Australian Politics Forum - Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?

creep

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1881

Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Reply #90 - May 14^th, 2011 at 4:45pm

longweekend58 wrote on May 14^th, 2011 at 4:43pm:

freediver wrote on May 14^th, 2011 at 4:37pm:

creep wrote on May 14^th, 2011 at 4:35pm:

Time to spoonfeed another gullible gertie

"In 2008, Flannery said: "The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009."

There you go, thats what Flannery said.

Guess Adelaide dams haven't lived up to Flannery's scaremongering!!!

And there is nothing wrong with that. In 2008 Adelaide was facing a severe water shortage.

Bolt is acting like Flannery was the only one not to predict when the drought finished.

The difference was that Flannery was using Adelaide as an example of climate change. and in that he was undeniably wrong.

Flannery was PROVED wrong.
Flannery should do the honorable thing, renounce his scaremongering absurd comments and then resign.

Back to top

IP Logged

astro_surf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2981

Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Reply #91 - May 14^th, 2011 at 4:48pm

longweekend58 wrote on May 14^th, 2011 at 4:43pm:

freediver wrote on May 14^th, 2011 at 4:37pm:

creep wrote on May 14^th, 2011 at 4:35pm:

Time to spoonfeed another gullible gertie

"In 2008, Flannery said: "The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009."

There you go, thats what Flannery said.

Guess Adelaide dams haven't lived up to Flannery's scaremongering!!!

And there is nothing wrong with that. In 2008 Adelaide was facing a severe water shortage.

Bolt is acting like Flannery was the only one not to predict when the drought finished.

The difference was that Flannery was using Adelaide as an example of climate change. and in that he was undeniably wrong.

Here's an Adelaide example that is inexplicable if the planet ISN'T warming:

Quote:

In my home city of Adelaide, we’re still experiencing the first official November heat wave since records began (a ‘heat wave’ being defined here as five or more consecutive days above 35°C). Last Saturday 7th Nov, the mercury climbed to 34.4°C, and on Sunday the heat wave officially commenced. From Sun 8/11 to Sat 14/11, the maximum temperatures have been 36.7°C, 37.0°C, 38.6°C, 39.2°C, 39.0°C, 38.7°C and 39.5°C. The forecast for Sun 15/11 is 40 °C, after which the temperatures will drop back to the high 20s for a few days, and then another burst of days in the low-40s. If Sunday’s scorcher is realised (confirmed: 39.4°C), the heat wave will have lasted for 8 days [confirmed] (almost 9, with Sat 7/11 also almost reaching the threshold 35°C). Not a great time to hold a Christmas pageant — poor Santa!

Time for some context. The closest Adelaide has ever come to a spring heat wave was 4 days in a row 1894. This month’s event will double that — a doubling like this is not twice as unlikely, it’s orders of magnitude more unlikely. Consider that in prior to 2008, the record length for an Adelaide heat wave in any month was 8 days (all occurring in summer). Now, in the space of less than 2 years, we’ve had a 15 day event in Mar 2008 (a 1 in 3000 year event), a 9 day sequence in Jan/Feb 2009 (which included 8 days above 40°C and 13 consecutive days above 33°C), and now, another 8 day event in Nov 2009. How unusual is this? There have been 6 previous heat waves that lasted 8 days, many more of 7 days, more still of 6, and so on — the return time is logarithmically related to it’s length. Given these data, and the fact that the latest spring event has equaled previous all-time summer records (!), and the alarm bells should rightly be ringing. Statistically speaking, it’s astronomically unlikely that such a sequence of rare heat waves would occur by chance, if the climate wasn’t warming. But of course, it is.

Enjoy those heatwaves! Cheesy

Back to top

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 11^th, 2011 at 11:23am:

So tell me, you'd like to see more and more craphouse coloured people in Australia right?&&Yeah good idea moron.&&

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Reply #92 - May 14^th, 2011 at 4:49pm

Quote:

When the planet moves from a glacial to an interglacial the change in solar radiation does indeed release vast amounts of CO2 from the oceans but it is this CO2 that AMPLIFIES the warming and allows the planet to warm to the degree it does in interglacials. It has been comprehensively proven that the changes in solar radiation alone couldn't possibly cause the planet to warm to the degree it does. The ONLY thing that can explain ti is the CO2.

This time though, rather than it being a slight change in solar irradiation causing the oceans to release CO2 into the atmosphere, it is us digging up vast stores of carbon buries safely under the ground, burning it and releasing it into the atmosphere. Unless of course you think that it is the temperature causing us to mine coal and burn it, because that would be the logical conclusion of your idiotic notion that just because changes in temperature cause CO2 to rise in the past means that is the ONLY thing that can cause CO2 to rise.

Ive highlighted the error for you. this is an ASSUMPTION only without proof. As you correctly stated CO2 levels have risen and fallen over time affected in part by solar radiation levels. but the error and the arrogant assumption comes when you say that THIS TIME it is different. why? because you want to think it is? when the levels of CO2 that human emit are VASTLY less than than emitted from oceans and lakes and other natural reasons, that conclusion is highly unlikely.

'sceptical science' coudl do with a primer on logical thought and analysis.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Reply #93 - May 14^th, 2011 at 4:57pm

astro_surf wrote on May 14^th, 2011 at 4:45pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 14^th, 2011 at 4:39pm:

adelcrow wrote on May 14^th, 2011 at 4:34pm:

I think the problem is the climate change deniers are basing their arguments on basic year 7 science.
They may just find the scientists and economists that are advising the worlds govts and industrial giants are a tad more advanced than that.
It is not surprising that people with limited knowledge on a problem are easily maniputed by an opposition party that knows how to use fear and ignorance to their political advantage.

one of the scientists supporting the 'ether concept' in the 1940s was a Nobel Lauerate. He was also very, very wrong.

and your year 7 science also confirms that water releases dissolves gases as it warms. Or did you never learn that? and with the vast bulk of non-atmospheric CO2 being held in the oceans where is the surprise that with a small increase in average temperature that the oceans woudl release more CO2??? it is not just year 7 science it is a simple undeniable fact and no one disputes it. but we are asked to support the fact that CO2 causes the warming when in fact the warmin causes the CO2.

Why do you think repeating actually means something? Do you think that geoscientists don't understand that concept? The logical conclusion of your idiocy is that it is temperature causing us to mine coal and burn it. But that is retarded.

Temperature CAN release CO2, but it will amplify that warming, which is what happens between ice ages. This time around WE have released the CO2, not a temperature change, and that IS causing an unprecedented warming. The evidence is undeniable, no matter how much you try.

I repeat it to try and get thru your thick head that scientests also have thick heads. the argument against the 'ether concept' is trivial - something a high school student could do without help - but top scientists still supported it. The notion that todays scientists cant be just as wrong about this is also brave and somewhat silly.

and again you have only re-asserted your (highlighted) opinion rather than support it. when oceans release 100 times as much CO2 as humans so and a bushfire can release a years worth of australias emissions I find it stunning that you can so easily swallow the lie that we are totally responsible for CO2 levels.

and to repeat yet again... this has all happene multiple times in the pre-industrial past. why should now suddenly be the stellar exception?

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Reply #94 - May 14^th, 2011 at 4:59pm

astro_surf wrote on May 14^th, 2011 at 4:48pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 14^th, 2011 at 4:43pm:

freediver wrote on May 14^th, 2011 at 4:37pm:

creep wrote on May 14^th, 2011 at 4:35pm:

Time to spoonfeed another gullible gertie

"In 2008, Flannery said: "The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009."

There you go, thats what Flannery said.

Guess Adelaide dams haven't lived up to Flannery's scaremongering!!!

And there is nothing wrong with that. In 2008 Adelaide was facing a severe water shortage.

Bolt is acting like Flannery was the only one not to predict when the drought finished.

The difference was that Flannery was using Adelaide as an example of climate change. and in that he was undeniably wrong.

Here's an Adelaide example that is inexplicable if the planet ISN'T warming:

Quote:

In my home city of Adelaide, we’re still experiencing the first official November heat wave since records began (a ‘heat wave’ being defined here as five or more consecutive days above 35°C). Last Saturday 7th Nov, the mercury climbed to 34.4°C, and on Sunday the heat wave officially commenced. From Sun 8/11 to Sat 14/11, the maximum temperatures have been 36.7°C, 37.0°C, 38.6°C, 39.2°C, 39.0°C, 38.7°C and 39.5°C. The forecast for Sun 15/11 is 40 °C, after which the temperatures will drop back to the high 20s for a few days, and then another burst of days in the low-40s. If Sunday’s scorcher is realised (confirmed: 39.4°C), the heat wave will have lasted for 8 days [confirmed] (almost 9, with Sat 7/11 also almost reaching the threshold 35°C). Not a great time to hold a Christmas pageant — poor Santa!

Time for some context. The closest Adelaide has ever come to a spring heat wave was 4 days in a row 1894. This month’s event will double that — a doubling like this is not twice as unlikely, it’s orders of magnitude more unlikely. Consider that in prior to 2008, the record length for an Adelaide heat wave in any month was 8 days (all occurring in summer). Now, in the space of less than 2 years, we’ve had a 15 day event in Mar 2008 (a 1 in 3000 year event), a 9 day sequence in Jan/Feb 2009 (which included 8 days above 40°C and 13 consecutive days above 33°C), and now, another 8 day event in Nov 2009. How unusual is this? There have been 6 previous heat waves that lasted 8 days, many more of 7 days, more still of 6, and so on — the return time is logarithmically related to it’s length. Given these data, and the fact that the latest spring event has equaled previous all-time summer records (!), and the alarm bells should rightly be ringing. Statistically speaking, it’s astronomically unlikely that such a sequence of rare heat waves would occur by chance, if the climate wasn’t warming. But of course, it is.

Enjoy those heatwaves! Cheesy

you are the first to say that weather isnt climate so have it back then! but also everybody accepts that climate changes - just not they hysterical humans-only-cause-climate-change nonsense. it is clearly obvious that most of australias climate is reverting back to its pre 1900 levels after getting cooler and wetter until mid 1970s. Climate is typically cyclical and yet you seem to struggle with this concept.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

astro_surf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2981

Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Reply #95 - May 14^th, 2011 at 5:03pm

longweekend58 wrote on May 14^th, 2011 at 4:49pm:

Quote:

When the planet moves from a glacial to an interglacial the change in solar radiation does indeed release vast amounts of CO2 from the oceans but it is this CO2 that AMPLIFIES the warming and allows the planet to warm to the degree it does in interglacials. It has been comprehensively proven that the changes in solar radiation alone couldn't possibly cause the planet to warm to the degree it does. The ONLY thing that can explain ti is the CO2.

This time though, rather than it being a slight change in solar irradiation causing the oceans to release CO2 into the atmosphere, it is us digging up vast stores of carbon buries safely under the ground, burning it and releasing it into the atmosphere. Unless of course you think that it is the temperature causing us to mine coal and burn it, because that would be the logical conclusion of your idiotic notion that just because changes in temperature cause CO2 to rise in the past means that is the ONLY thing that can cause CO2 to rise.

Ive highlighted the error for you. this is an ASSUMPTION only without proof. As you correctly stated CO2 levels have risen and fallen over time affected in part by solar radiation levels. but the error and the arrogant assumption comes when you say that THIS TIME it is different. why? because you want to think it is? when the levels of CO2 that human emit are VASTLY less than than emitted from oceans and lakes and other natural reasons, that conclusion is highly unlikely.

'sceptical science' coudl do with a primer on logical thought and analysis.

It's not an assumption at all. You simply cannot explain the rate of warming in between ice ages unless the CO2 released by the change in solar energy amplifies that warming.

And how is it 'arrogant' to say that it is different this time? Are you suggesting that temperature change has caused atmospheric CO2 to increase by 40% and NOT the burning of billions of tonnes of coal? Citations, please! Grin

Back to top

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 11^th, 2011 at 11:23am:

So tell me, you'd like to see more and more craphouse coloured people in Australia right?&&Yeah good idea moron.&&

IP Logged

creep

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1881

Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Reply #96 - May 14^th, 2011 at 5:08pm

And for the gullies out there
On 11 Jun 05
Flannery's absurd scaremongering that some gullies believed in.
'Predicts that the ongoing drought could leave Sydney's dams dry in just two years.'
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200506/s1389858.htm

Then on 11 Feb 07
"So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, "

http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2006/s1844398.htm

And the ABC is Flannery friendly. Surprised that even the ABC have shot Flannery's absurd preditions.

It's ok Tim, just blame your absurdity onto the weather gods!

Back to top

IP Logged

astro_surf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2981

Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Reply #97 - May 14^th, 2011 at 5:12pm

longweekend58 wrote on May 14^th, 2011 at 4:57pm:

I repeat it to try and get thru your thick head that scientests also have thick heads. the argument against the 'ether concept' is trivial - something a high school student could do without help - but top scientists still supported it. The notion that todays scientists cant be just as wrong about this is also brave and somewhat silly.

and again you have only re-asserted your (highlighted) opinion rather than support it. when oceans release 100 times as much CO2 as humans so and a bushfire can release a years worth of australias emissions I find it stunning that you can so easily swallow the lie that we are totally responsible for CO2 levels.

and to repeat yet again... this has all happene multiple times in the pre-industrial past. why should now suddenly be the stellar exception?

We've been through this before.

About 40% of human emissions are also absorbed by the natural carbon cycle, but it is the other 60% of those 29 gigatonnes that are NOT being absorbed and are accumulating in the atmosphere.

And the fact that the ocean's capacity to absorb excess CO2 and are acidifying from the excess CO2 is proof positive that the carbon cycle has been thrown out of balance by human activity.

Back to top

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 11^th, 2011 at 11:23am:

So tell me, you'd like to see more and more craphouse coloured people in Australia right?&&Yeah good idea moron.&&

IP Logged

astro_surf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2981

Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Reply #98 - May 14^th, 2011 at 5:16pm

longweekend58 wrote on May 14^th, 2011 at 4:59pm:

you are the first to say that weather isnt climate so have it back then! but also everybody accepts that climate changes - just not they hysterical humans-only-cause-climate-change nonsense. it is clearly obvious that most of australias climate is reverting back to its pre 1900 levels after getting cooler and wetter until mid 1970s. Climate is typically cyclical and yet you seem to struggle with this concept.

Weather iSN'T climate, climate is the trend in weather events and a trend is exactly what Professor Brooks was identifying in that post.

And, no, Australia's climate isn't 'reverting' back to anything. The current wet spell is a product of a warming planet as it is the record ocean temps in the Pacific that has caused the deepest La Nina ever recorded. And, just as climate scientists have been telling us for thirty-odd years that itr would, climate change is causing more and more extreme weather events. Whether it be record heatwaves due to unprecedented El Nino conditions or extreme floods from unprecedented La Nina events, those events are becoming more extreme EXACTLY as predicted.

Back to top

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 11^th, 2011 at 11:23am:

So tell me, you'd like to see more and more craphouse coloured people in Australia right?&&Yeah good idea moron.&&

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Reply #99 - May 14^th, 2011 at 5:20pm

astro_surf wrote on May 14^th, 2011 at 5:03pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 14^th, 2011 at 4:49pm:

Quote:

When the planet moves from a glacial to an interglacial the change in solar radiation does indeed release vast amounts of CO2 from the oceans but it is this CO2 that AMPLIFIES the warming and allows the planet to warm to the degree it does in interglacials. It has been comprehensively proven that the changes in solar radiation alone couldn't possibly cause the planet to warm to the degree it does. The ONLY thing that can explain ti is the CO2.

This time though, rather than it being a slight change in solar irradiation causing the oceans to release CO2 into the atmosphere, it is us digging up vast stores of carbon buries safely under the ground, burning it and releasing it into the atmosphere. Unless of course you think that it is the temperature causing us to mine coal and burn it, because that would be the logical conclusion of your idiotic notion that just because changes in temperature cause CO2 to rise in the past means that is the ONLY thing that can cause CO2 to rise.

Ive highlighted the error for you. this is an ASSUMPTION only without proof. As you correctly stated CO2 levels have risen and fallen over time affected in part by solar radiation levels. but the error and the arrogant assumption comes when you say that THIS TIME it is different. why? because you want to think it is? when the levels of CO2 that human emit are VASTLY less than than emitted from oceans and lakes and other natural reasons, that conclusion is highly unlikely.

'sceptical science' coudl do with a primer on logical thought and analysis.

It's not an assumption at all. You simply cannot explain the rate of warming in between ice ages unless the CO2 released by the change in solar energy amplifies that warming.

And how is it 'arrogant' to say that it is different this time? Are you suggesting that temperature change has caused atmospheric CO2 to increase by 40% and NOT the burning of billions of tonnes of coal? Citations, please! Grin

The 'ether concept' can be easily dismissed by the simple fact that this theory demanded the speed of light to vary in different directions despite knowing that it is a constant (in a vaccum). Yet prominent scientists supported it.

You are agian supporting a theory that has multiple hoiles in it without even acknowleding their existence. I repeat: OCEANS emit 100 times as much Co2 as humans and yet you have to repeat the line that we are to blame.

and despite the claim that solar radiation is not the cause, there are temperture rises on other planets in line with our own. That should at least give you pause to wonder why when the ONLY common attribute is solar radiation.

To stand a bit back from this debate Id say it is arrogant to assume man is the only cause of rising temperature or CO2 when there are simply so many variables in play. to assume that it is different this time and that todays warming is different to the thousand times it has happened in the past is arrogant and in itself unscientific.

You are in the thrall of science - which is fine. I love it too. The difference is that you treat scientific pronouncements like holy writ. I dont. Ive seen too many theories come and go to believe everything that is said. Ive seen too many predictions fail miserably to trust everything.

and you do. You need to emply a little more critical thinking seasoned witha bit more cynicism. The ether concept came about simply because scientists couldnt understand how light could travel in a vaccuum so they invented a theory to fit their own inadequate understanding. The same is happening here with climate science - stil in its infancy - coming up with theories to primarily explain their own inadeqacy. And frankly, that is ok. SCience builds on mistakes more than successes since we have far more than the former. but while you are totall in the hold of science's infallibility you will do nothing more than set yourself up for the mother of disappointment because science is wrong more often than right.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

creep

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1881

Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Reply #100 - May 14^th, 2011 at 5:21pm

And for the gullies out there, who still maintain belief in Tim Flannery despite Andrew Bolt proving him as a scaremongerer, wouldn't it be just nice for Tim Flannery and Andrew Bolt to "discuss' the absurd predictions he made.

Well here's your chance. As the two meet in 9th Jun10 on MTR
"Here’s the transcript from my confrontation yesterday with alarmist Tim Flannery on MTR 1377. (Listen here.)
It was extraordinary to have Flannery deny what I had before me in black and white - his wilder predictions, his previous support for nuclear power - and even stranger to have him claim that non-existent desalination plants save cities such as Brisbane from avoiding the warming-caused dry he predicted.

I’m sorry I ran out of time to ask him about the $90 million his geothermal investment received from the Rudd Government last year, his conflicts of interest, his concession that there had been an inexplicable pause in global warming, his frequent-flying hypocrisy, his baseless scare about Antarctic melting, his involvement in Sir Richard Brazen’s joy-flights in space and more. But enjoy:

Flannery: I’m unlikely to vote for him because my trust has been eroded away… He promised to deliver an emissions trading scheme and he’s then withdrawn that with very little justification…

Bolt: He said he wouldn’t move now until the rest of the world did something which is a direct repudiation of what he said before. But, Tim, part of the reason, of course, that he’s backed down is that there’s been a great swing in sentiment against this kind of thing, there’s a rising tide of scepticism. How much are you to blame for some of that?

Flannery : There is some swing in sentiment. And I think it’s very hard to maintain any issue with that sort of very high level of support for a long time. So there’s some, but what is happening around the world should give us all heart. We’ve seen China now pledged to reduce is emissions intensity by over 40 per cent.

Bolt: It’s still going to build a coal-fired power station every week or so.

Flannery: And what that is going to do if that’s achieved by 2020 is put us on track to avoid dangerous climate change. But for us to do that, places like Australia and the US, the wooden spooners in this debate, actually have to do their part.

Bolt: But, Tim, I’m just wondering, there has been a rise in scepticism. That’s precisely why the Liberals, for example, have switched from supporting an ETS to opposing it ... and they dumped their leader over it. Now I’m wondering to what extent are you to blame for rising scepticism about some of the more alarming claims about global warming.

Flannery : Well, many of the things that scientists highlight may happen are very alarming. They’re not alarmist but they are worrisome. Rises in sea-level for instance are a significant issue.

Bolt: Well, let’s go through some of your own claims. You said , for example, that Adelaide may run out of water by early 2009. Their reservoirs are half full now. You said Brisbane would probably run out of water by 2009. They are now 97 per cent full. And Sydney could be dry as early as 2007. Their reservoirs are also more than half full. How can you get away with all these claims?

Flannery: What I have said is that there is a water problem. They may run out of water. And ..

Bolt: 100 per cent full, nearly!

Flannery: And thankfully, Andrew, governments have taken that to heart and been building some desalination capacity such as in Perth.

Bolt: Only in Perth.

Flannery: No, there’s plans in every capital city..

Bolt: No, no, no, you said Brisbane would run out of water possibly by as early as 2009. There’s no desalination plant, there’s no dam. It’s now 100 per full.

Flannery: That’s a lie, Andrew. I didn’t say it would run out of water. I don’t have a crystal ball in front of me. I said Brisbane has a water problem.

Bolt: I’ll quote your own words: ”Water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months.” That was, on the timeline you gave, by the beginning of 2009. Their reservoirs are now 97 per cent full.

Flannery: Yeah, sure. There’s variability in rainfall. They still need a desal plant.

Bolt: You also warned that Perth would be the 21 century’s first ghost metropolis.

Flannery: I said it was… may.

Bolt: It’s all “may”.

Right? Because at that stage there had been no flows into that water catchment for a year and the water engineers were terrified.

Bolt: Have you seen the water catchment levels here, see, they’re tracking above the five year level. I’m showing you now.

Flannery: You know what I came in here to talk about, Andrew, here? it’s our farm day we’re doing with our Deakin lecture series in Bendigo, at the Bendigo town hall today. And it’s a really exciting event…

Andrew: All that’s lovely, Tim. But I think you need to be held to account for the alarmism that is in part your stock in trade, your schtick,, and is responsible for what you now see – the retreat from global warming policies.

Flannery: You want to paint me as an alarmist.

Bolt: You are an alarmist.

Flannery: I’m a very practical person.

Bolt: I ‘m asking you to defend these quotes.

Flannery: Well, I’ve done that already

Bolt: You said the Arctic could be ice free two years ago.

Flannery: No I didn’t…

[Price interrupts, and we argue over the questioning.]

Bolt: I’m asking Tim whether he repents from all these allegations about cities running out of water, cities turning into ghost cities, sea level rises up to an eight storey high building. Don’t you think that is in part why people have got more sceptical.

Flannery: I don’t, actually, because some of those things are possibilities in the future if we continue polluting as we do. And we’ve already seen impacts in southern Australia on all of those cities. Everyone remembers the water restrictions and so forth. Just because we get a good, wet year doesn’t mean we should forget about the problem. We actually have to deal with this long term drying trend and that means securing our water supply.

Bolt: You warn about sea level rises up to an eight-storey building. How soon will that happen?

Flannery: Asking that question is it’s a bit like asking a stock analyst when the next stock market crash is going to happen and how big it’s going to be. No one can. We can all see the underlying weakness in the market in the months before the crash..

Bolt: Thousands of years?

Flannery: Could be thousands of years.

Bolt: Tens of thousands of years?

Flannery: Could be hundreds of years.

Bolt: Hundreds of years?

Back to top

IP Logged

creep

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1881

Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Reply #101 - May 14^th, 2011 at 5:21pm

Flannery: It could be hundreds of years. The thermo- dynamics of ice sheets are very, very difficult to predict., but what we do know when we look back is the fossil record is that when the world is a degree or two warmer than it is now seal levels rise very significantly - between four and 14 metres above where they are. We can’t say how long it takes for that rise to happen because the fossil record just isn’t good enough, it isn’t accurate enough…

Bolt: Should we also have nuclear power plants?

Flannery: In Australia I don’t think so. We’ve got such a great load of assets in the renewable area that I don’t think there’s an argument here that they are ever going to be economic.

Bolt: Four years ago you did. What changed your mind?

Flannery: No, I never did. I’ve always had the same argument.

Bolt: No, no, no. Here’s your quote: “Over the next two decades Australians could use nuclear power to replace all our coal –fired power plants. We would then have a power infrastructure like France and in doing so we would have done something great for the world”. That was your quote.

Flannery: I don’t recall saying that at all.

Bolt: You wrote it. You wrote it in The Age. There it is, highlighted.

Flannery: Well ,very good.

Bolt: That’s the point, you know, you make these claims and when people confront you , you walk away from them.

Flannery: But that was about “may”. No, no, you said “may”. And Australia may be able to do that. It’s not what I recommend and I never have recommended it. But what I do say…

Bolt: “We would have done something great for the world”.

Flannery: But what I do say, nuclear power, right, getting away from coal would be great for the world. Why should we take the most expensive option in this country, which has always been recognised as having the most expensive and difficult option. We are going to see a whole lot of other technologies and innovations which are now well under way which we could use instead of nuclear power.

Bolt: Such as?

Flannery: Such as concentrated PV technology, geothermal technology, wave power, wind power…

Bolt: You’re an investor in geothermal technology , aren’t you?

Flannery: Yeah, I am. Indeed.

Bolt: How come you don’t declare that.

Flannery: Well, I’ve just done it.

Bolt: You just did because I told you. You said that geothermal , which you are in investor of, you’ve got a plant, you’ve invested in a plant in Innamincka and you said the technology was really easy. How come.that plant....

Flannery: Not really that easy.

Bolt: Well, yes. It’s actually had technological difficulties and it’s been delayed two years because it’s not that easy, after all, is it?

Flannery: Well, any new technology is going to be difficult to bring to fruition. It’s a bit like generation for nuclear. There’s challenges all the way. But in terms of geothermal there are many places in the world where you can actually drill down and get into a hot rock body such as ...

Price: Andrew, we’re going to have to go.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/flannery_vs_bolt_transcript/

And any sceptical gullies who don't believe the transcript can listen to the broadcast on podcast from MTR
http://www.mtr1377.com.au/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=6209

Back to top

IP Logged

creep Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 1881	Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery? Reply #102 - May 14^th, 2011 at 5:30pm As Bolt rightly proves, the scaremongering Flannery, says things and "forgets" them and walks away form them as if he never said it in the first place. http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/lets-talk-about-nuclear-power-emandem-other-energy-sources/2006/05/29/1148754933159.html
Back to top	IP Logged

astro_surf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2981

Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Reply #103 - May 14^th, 2011 at 5:31pm

creep wrote on May 14^th, 2011 at 5:08pm:

And for the gullies out there
On 11 Jun 05
Flannery's absurd scaremongering that some gullies believed in.
'Predicts that the ongoing drought could leave Sydney's dams dry in just two years.'
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200506/s1389858.htm

Then on 11 Feb 07
"So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, "

http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2006/s1844398.htm

And the ABC is Flannery friendly. Surprised that even the ABC have shot Flannery's absurd preditions.

It's ok Tim, just blame your absurdity onto the weather gods!

Thank you! That's exactly what I was asking for

Now we can examine what Flannery said in CONTEXT! And the predictable truth of the matter is that Bolt HAS cherry picked quotes and taken them out of context to suggest Flannery has said things that he hasn't.

Quote:

Professor Flannery says that if Sydney's dams dry up, the city's ground water supply would last just 10 days.

"The worst case scenario for Sydney is that the climate that's existed for the last seven years continues for another two years," he said.

"In that case, Sydney will be facing extreme difficulties with water.

"Large cities are the most vulnerable of all structures to water deficit because you've got 4 million people who need water there just for everyday survival."

He says Melbourne is also vulnerable to water deficits while Adelaide may have problems with water quality.

"South Australia is that we are at the end of the Murray River catchment, and our water can taste awful at times and can be rather poor quality," he said.

There is nothing here that is untrue, or anything here making a definitive prediction, he has only said that IF the current conditions had continued Sydney would likely have run out of water. Thankfully, those conditions DIDN'T prevail and Sydney didn't run out of water. It WAS a close call though and nothing Flannery says here has been disproved by ANY misleadingly cherry picked quotes repeated ad nauseum by Bolt and his legion of lobotomy patients that calls itself his readership.

You blind sheep have been misled by Bolt, which is what you get when you simply accept his claims uncritically and without question. Stupid people are easily manipulated by the likes of Bolt.

Back to top

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 11^th, 2011 at 11:23am:

So tell me, you'd like to see more and more craphouse coloured people in Australia right?&&Yeah good idea moron.&&

IP Logged

creep

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1881

Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Reply #104 - May 14^th, 2011 at 5:33pm

astro_surf wrote on May 14^th, 2011 at 5:31pm:

Thank you! That's exactly what I was asking for

Now we can examine what Flannery said in CONTEXT! And the predictable truth of the matter is that Bolt HAS cherry picked quotes and taken them out of context to suggest Flannery has said things that he hasn't.

And Flannery was confronted by Bolt about his absurd predictions and tried to deny them as he knew he was proved wrong.

Back to top

IP Logged