Typhoon Haiyan: widespread destruction in central Philippines city of Tacloban

Local TV pictures show the terrrible aftermath of the the typhoon on Tacloban, where a local police chief estimates thousands have perished, as the reacue operation gets underway in many other areas of the country.

The death toll from one of the strongest storms on record that ravaged the central Philippine city of Tacloban could reach 10,000 people, officials said after the extent of massive devastation became apparent.

Regional police chief Elmer Soria said he was briefed by Leyte provincial Governor Dominic Petilla late on Saturday and told there were about 10,000 deaths on the island, mostly by drowning and from collapsed buildings.

The governor's figure was based on reports from village officials in areas where Typhoon Haiyan slammed on Friday.

About 300-400 bodies have already been recovered, he said.

The typhoon barrelled through six central Philippine islands on Friday, wiping away buildings and levelling seaside homes. 

Link  -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/philippines/10438796/Typhoon-Haiyan-widespread-destruction-in-central-Philippines-city-of-Tacloban.html
============================================
The article also has an embedded video, showing some of the damage.

What we know, is that this is the strongest storm to hit land, with winds gusting up to 380 kph.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/08/typhoon-haiyan-biggest-storms

What we don't know, for sure, is whether this is a precursor of things to come, But it certainly fits with what the Climate Change scientists have been saying, with more/serious droughts & more/serious storms & other Climate Changes!

And, it is certainly fitting the patterns already emerging, so it would seem that the physical property damage shown here in the Philippines & the high number of likely deaths, is something we will see repeated, with a growing regularity, over the decades to come! 

Oh & anyone in Australia or elsewhere, who thinks this has nothing to do with them, THINK AGAIN!

Insurance is a commodity we ALL NEED & with international Re-insurance arrangements the way they are,  WHETHER IT IS A TYPHOON IN THE PHILIPPINES, A CYCLONE IN DARWIN OR QUEENSLAND OR HURRICANES IN NEW YORK, WE WILL ALL PAY BY WAY OF INCREASED INSURANCE COSTS!

Finally, whatever the final cost of lives in the Philippines &/or in Vietnam/China, MY THOUGHTS ARE WITH THE PEOPLES OF THOSE NATIONS!

In particular, however, my thoughts are with a Microsoft employee Ferdinand, who is based in the Philippines & who I spoke to on Thursday, regarding a problem with Email deliveries. Ferdinand was going to check it out & ring me back on Friday, but I have no yet heard back from him!      

I hope he has come thru ok!

Some talk of exaggerated meaurements....THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE STRIKES AGAIN OH LET US SLAP THE  CRIMINAL ELEMENT ON THE WRISt AND SAY 'NAUGHTY'  :o

I'm always taking a wide arc of them. They never meant anything to me.

The only ones who have lost touch with reality are the morons who think that because there's a hurricane there must be global warming.

I don't know how these weirdos take themselves seriously and also expect everyone else to.

Well, I've got news for these loons - hurricanes happen.  They are a natural phenomenon.  And they have been happening for countless hundreds of millions of years.

Amadd wrote on Nov 11^th, 2013 at 5:19am:

I'm always taking a wide arc of them. They never meant anything to me.

I just hope the men in the white coats recapture you and your mate soon.

Where is it you are from?  Broadmoor, Rampton or Bedlam?

You are Amadd, alright.

Cofgod wrote on Nov 11^th, 2013 at 5:43am:

The only ones who have lost touch with reality are the morons who think that because there's a hurricane there must be global warming. I don't know how these weirdos take themselves seriously and also expect everyone else to. Well, I've got news for these loons - hurricanes happen.  They are a natural phenomenon.  And they have been happening for countless hundreds of millions of years.

x2

you have to wonder where the loops have been living as never to have seen natural events like hurricanes and storms...

under a rock perhaps? 

True Blue... wrote on Nov 11^th, 2013 at 5:50am:

Cofgod wrote on Nov 11th, 2013 at 5:43am: The only ones who have lost touch with reality are the morons who think that because there's a hurricane there must be global warming. I don't know how these weirdos take themselves seriously and also expect everyone else to. Well, I've got news for these loons - hurricanes happen.  They are a natural phenomenon.  And they have been happening for countless hundreds of millions of years. x2 you have to wonder where the loops have been living as never to have seen natural events like hurricanes and storms... under a rock perhaps?

They've spent all their lives living in the loony bin.  That's what it is.  Let's hope these two escapees are recaptured soon.

What we know, is that this is the strongest storm to hit land, with winds gusting up to 380 kph.

Bigger and more frequent. There's no denying it.

A lot of people are getting confused with man made global warming

and

climate change

We can clearly see the effects of climate change over the last decade, but whether it is caused by man made global warming or not is another debate.

Cofgod wrote on Nov 11^th, 2013 at 5:43am:

The only ones who have lost touch with reality are the morons who think that because there's a hurricane there must be global warming. I don't know how these weirdos take themselves seriously and also expect everyone else to. Well, I've got news for these loons - hurricanes happen.  They are a natural phenomenon.  And they have been happening for countless hundreds of millions of years.

Sure whatever you say Hillbillie.  Your ignorance isn't working on anyone anymore except you. And even you sound like your trying to convince yourself.   

"Climate Change Denial is Reality Denial"


Who denies climate change?

Seriously, who?     :-/

It was rather funny, that last week channel 10 showed the movie "the day after tomorrow" about, basically, a climate change driven super storm causing mayhem.

One of the scenes was a shot from the space station showing the massive storm.

Fast forward a few days, and the biggest storm to hit landmass causes  mayhem, and we see shots of it from space.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 11^th, 2013 at 9:02am:

It was rather funny, that last week channel 10 showed the movie "the day after tomorrow" about, basically, a climate change driven super storm causing mayhem. One of the scenes was a shot from the space station showing the massive storm. Fast forward a few days, and the biggest storm to hit landmass causes  mayhem, and we see shots of it from space.

Oh you mean this movie??

"Jack Hall, paleoclimatologist for NORAD, must make a daring trek across America to reach his son, trapped in the cross-hairs of a sudden international storm which plunges the planet into a new Ice Age."

Climate Change Denial is Reality Denial

Typhoon Haiyan is the strongest recorded Typhoon we have ever recorded however we have only been recording since the 1900s, and although Typhoon Haiyan is the strongest recorded Typhoo we have accounts of Typhoon dating back to the 14 centory that killed and done much more damage than Typhoon Haiyan,

Also by looking at the table from Wiki:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/522019_662114913822409_359385799_n.jpg

we are having lest Super Typhoons, however more Typhoons (until recently where they have dropped), however we are getting lest Typhoons and most of them are lest Super Typhoons and Typhoons and more just tropical storms.

Indeed the most activity Typhoon season was in 1961 while least activity seen in the Pacific ocean was during the 2010 typhoon season. Within Guangdong in southern China, the most historically active decades for typhoon strikes were the 1660s and 1670s.

Although i believe in Climate Change i don't believe it to the same degree as others (as it seems to have evolved to a religion now days.)


greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 11^th, 2013 at 7:46am:

"Climate Change Denial is Reality Denial" Who denies climate change? Seriously, who?     :-/

Agreed, if its man made Climate Change you believe in then by 2010 we should all have been killed off due to extreme changes while if you belied climate Change isn't affect by man then we have some 14 million years before things start to get warmer/colder.

Pantheon wrote on Nov 11^th, 2013 at 10:01am:

Climate Change Denial is Reality Denial Typhoon Haiyan is the strongest recorded Typhoon we have ever recorded however we have only been recording since the 1900s, and although Typhoon Haiyan is the strongest recorded Typhoo we have accounts of Typhoon dating back to the 14 centory that killed and done much more damage than Typhoon Haiyan, Also by looking at the table from Wiki: https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/522019_662114913822409_359385799_n.jpg we are having lest Super Typhoons, however more Typhoons (until recently where they have dropped), however we are getting lest Typhoons and most of them are lest Super Typhoons and Typhoons and more just tropical storms. Indeed the most activity Typhoon season was in 1961 while least activity seen in the Pacific ocean was during the 2010 typhoon season. Within Guangdong in southern China, the most historically active decades for typhoon strikes were the 1660s and 1670s. Although i believe in Climate Change i don't believe it to the same degree as others (as it seems to have evolved to a religion now days.) greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 11th, 2013 at 7:46am: "Climate Change Denial is Reality Denial" Who denies climate change? Seriously, who?     :-/ Agreed, if its man made Climate Change you believe in then by 2010 we should all have been killed off due to extreme changes while if you belied climate Change isn't affect by man then we have some 14 million years before things start to get warmer/colder.

Well more like less than 50,000 years..

What crass opportunism.

Where is this data from the 14th century ?

Or are you deniers still using poetry as the historical record....  I love a sunburnt country...  :)

Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 11^th, 2013 at 11:16am:

Where is this data from the 14th century ?

try Google its a useful tool


Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 11^th, 2013 at 11:16am:

are you deniers still using poetry as the historical record....  I love a sunburnt country...  :)

Who said i was a deniers? I clearly said "Although i believe in Climate Change i don't believe it to the same degree as others (as it seems to have evolved to a religion now days.)"

Pantheon wrote on Nov 11^th, 2013 at 11:52am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 11th, 2013 at 11:16am: Where is this data from the 14th century ? try Google its a useful tool Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 11th, 2013 at 11:16am: are you deniers still using poetry as the historical record....  I love a sunburnt country...  :) Who said i was a deniers? I clearly said "Although i believe in Climate Change i don't believe it to the same degree as others (as it seems to have evolved to a religion now days.)"

What he means is he's a bit pregnant.

A few observations -
1) I have heard all the usual lines of denial, such as the climate is always changing & that is correct, as can be seen here, for the last 400,000 years -
http://www.johnenglander.net/sites/default/files/images/T%20CO2%20SL%20current%20Makiko%20TIMMED.jpg

2) However, that line is largely erroneous, because it is only the affect on humanity & the effects by humanity which are of interest, for us.
In this respect, WE (humanity) have only recently (the last 200 years) grown into numbers sufficiently large, where our sheer numbers could have any substantial effect on the Global Environment AND where "some" of those Global Climate Changes will then have a substantial affect on us, because we now inhabit so much of the planet & that the density of our habitation is now so great, that these changes have so much greater affect now, than at any previous stage of our relatively short "occupation" of this planet.

3) So, whilst the Climate has always "changed", we have not been around long enough for those changes to materially affect us, except for the last Ice Age, which nearly saw us become extinct!

4) As can be seen from the above chart, we are now at or approaching the top of the current warming phase, so unless our involvement kicks us completely out of the usual cycle, we will start into the next Ice Age part of the cycle, in the not too distant future.
In the mean time, we will hit Peak warming & with that will come some Peak weather/climate events, such as extra strong storms, floods and droughts just to mention a few, plus likely large rises in sea levels.

Whether anyone believes in human caused climate change, is largely irrelevant, we are now at  the infection point when change will happen anyway and if it does happen over the decades ahead, as seems likely from the best current scientific & anecdotal evidence, then it will happen at a once in history time for humanity, just as our Global Population has acquired "maximum carry capacity", so the outcomes will also reflect our exposure & probably our lack of mitigation against the risks!

Oh & it is also interesting how little comment there is, concerning the human element of the current event/disaster, with deaths expected to number in the many thousands, damage expected to decimate entire regions and peoples well being for quite some time & no, I have not yet heard from Ferdinand!
   
  

perceptions_now wrote on Nov 11^th, 2013 at 12:23pm:

A few observations - 1) I have heard all the usual lines of denial, such as the climate is always changing & that is correct, as can be seen here, for the last 400,000 years - http://www.johnenglander.net/sites/default/files/images/T%20CO2%20SL%20current%20Makiko%20TIMMED.jpg 2) However, that line is largely erroneous, because it is only the affect on humanity & the effects by humanity which are of interest, for us. In this respect, WE (humanity) have only recently (the last 200 years) grown into numbers sufficiently large, where our sheer numbers could have any substantial effect on the Global Environment AND where "some" of those Global Climate Changes will then have a substantial affect on us, because we now inhabit so much of the planet & that the density of our habitation is now so great, that these changes have so much greater affect now, than at any previous stage of our relatively short "occupation" of this planet. 3) So, whilst the Climate has always "changed", we have not been around long enough for those changes to materially affect us, except for the last Ice Age, which nearly saw us become extinct! 4) As can be seen from the above chart, we are now at or approaching the top of the current warming phase, so unless our involvement kicks us completely out of the usual cycle, we will start into the next Ice Age part of the cycle, in the not too distant future. In the mean time, we will hit Peak warming & with that will come some Peak weather/climate events, such as extra strong storms, floods and droughts just to mention a few, plus likely large rises in sea levels. Whether anyone believes in human caused climate change, is largely irrelevant, we are now at  the infection point when change will happen anyway and if it does happen over the decades ahead, as seems likely from the best current scientific & anecdotal evidence, then it will happen at a once in history time for humanity, just as our Global Population has acquired "maximum carry capacity", so the outcomes will also reflect our exposure & probably our lack of mitigation against the risks! Oh & it is also interesting how little comment there is, concerning the human element of the current event/disaster, with deaths expected to number in the many thousands, damage expected to decimate entire regions and peoples well being for quite some time & no, I have not yet heard from Ferdinand!

In reference to your last comment you might read earlier in your own post ie lots more people = lots more people effected = lots more deaths not necessarily and in all probability NOT more severe events. The US city of Galveston in 1900 when there were many fewer people, was hit by a hurricane that caused about 10,000 deaths. If such an event were to happen today you would really have something to lather up about but the truth is had that happened at that time where the current one hit you would have never known it had ever happened. All this is is opportunism, anecdotal conjecture and finger pointing...100%....science...0%.

namnugenot wrote on Nov 11^th, 2013 at 12:50pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Nov 11th, 2013 at 12:23pm: A few observations - 1) I have heard all the usual lines of denial, such as the climate is always changing & that is correct, as can be seen here, for the last 400,000 years - http://www.johnenglander.net/sites/default/files/images/T%20CO2%20SL%20current%20Makiko%20TIMMED.jpg 2) However, that line is largely erroneous, because it is only the affect on humanity & the effects by humanity which are of interest, for us. In this respect, WE (humanity) have only recently (the last 200 years) grown into numbers sufficiently large, where our sheer numbers could have any substantial effect on the Global Environment AND where "some" of those Global Climate Changes will then have a substantial affect on us, because we now inhabit so much of the planet & that the density of our habitation is now so great, that these changes have so much greater affect now, than at any previous stage of our relatively short "occupation" of this planet. 3) So, whilst the Climate has always "changed", we have not been around long enough for those changes to materially affect us, except for the last Ice Age, which nearly saw us become extinct! 4) As can be seen from the above chart, we are now at or approaching the top of the current warming phase, so unless our involvement kicks us completely out of the usual cycle, we will start into the next Ice Age part of the cycle, in the not too distant future. In the mean time, we will hit Peak warming & with that will come some Peak weather/climate events, such as extra strong storms, floods and droughts just to mention a few, plus likely large rises in sea levels. Whether anyone believes in human caused climate change, is largely irrelevant, we are now at  the infection point when change will happen anyway and if it does happen over the decades ahead, as seems likely from the best current scientific & anecdotal evidence, then it will happen at a once in history time for humanity, just as our Global Population has acquired "maximum carry capacity", so the outcomes will also reflect our exposure & probably our lack of mitigation against the risks! Oh & it is also interesting how little comment there is, concerning the human element of the current event/disaster, with deaths expected to number in the many thousands, damage expected to decimate entire regions and peoples well being for quite some time & no, I have not yet heard from Ferdinand!        In reference to your last comment you might read earlier in your own post ie lots more people = lots more people effected = lots more deaths not necessarily and in all probability NOT more severe events. The US city of Galveston in 1900 when there were many fewer people, was hit by a hurricane that caused about 10,000 deaths. If such an event were to happen today you would really have something to lather up about but the truth is had that happened at that time where the current one hit you would have never known it had ever happened. All this is is opportunism, anecdotal conjecture and finger pointing...100%....science...0%.

Such an event, just did happen!

It is not anecdotal, it is not finger pointing... 0%, it is Fact ...100% and now is the appropriate time to review our risk mitigation, because if we leave it until the outcomes are absolutely obvious, then it will be far too late and we maywill have given any chance of avoiding the worst outcomes!

perceptions_now wrote on Nov 11^th, 2013 at 6:42pm:

namnugenot wrote on Nov 11th, 2013 at 12:50pm: perceptions_now wrote on Nov 11th, 2013 at 12:23pm: A few observations - 1) I have heard all the usual lines of denial, such as the climate is always changing & that is correct, as can be seen here, for the last 400,000 years - http://www.johnenglander.net/sites/default/files/images/T%20CO2%20SL%20current%20Makiko%20TIMMED.jpg 2) However, that line is largely erroneous, because it is only the affect on humanity & the effects by humanity which are of interest, for us. In this respect, WE (humanity) have only recently (the last 200 years) grown into numbers sufficiently large, where our sheer numbers could have any substantial effect on the Global Environment AND where "some" of those Global Climate Changes will then have a substantial affect on us, because we now inhabit so much of the planet & that the density of our habitation is now so great, that these changes have so much greater affect now, than at any previous stage of our relatively short "occupation" of this planet. 3) So, whilst the Climate has always "changed", we have not been around long enough for those changes to materially affect us, except for the last Ice Age, which nearly saw us become extinct! 4) As can be seen from the above chart, we are now at or approaching the top of the current warming phase, so unless our involvement kicks us completely out of the usual cycle, we will start into the next Ice Age part of the cycle, in the not too distant future. In the mean time, we will hit Peak warming & with that will come some Peak weather/climate events, such as extra strong storms, floods and droughts just to mention a few, plus likely large rises in sea levels. Whether anyone believes in human caused climate change, is largely irrelevant, we are now at  the infection point when change will happen anyway and if it does happen over the decades ahead, as seems likely from the best current scientific & anecdotal evidence, then it will happen at a once in history time for humanity, just as our Global Population has acquired "maximum carry capacity", so the outcomes will also reflect our exposure & probably our lack of mitigation against the risks! Oh & it is also interesting how little comment there is, concerning the human element of the current event/disaster, with deaths expected to number in the many thousands, damage expected to decimate entire regions and peoples well being for quite some time & no, I have not yet heard from Ferdinand!        In reference to your last comment you might read earlier in your own post ie lots more people = lots more people effected = lots more deaths not necessarily and in all probability NOT more severe events. The US city of Galveston in 1900 when there were many fewer people, was hit by a hurricane that caused about 10,000 deaths. If such an event were to happen today you would really have something to lather up about but the truth is had that happened at that time where the current one hit you would have never known it had ever happened. All this is is opportunism, anecdotal conjecture and finger pointing...100%....science...0%. Such an event, just did happen! It is not anecdotal, it is not finger pointing... 0%, it is Fact ...100% and now is the appropriate time to review our risk mitigation, because if we leave it until the outcomes are absolutely obvious, then it will be far too late and we maywill have given any chance of avoiding the worst outcomes!

Does that mean we won't have any floods, storms, droughts ever again????
No.
So why don't you merchants of misery stop standing on corpses to push your agenda.

namnugenot wrote on Nov 11^th, 2013 at 10:05pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Nov 11th, 2013 at 6:42pm: Such an event, just did happen! It is not anecdotal, it is not finger pointing... 0%, it is Fact ...100% and now is the appropriate time to review our risk mitigation, because if we leave it until the outcomes are absolutely obvious, then it will be far too late and we maywill have given any chance of avoiding the worst outcomes! Does that mean we won't have any floods, storms, droughts ever again???? No. So why don't you merchants of misery stop standing on corpses to push your agenda.

That's correct, we will have all of those!!!

So, why don't you & others who deny Reality, stop trying to avoid there aren't some very, very serious issues here, that require as much mitigation effort as we can muster & MORE, If we have any chance of avoiding the worst of the likely Climate Change outcomes!
The fact is, there will be plenty of misery to go around, But there will be more if we don't face up to our responsibilities for the future, NOW!

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Nov 11^th, 2013 at 12:21pm:

Pantheon wrote on Nov 11th, 2013 at 11:52am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 11th, 2013 at 11:16am: Where is this data from the 14th century ? try Google its a useful tool Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 11th, 2013 at 11:16am: are you deniers still using poetry as the historical record....  I love a sunburnt country...  :) Who said i was a deniers? I clearly said "Although i believe in Climate Change i don't believe it to the same degree as others (as it seems to have evolved to a religion now days.)" What he means is he's a bit pregnant.

He admires the mealy mouthed john howard, but not  too much as to make him unelectable  8-)

Who are the terrorists?  :o

Looks like an uberstorm to me..
(see Books by Peter J Hamilton).

This is , seriously,  a major stick up the arse for people who laugh at the idea that something might be awry with our weather.  To suggest that there are records that show the 1660's as having worse storms is simply ludicrous.

Even IF that were true...  human population is so much denser now,, that such a suggestion is simply laughable.

Remember Sandi??  Hit the US..??
remember the current disastrous yrs of hellish tornadoes in the US, of previously unrecorded size, duration, and impact.?

This is just a coincidence eh.?? 
Try looking at  National Geographic.. who about a yr ago...  published an assessment of weather data ... in an issue.. where ... What is Happening To Our Weather ??  was the Cover story. 
It is so clear that the incidence and power of these storms .. has been significantly increasing,  and there is an undenial increase. in  'recent' times... as compared to the historical data we hold.   

Cling for your life to your denial for a little comfort ..if you like..  it will MAKE NO DIFFERENCE.
Just...  YOU will be in for the shock of your wee life.. when it finally sinks in.. 

I wonder what it will take to convince the malingering climate change denier????

...A lot more than an isolated weather event

umm  you seem to be forgetting all the other global weather 'events'.. which have been happening.. all over the world in the last few yrs..

an ISOLATED ? weather event..??

You really must have serious memory loss... er  'selective' memory loss.

Emma wrote on Nov 11^th, 2013 at 11:42pm:

To suggest that there are records that show the 1660's as having worse storms is simply ludicrous. Even IF that were true...  human population is so much denser now,, that such a suggestion is simply laughable.

You want to think about that one again? Just because more people are affected by any one storm doesn't make the storm bigger.

Quantum wrote on Nov 12^th, 2013 at 12:18am:

Emma wrote on Nov 11th, 2013 at 11:42pm: To suggest that there are records that show the 1660's as having worse storms is simply ludicrous. Even IF that were true...  human population is so much denser now,, that such a suggestion is simply laughable. You want to think about that one again? Just because more people are affected by any one storm doesn't make the storm bigger.

Nazis love playing word games........

Emma wrote on Nov 11^th, 2013 at 11:42pm:

Looks like an uberstorm to me.. (see Books by Peter J Hamilton). This is , seriously,  a major stick up the arse for people who laugh at the idea that something might be awry with our weather.  To suggest that there are records that show the 1660's as having worse storms is simply ludicrous. Even IF that were true...  human population is so much denser now,, that such a suggestion is simply laughable. Remember Sandi??  Hit the US..?? remember the current disastrous yrs of hellish tornadoes in the US, of previously unrecorded size, duration, and impact.? This is just a coincidence eh.??  Try looking at  National Geographic.. who about a yr ago...  published an assessment of weather data ... in an issue.. where ... What is Happening To Our Weather ??  was the Cover story.  It is so clear that the incidence and power of these storms .. has been significantly increasing,  and there is an undenial increase. in  'recent' times... as compared to the historical data we hold.    Cling for your life to your denial for a little comfort ..if you like..  it will MAKE NO DIFFERENCE. Just...  YOU will be in for the shock of your wee life.. when it finally sinks in..  I wonder what it will take to convince the malingering climate change denier????

They don't live on this planet: they are from PLANET ACCOUNTANT  8-)

like you said Deathray....

Qube??

Let me ask you this..OK ? Just for the sake of it... 

How could  'weather stations' set up to measure weather in the 17th Century  ::) ::) ::) er yeah right... :-?
accurately record a storm the size of Haiyann ?? 
C'est impossible!

Emma wrote on Nov 12^th, 2013 at 2:51am:

like you said Deathray.... Qube?? Let me ask you this..OK ? Just for the sake of it...  How could  'weather stations' set up to measure weather in the 17th Century  ::) ::) ::) er yeah right... :-? accurately record a storm the size of Haiyann ??  C'est impossible!

the uncertainty principle is central to science..it basically says you can't measure everything. It is the weak point and therefore the point of attack in possibly every argument ever made.
If you can't prove murder the status quo remains: go dodgy journalism ahem democracy  ::)

Emma wrote on Nov 12^th, 2013 at 2:51am:

like you said Deathray.... Qube?? Let me ask you this..OK ? Just for the sake of it...  How could  'weather stations' set up to measure weather in the 17th Century  ::) ::) ::) er yeah right... :-? accurately record a storm the size of Haiyann ??  C'est impossible!

So...to have happened it had to be recorded on current instruments....otherwise it never happened????

OK might not have been recorded with instruments, so may not ever have happened but just going on the numbers of deaths out of the 10 worst natural disasters since 1900, (excluding the earthquakes on the list) the worst was in 1931 (China floods 1-4 million dead). 3. Bangaladesh cyclone 1970 (500,000 dead) 6. China typhoon 1975 229,000. 8 China flood 1935 (145,000 dead) and 10 Bangaladesh cyclone 1991 (138,866 dead).
So number 10 was now 23 years ago so don't ya think we might be a bit overdue???

Emma wrote on Nov 11^th, 2013 at 11:58pm:

umm  you seem to be forgetting all the other global weather 'events'.. which have been happening.. all over the world in the last few yrs.. an ISOLATED ? weather event..?? You really must have serious memory loss... er  'selective' memory loss.

ummm you seem to be forgetting that hurricanes, heat waves, cold snaps and floods have been around alot longer than ape decendents.... ::)

Emma wrote on Nov 12^th, 2013 at 2:51am:

like you said Deathray.... Qube?? Let me ask you this..OK ? Just for the sake of it...  How could  'weather stations' set up to measure weather in the 17th Century  ::) ::) ::) er yeah right... :-? accurately record a storm the size of Haiyann ??  C'est impossible!

You also seem to be forgetting it is just a recent phenomenon that we had much idea as to what was happening "all over the world".

Emma wrote on Nov 12^th, 2013 at 2:51am:

like you said Deathray.... Qube?? Let me ask you this..OK ? Just for the sake of it...  How could  'weather stations' set up to measure weather in the 17th Century  ::) ::) ::) er yeah right... :-? accurately record a storm the size of Haiyann ??  C'est impossible!

You don't seem to have worked out that not having weather stations back then, plus not having instantaneous communications that allows us to know what is happening at all times around the world, is not helping your argument that the storms are getting worse. If we have no way of knowing what was happening around the world back then, then we have no way of knowing if today's weather is getting worse. The biggest hurricane the world has ever seen may have hit some island in the pacific 1000 years ago, but we had no way of measuring it and had no idea that it even happened. Your mistake is that now that the TV and Internet tells you every single storm that happens today, that storms are getting worse and more frequent. That isn't science, it is just a blind guess.

To those who are not willing to mitigate against the Risks of Climate Change, I would say -
1) There are Consequences, for all Actions & In-actions!

2) Is your major reason, for not taking whatever Mitigation Actions we are capable of, that you -
a) don't believe that the cause is Human related?
b) simply don't believe that the climate is changing at all? 
c) believe the climate is changing, but we can not do anything about it?
If you agree with one of the above, please explain your reasons?
If none of the above apply, then please explain your reasoning, for not taking whatever Mitigating actions we can? 

3) Scientific opinion is clearly saying that Climate Change is happening and that outcomes will worsen, if Mitigating actions are not taken.
So, do you -
a) Generally not believe what scientists say?
b) Not believe, what Climate scientists in particular are saying?
c) Believe there is some sort of Political or other Conspiracy, for "some reason"?
If you agree with one of the above, please explain your reasons?
If none of the above apply, then please explain your reasoning, for not accepting/believing that the Scientific Consensus is correct? 

The OT prophets warned us about us and about the Beast.
The end of the world was foretold for the year 1000. Widespread calls for sinners to repent.
Malthus warned us about us in 1798. Lotsa change-or-elseing has been going on since.
The Club of Rome warned us about us in the 1960s.
The Y2K (second millennial prophesy) has been and gone and computer models continued to spread. Which brings us to: -
Now it's AGW prophets warning us about us and about the Beast-as-typhoon.

My take on your questions:



perceptions_now wrote on Nov 12^th, 2013 at 12:27pm:

To those who are not willing to mitigate against the Risks of Climate Change, I would say - 1) There are Consequences, for all Actions & In-actions! 2) Is your major reason, for not taking whatever Mitigation Actions we are capable of, that you - a) don't believe that the cause is Human related? b) simply don't believe that the climate is changing at all?  c) believe the climate is changing, but we can not do anything about it? If you agree with one of the above, please explain your reasons? The climate is changing a bit. We are not wholly responsible for all the changes and have no way of knowing which effects are due to our causes and which aren't. This way, mitigating is a lot more complex than a tax here and a lightbulb there. 3) Scientific opinion is clearly saying that Climate Change is happening and that outcomes will worsen, if Mitigating actions are not taken. Scientific predictions regarding degrees of warming/cooling and centimetres of sea and ice and other measurables have a pretty poor record in this area. The modelling hasn't been very accurate so far, therefore I am not entirely confident in the predictions being made now. So, do you - a) Generally not believe what scientists say? Well, what exactly are they saying? b) Not believe, what Climate scientists in particular are saying? They are talking about their data. It's all the activists and persuaders who are not to be believed. c) Believe there is some sort of Political or other Conspiracy, for "some reason"? Yes, by the activists, absolutely. The scientists are just going about examining the various minutiae of their own expertise in a fantastically complex system nobody has a comprehensive understanding of (except activists, of course)

Black is actually white http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02359/kenny_2359249b.jpg

Soren wrote on Nov 12^th, 2013 at 12:55pm:

My take on your questions: perceptions_now wrote on Nov 12th, 2013 at 12:27pm: To those who are not willing to mitigate against the Risks of Climate Change, I would say - 1) There are Consequences, for all Actions & In-actions! 2) Is your major reason, for not taking whatever Mitigation Actions we are capable of, that you - a) don't believe that the cause is Human related? b) simply don't believe that the climate is changing at all?  c) believe the climate is changing, but we can not do anything about it? If you agree with one of the above, please explain your reasons? The climate is changing a bit. We are not wholly responsible for all the changes and have no way of knowing which effects are due to our causes and which aren't. This way, mitigating is a lot more complex than a tax here and a lightbulb there. 3) Scientific opinion is clearly saying that Climate Change is happening and that outcomes will worsen, if Mitigating actions are not taken. Scientific predictions regarding degrees of warming/cooling and centimetres of sea and ice and other measurables have a pretty poor record in this area. The modelling hasn't been very accurate so far, therefore I am not entirely confident in the predictions being made now. So, do you - a) Generally not believe what scientists say? Well, what exactly are they saying? b) Not believe, what Climate scientists in particular are saying? They are talking about their data. It's all the activists and persuaders who are not to be believed. c) Believe there is some sort of Political or other Conspiracy, for "some reason"? Yes, by the activists, absolutely. The scientists are just going about examining the various minutiae of their own expertise in a fantastically complex system nobody has a comprehensive understanding of (except activists, of course)

With respect, this issue is not about activists & I have no doubt that some of that is going happening, on both sides of the "discussion".

The central issues are -
1) Do we believe the information put up by the vast majority of scientists, particularly those who are experts in that particular area of science and I think we are obliged to, otherwise we would disregard all expert scientific information & quickly revert to the dark ages?
2) Does the scientific & anecdotal evidence substantially back up, what those best experts are saying and it certainly & seems to be substantially heading in those directions, with increasingly ferocious storms, Droughts & disappearing Ice Caps?
3) So If, as I do, we agree that the best available expert information, then we need to consider what the likely outcomes may be, IF the experts are correct and if those outcomes are sufficiently nasty, as is the case, then we need to employ any & all measures to try to avoid the worst of those likely outcomes!

Given the dire outcomes suggested by the experts, we can not wait, as it will then be far too late & it may already be so. Therefore, we must move, heaven (if there be any such thing) & EARTH & we should leave no stone unturned, until we know we have given it our best shot, to try to secure a reasonable future for, for our sons & daughters, our grand children and indeed future generations & a future for humanity?     

But the IPCC has low confidence in more powerful Storms and longer Droughts. NASA has announced a new record for Antarctic Sea Ice extent and Arctic Sea Ice has improved (albeit from historic recorded lows).

perceptions_now wrote on Nov 12^th, 2013 at 8:15pm:

Soren wrote on Nov 12th, 2013 at 12:55pm: My take on your questions: perceptions_now wrote on Nov 12th, 2013 at 12:27pm: To those who are not willing to mitigate against the Risks of Climate Change, I would say - 1) There are Consequences, for all Actions & In-actions! 2) Is your major reason, for not taking whatever Mitigation Actions we are capable of, that you - a) don't believe that the cause is Human related? b) simply don't believe that the climate is changing at all?  c) believe the climate is changing, but we can not do anything about it? If you agree with one of the above, please explain your reasons? The climate is changing a bit. We are not wholly responsible for all the changes and have no way of knowing which effects are due to our causes and which aren't. This way, mitigating is a lot more complex than a tax here and a lightbulb there. 3) Scientific opinion is clearly saying that Climate Change is happening and that outcomes will worsen, if Mitigating actions are not taken. Scientific predictions regarding degrees of warming/cooling and centimetres of sea and ice and other measurables have a pretty poor record in this area. The modelling hasn't been very accurate so far, therefore I am not entirely confident in the predictions being made now. So, do you - a) Generally not believe what scientists say? Well, what exactly are they saying? b) Not believe, what Climate scientists in particular are saying? They are talking about their data. It's all the activists and persuaders who are not to be believed. c) Believe there is some sort of Political or other Conspiracy, for "some reason"? Yes, by the activists, absolutely. The scientists are just going about examining the various minutiae of their own expertise in a fantastically complex system nobody has a comprehensive understanding of (except activists, of course)   With respect, this issue is not about activists & I have no doubt that some of that is going happening, on both sides of the "discussion". The central issues are - 1) Do we believe the information put up by the vast majority of scientists, particularly those who are experts in that particular area of science and I think we are obliged to, otherwise we would disregard all expert scientific information & quickly revert to the dark ages? 2) Does the scientific & anecdotal evidence substantially back up, what those best experts are saying and it certainly & seems to be substantially heading in those directions, with increasingly ferocious storms, Droughts & disappearing Ice Caps? 3) So If, as I do, we agree that the best available expert information, then we need to consider what the likely outcomes may be, IF the experts are correct and if those outcomes are sufficiently nasty, as is the case, then we need to employ any & all measures to try to avoid the worst of those likely outcomes! Given the dire outcomes suggested by the experts, we can not wait, as it will then be far too late & it may already be so. Therefore, we must move, heaven (if there be any such thing) & EARTH & we should leave no stone unturned, until we know we have given it our best shot, to try to secure a reasonable future for, for our sons & daughters, our grand children and indeed future generations & a future for humanity?

Perceptions Now.. you present the only RATIONAL path that we humans must follow.. given the situation of climate change.

It is senseless to argue against it...  and besides ALL THAT...

whatever measures we take,.. to lessen our impact on our only home...  can only be GOOD... even if ?  this environmental disaster, as predicted, does not prove out.

No effort we make is wasted.. every single thing we do the lessen our 'footprint'  must be GOOD.

Some might argue,, ooh ooh  what about the job losses.. and the loss of profits..??  if we pursue renewable energy.. at the expense of fossil fuels.??  What ??

This is a whole new frontier.. this  'renewable energy concept '..  if we'd just ditch the old paradigms..  the old world way of doing things.. and embrace the new... the opportunities are ,  quite literally,..limitless.

perceptions_now wrote on Nov 12^th, 2013 at 8:15pm:

The central issues are - 1) Do we believe the information put up by the vast majority of scientists, particularly those who are experts in that particular area of science and I think we are obliged to, otherwise we would disregard all expert scientific information & quickly revert to the dark ages? Very little of the information is put out but scientists. Most of what people know about AGW are from the media, very often briefed by  he Al Gore mob and their like. 2) Does the scientific & anecdotal evidence substantially back up, what those best experts are saying and it certainly & seems to be substantially heading in those directions, with increasingly ferocious storms, Droughts & disappearing Ice Caps? No. You are being taken in by the sensationalist peaks. 3) So If, as I do, we agree that the best available expert information, then we need to consider what the likely outcomes may be, IF the experts are correct and if those outcomes are sufficiently nasty, as is the case, then we need to employ any & all measures to try to avoid the worst of those likely outcomes!There is no expert consensus. Scientists rarely work on the big picture. When thy do, like Michael 'Hockey Stick'  Mann, they are caught out for overreaching for non-scintific kudos. Any and All means - that is a really dumb approach. A bit fascists/stalinist if you ask me. Full of rara zeal, very short on actual smarts. It;s the 'gotta do SOMETHING, Reg, anything" urge. Silly. Given the dire outcomes suggested by the experts, we can not wait, as it will then be far too late & it may already be so. Therefore, we must move, heaven (if there be any such thing) & EARTH & we should leave no stone unturned, until we know we have given it our best shot, to try to secure a reasonable future for, for our sons & daughters, our grand children and indeed future generations & a future for humanity?    Empty, emotionally correct rhetoric. What does it ACTUALLY take to move heaven & earth? And if you do not mean empty puffery - what exactly do you ACTUALLY propose? Or are you simply throwing your arms in the air, there is nothing particular you can suggest but being a good drone, you will go along with ANYTHING and EVERYTHING some other people, who may or may not be able to think better than you, are suggesting. In other words, you are throwing away your responsibility to think just when it matters.

lee wrote on Nov 12^th, 2013 at 8:53pm:

But the IPCC has low confidence in more powerful Storms and longer Droughts. NASA has announced a new record for Antarctic Sea Ice extent and Arctic Sea Ice has improved (albeit from historic recorded lows).

IPCC report -
Most of the global average warming over the past 50 years is very likely due to anthropogenic GHG increases and it is
likely that there is a discernible human-induced warming averaged over each continent.

Risks of extreme weather events -
Responses to some recent extreme climate events reveal higher levels of vulnerability in both developing and developed countries than was assessed in the TAR. There is now higher confidence in the projected in-creases in droughts, heat waves and floods, as well as their ad-verse impacts. As summarised in Table 3.2, increases in drought,
heat waves and floods are projected in many regions and would have mostly adverse impacts, including increased water stress and wild fire frequency, adverse effects on food production, adverse health effects, increased flood risk and extreme high sea level, and damage to infrastructure.

Impacts are very likely to increase due to increased frequencies and intensities of some extreme weather events. Recent events have demonstrated the vulnerability of some sectors and regions, includ-ing in developed countries, to heat waves, tropical cyclones, floods and drought, providing stronger reasons for concern as compared to the findings of the TAR.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf

perceptions_now wrote on Nov 12^th, 2013 at 10:32pm:

lee wrote on Nov 12th, 2013 at 8:53pm: But the IPCC has low confidence in more powerful Storms and longer Droughts. NASA has announced a new record for Antarctic Sea Ice extent and Arctic Sea Ice has improved (albeit from historic recorded lows). IPCC report - Most of the global average warming over the past 50 years is very likely due to anthropogenic GHG increases and it is likely that there is a discernible human-induced warming averaged over each continent. Risks of extreme weather events - Responses to some recent extreme climate events reveal higher levels of vulnerability in both developing and developed countries than was assessed in the TAR. There is now higher confidence in the projected in-creases in droughts, heat waves and floods, as well as their ad-verse impacts. As summarised in Table 3.2, increases in drought, heat waves and floods are projected in many regions and would have mostly adverse impacts, including increased water stress and wild fire frequency, adverse effects on food production, adverse health effects, increased flood risk and extreme high sea level, and damage to infrastructure. Impacts are very likely to increase due to increased frequencies and intensities of some extreme weather events. Recent events have demonstrated the vulnerability of some sectors and regions, includ-ing in developed countries, to heat waves, tropical cyclones, floods and drought, providing stronger reasons for concern as compared to the findings of the TAR. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf

What a shame there are people who know history somewhat better than you do.

namnugenot wrote on Nov 12^th, 2013 at 10:58pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Nov 12th, 2013 at 10:32pm: lee wrote on Nov 12th, 2013 at 8:53pm: But the IPCC has low confidence in more powerful Storms and longer Droughts. NASA has announced a new record for Antarctic Sea Ice extent and Arctic Sea Ice has improved (albeit from historic recorded lows). IPCC report - Most of the global average warming over the past 50 years is very likely due to anthropogenic GHG increases and it is likely that there is a discernible human-induced warming averaged over each continent. Risks of extreme weather events - Responses to some recent extreme climate events reveal higher levels of vulnerability in both developing and developed countries than was assessed in the TAR. There is now higher confidence in the projected in-creases in droughts, heat waves and floods, as well as their ad-verse impacts. As summarised in Table 3.2, increases in drought, heat waves and floods are projected in many regions and would have mostly adverse impacts, including increased water stress and wild fire frequency, adverse effects on food production, adverse health effects, increased flood risk and extreme high sea level, and damage to infrastructure. Impacts are very likely to increase due to increased frequencies and intensities of some extreme weather events. Recent events have demonstrated the vulnerability of some sectors and regions, includ-ing in developed countries, to heat waves, tropical cyclones, floods and drought, providing stronger reasons for concern as compared to the findings of the TAR. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf What a shame there are people who know history somewhat better than you do.

What a shame, this is not about the past, it is about the future!

Emma wrote on Nov 12^th, 2013 at 9:33pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Nov 12th, 2013 at 8:15pm: Soren wrote on Nov 12th, 2013 at 12:55pm: My take on your questions: perceptions_now wrote on Nov 12th, 2013 at 12:27pm: To those who are not willing to mitigate against the Risks of Climate Change, I would say - 1) There are Consequences, for all Actions & In-actions! 2) Is your major reason, for not taking whatever Mitigation Actions we are capable of, that you - a) don't believe that the cause is Human related? b) simply don't believe that the climate is changing at all?  c) believe the climate is changing, but we can not do anything about it? If you agree with one of the above, please explain your reasons? The climate is changing a bit. We are not wholly responsible for all the changes and have no way of knowing which effects are due to our causes and which aren't. This way, mitigating is a lot more complex than a tax here and a lightbulb there. 3) Scientific opinion is clearly saying that Climate Change is happening and that outcomes will worsen, if Mitigating actions are not taken. Scientific predictions regarding degrees of warming/cooling and centimetres of sea and ice and other measurables have a pretty poor record in this area. The modelling hasn't been very accurate so far, therefore I am not entirely confident in the predictions being made now. So, do you - a) Generally not believe what scientists say? Well, what exactly are they saying? b) Not believe, what Climate scientists in particular are saying? They are talking about their data. It's all the activists and persuaders who are not to be believed. c) Believe there is some sort of Political or other Conspiracy, for "some reason"? Yes, by the activists, absolutely. The scientists are just going about examining the various minutiae of their own expertise in a fantastically complex system nobody has a comprehensive understanding of (except activists, of course)   With respect, this issue is not about activists & I have no doubt that some of that is going happening, on both sides of the "discussion". The central issues are - 1) Do we believe the information put up by the vast majority of scientists, particularly those who are experts in that particular area of science and I think we are obliged to, otherwise we would disregard all expert scientific information & quickly revert to the dark ages? 2) Does the scientific & anecdotal evidence substantially back up, what those best experts are saying and it certainly & seems to be substantially heading in those directions, with increasingly ferocious storms, Droughts & disappearing Ice Caps? 3) So If, as I do, we agree that the best available expert information, then we need to consider what the likely outcomes may be, IF the experts are correct and if those outcomes are sufficiently nasty, as is the case, then we need to employ any & all measures to try to avoid the worst of those likely outcomes! Given the dire outcomes suggested by the experts, we can not wait, as it will then be far too late & it may already be so. Therefore, we must move, heaven (if there be any such thing) & EARTH & we should leave no stone unturned, until we know we have given it our best shot, to try to secure a reasonable future for, for our sons & daughters, our grand children and indeed future generations & a future for humanity?      Perceptions Now.. you present the only RATIONAL path that we humans must follow.. given the situation of climate change. It is senseless to argue against it...  and besides ALL THAT... whatever measures we take,.. to lessen our impact on our only home...  can only be GOOD... even if ?  this environmental disaster, as predicted, does not prove out. No effort we make is wasted.. every single thing we do the lessen our 'footprint'  must be GOOD. Some might argue,, ooh ooh  what about the job losses.. and the loss of profits..??  if we pursue renewable energy.. at the expense of fossil fuels.??  What ?? This is a whole new frontier.. this  'renewable energy concept '..  if we'd just ditch the old paradigms..  the old world way of doing things.. and embrace the new... the opportunities are ,  quite literally,..limitless.

Emma,
There are certainly still many unknowns at this point in time & it is quite possible that many things may remain unknown & in fact, unknowable, But on the balance of probabilities & likely outcomes & after having looked at "most" angles, I think we must take action/s to try and prevent the worst of the likely Climate Change outcomes Or whatever we are capable of doing!

Soren wrote on Nov 12^th, 2013 at 9:56pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Nov 12th, 2013 at 8:15pm: The central issues are - 1) Do we believe the information put up by the vast majority of scientists, particularly those who are experts in that particular area of science and I think we are obliged to, otherwise we would disregard all expert scientific information & quickly revert to the dark ages? Very little of the information is put out but scientists. Most of what people know about AGW are from the media, very often briefed by  he Al Gore mob and their like. 2) Does the scientific & anecdotal evidence substantially back up, what those best experts are saying and it certainly & seems to be substantially heading in those directions, with increasingly ferocious storms, Droughts & disappearing Ice Caps? No. You are being taken in by the sensationalist peaks. 3) So If, as I do, we agree that the best available expert information, then we need to consider what the likely outcomes may be, IF the experts are correct and if those outcomes are sufficiently nasty, as is the case, then we need to employ any & all measures to try to avoid the worst of those likely outcomes!There is no expert consensus. Scientists rarely work on the big picture. When thy do, like Michael 'Hockey Stick'  Mann, they are caught out for overreaching for non-scintific kudos. Any and All means - that is a really dumb approach. A bit fascists/stalinist if you ask me. Full of rara zeal, very short on actual smarts. It;s the 'gotta do SOMETHING, Reg, anything" urge. Silly. Given the dire outcomes suggested by the experts, we can not wait, as it will then be far too late & it may already be so. Therefore, we must move, heaven (if there be any such thing) & EARTH & we should leave no stone unturned, until we know we have given it our best shot, to try to secure a reasonable future for, for our sons & daughters, our grand children and indeed future generations & a future for humanity?    Empty, emotionally correct rhetoric. What does it ACTUALLY take to move heaven & earth? And if you do not mean empty puffery - what exactly do you ACTUALLY propose? Or are you simply throwing your arms in the air, there is nothing particular you can suggest but being a good drone, you will go along with ANYTHING and EVERYTHING some other people, who may or may not be able to think better than you, are suggesting. In other words, you are throwing away your responsibility to think just when it matters.

I am time poor, this morning, But there are many, although YOU COULD START HERE -
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/spmsspm-e.html

However, I would suggest IF you were seriously interested, YOU COULD LOOK UP THE ISSUES YOURSELF?

Tony Abbott is the poster boy of the fossil fuel driven backlash against action to limit climate change.
Australia is being used as a wedge to undermine global efforts.  If he can reverse climate change measures, it will be a victory to leverage in other countries.

He has very powerful lobby groups forcing his hand on this, so the argument is no longer over logic, cost effectiveness, or any other measure.

Tony Abbott is well known to be a puppet of vested interest, and has leveraged this to get where his is. Riding on the coat tails of mining industry propaganda.  He will not stand up the the lobby groups.

The only hope we have is that others in the liberal party see the madness in this stance.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 13^th, 2013 at 8:57am:

Tony Abbott is the poster boy of the fossil fuel driven backlash against action to limit climate change. Australia is being used as a wedge to undermine global efforts.  If he can reverse climate change measures, it will be a victory to leverage in other countries. He has very powerful lobby groups forcing his hand on this, so the argument is no longer over logic, cost effectiveness, or any other measure. Tony Abbott is well known to be a puppet of vested interest, and has leveraged this to get where his is. Riding on the coat tails of mining industry propaganda.  He will not stand up the the lobby groups. The only hope we have is that others in the liberal party see the madness in this stance.

So what party were Obied and Macdonald in again?

namnugenot wrote on Nov 13^th, 2013 at 10:05am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 13th, 2013 at 8:57am: Tony Abbott is the poster boy of the fossil fuel driven backlash against action to limit climate change. Australia is being used as a wedge to undermine global efforts.  If he can reverse climate change measures, it will be a victory to leverage in other countries. He has very powerful lobby groups forcing his hand on this, so the argument is no longer over logic, cost effectiveness, or any other measure. Tony Abbott is well known to be a puppet of vested interest, and has leveraged this to get where his is. Riding on the coat tails of mining industry propaganda.  He will not stand up the the lobby groups. The only hope we have is that others in the liberal party see the madness in this stance. So what party were Obied and Macdonald in again?

Are you suggesting Obeid, Macdonald and Abbott are cut from the same cloth ?

i dont.  Abbott has not proven to be corrupt, but he does appear to be easily influenced by powerful lobby groups, and is a tool for their disposal.

For example, the winding back of taxes and revenue streams which will cause the debt to double is symtomatic of single-issue politics with no wider vision or agenda.

perceptions_now

You quoted AR4

You should perhaps look at AR5 rather than old prognostications