.

Incorrect.

I've stated on many occasions that I may eventually change my mind and accept the AGW hypothesis.

However, until such time as credible, reliable evidence is presented I do not subscribe to the man-made possibility.

I remain sceptical, yet open-minded.

Uncle Meat wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 9:57am:

MOTR wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 3:37am: Uncle Meat wrote on May 14th, 2012 at 12:41pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on May 14th, 2012 at 12:14pm: Of all the questions in this area like, is climate change happening, or how fast is it happening, that may be slightly difficult to quantify, the question of whether man is responsible is a no brainer. Only to the closed-minded AGW disciples. Open-minded sceptics, however, are willing to consider all possibilities. So, while the AGW disciples dogmatically follow their religion, the sceptics will continue to look at the science. (hmmm, "no brainer" seems appropriate)  :-/ You seem to be able to accept any other possibility other than the most likely possibility. That doesn't make you a skeptic. Incorrect. I've stated on many occasions that I may eventually change my mind and accept the AGW hypothesis. However, until such time as credible, reliable evidence is presented I do not subscribe to the man-made possibility. I remain sceptical, yet open-minded.

So are you saying, you just dont know why the climate is changing ?

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 9:59am:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 9:57am: MOTR wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 3:37am: Uncle Meat wrote on May 14th, 2012 at 12:41pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on May 14th, 2012 at 12:14pm: Of all the questions in this area like, is climate change happening, or how fast is it happening, that may be slightly difficult to quantify, the question of whether man is responsible is a no brainer. Only to the closed-minded AGW disciples. Open-minded sceptics, however, are willing to consider all possibilities. So, while the AGW disciples dogmatically follow their religion, the sceptics will continue to look at the science. (hmmm, "no brainer" seems appropriate)  :-/ You seem to be able to accept any other possibility other than the most likely possibility. That doesn't make you a skeptic. Incorrect. I've stated on many occasions that I may eventually change my mind and accept the AGW hypothesis. However, until such time as credible, reliable evidence is presented I do not subscribe to the man-made possibility. I remain sceptical, yet open-minded. So are you saying, you just dont know why the climate is changing ?

I'm not 100% committed to any one hypothesis.

I remain open-minded.  That's what science is about.

So far, there is not enough credible, reliable evidence to support the AGW hypothesis.

Uncle Meat wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 10:12am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 9:59am: Uncle Meat wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 9:57am: MOTR wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 3:37am: Uncle Meat wrote on May 14th, 2012 at 12:41pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on May 14th, 2012 at 12:14pm: Of all the questions in this area like, is climate change happening, or how fast is it happening, that may be slightly difficult to quantify, the question of whether man is responsible is a no brainer. Only to the closed-minded AGW disciples. Open-minded sceptics, however, are willing to consider all possibilities. So, while the AGW disciples dogmatically follow their religion, the sceptics will continue to look at the science. (hmmm, "no brainer" seems appropriate)  :-/ You seem to be able to accept any other possibility other than the most likely possibility. That doesn't make you a skeptic. Incorrect. I've stated on many occasions that I may eventually change my mind and accept the AGW hypothesis. However, until such time as credible, reliable evidence is presented I do not subscribe to the man-made possibility. I remain sceptical, yet open-minded. So are you saying, you just dont know why the climate is changing ? I'm not 100% committed to any one hypothesis. I remain open-minded.  That's what science is about. So far, there is not enough credible, reliable evidence to support the AGW hypothesis.

Yes there is.  Its really quite simple. Follow these questions and we'll see where you are diverging off mainstream science.

Q1.  The Thermal properties of co2 act as a green house gas in our atmosphere making the planet warmer than it normally would be?  True or False ?

Q2.  Humans are releasing large amounts of co2 into the atmosphere that was previously stored underground (in fossil fuels).  True or false ?

Q3.  The earth is a closed system. The Co2 being released has to go somewhere. Some is being absorbed by the ocean (acidifying it, which scientific data is reinforcing), some is staying in the atmosphere (as scientific data is reinforcing).  True or false ?

Q4. More co2 in the atmosphere, means more molecules doing there greenhouse actions. True or false ?

Q5.  Answers to true in q1 to q4 mean the world is warming due to mans activities. yes ?

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 11:15am:

Yes there is.

No, there isn't.

AGW is merely the currently accepted hypothesis.

Hypothesis.

Do you accept the hypothesis that the Earth orbits the Sun?

muso wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 2:28pm:

Do you accept the hypothesis that the Earth orbits the Sun?

Right on cue!   ::)

Don't change the subject.

Try to stay focused.

This thread is about AGW (it's in the thread title, in case you weren't sure).

AGW disciples always like to deflect and change the subject when their argument is going nowhere.  Once that happens, their credibility goes out the window.

So, AGW is merely the currently accepted hypothesis: you need to accept this fact.

Uncle Meat wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 2:33pm:

muso wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 2:28pm: Do you accept the hypothesis that the Earth orbits the Sun? Right on cue!   ::) Don't change the subject. Try to stay focused. This thread is about AGW (it's in the thread title, in case you weren't sure). AGW disciples always like to deflect and change the subject when their argument is going nowhere.  Once that happens, their credibility goes out the window. So, AGW is merely the currently accepted hypothesis: you need to accept this fact.

Well it's a relevant question.  You stated that it was a hypothesis. I'm exploring the concept of hypotheses. So Yes or No?

(If I told you that it was a null hypothesis, would you change your mind?)

muso wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 3:54pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 2:33pm: muso wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 2:28pm: Do you accept the hypothesis that the Earth orbits the Sun? Right on cue!   ::) Don't change the subject. Try to stay focused. This thread is about AGW (it's in the thread title, in case you weren't sure). AGW disciples always like to deflect and change the subject when their argument is going nowhere.  Once that happens, their credibility goes out the window. So, AGW is merely the currently accepted hypothesis: you need to accept this fact. Well it's a relevant question.  You stated that it was a hypothesis. I'm exploring the concept of hypotheses. So Yes or No? (If I told you that it was a null hypothesis, would you change your mind?)

You're attempting to deflect by wasting time with semantics.

No surprise there.  That's how the AGW disciples operate. 

What you're doing is nothing new.  It is quite transparent though.

You need to concern yourself more with science, and less with semantics.

While you remain closed-minded to other possibilities, you're operating outside the realm of science.  This thread is about AGW and science, not semantics or other hypotheses.

Stay focused.

OK, well you insist on using this terminology, so let's take it further.

No astronomical body orbits another astronomical body. They orbit around a common centre of gravity, although strictly speaking, the Earth follows a geodesic line within curved space.

Whichever way you look at it, the statement that the Earth orbits the Sun is a null hypothesis.

But as far as the question of whether CO2 causes warming, that is a type of hypothesis known as a residual hypothesis. A residual hypothesis results when all other alternative hypotheses tested against it fails to achieve a predetermined significance level.

For a start, it's an effect that can be measured directly. If you want it in layman's language, it's patently obvious.

---

Ah, SO YOU'RE SAYING THE EARTH DOESN'T ORBIT THE SUN IT ORBITS A SYSTEM CENTRE!

Lol, I was blind but now I see!

Thanks muso!!

  ;) ;)

...this is the line of reasoning that got Pluto kicked from the status of 'a planet', yes???  ::) ::)

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 14^th, 2012 at 12:05pm:

Once again they turn it into their personal crusade against Flannery.  Shooting the man is easier than the message.

The man has probably allowed himself to be shot down in flames with his inaccurate predictions and scaremongering which is understandable when nothing he has predicted has actually happened.

He is not qualified in matters relating to climate change so why would he not be shot down? He lacks any credibility and has personally benefited financially through multi-million dollar grants awarded to his company to draw electricity from rocks in the South Australian desert - a spectacular failure.

You might have a good argument but I strongly doubt that relying on Flannery will pull you through it.

quick, bend over and take it like a nice green follower. You can then get beaten over the head with some good old fashion scaremongering. If you are not 100% under the greens control by then, you will get a browbeating like deadhorse knows.

Flannery is the best economist who knows little about the economy but is well versed at scaremongering about a science he knows nothing about.

Good on ya flannery for continuing to wreck a science. Right up their with the climategate mongrels