The Jewish View of Creationism

“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” –John Maynard Keynes

Few adjectives produce more of an emotional charge than “fundamentalist.” It conjures up images of unhinged radical mobs in neuvo-Klan attire (indiscriminately) firing their AK-47’s in the air, or of barefoot ignoramuses clutching their Bibles and getting excited to head off to the town lynchin’. Regrettably, there are far too many folks — both inside and outside the religious camps — with a sub-par comprehension of the actual fundamentals of religious thought and practice. This lack of knowledge tends to feed the stereotypes that the non-religious world perceives. Within the fundamentalist/secularist battle that has been flaring across the world stage for the last 200 plus years, there is perhaps no greater flash point than that of creationism, as was recently evidenced in the 27,000 comments made in a recent HuffPost piece on the topic.

To the secularist, the notion that we should flippantly toss aside hundreds of years of scientific investigation unequivocally demonstrating an extremely old universe simply because some ancient tome says it was created less than 6,000 years ago is nothing short of idiocy. What I hope to demonstrate is that Judaism’s understanding of this matter (and many others) is significantly more nuanced, complex and surprising than what is currently believed to be the standard religious gloss on the subject. The truth of the matter is that Judaism is frequently (and unfairly) lumped together with other religious systems that actually have vastly different ways of looking at things.

One thousand years ago, the great Jewish philosopher and physician, Moses Maimonides, wrote that there is no contradiction between Torah and science and that if one is perceived, then there was a misapprehension of the science or the Torah. Two centuries later, Rabbi Isaac of Akko, a disciple of the great Moses Ben Nachman (Nachmanides) and one of the foremost Kabbalists of his generation, wrote some surprising commentary regarding the age of the universe. In his work “the Trove of Life,” he explains that the Earth was actually 42,000 years old when Adam was created and that these years are “divine” years and should not be thought of as 365 regular days. Rather, a divine year is 1,000 times longer or 365,250 years. He based this on a verse in Psalm 90 that says “1,000 years in your eyes is like a day gone by.” Do the math. According to Rabbi Isaac, the universe is 42,000 x 365,250, or 15,340,500,000 years old. This figure is squarely within the ballpark of where modern cosmology places the age of the universe. How did he know this? And how did he posses the temerity to conclude it in the midst of the Dark Ages? Perhaps our fundamentalism is not quite as primitive as is supposed.

Dr. Gerald Schroeder, an Ph.D. in physics from MIT, has spent the last 35 years investigating the confluence of science and Torah and has a novel, yet compelling, approach. Starting with Einstein’s discovery of the relativity of time, he explains how great changes in gravity or velocity produce measurable changes in the flow of time. He demonstrates that on an imaginary planet so massive, with a force of gravity so great, that its time was slowed by a factor of 350,000, a visitor would live out three minutes of normal-feeling time while concurrently, the folks back home would have lived out an entire two years. Looking from Earth, the actions of the “big planet” visitor would appear to be unfolding extremely slowly, and vice versa from the other vantage point. Big Bang theory posits that the entire universe at its inception was but a minuscule speck. This notion was supported and recorded by Nachmanides in the 13th Century when he explained that the universe was originally condensed into the size of a mustard seed. As the universe expanded (again, a notion supported by both science and Torah), time expanded with it so that every time it doubled in size, time would pass at half its original rate. Following this logic, Dr. Schroeder demonstrates that it is perfectly conceivable that from the universe’s perspective, six 24-hour periods had passed and concurrently the dilated outer reaches of that space would view it as if 15 billion years had elapsed. Have a look at his book The Science of God for the full treatment, including charts outlining the exact duration of each Biblical day.

I understand that it will be irresistible for some to label this approach as “apologetics,” “reverse engineering” or worse. Bear in mind that true intellectualism requires us to remain open to new ideas that don’t fit neatly into our current worldview. Most people are so wholly invested in their way of thinking that no amount of evidence would suffice to disavow them of it. Nonetheless, there are still some brave souls out there with the courage to take a second look. These ideas are old, based on the writing of well known and established Jewish scholars, who in turn learned them from more ancient sources. These sources depict an origin of the universe that is clearly, and uncannily, similar to that of modern cosmology and quite unlike the views of some “fundamentalist” religions out there. And when these sources have in the past conflicted with the cosmological thinking of the time, it is often the science that has evolved to an understanding closer to that of the religious. The Big Bang Theory, for example, positing that the universe is expanding infinitely from a single point, was quite controversial. Since the 1960s, that theory has been largely accepted as scientific fact.

That should give us pause. Science and religion have different functions in our lives, but they are not necessarily and always in opposition. Do your own research. If it’s true, then integrity demands a re-evaluation of the value (of at least one) fundamentalist religious system.


174 thoughts on “The Jewish View of Creationism

  1. Does this mean that Adam is as old as the Universe or what, if not explain what this Rabbi is saying.I personally, though not agreeing with the literal 6,000 plus 1,000 of resting throughout the seventh day, which we are presently living in, nor the hypothesis of the Jehovah’s witnesses on this subject, have some reservations of the scientists’ versions of man’s probable development over, say, 300 million years. However, this is suggesting a much longer period than the scientists say Humans have been on the earth.So, please explain exactly how many years Adam was created by God, in light of this article.Thanking you, Maths is not my forte!!

  2. No, the Rabbii is saying that by the time Addam was created the universe was already 42,000 yrs old (I think). Adam (human beings) were created over 1000 years (if I’m understanding the 1 day is as a thousands years point). The name Adam is from the hebrew Adama meaning earth – or dirt, it wold be like us saying now “human from humus’ they were saying Adam from Adama..its not literal – and he represents all of humnanity not one single person.

  3. Interesting that our new government’s first act was to destroy the departments investigating climate change.

    Then attacked the CSIRO and the Weather Bureau over being pro global warming.

    Now has no science minister for the first time since 1930 but is the portfolio is shared by climate change deniers.

    Dark days ahead.

  4. In a way Tony and Company are right about there being no climate change.On the other hand, Kevvy and the Labor party and the Greens are correct too, there is naturally ocurring cycles which cause climate change, too.Now, mankind, since the Industrial Revolution have been contributing to other causes which do naturally happen as part of the planet’s natural cycling. You only have to look at the Nullabor Plain in Australia to see that it once had animals like Tasmania had or has. now it is basically desert. Too, the Nile Delta and surrounds practically dried up either,2200 or 4200 years ago.There also was a naturally ocurring ice age about 700 years ago, which began as a result of very unusual heavy rainfall over Britain.Proof of this ,claimed to be scoriated rocks or stones having been found off of the South of France, where there are no icebergs, the stones have glacial marks on them.Neare our present chronology, between about 1894 through to 1912 there were warmer temperatures at the Northern Hemispher’s surrounds, famously contributing to the southbound icebergs which, the most famous was that which sank the Titanic.In the early 1960’s New York experienced droughtlike conditions.This led them to build a desalination plant.In 1965-67 Tasmania had very bad drought conditions, the street and shop lighting had to be either off, or drastically minimised.The Great Lake could not produce electricity so, they had to buy a diesel generating ship. At this time they had an election slogan being’TURN ON THE LIGHTS’!!.They during this time, or shortly after reintroduced daylight saving time, which the Eastern Australian States follow since, with the exception of Queensland.No doubt there is some exacerbation of these natural cycles by man’s greedy manufacturing pursuits but it is not the main cause at .All

  5. There was an interesting article in the Australian today by Judith Curry, an American climatoligst criticising the seeking of consensus by the IPCC and arguing that it can lead to bias.

    “A strongly held prior belief can skew the total evidence that is available subsequently in a direction that is favourable to itself,” Professor Curry said.

    “The consensus-building process has been found to generally act in the direction of understating the uncertainty associated with a given outcome.

    – See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/climate-consensus-skewing-science/story-e6frg6xf-1226724080490#sthash.NXlRtLTb.dpuf

    I know… its the Australian…. they are hardly qualified to discuss issues of bias.

    But even so I think it is a valid point of view. Where there is a large consensus about something very complicated I am apt to be sceptical. The scientific method is not built on consensus but on falsifiability and testing and paradigm shifting.

    But the fact that we dont have a Science minister is frightening and the Climate change commission shutdown is also very concerning.

  6. I think Ian McFarlane will take on science and technology under the Industry Portfolio, meaning that the new PM has merely streamlined departmental headings rather than remove key initiatives, so these look, in the early days of the Cabinet, like rumours by the grieving science fraternity who may have to find funding for their projects from another source.

    Maybe the handouts will not be so forthcoming in the current climate as Australia pushes to get out of the debt cycle Swan put us in.

    Some of the schemes invested in as alternative power sources cost the tax payer millions for no return, in part, because of the recommendations from some those involved in the pointlessly self-serving Climate commission, who have rightly been shut down.

    Wasn’t Tim (no more flooding rain for Perth, Adelaide or Brisbane) Flannery awarded millions by the Rudd/Gillard Government to derive energy from the earth’s core, and lose it all on failed projects?

    Can you show one single good thing to come out of the Climate Commission? Were any of Tim (old bone digger not climate scientist) Flannery’s predictions in any way remotely close to real outcomes? Could he not have the tag ‘false prophet’ accurately pinned to his door?

    Speaking of climate, Greg Hunt will be looking at this portfolio, so it’s not as if the issue is being completely ignored.

    The scientists can always, and I’m sure they do, set up effective lobby groups to promote their ideas. Maybe it’s time for them to be better organised and less speculative.

    Maybe if the so called climate scientists had not deliberately fudged the figures to make things look worse than they are they would have been take more seriously. Once they wee exposed as frauds they lost all credibility, despite the support of people who continue with them despite their admitted exaggeration of facts.

    Incidentally, contrary to some media reports, no one, including human induced climate change skeptics, says that climate doesn’t change, or that human activity has nothing to do with it. The issue is how to approach remedies where there are excesses and how to best acquire and utilise finances to assist improvements to environmental practices and attitudes. Taxation isn’t always a good way to force people into better practices. Education works better. Innovation is best.

    As God said in the beginning, we are authorised to multiply, subdue and replenish the earth. We are stewards of all He has given us to take care of.

  7. Incidentally, contrary to some media reports, no one, including human induced climate change skeptics, says that climate doesn’t change, or that human activity has nothing to do with it.

    Really,

    Ian MacFarlane to share science

    “As industry minister in the Howard Government since November 2001, Macfarlane has been the greenhouse troglodyte of the Government. Even after the Prime Minister and the environment minister had accepted (at least in public) that climate change is real and potentially damaging, he continued to deny that there is a problem. MacFarlane has worked hand-in-glove with the fossil fuel lobby to sideline climate change. When the issue is unavoidable, he engages in policy window dressing in order to fool the Australian public into believing that the Government takes its responsibilities seriously…”

    Oh and good to see politics not meddling in science.

    Maurice Newman, the former chairman of the ABC and the ASX who will be the chair of Tony Abbott’s Business Advisory Council, has launched an attack against the CSIRO, the weather bureau and the “myth” of anthropological climate change.

    http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/tony…e-change-53017

    As for facts being fudged that’s what the fossil fuel companies want you to believe.

    It’s the same tactics employed by big tobacco companies to deny links between smoking and cancer.. The reality is that over 97% of scientific peer review articles indicate Manmade global warming. The deniers use Murdoch and online blogs to push their pseudo science. They never submit their articles for peer review.

    Btw why do I hear messages at church denying climate change.

    It’s like being at a LNP convention at times.

  8. The figures were deliberately fudged by their own admission to frighten people into action. Had they been honest with everyone they would have had enough of a case to convince people that we need to act.

    I’m not against action to prevent man made global warming, but I am against fudgers like Flannery who tried to pull the wool over people’s eyes. The tragedy is that he succeeded for so long and was paid too much tax payer’s money to service his exaggerated claims.

    The CSIRO, unfortunately, was complicit. You don’t suppose it might have been in their interests to attempt to convince people that their research was vitally important and therefore should be funded by tax payers?

    And your use of the term ‘deniers’ is typically offensive. Why? The whole debate has become polarised by self-interest groups on both sides as well as politicised by left-wing Gaia worshipers and gold diggers who are only interested in the money generated by fearful political parties who make deals with people who take advantage of one of the biggest scare campaigns ever launched.

    It was the same during the millennium bug fear campaign which netted Microsoft and doomsday authors a fortune.

    The so calle science fraternity isn’t affected in their research one bit, apart from the free hand outs they have been recieving with no net return on our tax money their have burned up in smoke.

    Faking the evidence will never convince anyone of the value of parting with their hard earned. That is a fact.

  9. And you, of all people, should be questioning why Flannery convinced people Queensland would never again see flooding rains when, just months later, Bundaberg was under water and insurance companies were knocking back payouts on the basis of whether people were covered for flood or flash flood or other small print items.

    I was in far North Queensland when Yassi was overhead. Only a scar manger of the highest order would ‘deny’ rain in a nation which is known for drought/flood cycles of years between events stretching back before the fleet arrived to colonise the country.

    He took advantage of a prolonged period of drought to push his agenda and people, despite the recorded history available, fell for it. That has been typical of the climate fear propaganda. Any time, now, that the weather changes even slightly out of the seeming ordinary the climate scare folk are crying wolf. Hot, cold, dry, wet, snow, fire or wind. It is all climate change.

    Well, where I come from we see all seasons and know what it will be like at any given time and it hasn’t changed much over my lifetime, and, judging from the old’on’s conversations nt for many generations.

    Australia has always had long droughts and sudden floods from cyclonic activity. It is predominantly desert, that is evidence of consistent periods of drought, but it has deep and vast depressions which are prone to flooding. They formed over countless years of consistent drought/flood cycles.

    Not rocket science.

    So why are the so called scientists trying to say it’s evidence of global warming? It is evidence of consistent periods of drought and flooding.

    But look. See if you can get a policy for your home which doesn’t have add-ons for some form of water damage. I doubt you could have insured your home with any kind of guarantee even when Flannery was convincing you Bundy was a flood free zone in the middle of an eternal drought.

  10. It’s a shame you aren’t as hard on Phil Pringle’s prophecies as you are on Tim Flannery.

    But I gather that’s the ideology of a climate change denier.

  11. Tim Flannery Did Not Say Australia’s Dams Would Never Fill Again

    First, Flannerey did not say that Australian dams will never fill again. Andrew Bolt, misrepresenting Flannery, draws attention to a Feb 2007 Landline interview with Flannery in which Flannery said:

    even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems

    Denialists like Bolt claim that Flannery meant by this that our dams would never fill again at any time from the date he was speaking. However, what Flannery was actually saying that climate trends at the time indicated a long-term outcome of normalized water shortage consistent with IPCC projections

    Flannery said that Australia was currently experiencing a 60% fall in run-off going into dams due to hotter soils and greater rainfall take-up by drought-stressed vegetation. He did not say that the dams would never fill again at any time from the date he was speaking, which is the thick-as-a-brick intentionally distorted view presented by Bolt and fellow travellers. Flannery was pointing to a long-term outcome of normalized water shortage based on current data and climate trends.

    Flannery’s quote in context is:

    We’re already seeing the initial impacts and they include a decline in the winter rainfall zone across southern Australia, which is clearly an impact of climate change, but also a decrease in run-off. Although we’re getting say a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas of Australia, that’s translating to a 60 per cent decrease in the run-off into the dams and rivers. That’s because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture. So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems

    Bolt knows, but pretends not to know, that Flannery was applying IPCC modelling and projections to (then) present circumstances in relation to reduced rainfall and that Flannery’s statement are in accordance with those. Bolt also knows that IPCC projections include intensified (i.e. more severe) but rarer flooding events, which of course would fill the dams.

    As Minister For Climate Change, Penny Wong, stated in a Lateline interview 2nd September 2008:

    by 2050 that Australia should expect around about a 25 per cent reduction in rainfall in the southern part of Australia.

    Flannery, by starting his Landline comments with ‘We’re already seeing the initial impacts’ places Australia’s (then) current 20% decline in rainfall in relation to the IPCC projections.

    As Climate Change Commissioner, Flannery is perfectly aware that intensified and rarer flooding constitues part of IPCC modelling. As such it is patently absurd to state that Flannery believes Australia will never again experience floods or that dams will never fill again.

    In asserting that Flannery believes Australia’s dams will never fill again, Bolt would have us believe that Flannery is aware of only the ‘drying’ aspects of Climate Change and is unaware of the ‘wetting’ aspects. This shows how dishonestly Bolt handles the Climate Change topic.

    For the benefit of denialists like Bolt I produce here an extract, via Deltoid, from the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) 12.1.5.1

    To summarize the rainfall results, drier conditions are anticipated for most of Australia over the 21st century. However, consistent with conclusions in WGI, an increase in heavy rainfall also is projected, even in regions with small decreases in mean rainfall. This is a result of a shift in the frequency distribution of daily rainfall toward fewer light and moderate events and more heavy events. This could lead to more droughts and more floods.

    To pretend, as Bolt does, that Flannery is unaware of this is shamefaced dishonesty and deliberate misrepresentation of Flannery.

    In fact, in 1997 the IPCC Special Report on Regional Impacts of Climate Change noted specifically that Enhanced groundwater recharge and dam-filling events were expected from more frequent high-rainfall events.

    Water Supply and Hydrology: Possible overall reduction in runoff, with changes in soil moisture and runoff varying considerably from place to place but reaching as much as ±20%, was suggested for parts of Australia by 2030. Sharpened competition was expected among water users, with the large Murray-Darling Basin river system facing strong constraints. Enhanced groundwater recharge and dam-filling events were expected from more frequent high-rainfall events, which also were expected to increase flooding, landslides, and erosion.

    Of course, Bolt’s purpose is not to discredit Flannery, per se. It’s to discredit Climate Science and the IPCC. That Bolt can only attempt to do so through dishonesty shows that both Flannery and the IPCC inhabit a more secure intellectual and moral position than Bolt.

    http://indifferencegivesyouafright.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/tim-flannery-did-not-say-australias-dams-would-never-fill-again/

    There’s plenty more there. Yet again you have been caught out falling for misinformation and slandering others based on something you don’t have a clue about.

    A real Christian might apologise.

    Oh and Campbell Newman agreed with Flannery.

  12. Of course, if Flannery were really applying IPCC projections he would have been sharing their exaggerated claims also. I think he was more knowledgable about the potential weakness of his arguments even then, but it was a massive gamble to assume that we are in a warming trend in Australia when we are actually following the patterns of modern times.

    There were projections from some agencies of rises of up to 100 metres in sea levels within a few years. These were, and are scares.

    ‘Flannery was applying IPCC modelling and projections to (then) present circumstances in relation to reduced rainfall and that Flannery’s statement are in accordance with those.’

    So how scientific is it to take a long term prognosis from a short term occurrence? he was scare mongering on an epic scale by associating he weather patterns of an extended drought, which is not uncommon in Australia, with anthropological global warming. That was very wrong, and deceptive on all counts. He practically held the prevailing politicians to ransom with his new found prominence as a global warming expert.

    His projections, along with those of the IPCC have failed. They were based on computer prognosis which had evident flaws. They were based on worse case scenarios.

    They were all found out when they were exposed by climate scientists who did not not like the way they fudged the figures to make things look worse than they are in order to acquire funding from Governments only too keen to look Green.

    And Flannery brings his religion into the equation when he says, ‘For the first time, this global super-organism, this global intelligence will be able to send a signal, a strong and clear signal to the earth. And what that means in a sense is that we can, we will be a regulating intelligence for the planet, I’m sure, in the future … And lead to a stronger Gaia, if you will, a stronger earth system.’.

    And from way back in 2008, in an interview with Andrew Denton.

    ANDREW DENTON: You know, we wouldn’t even be worrying about this stuff. You’re about to bring out an an essay talking about Australia’s sustainable future and what kind of future it may have. In that you talk about Gaia which was created by James Lovelock. What is Gaia?

    TIM FLANNERY: Well Gaia is our earth, this extraordinary living organism of ours that we’re all part of and just breathing now, talking we are plugged into Gaia aren’t we? We are, we taking the atmosphere into our bodies, we’re changing its chemical composition and we’re exhaling it. And it’s life that makes the atmosphere what it is, that’s a very important aspect of Gaia you know. Gaia is life working as a whole to maintain the atmosphere as it is, so that life can go on. So, Gaia I think is is saying to us “it’s time you took control.”

    http://www.abc.net.au/tv/enoughrope/transcripts/s2369164.htm

    Yes, that’s science, along with el nino and la nina or whatever. We really need to take notice of these climate experts (palaeontologist?) who are ruining, er, sorry, running Government policy based on strange gods. On $180,000 part time salary! Sheesh!

    And before Copenhagen, which was a complete washout, both outside and in, Flannery admits that the computor models did not match reality.

    ‘We’re dealing with an incomplete understanding of the way the earth system works… When we come to the last few years when we haven’t seen a continuation of that (warming) trend we don’t understand all of the factors that create earth’s climate…We just don’t understand the way the whole system works… See, these people work with models, computer modelling. So when the computer modelling and the real world data disagree you’ve got a very interesting problem… Sure for the last 10 years we’ve gone through a slight cooling trend.
    Lateline, 23/11/2009

    He admits, in 2009, 4 years ago, that there was a cooling trend unaccounted fo in the modelling, a trend which has continued.

    Gaia must have let us off the hook!

  13. To illustrate what I mean by fudging the figures, I present an article from the pro-climate-action Guardian which outlines some of the problems with alleged climate scientists and the IPCCs data:

    ‘Phil Jones, the beleaguered British climate scientist at the centre of the leaked emails controversy, is facing fresh claims that he sought to hide problems in key temperature data on which some of his work was based.

    A Guardian investigation of thousands of emails and documents apparently hacked from the University of East Anglia’s climatic research unit has found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations were seriously flawed and that documents relating to them could not be produced.

    Link to this audio
    Jones and a collaborator have been accused by a climate change sceptic and researcher of scientific fraud for attempting to suppress data that could cast doubt on a key 1990 study on the effect of cities on warming – a hotly contested issue.

    Today the Guardian reveals how Jones withheld the information requested under freedom of information laws. Subsequently a senior colleague told him he feared that Jones’s collaborator, Wei-­Chyung Wang of the University at Albany, had “screwed up”.

    The revelations on the inadequacies of the 1990 paper do not undermine the case that humans are causing climate change, and other studies have produced similar findings. But they do call into question the probity of some climate change science.

    The apparent attempts to cover up problems with temperature data from the Chinese weather stations provide the first link between the email scandal and the UN’s embattled climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a paper based on the measurements was used to bolster IPCC statements about rapid global warming in recent decades.

    Wang was cleared of scientific fraud by his university, but new information brought to light today indicates at least one senior colleague had serious concerns about the affair.

    It also emerges that documents which Wang claimed would exonerate him and Jones did not exist.

    The revelations come at a torrid time for climate science, with the IPPC suffering heavy criticism for its use of information that had not been rigorously checked – in particular a false claim that all Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035 – and UEA having been criticised last week by the deputy information commissioner for refusing valid requests for data under the Freedom of Information Act.

    The Guardian has learned that of 105 freedom of information requests to the university concerning the climatic research unit (CRU), which Jones headed up to the end of December, only 10 had been released in full.

    The temperature data from the Chinese weather stations measured the warming there over the past half century and appeared in a 1990 paper in the prestigious journal Nature, which was cited by the IPCC’s latest report in 2007.

    Climate change sceptics asked the UEA, via FOI requests, for location data for the 84 weather stations in eastern China, half of which were urban and half rural.

    The history of where the weather stations were sited was crucial to Jones and Wang’s 1990 study, as it concluded the rising temperatures recorded in China were the result of global climate changes rather the warming effects of expanding cities.

    The IPCC’s 2007 report used the study to justify the claim that “any urban-related trend” in global temperatures was small. Jones was one of two “coordinating lead authors” for the relevant chapter.

    The leaked emails from the CRU reveal that the former director of the unit, Tom Wigley, harboured grave doubts about the cover-up of the shortcomings in Jones and Wang’s work. Wigley was in charge of CRU when the original paper was published. “Were you taking W-CW [Wang] on trust?” he asked Jones. He continued: “Why, why, why did you and W-CW not simply say this right at the start?”

    Jones said he was not able to comment on the story.

    Wang said: “I have been exonerated by my university on all the charges. When we started on the paper we had all the station location details in order to identify our network, but we cannot find them any more.

    “Some of the location changes were probably only a few metres, and where they were more we corrected for them.”

    In an interview with the Observer on Sunday Ed Miliband, the climate change secretary, warned of the danger of a public backlash against mainstream climate science over claims that scientists manipulated data. He declared a “battle” against the “siren voices” who denied global warming was real or caused by humans. “It’s right that there’s rigour applied to all the reports about climate change, but I think it would be wrong that when a mistake is made it’s somehow used to undermine the overwhelming picture that’s there,” he said.

    Last week the Information Commissioner’s Office – the body that administers the Freedom of Information Act – said the University of East Anglia had flouted the rules in its handling of an FOI request in May 2008.

    Days after receiving the request for information from the British climate change sceptic David Holland, Jones asked Prof Mike Mann of Pennsylvania State University in the United States: “Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4? Keith will do likewise.

    “Can you also email Gene [Eugene Wahl, a paleoclimatologist in Boulder, Colorado] and get him to do the same … We will be getting Caspar [Ammann, also from Boulder] to do the same.”

    The University of East Anglia says that no emails were deleted following this exchange.

  14. Here in Victoria we are still building our de-salination plant. Unfortunately its gone over budget due to delays caused by all the rain we’ve had in the last 2 years.

    And my sources in the state govt tell me they are already planning to build the second de-sal plant. The older I get the more I realise we are all sailing on a ship of fools, we cant get off and we cant turn the ship around.

  15. Maybe repentant prayer for rain would have been less expensive and more productive, alongside the building of a couple of well positioned dams, which plans were shelved because the climate scientists said the rain wasn’t coming any more and the then Government believed them and legislated for a far more expensive desalination plant!

    Climate science has wreaked havoc with Government decisions.

    Meanwhile, a day at College with warmist David Suziki, as revealed by Ezra Levante.

  16. To summarise, I’m all fo saving the planet. We don’t own a car. We take public transport everywhere, or walk. We comply with council requests to separate our rubbish into recycling/organic etc refuse bins. We keep power costs down, and all he little things people are asked to do. We have a green garden area and plant trees and shrubs.

    I think it’s basic common sense to want to preserve he environment.

    But I can’t abide the intentional fudging of figures and falsified ‘evidence’ that has been presented as fact and proven to be error by self appointed experts.

    You say the science is in so therefore tax the world. But some sections of the science fraternity is known o have stretched the truth. Why should we believe them? And why believe green politicians who have openly lied to us?

    I don’t see how taxing the world will change anything. It is merely a payment for the continuation of any pollution which is taking place. It is money for nothing.

    Only a change in our daily habits as a global entity of humans will reverse any adverse effects we have had on the environment.

    I am also for new technologies which give us pollution free energy. But that should come from the private sector which invests in new technologies, not from speculative Government funded advances, unless they are given as short term loans, say, through an environmental bank, which the companies have to repay once they enter the marketplace.

    But the hand-outs, in the current financial climate, must end, at least until the world is solvent again.

    Unless the science fraternity in favour of climate change starts giving out trustworthy evidence, they should be given the short shrift they deserve.

  17. No apology for your slanderous attack on Flannery?

    You really are just a disciple of that right wing climate change denialist Andrew Bolt.

    One scientist acted improperly so the whole scientific movement is corrupt.

    Let’s apply that logic to Christian pastors then shall we.

    Gee I thought you might have had a scientific reason for denying manmade climate change.

  18. Unless the science fraternity in favour of climate change starts giving out trustworthy evidence, they should be given the short shrift they deserve.

    So how will you determine if the scientific community is giving out ‘trustworthy’ evidence?

    If Andrew Bolt says it is?

    Do you ask the same of scientists who work on medicine?

    No matter how strong the evidence on climate change, deniers will keep denying

    When President Obama last week tweeted that “97% of scientists agree: climate change is real, man-made, and dangerous” it drew the attention of his 31 million followers to the most recent study pointing to the consensus in climate science.

    The study, by John Cook and colleagues, gathered all 12,000 scientific articles published on “global climate change” or “global warming” between 1991 and 2011. The authors then focused on the studies that expressed a position on the basic premise that humans are causing climate change. Of those roughly 4,000 papers that took a position, more than 97% endorsed the consensus. (The articles that did not express a position addressed other issues such as new measurement techniques for polar ice.)

    http://theconversation.com/no-matter-how-strong-the-evidence-on-climate-change-deniers-will-keep-denying-14496

    Must be a lot fudging of the figures hey? A massive conspiracy?

    “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” –John Maynard Keynes

    Well Steve rants and raves that the facts are wrong. Or he makes fart noises at the person presenting the facts.

  19. What the hell was that Ezra Levant video about.

    I gave up after listening for 5 minutes of personal attacks on David Suzuki.

    Can you find this one by any chance? I’d like to watch it, but can’t find it.

    On September 5, 2012, Levant broadcast a commentary titled “The Jew vs. the Gypsies” on The Source in which he accused the Romani people as a group of being criminals and said: “These are gypsies, a culture synonymous with swindlers. The phrase gypsy and cheater have been so interchangeable historically that the word has entered the English language as a verb: he gypped me. Gypsies are not a race. They’re a shiftless group of hobos. They rob people blind. Their chief economy is theft and begging. For centuries these roving highway gangs have mocked the law and robbed their way across Europe.

  20. I mean is this trustworthy or is it the evil AGW scientists cooking the books to get more grant money and take Steve’s taxes (which he probably doesn’t pay).

    Plenty of graphs and data for these duplicious bastards to fudge.

    Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

    Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat. This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming-intermediate.htm

  21. Seems Jones didn’t fudge the figures at all.

    ‘Conspiracy theories finally laid to rest’ by report on leaked climate change emails

    However, the review found that the researchers concerned, led by the Director of UEA’s world-renowned Climatic Research Unit (CRU), Professor Phil Jones, could not be faulted for their “rigour and honesty as scientists”, and there was no evidence that they had behaved in a way that might undermine the conclusions of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

    Carried out by a team led by Sir Muir Russell, the former Vice-Chancellor of the University of Glasgow, the review – the third official British inquiry into the affair this year – effectively clears those involved of dishonesty and corruption; it absolves them of the allegation made by climate sceptics that they had manipulated both climate data and the scientific peer-review process, to serve their predetermined views that climate change is man-made.

    What the five reports said

    * House of Commons Science and Technology Committee: no evidence that the work of Professor Phil Jones and the Climatic Research Unit has been undermined, but they could have been more open.

    * Lord Oxburgh inquiry into the science: “absolutely no evidence of any impropriety”. Could have used better statistical methods and given greater emphasis to uncertainty, but all conclusions were sensible and honest.

    * Sir Muir Russell’s inquiry into the emails: the argument that the climate scientists had something to hide “does not stand up”. No evidence of selective use of data to produce a predetermined outcome. Scientists needed to be more open to scrutiny.

    * Two inquiries by the University of Pennsylvania into scientist Michael Mann: the Investigatory Committee determined that Dr Mann did nothing that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community. A previous investigation found him innocent of suppressing data, deleting e-mails, and misusing confidential information.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/conspiracy-theories-finally-laid-to-rest-by-report-on-leaked-climate-change-emails-2021222.html

    More misinformation spread by climate change denialists.

  22. So he was asked by Dr Jones to delete emails, but silently disobeyed? Hmmmm

    Its possible….

    Just like its possible that someone stole Craig Thompson’s credit card and his Drivers license, used it to pay for services at a brothel where they wrote down his drivers licence no. Then managed to sneak them back into Craig’s wallet without him ever knowing they were gone.

  23. Would it really have been politically possible to have delivered a finding that said they were biased, had witheld information or hadnt taken into account all the facts?

    The inquiry into Craig Thompson took years and then when it was handed over to the poliice they said it wasnt in a form they could use and they would have to do their own inquiry. Everyone in the country knew he was guilty, the only ones who couldnt prove it were the investigators.

  24. But of course if you or I did the same and then tried to argue it wasnt our signature and the drivers licence was stolen, the investigation would be concluded in about 2 minutes

  25. Well.. Here is a verifiable example of your rational, authoritative scientists at work.

    In 2011 the Vice Chancellor of the ANU claimed that their climate scientists were receiving large numbers of death threats :

    Several of Australia’s top climate change scientists at the Australian National University have been subjected to a campaign of death threats, forcing the university to tighten security.

    Several of the scientists in Canberra have been moved to a more secure location after receiving the threats over their research.

    Vice-chancellor Professor Ian Young says the scientists have received large numbers of emails, including death threats and abusive phone calls, threatening to attack the academics in the street if they continue their research.

    Following a Freedom of Information request asking for evidence of all these death threats, it was found that none existed. The ANU provided a number of emails but none containing a death threat, the nearest was one discussing an overheard conversation about guns at a conference. One person has come forward and suggested it was him, and he was discussing kangaroo culling.

    The report was completely false, there was absolutely no threat and the extra security measures and moving staff was a totally unnecessary expense. If the scientists cant rationally assess and report on a simple security matter, how can we be assured of their assessment of the climate change risks?

    But more telling was the media response. There was nothing in the Age, and the ABC still went on the attack on the evil deniers. Only in the Murdoch press and on Counterpoint was the debacle reported.

    See the original story, and the later grudging confession here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-06-04/death-threats-sent-to-top-climate-scientists/2745536

  26. Death threats, intimidation and abuse: climate change scientist Michael E. Mann counts the cost of honesty

    Research by Michael E. Mann confirmed the reality of global warming. Little did he know that it would also expose him to a vicious hate campaign

    Mann became a target of climate deniers’ hate because his research revealed there has been a recent increase of almost 1°C across the globe, a rise that was unprecedented “during at least the last 1,000 years” and which has been linked to rising emissions of carbon dioxide from cars, factories and power plants. Many other studies have since supported this finding although climate change deniers still reject his conclusions.

    Mann’s research particularly infuriated deniers after it was used prominently by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in one of its assessment reports, making him a target of right-wing denial campaigners. But as the 46-year-old scientist told the Observer, he only entered this research field by accident. “I was interested in variations in temperatures of the oceans over the past millennium. But there are no records of these changes so I had to find proxy measures: coral growth, ice cores and tree rings.”

    A barrage of intimidation was generated by “a Potemkin village” of policy foundations, as Mann puts it. These groups were set up by privately-funded groups that included Koch Industries and Scaife Foundations and bore names such as the Cato Institute, Americans for Prosperity and the Heartland Institute. These groups bombarded Mann with freedom of information requests while the scientist was served with a subpoena by Republican congressman Joe Barton to provide access to his correspondence. The purported aim was to clarify issues. The real aim was to intimidate Mann.

    In addition, Mann has been attacked by Ken Cuccinelli, the Republican attorney general of Virginia who has campaigned to have the scientist stripped of academic credentials. Several committees of inquiry have investigated Mann’s work. All have exonerated him.

    Thousands of emails have been sent to Mann, many deeply unpleasant. “You and your colleagues… ought to be shot, quartered and fed to the pigs along with your whole damn families,” said one. “I was hopin [sic] I would see the news and you commited [sic] suicide,” ran another.

    Yet all that Mann had done was publish to a study suggesting, in cautious terms, that Earth had started to heat up unexpectedly in the past few decades.

    “On one occasion, I had to call the FBI after I was sent an envelope with a powder in it,” Mann adds. “It turned out to be cornmeal but again the aim was intimidation. I ended up with police security tape all over my office doors and windows. That is the life of a climate scientist today in the US.”

    Mann insists he will not give up. “I have a six-year-old daughter and she reminds me what we are fighting for.” Indeed, Mann is generally optimistic that climate change deniers and their oil and coal industry backers have overstepped the mark and goaded scientists to take action. He points to a recent letter, signed by 250 members of the US National Academy of Science, including 11 Nobel laureates, and published in Science. The letter warns about the dangers of the current attacks on climate scientists and calls “for an end to McCarthy-like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them.”

    “Words like those give me hope,” says Mann.

    But yeah it was probably Craig Thomson.

  27. And Steve’s mate Phil Jones

    Here are some of the death threats sent to a climate scientist

    James Delingpole is a British journalist for The Telegraph who was primarily responsible for the pseudo-controversy known by the unoriginal name “Climategate.” Last month, he wrote an opinion piece mocking claims by climate scientists that they’d received death threats — in particular, Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia.

    Delingpole wrote:

    Maybe it’s time someone did an FOI to see whether the UEA’s dodgy and discredited Phil Jones really did get any of those “death threats” he claims to have received after Climategate and which allegedly drove him to consider suicide. Speaking for myself, if Phil Jones released a report claiming that grass is green I’d feel compelled to go outside just to double check.

    Simon Hopkinson did exactly that. Yesterday, the university responded.

    Jones is a climatologist who has contributed an enormous amount of research to understanding of climate science. His work has been used by, among others, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

    After Delingpole and others made him a target of attack, he received over two dozen threatening emails . Here are a few:

    Just a quick note to encourage you to do the right thing and shoot yourself in the head. Don’t waste any more time, do it today. It is truly the greatest contribution to mankind that you will ever make.

    You are a f**king scumbag, a liar and a fraud. I hope someone puts a bullet between your eyes.

    Wanker you wanker you nead to be killed

    Please for Christ’s sake, kill yourself.

    Your children and family will know because we know where you live. expect us at your door to say hello

    You f**k prick. Britain needs to kill this scam artist.

    Go Ahead LOSER…KILL YOURSELF. No one will care and you’ll be doing the world a service you PIECE OF SHIT

    Kill yourself

    http://grist.org/news/here-are-some-of-the-death-threats-sent-to-a-climate-scientist/

    I suppose he could have sent them himself though. Or jfk did.

  28. Btw Wazza how about the conspiracy between fossil fuel companies and climate change denial organisations to discredit climate change scientists.

    eg the George C Marshall Institute which denied links between tobacco and cancer, the effects of acid rain, the hole in the ozone layer and man made climate change. Yet is funded by fossil fuel companies.

    The tactic used by climate change deniers the same tactic used by tobacco companies.

    – discredit the science, disseminate false information, spread confusion, and promote doubt

    There’s your conspiracy right there dude.

  29. I stated there was no evidence of death threats to the ANU climate staff, although the VC told several media outlets that it was the case.

    I’ve never denied that other climate scientists in other places may have received abusive emails. This is the internet, abuse is normal. You have said some abusive things about Steve – it dosent mean that he has a valid point.

  30. Yeah good point Wazza.

    ANU made up death threats

    Therefore climate change science is wrong.

    Gotya.

    Let us know when you get around to oil companies and climate change deniers.

  31. Don’t know enough about climatology to have an opinion.

    I don’t think there is a huge conspiracy on this one. And I also don’t think it’s necessary or wise for ministers to talk about it in churches.

    You’d think the Christian position would be to try to preserve the earth as much as possible. – clean rivers, less smog etc.

    But for my money, the weather seems pretty weird where I am.

    Just sayin

  32. Yeah … good point, Bones.

    ANU made up death threats

    But that dosent mean we should question their integrity. Nothing to see here… move along.

    Oil companies fund climate change deniers. Governments fund the warmists. Both have their vested interests. If you can make a new market out of something like carbon credits then someone can make money on it.

  33. Governments fund the warmists.

    Why is it in a government’s vested interest to do that?

    Personally I wish AGW was wrong. I’ve got 5 little kids who have to live in the future.

    The science suggests otherwise.

  34. Yep, all the usual defence of a group of self-elevating government funded climate scientists who were caught deliberately exaggerating the figures to frighten the world into action. It’s called propaganda, and has been used for many years as a device to press a point of view.

    The thing which is wrong is the way in which it was sold, not as propaganda, but as The Science, when, in fact, it was not The Science at all.

    There may have been some Science which can be verified which does point to the possibility of anthropologically induced climate change, but the mere fact that those scientists who were supposedly at the forefront of the man made climate change side were shown up to be fudging the figures reduced their credibility to nil, and damaged their case irreparably.

    I believe we should be good stewards of the earth, and that this means we need to be more caring of the environment.

    I am not a climate denialist. I am not a skeptic. I believe the climate changes over periods of time and that this has always been the case. I also believe that here is a case for arguing that human activity has been responsible for heating the atmosphere. There is definite evidence of this an the ozone layer has been threatened.

    But I am disgusted by the way in which some politicians and scientists have misrepresented the facts.

    At best Flannery is an innocent victim of someone else’s hype. You seek an apology. I offer none. If he was merely ignorant of someone else’s fudging then he is at fault, scientifically, for making announcements and receiving payment for producing what have been shown to be exaggerated claims. That was his fault. He was paid $180,000 pa as a Climate Commissioner to tell the truth to the Australian people, not to exaggerate a case for fear.

    He was part of the problem.

  35. And you, of all people, should be questioning why Flannery convinced people Queensland would never again see flooding rains when, just months later, Bundaberg was under water and insurance companies were knocking back payouts on the basis of whether people were covered for flood or flash flood or other small print items.

    I was in far North Queensland when Yassi was overhead. Only a scar manger of the highest order would ‘deny’ rain in a nation which is known for drought/flood cycles of years between events stretching back before the fleet arrived to colonise the country.

    He took advantage of a prolonged period of drought to push his agenda and people, despite the recorded history available, fell for it. That has been typical of the climate fear propaganda. Any time, now, that the weather changes even slightly out of the seeming ordinary the climate scare folk are crying wolf. Hot, cold, dry, wet, snow, fire or wind. It is all climate change.

    Well, where I come from we see all seasons and know what it will be like at any given time and it hasn’t changed much over my lifetime, and, judging from the old’on’s conversations nt for many generations.

    Australia has always had long droughts and sudden floods from cyclonic activity. It is predominantly desert, that is evidence of consistent periods of drought, but it has deep and vast depressions which are prone to flooding. They formed over countless years of consistent drought/flood cycles.

    Show me where Flannery said that Queensland would never again see flooding rains?

  36. Yep, all the usual defence of a group of self-elevating government funded climate scientists who were caught deliberately exaggerating the figures to frighten the world into action. I

    That’s called propaganda.

    It’s exactly the same argument you use against evolution.

    You denigrate the science and reputations of scientists just by words, not facts.

  37. First off, C3 said this about Tim Flannery (3:00):

    “In 2005, [Snippet 4B background of ‘article’ appears behind Flannery] Professor Tim Flannery predicted that [snippet 1] Sydney’s dams could be empty in as little as two years due to global warming. [Snippet 2]

    Audio excerpt: “Mr Flannery has warned that Sydney will soon be facing extreme difficulties with water.”

    [Snippet 3] Climate change expert Tim Flannery has sad that even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill [Snippet 4A] Sydney’s dams and river systems. He’s also stated that we are running out of water [Snippet 5]– and time.”

    By reading the above transcript, we will demonstrate not only what is wrong with the 6 snippets but what is also untrue with the audio statements. Flannery did not say, “we are running out of water – and time”. Paul Sheehan did. Read ‘Snippet 1′ for more information.

    Flannery did not say that, “even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill Sydney’s dams and river systems”. While he said something like it – Flannery did not specify that these dams and river system were either Sydney’s dams and river systems or specifically Warragamba Dam. What’s even worse is that this is a quote taken out of context, which will be addressed in ‘Snippet 5′. At best, C3 misrepresented Tim Flannery (Chief Commissioner of the Government’s new Climate Commission), in front of thousands of Christians. Watch the video below at 2:57 to see the ‘prophecy’.

    http://c3churchwatch.com/tag/warragamba-dam-prophecy/

    What a disgraceful spread of misinformation!!

    F**k off scientists fudging figures.

    Don’t trust pastors who lie and misrepresent others.

    And if one does it then they all do.

    I am disgusted by the way in which some pastors have misrepresented the facts.

  38. Was Tim Flannery trying to frighten us in 2005?

    MAXINE McKEW: In a way I’m going to ask you to rain on people’s parade, because in fact, your concern really is that, long term, our weather patterns are changing in quite profound ways. What is it that leads you to this conclusion?

    TIM FLANNERY: Well, I’m afraid that the science around climate change is firming up fairly quickly, and what we’ve seen is three major phenomena that are depriving Australia of its rainfall. One of them is just simply the shifting weather patterns as the planet warms up, so the tropics are expanding southwards and the winter rainfall zone is sort of dropping off the southern edge of the continent. The second one is disturbances in the ozone layer, and that is causing wind speeds around Antarctica to increase and, again, drawing that winter rainfall to the south. But the third and really the most worrying of them is this semi-permanent el Nino-like condition that’s occurring as the Pacific Ocean warms up, and we’re seeing much longer el Ninos than we’ve seen before and often now back-to-back el Ninos with very little of the la Nina cycle, the flood cycle, in between. So between those three factors, which have been evident really since about 1976, we’ve seen some quite considerable and look to be permanent rainfall drops across much of southern and eastern Australia.

    MAXINE McKEW: Does that mean eastern Australia is particularly badly affected?

    TIM FLANNERY: It certainly is. Eastern Australia’s the area where el Nino reigns supreme, of course, and it was the land of drought and flooding rain. But since 1998 particularly, we’ve seen just drought, drought, drought, and particularly regions like Sydney and the Warragamba catchment – if you look at the Warragamba catchment figures, since ’98, the water has been in virtual freefall, and they’ve got about two years of supply left, but something will need to change in order to see the catchment start accumulating water again.

    MAXINE McKEW: But you can’t be certain, though, that at some point we won’t see – in spite of what you’ve laid out there, we won’t see a return to more normal patterns?

    TIM FLANNERY: Well, you can’t predict the future; that’s one of the things that you learn fairly early on, but if I could just say, the general patterns that we’re seeing in the global circulation models – and these are very sophisticated computer tools, really, for looking at climate shift – are saying the same sort of thing that we’re actually seeing on the ground. So when the models start confirming what you’re observing on the ground, then there’s some fairly strong basis for believing that we’re understanding what’s causing these weather shifts and these rainfall declines, and they do seem to be of a permanent nature. I don’t think it’s just a cycle. I’d love to be wrong, but I think the science is pointing in the other direction.

    MAXINE McKEW: So does that mean, really, we’re faced with – if that’s right – back-to-back droughts and continuing thirsty cities?

    TIM FLANNERY: That’s right. That looks to be the case. We’ll know probably within two or three years, I suppose, how this is going to play out, particularly for Sydney, because its water supply is limited to that sort of scale, but it is my fear that the new weather regime is going to be a much drier one, and while we may get the odd good rainfall event, they’re going to be much less frequent than in the past, and we’ll just be in a different climatic regime.

    MAXINE McKEW: Well, I’m not asking you to be alarmist, but in fact, what would you say is a plausible worst-case scenario that you and, say, other scientists in the Wentworth Group have come to agree on?

    TIM FLANNERY: Well, the worst-case scenario for Sydney is that the climate that’s existed for the last seven years continues for another two years. In that case, Sydney will be facing extreme difficulties with water, and of course, large cities are the most vulnerable of all structures to water deficit because you’ve got 4 million people there who need water just for everyday survival, and in the case of Sydney, there’s very few back-up reserves. Sydney’s ground water supplies are only about 13 gigalitres, which is about 10 days’ worth of supply. So there are not many options for Sydney and, of course, without water you can’t make power, you can’t wash, you can’t clean your food, you can’t have industry. So there are some quite severe problems if the current trend continues. I really do hope that that doesn’t happen, but as I say, something will have to change in order for Sydney to get out of that predicted future.

    MAXINE McKEW: Let’s look at just how well prepared we are for this. Now, in terms of, say, New South Wales, in fact what we saw yesterday was a joint initiative by the Prime Minister and the Premier, Bob Carr, to provide incentives to farmers to in fact preserve and limit ground water. Surely that’s a move in the right direction?

    TIM FLANNERY: Oh, it absolutely is. Look, for me at the moment, even if you think there’s only a 10 per cent chance that this rainfall deficit’s going to continue for another few years, you’d be pulling out all stops to preserve water, because every litre you use now on your car or your garden or whatever else, you might want to be drinking in a year’s time. So I would be, I think – if I had a say – trying to really ration water at the moment, just because of the great uncertainty involved.

    MAXINE McKEW: Let’s go across the other side of the country, to Western Australia, particularly, say, Perth and areas round there. They’ve been getting good rainfall this week but, as you know, water was a huge issue and a very contentious one during the last State election last year. There are now plans to build a saltwater desalination plant, and the government there is saying this can be done without any adverse impact. Do you think that’s right?

    TIM FLANNERY: Yet to be seen, yet to be determined. The thing that worries me about the desal plant in Perth is the long lag times between a decision to construct and getting any water out of the plant. In the case of Perth, that process is going to be about 4.5 years and that plant will only produce enough water for about 10 per cent or 15 per cent of Perth’s population; so much smaller than looking at Sydney, where if you want to put all of the eastern suburbs on to desalinated water in two years, it’s looking like a massive challenge.

    MAXINE McKEW: And South Australia and Victoria – what would you say? What’s the good news, what’s the bad news?

    TIM FLANNERY: Well, the good news for 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, but we do have a large catchment behind it for a relatively small city. So water quality is going to be a significant issue for Adelaide. There is increasing recycling, of course, here as well, which is a good thing. Melbourne’s doing very well with recycling but Melbourne’s also vulnerable to water deficits. It’s a large city, it’s in an area of quite dramatic climate change, and therefore will be vulnerable as well.

    MAXINE McKEW: Let’s cover the issue of pricing of water, Tim. Who’s ahead of the game there?

    TIM FLANNERY: Well, Jeff Kennett, for all the terrible things he did, perhaps, to many of us, actually did a lot of reforms that were quite important, and water was among them. It used to be in Melbourne that water would be on a rated basis with a little bit of a cost for your extra water. That’s changed now and you pay for the water you use and there’s a stepped tariff, and that’s a great – that sends a strong signal to the user that water is a precious commodity not to be wasted, and you’ll have to pay for water, and if you use a lot of water you pay a lot more, and that’s the sort of message we really need to get through. I really can’t emphasise that enough, that, you know, in this period of uncertainty, we have to be very careful of our water resources because a lot’s at stake.

    http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2005/s1389827.htm

  39. So they ignored the dams and built desalination plants, which you are still paying for, and which are not functioning. Why? Because it rained so hard!

    Praise God for the rain, and for breaking the drought. Again!

    Science never takes God into consideration because i doesn’t take Him seriously.

  40. GENTLEMEN< GENTLEMEN< This thread is meant to be about Jewish views on the doctrine of creation…can we get back to that? Please? I recognise that what you're talking about is related – but pullease..I'm trying to be all theologically sophistocomated by discussing serious theology!!!

    Can we agree that Steve loves the earth and wants it to be stewarded adequaltey? Can we also agree that a lot fo what Tim Flannery said didn't actually happen? Can we also agree that the media now it doesn;t have Rudd to bag out is doing its best to muckrake on all Labors work and to lay the ground work for recinding the Carbon Tax…which might I add was actually working! Carbon emissoins in Australia have been heading dfown!

  41. Can we agree that C3 and Steve have used disgraceful lies to attack Tim Flannery? Can we agree that it is wrong to disseminate propaganda and pass it off as the Word as C3 has done to its congregation?

    Of course no one has actually said anything about the science.

    It’s a dark side of Steve which he probably thinks is divine.

  42. Btw we’ve had record flooding on the coast in the last two years.

    Yet over 50% of Qld is declared.

    More than half of Queensland is now officially in drought after two more parts of the state were drought-declared on Friday.
    Parts of the Balonne and Maranoa Shire in the state’s south-west were confirmed as drought regions by the state government, bringing the number of drought-stricken shires to 20.
    Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Minister John McVeigh said those shires as well as individual properties and other council areas meant more than half the state was now in drought.
    “Nearly 52 per cent of Queensland is now drought-declared, underlining just how serious the situation is,” he said in a statement.

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/half-of-queensland-now-in-drought-government-says-20130816-2s0du.html#ixzz2ffkeqWjD

  43. For an example of classic fudging please watch QandA withy David Suzuki as he squirms and wriggles through questions and comments by real scientists and questioners who rock him with actual facts, some of which he is completely ignorant about, despite them being recognised by the scientific fraternity as accurate data, whilst being politely asked to give facts to back his claims by people he calls ‘skeptics’ and ‘deniers’ in one loaded phrase, when, in reality, they are simply striving to create a better environment and a real discussion based on the available science, without bias.

    He stumbles at the very first question, and, instead of conceding ignorance, clams the questioner is either ‘cherry-picking’ or in the pay of ‘big oil’. He is completely shown to be a fraud. Articulate, and has the green fraternity eating out of his hands and practically orgasmic, but showing far more evidence of bluster and bluff than knowledge of his subjects. Astonishing.

    Even Tony Jones seemed embarrassed over some of his comments, like imprisoning politicians who didn’t adhere to Suzuki’s point of view. Watch how a couple of real GM scientists actually convince skeptic Suzuki that GM might be beneficial after all.

    http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3841115.htm

    The reason I put up the video by Ezra Lavant, by the way, was Levant’s apparent exposé of Suzuki, who charged a small college in the US $30,000 plus $11,500 expenses for a one hour talk, yes, over $41,000, with the add on of two well dressed female college students as escorts for the evening, including the alleged recommendation that they receive ‘encouragement’ at his hotel room.

    And the college apparently complied and found the girls! Maybe he just said thanks to them for being his body guards for the evening, and there was nothing remotely sinister or untoward happening, but this was just a classic example of the arrogance of the so called Climate Activists who have climbed the ladder of opportunity and now bully governments into rash decisions and fear politics.

    These are the things which have ruined any sensible debate on the issue of climate change and turned it into a polarising money making circus.

    If scientists can’t get their message across without wannabes like Suzuki, Gore and Flannery they need a reality check and a few days in the real world to learn how to communicate with plebs like me instead of calling us ugly names.

  44. Evolution and Global Warming Denialism: How the Public is Misled

    The deniers use the same techniques that creationists use to denigrate science

  45. If scientists can’t get their message across without wannabes like Suzuki, Gore and Flannery they need a reality check and a few days in the real world to learn how to communicate with plebs like me instead of calling us ugly names.

    You mean like you do with Flannery.

    Have they personally preached and handed out false information at a church about you?

    And claimed you’re against God.

    Now when you actually deal with the science instead of your far right wing agenda let us know.

  46. ‘Deniers’? Are you saying that holocaust deniers are engaging in the climate argument, too? I don’t know that.

    Needless to say the youtube clips will be completely ignored by me anyway as part of the Bonesian spin.

    But, look, I didn’t realise there were any climate change ‘deniers’ contributing to this thread, unless you consider denying facts like Suzuki did in the QandA debacle to be denialism. I have to wonder if he actually knows much about what it is all about, or is just a figurehead for a spinning wheel.

    But, look, a reprieve for Tim Flannery and his cohort.

    The Climate Commission, axed last week by the Abbott government, is to be rejuvenated by private funding in an effort to keep information about global warming prominent in the public arena, former chief commissioner Tim Flannery has said.

    The decision to create the Australian Climate Council, as the group will now be known, was spurred by ‘’a groundswell of support’’ across the country, Professor Flannery said…

    Most, if not all, of the six commissioners will be directors of the Australian Climate Council – among them ANU climate scientist Will Steffen and former BP Australasia president Gerry Hueston.

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/private-funds-for-new-climate-think-tank-to-keep-public-informed-20130923-2ua9h.html#ixzz2fkWkJS39

    So there you have it. Private enterprise funds a climate lobby group. There was no need for the taxpayer to fund this group which was only ever really presenting one view nd was headed up by a man prone to exaggeration.

    That’s as it should be. Let all persons have opinions, and let them form groups, fund themselves, even try to impress governments with their causes, but let’s not fund lobbyists from the public purse to push a political cause as Julia Gillard did when she set up the Climate Commission as a propaganda feed for her own denialism, when she denied her government would bring in a carbon tax, but did.

  47. Who’s David Suzuki anyway.

    The IPCC report is due out any day. This report analyses the science of global warming and has input from thousands of scientists around the world.

    The deniers have already tries to take the gloss of the report by using false data to indicate no global warming is happening and promote and air of sceptticism ad denial before the report comes out.

    Lamentably The Australian fell for it.

    ‘Scientists confess’? The attack on the IPCC that went terribly wrong

    When an error was found in the IPCC Assessment Report Number 4 – that mountain glaciers were likely to melt by 2035 – climate change deniers obsessed about this for several years, endlessly returning to it as proof that the IPCC was thoroughly flawed in its findings and the science could not be trusted.

    Even with all the caution that the IPCC is famous for, it still managed to make a few errors in its almost 3000 page report. The caution also meant that the IPCC report in 2007 would have been loath to predict the unprecedented glacial lake outburst flood in the Himalayas that killed 6000 people in June. The ice around 20,000 large glacial lakes throughout the Himalayas is melting very fast, and when combined with monsoon rains, the ice gives way releasing billions of cubic metres of water – which happened at Kedarnath on June 16 this year.

    The IPCC reports are never going to be able to warn people from these individual events, but only provide probabilities of them occurring. This makes the caution that we will see in the Assessment Report Number 5 – due out on Friday – as reassuring as it is disturbing.

    But the question of evidence, facts, methodology – indeed of caution that newspapers had been scrutinising the IPCC over – came back to haunt several of them last week, when the UK’s Mail on Sunday made its splash story: “World’s top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just HALF what we said”, by climate denier journalist David Rose.

    The UK’s Telegraph mirrored this headline with “Top climate scientists admit global warming forecasts were wrong”, which was also parroted by The Australian the next day with “We got it wrong on warming, says IPCC”, and in Sydney’s Daily Telegraph.

    However, Rose’s central claim is that climate scientists have halved their assessment of warming since 1951.

    Rose claimed in the original article of September 15, which has since had to be corrected in the online version, that the IPCC claimed in 2007 that the planet was warming by .2 degrees Celsius per decade, but the new report says that the “true figure since 1951 has been only .12 degrees Celsius per decade – a rate far below even the lowest computer prediction”.

    The error in Rose’s article is that the 2007 IPCC report only claimed the rate of warming since 1951 to be .13 degrees Celsius, not .2 degrees Celsius. So, if the new report does say .12 degrees Celsius warming since 1951 when it does come out, this revision is like saying that with updated data, global warming is only around 90% of what IPCC scientists said it was.

    Yet the Daily Mail revision has dropped its claims about the long term trend to focus on the so-called warming hiatus of the past 15 years to produce an even bolder headline: “World’s top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER what we thought”.

    The Daily Mail does not seem to be fussed by the scale of its changing headline blunders. It may as well just put out another revision to say global warming does not exist at all. But the revised article again cherrypicks the leak of the unfinalised IPCC Report number 5, to produce a headline that is even more disparaging of the IPCC. Rose’s story does not look at ocean heat content as Dana Nuccitelli and John Abraham do in a demolition of Rose’s piece. Nor does it look at the fact that the last ten years have been the warmest on record in the past 150 years.

    Nevertheless, the frenzy of journalism dismissive of global warming that blindly followed the Daily Mail’s lead has led to publications having to issue corrections. First the UK Telegraph, and now The Australian and Sydney’s Daily Telegraph on September 21.

    A correction? Well you’d think these papers had just misspelt a name, or had someone’s title wrong, rather than bludgeoned its readers into thinking that global warming had halved – and that the last IPCC Assessment Report had it all wrong.

    Newspapers have a responsibility to report all issues as accurately as possible, as they have much influence on public understanding – especially of science. That such a monumental blunder about something as serious as global warming could be pardoned by a tiny and feeble “correction” is a breathtaking betrayal of journalistic standards themselves.

    Did the Australian newspapers think to ask Australian climate scientists what they thought of the story? Well if they did, as I have of a number of climatologists, they would have been told that there is no point commenting until the actual report is released. You see, sometimes it’s better to be cautious, even if we may be running out of time to be so.

    http://theconversation.com/scientists-confess-the-attack-on-the-ipcc-that-went-terribly-wrong-18496

  48. I don’t think you could call the Climate Commission science! LOL! I was a spin group set up to ease Australia into the carbon tax we weren’t going to have under Julia Gillard’s government.

    I think you’re somewhat hysterical in your lack of perception, Bones.

    When agendas interfere with science it is no longer science.

    Science is one of the greatest and most effective tools we have, but when it is hijacked by self-interest groups it loses it’s credibility.

  49. When agendas interfere with science it is no longer science.

    You mean your agenda?

    The fossil fuel and big oil agenda?

    The mining companies agenda?

    Yeah you’re right.

    Sounds like the tobacco companies agenda as well.

    Of course we all know big money will win out when it comes to government policy.

    btw who’s funding the anti-smoking ads?

  50. You se, here we go. Bones has set up his imaginary adversary again. OK. Well it’s time to let you continue your conversation with the imaginary Steve, cos it ain’t me you’re talking to!

    You’ really are losing the plot mate.

  51. Oh gosh! The foul mouths are back in town.

    Time to leave before the globules and spittle sprays become intolerable.

  52. Don’t run Steve. The best thing is to just keep patient, keep cool, keep loving, and just gently rebuking when the foul language begins.

    They need us! lol

    If we don’t stay here and teach them the truth, who knows where they’ll end up.

    “Run Away”? No, that’s too Holy Grailish!

    Just think of them as teenage delinquents who just need some attention and a push in the right direction.

  53. I wasn’t running from anything. It was getting late here. But Bones has begun Greg-supported foul speech and ranting at someone else – his imaginary adversary – so it seems pointless to continue in that atmosphere.

  54. Of course we all know why phil pringle slandered Tim Flannery. It was all over Pringle’s false prophecy about the dam.

    For that Pringle belittled Flannery in front of his congregation using quotes deliberately taken out of context.

  55. You’re one angry little berserker, Bones. Giving me what I deserve? That’s hilarious. And pompous.

    No. You ran out of the cognitive ability to string together a case so you resorted to foul language. It’s a sure sign of the loss of an argument when someone like you starts to shake with indignant rage and starts spitting expletives and making up imaginative arguments for your supposed adversary because someone disagrees with you.

    And you just admitted to aggressively personalising the debate way back when you couldn’t get your point across without being thoroughly refuted.

    For someone who preached Green and voted Clive Palmer, you sure think you know a lot!

  56. No, the sure sign that someone has lost the argument is when they start trumpeting lies about others.

    Then they’re to be treated like the fool they are.

  57. Poor old Bones’ leftist world is falling apart, so he tries to strike out at someone he thinks represents those who broke his toys.

    It’s OK Bones, really, the nice Mr Flannery has a new job doing exactly the same, paid for by people like y0u who believe him, and not by the tax payer. Win, win, mate, win, win!

  58. Bones,
    ‘Who’s David Suzuki anyway?’

    Classic! Suzuki is one of the warming alarmists rock stars, but is completely out of his depth even on a lefty show like QandA.

    The opening exchange with a real scientist…

    BILL KOUTALIANOS: Oh, hi. Since 1998 global temperatures have been relatively flat, yet many man-made global warming advocates refuse to acknowledge this simple fact. Has man-made global warming become a new religion in itself?

    TONY JONES: David, go ahead.

    DAVID SUZUKI: Yeah, well, I don’t know why you’re saying that. The ten hottest years on record, as I understand it, have been in this century. In fact, the warming continues. It may have slowed down but the warming continues and everybody is anticipating some kind of revelation in the next IPCC reports that are saying we got it wrong. As far as I understand, we haven’t. So where are you getting your information? I’m not a climatologist. I wait for the climatologists to tell us what they’re thinking.

    TONY JONES: Do you want to respond to that, Bill?

    BILL KOUTALIANOS: Sure, yeah. UAH, RSS, HadCRUT, GISS data shows a 17-year flat trend which suggests there may be something wrong with the Co2 warming theory?

    DAVID SUZUKI: Sorry, yeah, what is the reference? I don’t…

    BILL KOUTALIANOS: Well, they’re the main data sets that IPCC use: UAH, University of Alabama, Huntsville; GISS, Goddard Institute of Science; HadCRUT. I don’t know what that stands for, HadCRUT; and RSS, Remote Sensing something. So those data sets suggest a 17-year flat trend, which suggests there may be a problem with the Co2.

    DAVID SUZUKI: No, well, there may be a climate sceptic down in Huntsville, Alabama, who has taken the data and come to that conclusion. I say, let’s wait for the IPCC report to come out and see what the vast bulk of scientists who have been involved in gathering this information will tell us.

    LOL! UAH, RSS, HadCRUT, GISS data is the basis on which IPCC scientists show changes in trends. It has nothing to do with climate skeptics in Huntsville, Alabama! Suzuki, rom the outset, is shown to be completely out of his depth.

    This is the fudging I was talking about, Bones, which gets in the way of real analysis. The IPCC is not the be al and end all of everything. Science is continually improving, analysing data, revising information.

    There is no way in a fit that any scientific data is complete. Say ‘The Science Is In’ is a complete fabrication of truth. It is being continually revised.

    People like Suzuki and Flannery, and Gore have made fortunes out of being articulate fronts-people for Green ideology, but they have had a tendency to misinform and exaggerate, perhaps because of information they have been fed, and even made incorrect predictions about the possible future in an alarmist way.

    The earth is probably warming, and humans have almost certainly been contributing. We need cleaner, greener energy, and we need to gradually phase out polluting industries and practices.

    But the global warming alarmists need to be reigned in so that we can stop the people who will take advantage of scares to create sideshows like emissions trading schemes, which are already being massively scammed, and which are a license for nations to continue polluting whilst paying a price, where the ones who pay are the tax-payers, not the governments who are the tax-collectors.

    I;m not denying climate change. I’m looking for some rational decision making and not the wool pulled over our eyes by propagandists.

  59. Steve your Logical Fallacy is midle ground – the point inbetween two extremes is not where the truth lies…half way between a truth ad a lie is a lie – the truth is the truth – just because you don’t like the extreme of climate change science does not mean its false.

    However, having said that – there does appear to be a pause in gloable warming stretching from at least 10 years ago. I was not aware of a so called pause.

    THIS is a very interesting site (half the scince of which i do;nt really understand, which gives the evidence for a pause.

    Now…can we get back to the theology of creation? PLEASE?

  60. So, Greg, you want to support Bones’ ad hominem attacks with dopey analysis of my opinion based on a flawed model of what constitutes logical discussion, and then expect people to change the subject after you’ve added your own views to the diversion.

    I think you might be on a loser there.

    Perhaps, rather than attack my logic, you need to suggest to your liberal compadré Bones that he stick to reason rather than personal abuse and innuendo which show him up to be irrational.

  61. Bill koutilanos, a scientist…

    Actually he’s a member of the No Carbon Tax Climate Skeptics Party so I’d be triple checking anything he says about data.

  62. You’re the dope, you fraud.

    Did Tim Flannery say there would be no more flooding rain in Perth, Adelade or Brisbane?

    But then I support and defend terrorists shooting pregnant women you disgraceful wanker.

    Maybe its time someone did something about your disgraceful lies on those who disagree with you.

  63. Yes, you’re correct, and I was wrong to assign to him the title ‘scientist’, although there were scientists in the audience who gave Suzuki a torrid time, and showed great decorum. His question, however, was relevant, and based on IPCC recognised data. Suzuki was shown to be ignorant of the facts.

  64. Suzuki said the right thing. Wait for the ipcc report which is about to be released.

    I thought it was stupid for Suzuki to be on by himself and he was setting himself up to be ambushed by deniers. So I didnt bother watching it.

    Q and A is not a forum to do science like that.

    It’s bizarre that there hasn’t been a series of televised debates by scientists in all fields on a subject as important as agw.

  65. On your other comment, Bones, you must realise that, by your aggressive and contrary manner towards people with another opinion, you invite the assumptions made about you.

    Instead of throwing around the insults, innuendo and expletives, why didn’t you, long ago, express some kind of disgust at the actions of Islamic militants, rather than slander Q and myself for doing exactly that, and accusing us of hating all Muslims because we charged a few, as you and Greg have done?

    In your defence of Muslims in general you failed to qualify that you find the actions of Islamic militants repulsive, and, instead, attacked Q and I in the most disgusting way.

    Greg actually made a comment which expressed a ho-hum blazé attitude towards the Islamic militant’s murder of innocent people.

    I think it is you who needs to reconsider your line of commentary. It’s plain to see that your first reaction to our revulsion of the Kenyan and Pakistani Christian attacks was to lay false charges against us.

    If you are seeking to build some kind of case with which to attack me on a personal level because of comments made on a hostile blog such as this one, you will totally fail, especially with the kind of malicious tactics you are adept at using.

    I do not know your motives for the assault on me and the church I attend! but you must have, by now! realised that I have never responded to you in kind. I will speak to your opinion and your theology, but your church I will not bring into it, unless you directly introduce them as a subject for discussion.

    Your recent remarks have been increasingly offensive.

    I am hoping you will find a way to become more reasonable.

  66. Instead of throwing around the insults, innuendo and expletives, why didn’t you, long ago, express some kind of disgust at the actions of Islamic militants..

    Do I need to wear a t-shirt?

    ISLAMIC TERRORISM IS EVIL!
    ISLAMIC TERRORISM IS EVIL!
    ISLAMIC TERRORISM IS EVIL!
    ISLAMIC TERRORISM IS EVIL!
    ISLAMIC TERRORISM IS EVIL!
    ISLAMIC TERRORISM IS EVIL!
    ISLAMIC TERRORISM IS EVIL!
    ISLAMIC TERRORISM IS EVIL!
    ISLAMIC TERRORISM IS EVIL!
    ISLAMIC TERRORISM IS EVIL!
    ISLAMIC TERRORISM IS EVIL!
    ISLAMIC TERRORISM IS EVIL!
    ISLAMIC TERRORISM IS EVIL!
    ISLAMIC TERRORISM IS EVIL!
    ISLAMIC TERRORISM IS EVIL!
    ISLAMIC TERRORISM IS EVIL!
    ISLAMIC TERRORISM IS EVIL!
    ISLAMIC TERRORISM IS EVIL!
    ISLAMIC TERRORISM IS EVIL!
    ISLAMIC TERRORISM IS EVIL!
    ISLAMIC TERRORISM IS EVIL!
    ISLAMIC TERRORISM IS EVIL!
    ISLAMIC TERRORISM IS EVIL!
    ISLAMIC TERRORISM IS EVIL!
    ISLAMIC TERRORISM IS EVIL!
    ISLAMIC TERRORISM IS EVIL!
    ISLAMIC TERRORISM IS EVIL!
    ISLAMIC TERRORISM IS EVIL!
    ISLAMIC TERRORISM IS EVIL!
    ISLAMIC TERRORISM IS EVIL!
    ISLAMIC TERRORISM IS EVIL!
    ISLAMIC TERRORISM IS EVIL!
    ISLAMIC TERRORISM IS EVIL!
    ISLAMIC TERRORISM IS EVIL!
    ISLAMIC TERRORISM IS EVIL!
    ISLAMIC TERRORISM IS EVIL!

    https://signposts02.wordpress.com/2012/09/21/what-christians-can-learn-from-muslims/#comment-38195

    What a thread that was!

  67. Greg, a problem with the article is that the Earth isn’t 15 billion years old.

    It’s 4.54 billion.

    He was pretty close with the age of the universe though.

    I think we should just accept Genesis 1 as fiction and allegory.

  68. “THIS is a very interesting site (half the scince of which i do;nt really understand, which gives the evidence for a pause.”

    Greg, that site is run by Anthony Watts, a climate change skeptic.

    Climate Misinformer: Anthony Watts

    Anthony Watts is an American TV weather presenter and runs the blog Watts Up With That. He founded surfacestations.org, which questions the reliability of the surface temperature record. Typically more than half of Watts’ live presentations feature photos of poorly sited weather stations.

    However, the surface temperature record is one line of evidence among thousands of lines of evidence for global warming. Ice sheets are melting, sea levels are rising, glaciers are retreating, thousands of species are migrating, seasons are shifting, local populations of species are going extinct. As for the temperature record, warming is also being observed over the ocean, well away from urban heat island and microsite influences.

    Lastly, satellite measurements independently find the same warming trend as the surface record, leading prominent skeptic Roy Spencer (head of the UAH satellite team) to conclude about the HadCRUT surface record, “Frankly our data set agrees with his, so unless we are all making the same mistake we’re not likely to find out anything new from the data anyway”.

    The full body of evidence presents a consistent and overwhelming picture of global warming. Anthony Watts’ critique of the surface temperature record is an attempt to distract from this larger picture.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Anthony_Watts_blog.htm

  69. Cool T-shirt idea Bones.

    “a problem with the article is that the Earth isn’t 15 billion years old.
    It’s 4.54 billion.”

    Maybe his calculations got thrown out because of the day Joshua stopped the sun from moving.

    (There ya go – a joke at my own expense).

  70. How can we say how old the earth is? the only thing we may know, is how old the components are, the rest must ,to a degree be guesswork based on examination of the theoretical timeline proposed in formation of other planets and moons.The problem is, that it may be that the earth once revolved in the opposite direction and if so, it may put out of whack the measurements taken because it may make a difference to charges of atoms and molecules, that could make a difference to any age related readings that are now taken.Some other heavenly bodies revolve in the opposite direction as does earth.Why would this be so? If the earth formed from the so-called big bang, or if that’s how God set the Universe going, then the earth may well show as being 15 billion years old ass it’s components must have formed from the same elements of Hydrogen, Helium at first, then as these combined they formed the other 90 odd elements which have been identified here on earth..Much of creation is very dependent on the various electrical positive and negative charges contained within the components of atoms, this creates the atoms, or mabe there are mini solar systems within other solar systems in the quantum physics world, yet to be discovered by mankind, but known to the Spiritual dimensions for aeons?

  71. Bones,
    ISLAMIC TERRORISM IS EVIL

    Yes, yes, now you have said it, after being consistently pressed, but you failed to denounce the Kenyan and Pakistani church attackers on this on any other thread. Instead you verbally abused those who were.

    I’ll take your declaration that Islamic Terrorism is indeed evil as retrospective in connection with the Kenyan and Pakistani church attacks, then, and wonder why you didn’t simply say so in the first place.

  72. Former Climate Commissioner repents, promises to be fiercely independent, apolitical and focus on giving the Australian public the facts about climate change.

    We’ll see.

  73. and wonder why you didn’t simply say so in the first place.

    Given that we’ve already had this conversation last year, maybe your memory is fading in old age.

    I didn’t realise I had to preface my comments with saying shooting and blowing up innocent people is evil.

    BY ANYONE.

  74. Climate change isn’t going to stop because you and Abbott are deniers.

    There’ll be worse things than terrorists to worry about.

  75. “Rajenda Pachauri, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said his organisation’s latest report provided “unequivocal” evidence that since 1950 the atmosphere and oceans had warmed, and that scientists were now “95 per cent certain” that humans were the “dominant cause”.”

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/ipcc-report-the-financial-markets-are-the-only-hope-in-the-race-to-stop-global-warming-8843573.html

  76. You guys are all wrong….the IPCC report to be unveiled says there is now a 95 per cent probability that people are responsible for global warming.

  77. Gaia worship is not the only area of Flannery’s work where religious elements have surfaced. Like others in the environmental movement, he exhibits a level of intolerance of dissent that religious organisations have previously been accused of.

    Like Isabella of Castile and Ferdinand of Aragon, Tim Flannery is not averse to using the power of the state to enforce his views. He has openly fantasised about judicial punishments being handed out in the future to those who doubt climate science today. ‘Perhaps the day will come when a prosecutor in some yet-to-be-formed international court will appear with a copy of Scorcher under his arm,’ he has said, referring to Clive Hamilton’s book attacking the ‘greenhouse mafia’ of citizens and businesses who are sceptical about man’s contribution to climate change.

    His record of inflammatory alarmism about climate change and his patchy-at-best attempts to forecast environmental doom also belie a fundamentalist viewpoint. It seems as if Flannery seeks out the worst and most extreme predictions of climate catastrophe from scientific models, and communicates it to the masses as if it is a certain outcome.

    In an October 2006 opinion piece for The Age newspaper, entitled ‘Climate’s last chance’, Flannery asked readers to imagine what a 25 metre sea rise would look like. ‘Picture an eight-storey building by a beach, then imagine waves lapping its roof,’ he said. Given the Australian Bureau of Meteorology estimates that, at worst, Australia’s sea-level has risen by 10mm per year for the last two decades (and as little as 1.5mm per year in some areas), it will take thousands of years to reach Flannery’s alarmist prophecy, if current trends persist.

    Speaking at the National Climate Change Forum shortly after his appointment as Climate Commissioner, Professor Flannery warned Australian families their summer trips to the beach would be a thing of the past. ‘It’s hardly surprising that beaches are going to disappear with climate change,’ he said.

    Flannery has predicted that many of Australia’s capital cities would all run out of water at different times. In 2004 he predicted that ‘Perth will be the 21st century’s first ghost metropolis.’ The following year, he said that Sydney could run out of water in as little as two years.

    Undaunted by that botched prediction, he tried again in 2007, saying Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane would ‘need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months.’

    Undeterred by their failure to dry-out, Flannery was at it again in 2008, arguing that ‘the water problem for Adelaide is so severe that it may run out of water by early 2009.’ Of course, even amid a severe drought, none of these cities have met Flannery’s doomsday scenarios.

    And the forecast from his 2007 article in the New Scientist magazine that ‘Australia is likely to lose its northern rainfall’ looks awfully silly against recent flooding rains in Queensland.

    These failed prophecies have all the hallmarks of a religious cult-leader or wacko preacher predicting Armageddon-if we don’t atone for our environmental ‘sins’ against the planet. The idea that we have sinned against Gaia-by its very nature a religious or moral question rather than a scientific or economic one-has never been far from Flannery’s comments.

    In 2007, for example, he mused that ‘some may say that Australia deserves its fate’ because of our then failure to ratify the Kyoto treaty and as a high per-capita emitter of carbon dioxide.

    Although Flannery has avoided directly attributing the recent floods in Australia to climate change, he has said that extreme weather events like the floods are more likely to occur as a result of climate change.

    Using current weather events to bolster a case for human-induced climate change is fundamentally unscientific. Aside from confusing weather and climate-something sceptics are often accused of-it is also an un-falsifiable hypothesis, a key requirement of any scientific theory. If lots of rain, no rain at all, cold temperatures and hot temperatures are all evidence of climate change, what could we observe that would disprove Flannery’s theory

    http://ipa.org.au/publications/1888/tim-flannery-climate-prophet

  78. In 2007 in the New Scientist, Tim Flannery predicted:

    Over the past 50 years southern Australia has lost about 20 per cent of its rainfall, and one cause is almost certainly global warming. Similar losses have been experienced in eastern Australia, and although the science is less certain it is probable that global warming is behind these losses too. But by far the most dangerous trend is the decline in the flow of Australian rivers: it has fallen by around 70 per cent in recent decades, so dams no longer fill even when it does rain. Growing evidence suggests that hotter soils, caused directly by global warming, have increased evaporation and transpiration and that the change is permanent. I believe the first thing Australians need to do is to stop worrying about “the drought” – which is transient – and start talking about the new climate.

    While the populated east and south of Australia have parched, rainfall has increased in the north-west. This has prompted some politicians to call for development of the north, including massive schemes for dams and pipelines. Some have even called for a large-scale shift of population to follow the rain. Yet computer models indicate that the increased rainfall is most likely caused by the Asian haze, which has pushed the monsoon south. This means that as Asia cleans up its air, Australia is likely to lose its northern rainfall. Australians need to leave behind their dreams of opening a new frontier and focus on making the best of the water remaining to them where they live today.

    To achieve this, much has to be done. Industry, power plants, farmers and households pay too little for their water, so they waste it. Water thrift is an absolute prerequisite for life in the new climate. The country also needs to shift to a new energy economy. Australia’s coal-fired power plants consume around 2 tonnes of water – for cooling and steam generation – for every megawatt-hour they produce. They also emit much of the CO2 that is the ultimate cause of the drying. Dwindling water supplies are raising the price of electricity, and to avoid an economic and environmental disaster the old coal clunkers need to be closed as quickly as possible and replaced with cleaner, less thirsty means of power generation. These could include geothermal, solar thermal, solar, wind or wave energy, and possibly clean coal.

    Australia needs to design and build an irrigation system fit for the 21st century. It is tempting is to try to fix the existing system, but that is hopeless. The country needs to move to highly efficient irrigation and to think laterally about water use. As the climate becomes more variable it may make sense, for example, to plant rice and cotton during the odd wet year, rather than persist with permanent plantings of grape, citrus and so on, which need water year-round.

    The cities need drought-proofing by, for example, installing water tanks in all dwellings that can accept them. Because in affected areas the decline in river flow is three times that in rainfall, water tanks that use roofs as catchments are now far more effective than dams for supplying drinking water in cities such as Sydney and Brisbane. Recycling can help too. This needs new investment and in some instances will require state government water monopolies to be broken up. It will cost more, but the benefits in terms of water security and recapture of nutrients in solid wastes are immense.

    Desalination plants can provide insurance against drought. In Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane, water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months. Of course, these plants should be supplied by zero-carbon power sources.

    Last, but by no means least, Australia must ratify the Kyoto protocol and agitate globally for a swift and decisive reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Our best theories show that Australia is suffering early and disproportionately from climate change. As one of the two renegade developed nations not to have ratified the treaty (the other is the US), and as the world’s worst per capita emitter of CO2, some may say that Australia deserves its fate. If it is to save itself from even more severe climate impacts the country needs to change its ways, and fast.

    So you can see that, along with others, Flannery indeed influenced Governments to abandon dams, build desalination plants and stop planning for a future in Australia with rainfall.

    He may not have deliberately lied, but he certainly made incorrect, if not false, predictions of doom.

    And this on the record in the New Scientist, so not a right wing conspiracy, and nothing to do with Andrew Bolt, or any other critic, who merely reported what Flannery himself stated.

  79. Slippery when wet

    FIVE years ago, Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery predicted that the nation’s dams would never be full again and major Australian cities would need desalination plants to cater for our water needs.

    Yesterday, in his latest report, he said “climate change cannot be ruled out” as a factor in recent flooding rains, which led to some of those dams overflowing.

    The apparent contradiction accompanies predictions that heatwaves, made worse by concrete, asphalt and buildings, will cause deaths and violence in western Sydney.

    And just weeks before the carbon tax is due to come into effect and drive up electricity prices by 10 per cent, Professor Flannery’s fellow commissioner Lesley Hughes said elderly people who cannot afford airconditioning were most at risk from the surge in temperatures [This is despicable fear mongering (Ed.)].

    Other claims in the report include that Sydney Airport will be flooded by a 1.1m sea level rise and catastrophic bushfires will happen more often.

    Professor Flannery was quizzed at a press conference to launch the report yesterday on whether people would believe the latest round of predictions or if he thought some of his past predictions about rainfall and dams had been wrong.

    “I’ve been really consistent with what I’ve said, which is that we’ve got a water problem in this country,” he said.

    “It’s a land of drought and flooding rains. Just because we’ve had a few wet years doesn’t mean that the problem is solved.”

    In 2007, he claimed Sydney, Adelaide and Brisbane urgently needed desalination plants because rainfall levels were not enough to fill dams.

    Despite recent floods, the commission says droughts and excess rains will persist with Australia’s south getting drier.

    Professor Flannery blamed the GFC for any waning of public support for climate action but he believed people still felt strongly about the issue.

    “People have got immediate short term concerns,” he said. “Quite rightly, they’re front of mind for most people.

    “It doesn’t mean they give away the long term issues they’ve got to deal with.”

    Fellow commissioner Will Steffen said there had been “a lot of confusion and misinformation” and he likened the climate to being on “steroids” and said droughts and rain events in future would be more severe.

    That’s probably enough to show that Flannery has not been an accurate prophet of doom in regard to Australia’s recent weather and whether it is due o climate change or if it is merely because Australia is, well, a drought affected country which is predominantly desert because, yes, you guessed it, Australia is a drought prone country.

    So now you can apologise, Bones, but I bet you don’t. Instead you’ll find a way to defend Flannery because you too need a champion for your cause and he is by far the media star of doom prediction.

    But Flannery wasn’t the only doomsayer. Bob Brown was, in his heyday, a mega performer, turning he Greens into a real force, who is notoriously on the record as saying ‘the drought might never break’, just to gain a few more scare votes in the election which virtually made him surrogate PM as he infamously cut a carbon tax deal with JG and the Green Socialists formerly known as the Labor Party, even though JG had said her Government would never do it.

    Then there was Phil Jones, famously caught out trying to get his ‘peers’ (LOL) to help fudge the figures to drive up sentiment and force Governments to continue funding their projects.

    And Wil Steffen, Flannery’s right hand man. Clive Hamilton.

    Bones.

  80. Oh yeah the Holy Trinity – Bolt, the IPA and Gemma Jones

    Flannery hits back at IPA polling on his credibility

    Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery has dismissed a Daily Telegraph story attacking his credibility on global warming as “laughable”.

    The five-par “exclusive” appeared on page 10 of the nation’s second-biggest selling weekday tabloid. In it, reporter Gemma Jones cited a recent Galaxy poll of 1051 Australians paid for by the Institute of Public Affairs.

    However, the actual findings of the Galaxy Poll, taken two weeks ago and flicked to Crikey by the conservative think tank, show that a different interpretation would have produced a very different story.

    “I don’t think it was an example of balanced reporting,” Flannery told Crikey. “You just have to accept these things after awhile. I don’t think it’s funny, I just think it’s laughable.”

    Under the headline: “Tim Flannery’s like the weather: unreliable”, Jones pointed out that “a quarter” of Australians thought Flannery was unreliable. “Less than a third”, found him somewhat or very reliable, she said.

    A strange angle, you’d think, given that more people found Flannery reliable (31%) than unreliable (24%). A killer quote from Melbourne University young Liberal warrior-turned IPA researcher James Paterson was included, criticising Flannery for “regularly making predictions that have turned out to be false”.

    Flannery was permitted a short closing response on the need to focus on facts not opinion.

    Galaxy also took a different view.

    “Opinion on the reliability of Tim Flannery as a source of information about climate change is divided,” Galaxy explained in its “Main Findings” section.

    The reason? More people actually found him reliable (31%) than unreliable (24%). A crucial additional fact from the survey went unreported. The greatest number, 45%, were uncommitted.

    Galaxy explains: “A sizeable minority (45%) are uncommitted. This will include those not sure how reliable he is as a source of information as well as those who don’t know who he is.”

    So, 76% of respondents had either a positive or neutral opinion of Flannery.

    Jones’ lede took the minority perspective:

    A QUARTER of Australians say Tim Flannery is an unreliable source of information about climate change, a new survey reveals.

    And, what about the headline (albeit probably not written by Jones): “Tim Flannery’s like the weather: unreliable”. A more accurate summation might have emphasised an opposite or neutral view, perhaps employing Galaxy’s key word “divided”.

    Galaxy research director Peter Matthew explained that the limited scope of the poll appeared to be the result of ”…someone who’s just wanted to get a point or a headline inserted into an omnibus”. There was a second question attached to the survey asking whether anthropogenic climate change was real, as previously reported here on the IPA website.

    “Only a third of Australians think the world is warming and humans are to blame, according to a Galaxy poll commissioned by the free market think tank the Institute of Public Affairs.”

    An alternative reading of the data would show that, in fact, more respondents agreed with the statement saying humans were to blame (34%) than an alternative proposition that variations in global temperature are “just part of the natural cycle of nature” (29%). Thirty-six percent there was conflicting evidence and they did not know what the truth was.

    The Daily Telegraph has been dining out on the IPA’s scoops in recent weeks.

    On March 13, Jones was responsible for this story using a few quotes from an academic on university website The Conversation to question whether Flannery’s predictions of a “drying trend” chafed with instances of recent rainfall. Flannery’s Commission protested that the newspaper was getting confused between climate and weather.

    On March 20, the Tele ran with this IPA-Galaxy survey reporting that New South Welshman were concerned about electricity prices ahead of the carbon tax, which according to ABC Drum favourite and Baillieu government election night partier Tim Wilson, would increase prices from July 1.

    The IPA’s John Roskam told Crikey this morning “that he didn’t have a view one way or another” on the merits of Jones’ reporting.

    “But I am sure you have a view on this Andrew and I’m sure I will read all about it at about 1pm today,” he said.

    According to a Canberra colleague, Jones is now on “three weeks leave” and could not be contacted. Daily Telegraph editor Paul Whittaker did not respond to a request for comment before deadline.

    http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/04/02/flannery-hits-back-at-ipa-polling-on-his-credibility/

  81. Jones was on a witch hunt for Flannery’s head.

    As for the IPA

    The Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) is a public policy think tank[1] based in Melbourne, Australia. It advocates free market economic policies such as privatisation and deregulation of state-owned enterprises, trade liberalisation and deregulated workplaces, climate change skepticism (through its environmental subsidiary the Australian Environment Foundation), and the accountability of non-government organisations (NGOs).[citation needed] In its own words, the Institute believes in “the free market of ideas, the free flow of capital, a limited and efficient government, the rule of law, and representative democracy.”[2]

    Funding

    The IPA funded by its membership which include both private individuals and businesses. Among these businesses are ExxonMobil,[4] Telstra, WMC Resources, BHP Billiton, Phillip Morris,[5] Murray Irrigation Limited,[6] and Visy Industries.

    IPA donors have also included Clough Engineering, Caltex, Shell and Esso.[7] Other donors were electricity and mining companies, as well as British American Tobacco (BAT).[7]

    In 2003, the Australian Government paid $50,000 to the Institute of Public Affairs to review the accountability of NGOs.[8][9

    Position on smoking

    The IPA has been critical of scientific research on the dangers of passive smoking. A paper published by the IPA in 1996 described a major report of the National Health and Medical Research Council as “incoherent”, “corrupt” and “incompetent”.[12]

    The IPA has made the following criticisms proposals by the Australian government to introduce plain packaging of tobacco products:

    Plain packaging may not affect the consumption of those products and [13][note 1]
    Plain packaging may infringe intellectual property rights in tobacco trademarks and logos.

    Position on climate change and environmental issues

    The IPA adopts a position of climate change scepticism and supports most Australian climate sceptics.[14] The IPA supports elements of climate change science, including some link between the use of fossil fuels and rising carbon dioxide levels, however it also disagrees with certain aspects of climate theories[citation needed]. Former staff member Jennifer Marohasy supports the view that many environmental issues, including climate change, are exaggerated, and that green groups promote solutions that ultimately do not benefit society.[15]

    In 2008, the institute facilitated a donation of $350,000 by Dr G. Bryant Macfie, a climate change sceptic, to the University of Queensland for environmental research. The money is to fund three environmental doctoral projects, with the IPA suggesting two of the three agreed topics.[16]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Public_Affairs

  82. Free radicals

    When Tony Abbott compares you to Jesus Christ, you know you’re doing something right. In April, the one-time trainee priest likened the political clout of John Roskam and the free market think tank he heads, the Institute of Public Affairs, to that of the son of God and his disciples.

    He was addressing the institute’s 70th anniversary dinner in April, attended by the likes of Rupert Murdoch, Gina Rinehart and Archbishop George Pell.
    ”John, you’ve done very well with just 20 staff – but remember what Jesus of Nazareth did with just 12 and one of them turned out to be a rat.”

    It is doubtful that any other political organisation in Australia, outside the mainstream parties, currently attracts such weighty political and financial support, or enjoys such a high-public profile.

    Important to this strategy is the demonising of opponents and the use of put downs like ”the genocide industry” to dismiss academics concerned with indigenous issues and the stolen generation. Cahill says Howard-government favourite terms like ”political correctness” and ”elites” were ”incubated” within conservative think tanks during the 1980s and 1990s.

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/free-radicals-20130824-2sik1.html#ixzz2gEnpsCBs

  83. Tim Flannery – a victim of a right wing smear campaign to discredit him and climate change science (Part 2)

    Flannery The Fundamentalist

    A second smear against Flannery is that he is untrustworthy, indeed irrational religious kook, because he believes that the Planet Earth is a living God or self-aware entity named Gaia. The right-wing Australian smear think tank ‘Institute For Public Affairs’ published an article concentrating on this smear some time ago. The undated article written by James Paterson, their Director of Communications, is entitled Tim Flannery, Climate Prophet. Paterson wrote:

    “When appearing on the ABC’s Science Show in January this year, Flannery said: ‘This planet, this Gaia, will have acquired a brain and a nervous system. That will make it act as a living animal, as a living organism, at some sort of level.’

    To be fair, Flannery is not the only scientist to embrace the kooky theory that Gaia has human properties.”

    Paterson thus states that Flannery believes the planet Earth has a brain and nervous system. Flannery does not believe this. Paterson is guilty of lazy research here, but his overall objective is to paint Flannery as a crackpot so I doubt he was trying very hard to genuinely understand Flannery’s conception of the Gaia hypothesis.

    In fact, Flannery does not think that the Earth has a brain or nervous system. What Flannery says is that human beings, really scientists, constitute the Earth’s metaphorical or virtual brain and that the Internet has the capacity to constitute the Earth’s metaphorical or virtual nervous system and that therefore humans may potentially be able regulate the Earth’s eco-systems via planet-wide computer networks and other technologies. In other words Flannery’s view of the ‘strong Gaia’ is technocratic and scientific, not religious.

    Really James Paterson should be ashamed of smearing Flannery in such a way. It reflects badly on both himself and the IPA and lessens its credibility as a serious researching entity.

    Here is Flannery explaining his Gaia hypothesis to Robert Manne at Latrobe University 4th June 2009

    Robert Manne:
    I wondered first for the audience if you could give a reasonable succinct view of what [James Lovelock’s] conception of Gaia is and then I want to talk about your book a bit in regard to that.

    Tim Flannery:
    […] Just over the last decade Gaia is on the threshold of acquiring a brain and that’s happened because the internet and changes in human society have for the first time ever, allowed us theoretically to deliver a single, strong message to Gaia, what we want from Gaia. And also, after four billion years, we have got now the intelligence to see Gaia from space and to actually enhance its working parts…

    Robert Manne:
    Is what you’re saying then, that human beings have to somehow become the regulator? Of processes that once we were not able to control or didn’t feel the need to control or whatever?

    Tim Flannery:
    By virtue of the process of evolution humans are destined to become the regulator.

    Robert Manne:
    And it connects, doesn’t it, to this idea of yours which is the capacity of human beings now to see what has to be done and to do it. Is that it?

    Tim Flannery:
    That’s right and it’s already happening. It’s not like this is theoretic. We actually have built a system now that allows us to send a single strong message to the part of the carbon cycle we want to deal with.

    Flannery The Alarmist

    The same IPCC article decries Flannery as an alarmist by stating that his predictions on climate events have been wildy astray. This ‘alarmist’ meme is dominant in the denialist commentariat in regards to Flannery so I will use Paterson’s article as representative of the willing distortions directed at Flannery.

    25 Metre Sea Level Rise

    Paterson ridicules Flannery for approvingly quoting NASA’s James Hanson on the possibility of a 25 metre sea-level rise due to catastrophic ice melt and notes that such an eventuality would take thousands of years to materialise given current melt rates.

    Unfortunately Paterson does not realise that Flannery agrees that such a change could take hundreds or thousands of years to eventuate and so has misrepresented Flannery as stating 25 metre sea level rise is imminent.

    Of course Hanson’s actual prediction is based on Earth’s millenia-long climate history and anticipates that timeframe for its realisation, but Paterson ignores that to pretend hanson and Flannery is warning of an imminent, practically immediate, 25 metre rise in sea levels.

    Cities Running Out Of Water

    Paterson spends some time running through a list of Australian cities Paterson claims that Flannery predicts were destined for imminent catastrophe, but which of course still survive. In this Paterson attempts to portray Flannery as a kooky, Gaia-fundamentalist doomsday prophet.

    Paterson wrote:

    In 2004 [Flannery] predicted that ‘Perth will be the 21st century’s first ghost metropolis.’ The following year, he said that Sydney could run out of water in as little as two years.

    Undaunted by that botched prediction, he tried again in 2007, saying Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane would ‘need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months.’

    Undeterred by their failure to dry-out, Flannery was at it again in 2008, arguing that ‘the water problem for Adelaide is so severe that it may run out of water by early 2009.’ Of course, even amid a severe drought, none of these cities have met Flannery’s doomsday scenarios.

    Perth

    Paterson plainly states that since Perth had not become a ‘ghost metropolis’ (in Flannery’s words) at the time of his article, then Flannery’s statement about Perth was kooky doomsday alarmism.

    Paterson knows, however, that Flannery was not expecting immediate or imminent abandonment of Perth, but rather that he was describing a long-term step-trend of declining rainfall and water catchment. Flannery was not predicting, contra Paterson, the destruction of Perth within 5 or 6 years. The actual time-frame of his comments was 50 years. From the article to which Paterson refers:

    [Flannery] said climate change tended to move in steps. In 1976, when the first step occurred, the south-western corner of Western Australia lost 20 per cent of its rainfall, and its catchment fell from 340 gigalitres to 111 gigalitres…In 1998, when the second step occurred, the world experienced the worst El Nino effect

    Notice that Flannery describes Perth experiencing step-wise increases in climate change induced phenonema with two step experiences so far and 22 years between each step. On that trend we might experience a third step in approx 2020 and a fourth in 2042 with perhaps a fifth to knock Perth out in 2064. That would indicate a timeline of about 50 years from Flannery’s comments.

    Paterson flatly misrepresents Flannery, artificially imposing a 5 or 6 year time scale, merely to better paint Flannery as a crackpot.

    Of course, Flannery’s statements about the step trend decline in Perth’s water catchment and the inevitability of its exhaustion are fully supported by rainfall and catchment data (i.e. the real world) and by Perth’s city planners including Liberal Premier Colin Barnett. See here.

    Sydney

    According to Paterson Flannery in 2005 said that Sydney could run out of water in as little as two years.. Flannery did not say this. What he said on ABC’s Lateline on 10th June 2005 was that if the prevailing drought conditions persisted then Sydney would have ‘extreme difficulties with water’

    TIM FLANNERY: Well, the worst-case scenario for Sydney is that the climate that’s existed for the last seven years continues for another two years. In that case, Sydney will be facing extreme difficulties with water

    This is in consonance with his 2004 statement, made at the same time as his comments on Perth, that by approx. 2050 Sydney would have 60% less water.

    The next 50 years offer Sydney the last chance to avoid catastrophic climate change that would devastate south-eastern Australia, the scientist Tim Flannery has warned.

    Speaking last night at the State Government’s Sydney Futures forum, Dr Flannery warned of a city grappling with up to 60 per cent less water.

    Again, Paterson flatly misrepresents Flannery merely to better paint him as a crackpot.

    Brisbane, Adelaide

    John Dawson, writing in Quadrant in August 2011, drew heavily on Paterson’s article in framing up Flannery in exactly the same terms as Paterson. Dawson a quote from Flannery in May 2007 where Flannery remarked that Brisbane and Adelaide could run out of water by the end of 2007. Since those cities did not run out of water by the end of 2007, Dawson characterises Flannery as an idiot doomsday alarmist.

    Unfortunately for the credibility of Dawson and Paterson, Flannery was correct in his statements. In April 2007 Adelaide had 40 days of normal unrestricted usage available in its dams, an amount which could be extended to 30 weeks with restrictions. Seven months of restricted usage from the end of April means water supplies would be exhausted by yesr end 2007, just as Flannery said.

    The source of this data is Professor Cullen of the Wentworth Group Of Concerned Scientists, speaking on ABC’s AM program April 21, 2007 “Adelaiade’s Water Supply Drying Up”

    From the AM transcript:

    NANCE HAXTON (AM): Adelaide’s water supply has now reached an unprecedented tipping point.

    PETER CULLEN: Historically we’ve never seen anything like this, and this is the second year that we’ve had it. I mean, last year was the lowest inflows to the Murray on record, and I don’t think any of us thought we’d have one as low as that again. This one could be as low as last year again.

    So the system is virtually empty.

    NANCE HAXTON: Traditionally, Adelaide has sourced its water in varying proportions from the River Murray and the Mt Lofty Ranges. If one of those areas was suffering drought, the other source would be relied on more.

    […]

    PETER CULLEN: You only have 40 days’ storages, because you always have had a reliable supply from the Murray, and so all the time you’ve been pumping from the Murray you don’t have to store a huge amount, so you haven’t got a big dam that you can sort of fill up or whatever. Now, if the Murray goes off then you have about 40 days left.

    The portrayal of denialists like Dawson, Paterson and Bolt is that Flannery was saying ‘by years end the water will definitely all be gone and never return’. Of course, Flannery never said this. He said, ‘the situation is dire’ and recommends the construction of desalination plants to secure water supply. Denialists like Dawson can only sustain their ridicule of Flannery by deliberately twisting his words. Regrettably for the denialists, Flannery’s statements are firmly based in fact.

    Campbell Newman Agreed With Flannery

    And so it is with Brisbane. Contrary to Dawson and Paterson’s childish caricatures of Flannery as a hair-shirted lunatic who think that the Planet Earth is a gigantic human being, Brisbane’s water issues in 2007 were, as Flannery said, dire.

    In this he had the agreement of all those responsible for Queensland’s water supply naturally including the Queensland Water Commission. In March 2007 the QWC forecast dam holdings of 5% by year end. Said then Premier Anna Bligh,

    “I am advised by the Commission that, with the assistance of level 5 restrictions, we will have five per cent dam levels in December 2008…”

    Dawson, Bolt and Paterson choose to elide all of the above from the record, and what is elided is that all experts, all water consumption and dam inflow data, the actual real-life situation facing Brisbane was exactly what Flannery said it was.

    In April 2007 South-East Queensland existed on Level 5 Water restrictions and dams were down to 20% capacity. This fell to 17% in August 2007. Level 6 water restrictions were enforced from 23 November 2007 with the Queensland Water Commission observing a significant threat to sustainable and secure water supply in the South Eastern Queensland region because of extended severe drought conditions.

    According to a certain Lord Mayor Campbell Newman it was the worst water supply crisis in living memory. Said Mr Newman,

    Cr Newman said the cost of the drought was outpacing the cost of the North-South Bypass Tunnel – part of the TransApex bridge and tunnel scheme – as Brisbane poured hundreds of millions of dollars into water infrastructure.

    He said water infrastructure projects were costing over $700 million.

    “We have no option but to fund these water initiatives due to the water crisis,” Cr Newman said.

    Ivory Tower Denialism

    Bolt, Dawson and Paterson isolated and insulated in their Ivory Towers, content and well-fed in their chosen occupations as disseminators of absurd propaganda are freed from the real-life concerns of actually supplying water to a major city.

    Mr. Newman, unlike them had real responsibilities to attend to, and acting on the same reality as described by Tim Flannery, took concrete actions to secure Brisbane’s water supply, committing the gigantic sum of $700 million to address what all were plainly experiencing as a crisis.

    In this Newman acted in consonance with others for whom planning and securing the well-being of real-life humans was part of their job, the like-minded being Flannery as Climate Change Commissioner, the numerous Shire Council Mayors and the scientists of the CSIRO.

    Flannery and Campbell were working from the same set of facts: a crisis requiring response. Which is why Flannery said, so absurdly reviled by Bolt:

    “In Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane, water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months.”

    Please note the difference between that statement by Flannery and Bolt’s block-headed distortion of it which was:

    In 2007, Flannery predicted cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains

    Wrapping Up

    We could continue to debunk the denialists slurs directed at Flannery but, in short, here is the story:

    Flannery describes long-term trends which denialists willingly distort as as immediate statements about the present then excoriate Flannery because the present does not correspond to their distortions.

    Flannery never said dams would never fill again.

    What Flannery said was that in the long-term, commencing in about 2040, the normal rainfall situation will be that of long-term water shortage. Naturally this excludes floods and occasional wet years.

    The IPCC’s climate change modelling predicts an increase in heavy rainfall events along with normalised hotter temperatures i.e. its a more extreme climate with both more intense droughts and more intense rainfall.

    Flannery’s remarks about the water situations in Australian cities were to the effect that the water situation of those cities was dire and would continue to be precarious in to the future. He did not say that Australian cities would run out of water and never have water again. He did recommend desalination plants as a means of securing water supply.

    Those remarks were supported by all data, all experts and represent the truth about the the water situation in Australian cities at that time.

    Flannery never said it would never flood again.

    Flannery is not a religious devotee of Gaia.

    In short Bolt, Dawson and Paterson (and Steve) enagage in systematic and deliberate untruths about Flannery and it is they who merit portrayal as hair-shirted religious lunatics, not him.

    The denialists are attempting to defend their entrenched anti-Green and/or knee-jerk anti-regulatory ideologies by the basic strategy of character assassination of Flannery. To do so they distort Flannery’s statements, ridicule him without foundation and ignore sound science. Their campaign would be pitiable if it were not so destructive.

    http://indifferencegivesyouafright.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/tim-flannery-did-not-say-australias-dams-would-never-fill-again/

  84. In short Bolt, Dawson and Paterson (and Steve) enagage in systematic and deliberate untruths about Flannery and it is they who merit portrayal as hair-shirted religious lunatics, not him.

    Proverbs 10:18

    The one who conceals hatred has lying lips, and whoever utters slander is a fool.

    Psalm 101:5

    Whoever slanders his neighbor secretly I will destroy. Whoever has a haughty look and an arrogant heart I will not endure.

    1 Peter 2:1

    So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander.

    Proverbs 16:28

    A dishonest man spreads strife, and a whisperer separates close friends.

    Exodus 20:16

    “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

    Titus 3:2

    To speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people.

    Exodus 23:1

    “You shall not spread a false report. You shall not join hands with a wicked man to be a malicious witness.

    1 Peter 3:10

    For “Whoever desires to love life and see good days, let him keep his tongue from evil and his lips from speaking deceit;

    Matthew 7:12

    “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

    Luke 6:45

    The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.

    Mark 7:20-23

    And Jesus said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”

    Proverbs 20:19

    Whoever goes about slandering reveals secrets; therefore do not associate with a simple babbler.

    Psalm 50:20

    You sit and speak against your brother; you slander your own mother’s son.

    Proverbs 11:9

    With his mouth the godless man would destroy his neighbor, but by knowledge the righteous are delivered.

    2 Timothy 3:1-5

    But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people.

    Colossians 3:8

    But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth.

    Romans 1:30

    Slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,

    That’ll do.

    Is it just me or does the Bible rail more against slander than homosexuality.

  85. You can yadayadaall you want, bones. I’ve shown where Tim urged Brisbane to build desalination plants because there would be no more water after 18 months, and how he recommended other cities take precautions, including abandoning building dams. He said it was all Australia’s own fault. He was scare-monging.

    I showed you from his own writing in the New Scientist. His own words. His own thinking. It was without doubt his strategy to frighten governments and people into action, and he was criticised for when the rains came in such abundance.

    Your attempts at a personal attack on my character are nothing more than the same kind of falsehood.

    And how useful are the desalination plants that re costing you hundreds of thousands of dollars a week to maintain?

    The only hope you have of seeing them work is if the drought ever strikes in the same way, which it might, but for now a couple of dams around the country could have served much Bette and cost far less.

    You are busted.

  86. FMD, your lies are all over this thread. You have used this forum to spread lies and propaganda all because of your political and theological views to attack someone esle’s character, And you show yourself as a gutless wonder relying on the propaganda of the right. A true gutter snipe who slanders others because of their politics. A true hypocrite who sulks in the corner when anyone questions his false prophet master.

    Wasn’t Tim (no more flooding rain for Perth, Adelaide or Brisbane) Flannery

    He never said that there would be no more flooding rain in Perth, Adelaide or Brisbane.

    And you, of all people, should be questioning why Flannery convinced people Queensland would never again see flooding rains…

    He never said that.

    Were any of Tim (old bone digger not climate scientist) Flannery’s predictions in any way remotely close to real outcomes?

    Yes they were.

    Could he not have the tag ‘false prophet’ accurately pinned to his door?

    No, given that many times he wasn’t talking about the immediate future but about 50 years time. That title goes to your master Dr Phil.

    I am against fudgers like Flannery

    No evidence. Just personal attack. You imply that all scientists who believe in manmade climate change are dishonest. A lie.

    And Flannery brings his religion into the equation …

    No, that’s just another reason your seeking to slander him. Flannery’s view of the ‘strong Gaia’ is technocratic and scientific, not religious.

    You’ve shown yourself to be a vile individual who delights in pulling others down using misinformation spread mainly from the Right.

    Your words reveal you to be a liar.

  87. The moderator seems to tolerate lies.

    Shouldn’t you be worrying about Islamic terrorists and what gays do with their penises than harsh words.

  88. It was a joke joyce. I was actually pleased at your choice of words.

    And yes, I am much more worried about Islamic terrorists. Gays? I probably can’t stop them doing what they want with their bodies, but as long as you keep it to yourself I won’t even know about it.

    “True gutter snipe” is a welcome change. Keep it up Bones. (no pun intended)

  89. Get a grip, Bones.

    Mr Flattery was certainly involved in presenting a strong case for climate change and in so doing claimed that the drought we had was evidence of climate change, and the drought was in for long term, giving Brisbane 18 months to build alternative water sources to the rain as a result extreme weather conditions brought on by climate change which would prolong drought indefinitely, when, in fact, if you study weather patterns recorded for Australia, it was more the norm than the exception.

    I remember checking out the historical geographical maps of Australia six or seven years ago when Tim was predicting doom on just about every media outlet, and wondering what on earth he was going on about when it was as clear as day that it would, by the law of averages for Australia, be a matter of time before the drought broke. It was moving in eight to ten year cycles in some regions. I don’t remember off the top of my head the exact figures, but I saw that it was not unusual for the Australian dry regions to experience drought for a number of years.

    The reason I was looking was also crucial. We were in Darwin and facing yet another cyclone and I was following the weather patterns. It occurred to me, and I’m just a casual observer, that the notion that the drought might never break, as Bob Brown was claiming, was ludicrous if you just spent an hour or so looking at the actual weather patterns.

    There were several scareists announcing the end of the world as we know it if Australia doesn’t get rid of the coal and the industry and the cows which fart and all kinds of fearmonging stuff being touted on the ABC and in the Age, and by the then Government, with the cartoonists having a field day. Mr Flattery was the rising star, along with Bob Brown, and the favourite go-to, so I know what was being put across, and so do you if you’re honest.

    As Christians we were praying for rain. We held mass meetings in our city for rain. Others were praying for rain. Mass repentance for sins was going on. All kinds of Christian activity during this time.

    And Mr Flattery was given TV series about a couple of blokes in a tinny, and heaps of coverage and was the prime articulator of no rain, we’re all stuffed.

    You can soften it all up all you want, Bones, but those of us who are not history benders, who watched the prophecies of long term, maybe forever, evidence of climate change drought in Australia know who was causing Governments to switch from building sensible dams, especially in Victoria, NSW and Queensland, to desalination plants at great expense, and all the other alternative power projects funded by tax payers on schemes none of which have succeeded.

    The only sensible place for desalination plants was WA after they decided not to pipe the water from the massive Ord River systems down to the South.

    I remember flying over the nation a couple of times from West to East and looking down at the great dried up waterways created over time by occasional flooding rains, the marks of rivers which only flow when the floods come after cyclones and big rains. It was a clear as day.

    And Flattery flew the same air routes. He must have known. He must have seen.

    This is a dry land with sparse green areas on the coasts, and a history of the deserts being carved out, after years of drought, into massive rivers and lakes from North to South, East and West. The very geography of areas from Far North Queensland to NSW should tell you. I was once caught in Winton in the middle of Queensland after a cyclone dropped an ocean of rain on Far North Queensland and the waters were almost upon us after a single day. That is immense, and in the middle of a dry, deadly wilderness.

    Just as the below sea level trench dug by floodwaters from Arnhemland to Katherine in NT should tell you it is prone to flooding and has been for thousands of years.

    Yet, even though he must have some knowledge of geology and the lay of the land, he continued to criss cross the nation on radio and TV stations telling people climate change is here, and not to live by the coast because the sea levels would be so high they’d lose their homes, and that even when the rains came if they did it would still not be enough to stop he climate change and Australia was doomed. OK that’s a paraphrase, but I don’t care anymore, that’s the gist of what the man was saying, and if you deny it you’re more of a fool than I already think you are.

    You forget, Bones, that I was there too, in the Great Southern Land, hearing the doomsayers and looking at the history of this great continent, and knowing the rain would come sooner or later.

    And it did. And were we ready for it? The hell we were. Did we catch it in major dams? No. Why? Because Governments were talked out of it. The existing dams almost burst with the flows when they came. God only knows what a disaster would have ensued if the Brisbane dam had burst after the Yassi floods. Shortsighted, distracted, naive politicians listened to the scareists and the dams were left on the edge.

    I remember a TV program with Tim and a few others standing on some dried out dam saying it was the end of dams. Only that radio bloke Jones you have an issue with was saying, ‘No, the rains will come, and we need to be ready for them, we owe it to our kids to be ready for the floods when they come again, because that is what Australia is like, drought and flood cycles’, and the scareists scoffed.

    This is Australia, Bones. Most of which is desert. It’s hot and barren on many areas, prone to drought and flood. There are songs about it, Bones.

    Everyone knew but the Greens, Bob Brown and Tim Flattery.

    And, apparently, you.

    You’re an accuser, Bones. A finger pointer of the highest order. I disagree with you over Mr Flattery. He was certainly doing his utmost to tell us all that the drought was in for good. He was wrong.

    So are you.

  90. You’re a liar. And a slanderer.

    According to your view of the Bible your going to the same place as Muslims and practicing gays.

    But yeah you love Tim Flattery so much you lie about him. Which is your standard modus operandi.

    You have nil credibility on anything.

    The biggest doomsayer here is you. Oooh the gays are getting married, it’s the end of marriage!! Gays are going to have churches closed!!! The Muslims are gonna take over the world!!!

    Evidence based climate. Pfffft. All lies and God’ll take care of that.

    F**king hypocrite.

  91. “Oooh the gays are getting married, it’s the end of marriage!! Gays are going to have churches closed!!! The Muslims are gonna take over the world!!!”

    Not addesses at me, but I’ll comment. Conservatives don’t think it’s the end of marriage. But we see it as not a good thing, and that marriage should be preserved.

    Free sex, people living together outside of marriage, easy divorce, choosing to have children outside of marriage – all of these were seen as being detrimental to men, women, children and society.

    And they were and are.

    As for the Muslims, I heard someone in a charismatic church talking about the future problem with Muslims 20 years ago. I didn’t really get what he was on about.

    Now, atheists, Buddhists and caluthumpians are wondering what to do about Islamic terrorism.

    But, Steve explained himself in quite a long post. You acted as if you didn’t even read it.

    Bad form Mr Bones.

  92. Not surprised you’re here defending your mate’s slander who is just a mouthpiece of the Murdoch Press.

    Well that’s disappointing.

    No Muslims or gays to pick on here.

  93. That’s what I mean about Bones. He makes false assertions and claims about people which are far removed from reality because he doesn’t actually read what they write, so, to sustain his own bitter argument, he makes up stuff about them and ends up believing his own press.

    I don’t know what the word is to describe that kind of person.

    Maybe he just wants someone to lash out at to ease the pain of his own world of doubts.

    I’m sorry I called him Mr Flattery, Bones. It seemed to fit in a lightly satyrical way, but we don’t want to offend anyone as sensitive as you about your chief prophet, do we? Maybe you could stop saying Hill$ong, too.

  94. That’s what I mean about Steve. He makes false assertions and claims about people which are far removed from reality because he doesn’t actually read what they write, so, to sustain his own bitter argument, he makes up stuff about them and ends up believing his own press.

    Then has the gall to turn around and say that he loves them.

    Makes me vomit.

  95. Q

    I don’t think there is a huge conspiracy on this one. And I also don’t think it’s necessary or wise for ministers to talk about it in churches.

    Obviously changed your tune.

    Or maybe you can educate Steve and Dr Phil.

    At the C3 Presence Conference 2012, Phil Pringle had a video made of himself about a ‘prophecy’ he spluttered on the 15th of June, 2008. In the video, C3 pitted Phil Pringle against the ‘voice of the media’ and Tim Flannery. However, the way they presented the information made it look as though Tim Flannery made the majority of the comments in support of the media. Here is a picture from the video:

    First off, C3 said this about Tim Flannery (3:00):

    “In 2005, [Snippet 4B background of ‘article’ appears behind Flannery] Professor Tim Flannery predicted that [snippet 1] Sydney’s dams could be empty in as little as two years due to global warming. [Snippet 2]

    Audio excerpt: “Mr Flannery has warned that Sydney will soon be facing extreme difficulties with water.”

    [Snippet 3] Climate change expert Tim Flannery has sad that even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill [Snippet 4A] Sydney’s dams and river systems. He’s also stated that we are running out of water [Snippet 5]– and time.”

    By reading the above transcript, we will demonstrate not only what is wrong with the 6 snippets but what is also untrue with the audio statements. Flannery did not say, “we are running out of water – and time”. Paul Sheehan did. Read ‘Snippet 1′ for more information.

    Flannery did not say that, “even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill Sydney’s dams and river systems”. While he said something like it – Flannery did not specify that these dams and river system were either Sydney’s dams and river systems or specifically Warragamba Dam. What’s even worse is that this is a quote taken out of context, which will be addressed in ‘Snippet 5′. At best, C3 misrepresented Tim Flannery (Chief Commissioner of the Government’s new Climate Commission), in front of thousands of Christians. Watch the video below at 2:57 to see the ‘prophecy’.

    http://c3churchwatch.com/tag/tim-flannery/

    Hmmmmm

    Dr Phil uses the same arguments that Steve the Peeve makes.

    Funny that.

  96. Oh dear, Bones brings his love child c3churchwatch into the discussion. That’s only one removed from Godwin’s law.

    What we really need is another pause in the climate, a pause from the hot air blasting from Bones.

    I had, of course, resisted any kind of exposé of c3churchwatch but bringing them into the equation certainly makes me trigger happy (metaphorically speaking). Nah. On second thoughts, they are their own best critics.

    You’ll find that the trouble with a name like Steve is that it doesn’t rhyme with many negatives, Bones, and, like most children, sooner or later we hear them all, but we tend to grow up from that kind of juvenile name calling once we are able to articulate ourselves without using expletives or rhyming names.

    Still, maybe you never grew up, eh.

    And imitation is a form of compliment and demonstrates either laziness or a lack of originality on your part. I expect you’ll reproduce this as well.

    You’re defence of Tim is busted. He remains a climate scariest and has just started the Climate Council so that he can continue the scare, so I expect to be able to produce more evidence as we go along.

    Have you donated to his cause yet.

    C3churchwatch! Lord help us,

  97. Whilst Bones levels all the usual accusations at my feet (his darts don’t have the carry to reach my head) I was researching a few things and came up with this exceptional address by Professor Ian Plimer given to the British Parliament two years ago.

    Now I know Bones will attack Plimer ruthlessly, and will look for all the disclamatory commentary he can find to discredit him, but I ask everyone else to take a look because he is actually a scientist, he is addressing a very learned group in the Parliament, which gives him peer credibility, and will ease the minds of those who have had their senses blasted over recent years by the likes of palaeontologist and amateur climatologist Tim Flannery (the one who is on the advisory board of Siemens who built the desalination plants).

    I published it because it is far closer to my understanding than Bones’ claims that I follow after Phil Pringle in understanding of whether it will rain or not. I don’t. I wasn’t at the meetings where he claimed to have prophesied rain, nor at meetings when he prophesied rain. Any resemblance to the way I think on it is coincidental. I understand that Bones will insult me and Phil in some way for saying this, but that is his problem not mine, nd nor Phil’s.

    However, I encourage independent thinkers to view the short youtube presentation because it is very well put and very well thought out by a highly respected geologist who knows how the earth has worked over the course of millions of years.

    I offer it, not necessarily as my total view, as I have only watched it once, but as a valid and viable alternative to the constant doomsday preaching of the climate scareists.

  98. This isn’t about climate change anymore. It’s about you being a cowardly liar. But you can’t get that through your bigotted hate-filled head.

    You aren’t squirming out of this you pathetic liar. You’re taking great delight out of paying out on Tim Flannery. Ooooh but I love him so much I lie about him.

    Wasn’t Tim (no more flooding rain for Perth, Adelaide or Brisbane) Flannery

    He never said that there would be no more flooding rain in Perth, Adelaide or Brisbane.

    And you, of all people, should be questioning why Flannery convinced people Queensland would never again see flooding rains…

    He never said that.

    Were any of Tim (old bone digger not climate scientist) Flannery’s predictions in any way remotely close to real outcomes?

    Yes they were.

    Could he not have the tag ‘false prophet’ accurately pinned to his door?

    No, given that many times he wasn’t talking about the immediate future but about 50 years time. That title goes to your master Dr Phil.

    I am against fudgers like Flannery

    No evidence. Just personal attack. You imply that all scientists who believe in manmade climate change are dishonest. A lie.

    And Flannery brings his religion into the equation …

    No, that’s just another reason your seeking to slander him. Flannery’s view of the ‘strong Gaia’ is technocratic and scientific, not religious.

    You’ve shown yourself to be a vile individual who delights in pulling others down using misinformation spread mainly from the Right.

    Your words reveal you to be a liar.

    C3ChurchWatch obviously has more integrity than you.

    C3 has no excuse for their distortion and misrepresentation of the facts. They are not afraid to mock, criticise and condemn bloggers and critics

    Yep that’s Steve.

    Slanderer. Diabolos.

    But yeah keep showing articles to try to deflect your behaviour you self-righteous arse.

  99. “I don’t think there is a huge conspiracy on this one. And I also don’t think it’s necessary or wise for ministers to talk about it in churches.

    Obviously changed your tune.”

    No I haven’t changed my tune. I can’t recall my saying anything about the climate debate.

    I said it was bad form of you to not have read Steve’s long post. WHat I think is better is when you rebuttted his points in the post two up from this.

    (btw I hadn’t heard about Flannery, and the debate about flooding, droughts, etc)

    My only point in this debate (which I don’t know a lot about, and don’t really feel strongly about – I’m more into people and behavior than rain), was that Steve gave a long explanation and you said you didn’t bother to read it. As one who copies and posts really long stuff that takes ages to keep up with I was disappointed that you didn’t bother to read something that Steve took the time to post.

    Given that this is basically between you and Steve, I’d be disappointed if he didn’t bother to read your post.

    I don’t have a dog in this fight.

  100. But given that you think I’ve changed my tune, I think that you don’t read posts on one hand, but you also dream up posts on the other.

  101. Q,
    Bones didn’t read my comment at all. The post three comments ago was repeat of one he put up on another thread. I refuted that one too.

    Bones is both misrepresenting my attitude and what I have said, and he’s being very aggressive n the way he is going about it.

    Mr Flannery is mostly renowned at the moment for having made predictions which were subsequently shown to be over-exaggerated. He, along with others, persuaded Governments to build desalination plants and not dams. He was an advisor to Siemens which builds desalination plants. Perhaps this was a coincidence and had no bearing on his thrust for desalination on=ver dams. Perhaps he only advised against dams because he thought… there would be no more flooding rains to fill them.

    The comment made which you are referring to stands. Bones hasn’t read it, nor has he rebutted it.

    He is busted.

  102. Bones, evidently, shifted the argument over here so that he can line himself up to be as aggressive and insulting as he choses without moderation. It makes you wonder at his character.

  103. Finally, Bones is attempting to create a hate file for future arguments he is losing by fabricating as much false information on his opponents as he can.

    It’s called malice aforethought.

  104. ” It makes you wonder at his character.”

    lol You’re still wondering?

    Nah, he’s just gets overly excited.

  105. It’s sickening that this preacher will accuse atheists, gays and Muslims when he himself can’t see his own sin.

    I have shown that Flannery never said the things that you accused him of (including being a pagan).

    He, along with others, persuaded Governments to build desalination plants and not dams.

    If you bothered to read my posts, I showed that governments at the time agreed with him. They were all facing extreme water shortages. Adelaide had 40 days of water in 2007. Newman said it was the worst water crisis in living memory.

    Those are the facts.

    Mark 7:20-23

    And Jesus said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”

    So if it’s ok for Steve to make up lies about someone, I think I’ll go watch some online porn.

  106. I’d be disappointed if he didn’t bother to read your post.

    He doesn’t.

    And neither does he reply to any points.

    If he did he’d show me where Flannery said there would be no more flooding rains, no more full dams, that he’s a pagan worshipping Gaia, that he ‘fudges’.

    He won’t and and he can’t.

    The best he can do is make fart noises and post another climate change skeptic article.

  107. “So if it’s ok for Steve to make up lies about someone, I think I’ll go watch some online porn.”

    That’s the spirit!

    “I have shown that Flannery never said the things that you accused him of
    “He, along with others, persuaded Governments to build desalination plants and not dams.”
    If you bothered to read my posts, I showed that governments at the time agreed with him”

    So….what’s the lie?

    Bones, you need to get better at admitting when you’re beat.

    “I think I’ll go watch some online porn.”

    More gay action that you love…? [this sort of comment will not be acceptable…Ed]

    lol

    You think a Pastor lies, so you go off to watch porn?

    I think you should get your money back on that Bachelor of Theology.

  108. “FIVE years ago, Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery predicted that the nation’s dams would never be full again and major Australian cities would need desalination plants to cater for our water needs.”

    From the Daily Telegraph.

    If Steve’s lying, he probably got it from the newspapers.

  109. Bones, you need to get better at admitting when you’re beat.

    You’re not here to ref.

    You’re as one eyed as an Indian umpire in Mumbai on the take.

    So….what’s the lie?

    Are you retarded? [this sort of comment is unacceptable…ed]

  110. “In 2007, Flannery predicted cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains, as global warming had caused “a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas” and made the soil too hot, “so even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems … “.

    From the Herald Sun.

    YOu probably never got that newspaper because the roads into Bundy were cut…

    This man was on 180gs!!! Not bad money. 180 grand to tell the good people of Bundabeg and South East Queensland to kiss the idea of full dams goodbye.

    Maybe his next job will be telling people that Islamic terrorism is finished….
    That ought to be worth at least 200 grand.

  111. “You’re not here to ref”

    Yes I am. And it works. Now you’re attacking me instead of looking at internet porn.
    I am my brother’s keeper.

    This is funny. I never knew who Tiny Tim Flattery was before!
    Sounds like a funny guy!

  112. Bones. I read the thing you copied and pasted which is an attempt to say that Flannery didn’t mean what he said. But he did. Just because you can copy and paste and article by someone who doesn’t like Andrew Bolt to argue that just because Flannery said

    “So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems,”

    he didn’t actually mean that

    “So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems,”

    If you read the original interview, you will see that Flannery said.

    “We’re already seeing the initial impacts and they include a decline in the winter rainfall zone across southern Australia, which is clearly an impact of climate change, but also a decrease in run-off. Although we’re getting say a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas of Australia, that’s translating to a 60 per cent decrease in the run-off into the dams and rivers. That’s because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture. So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that’s a real worry for the people in the bush.”

    Have a look at that last sentence again.

    eh…So you are saying that someone is a liar when they said that A said B, because he didn’t actually mean B.

    Bones, maybe you might actually be better off watching porn or pretending you can see me than arguing on blogs. One epic fail after another.

    Give it up. A blind halfdead chihuahua could win this fight.

  113. So all that ….all that accusing of lying was over the Flannery dam quote?

    Wow. If you can defend Flannery on that one, maybe you could be a lawyer for al shabadabadoo.

  114. There’s more than that on here.

    And you’re obviously too lazy so just piss off.

    Did he say the dams would NEVER again fill?

    Btw over 50% of Qld is in drought atm. So yeah it is a worry for people in the bush.

  115. “Did he say the dams would NEVER again fill?”

    ““So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems,”

    Well, most people after hearing a guy on 180 grand say that and then see major floods two years in a row, might have that interpretation.

    Let me think.

    “Even if there’s an earthquake it won’t knock your house down”.
    Within five years earthquakes flatten your house twice.

    SOmeone says “He didn’t say you house would never be flattened.”

    I dunno. Some people would call him on it. I guess it’s just an argument over words?? 🙂

    Certainly not worth calling someone a liar over it.

    Well, Bones, if you can be that forgiving of him, let’s see you extend the same understand to Houston, Pringle, Steve etc.

    And maybe you could take up yoga or counting to ten.

  116. I love giving leftwing liberal loonies a taste of their own medicine. The reactions are priceless. Might start up a Saturday Night Live and just make fun of the libs cos there’s o much material!

  117. “So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that’s a real worry for the people in the bush.”

    He’s right.

    But he’s talking about the bush. Not Sydney here. Or Brisbane. Or Perth. Or Adelaide. Or Melbourne..

    Denialists like Bolt claim that Flannery meant by this that our dams would never fill again at any time from the date he was speaking. However, what Flannery was actually saying that climate trends at the time indicated a long-term outcome of normalized water shortage consistent with IPCC projections

    btw despite the flooding rain

    QLD over 50% drought declared in August 2013. (But yeah we had flooding rains – God’s got a sense of humour But then we’d been on water restrictions and we have to pay for our water usage for years)

    The spectre of another big drought is now casting its shadow across northern and southern Australia, only three years after the millennium drought broke.

    A dry summer has left the region in drought and an estimated one million cattle from the Northern Territory and Queensland looking for a home or a meatworks.

    One third of Queensland was declared in drought this week, the first such declarations since 2011.

    In southern Australia, little sign of autumn and winter rain has left graziers putting sheep and cattle on the stock routes in the Riverina. The Bureau of Meteorology has forecast a drier than usual winter and spring.

    About one sixth of NSW is considered in drought, while 65 per cent of the state is experiencing very dry conditions.

    Grain growers from the West Australian wheatbelt to Victoria’s Wimmera are praying for rain to bring their crops up and many have shelved plans to grow canola.

    Victorian and southern NSW farmers are selling sheep in droves. About 40,000 head were auctioned at Wagga Wagga on Thursday. A further 28,000 head are for sale in Bendigo on Monday and 35,000 in Ballarat a day later.

    Veteran Deniliquin livestock agent, Elders’ Jason Andrews, said it was impossible to sell sheep in far western NSW from Broken Hill to Cobar.

    Cattle prices were also not much better than in western Queensland; in Deniliquin this week a mob of poor-quality cattle sold for just $48 head.

    “It’s very tough; I’d go so far as to say that in the past 12 months, since the last big rain in February 2012, that we’ve had less rain than during the big drought,” Mr Andrews said.

    But in the north beef producers were in dire straits even before the unwanted low Longreach cattle prices of this week.

    Land values have also slumped and northern and western Queensland stations — like their excess cattle — are virtually impossible to sell.

    – See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/drought-stalks-the-land-again/story-e6frg6nf-1226634963784#sthash.9ByMU8Z8.dpuf

    Climate change analysis is that droughts will get worse, whereas wet areas will get wetter and storms more extreme.

    That’s why we had two tornadoes one block from our house.

    Something that had never happened in our town before.

  118. Ok, I’ve not moderated much…but personal attacks will cease! Any further labeling of anyone as a particular type of person just because you don’t like their position on a subject will not be tolerated and will be deleted.

    You will note I have not directed this at any one person…deliberately!!

  119. Oh gosh there were some funny one liners in there, Q. Hilarious. Thanks!

    ‘YOu probably never got that newspaper because the roads into Bundy were cut…’

    LOL!

    ‘And maybe you could take up yoga or counting to ten.’

    Tehe!

    ‘Wow. If you can defend Flannery on that one, maybe you could be a lawyer for al shabadabadoo.’

    Indeed!

    ‘There’s actually a whole website devoted to watching C3?’

    I know. It’s ridiculous!

    ‘You think a Pastor lies, so you go off to watch porn?

    I think you should get your money back on that Bachelor of Theology.’

    Nearly fell off my seat laughing at that one!

    Good on you, Q!

  120. Bones,
    “So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that’s a real worry for the people in the bush.”

    He’s right.

    But he’s talking about the bush. Not Sydney here. Or Brisbane. Or Perth. Or Adelaide. Or Melbourne..

    Well, that is a matter of interpretation of what he meant. It can also clearly be taken that he means the dams will not be filled again. That also would be a worry for the people in the bush.

    I’ll take your point on board, Bones, and allow you your interpretation of what he meant, but I still maintain that this and other statements over time made by him and by other commentators were making the point that the long term drought experienced in Australia were evidence of climate change induced by human activity, and that the prevailing weather pattern of long term drought was the ‘new weather’, as someone claimed, that we had to get used to and adapt to, and that the dams were unlikely to be filled.

    My initial remarks involved more than Tim Flannery. I have taken the time to research what he has said over the last 8 years and I believe he is genuine in his belief that we are already suffering from man induced climate change. I do not think he is a sinister person or a conspiracist. Probably very sincere, and I mean him no harm or disrespect as a person. Perhaps his prosperity which has come as a result of his ability to articulate what many fear is just a blessing to him rather than an opportunist’s reward.

    I do think, however, that he has made claims which were extreme, and that his statements can be interpreted to mean that dams are no longer viable as the flooding rains will no be as consistent as they once were. I am not alone in this understanding of his claims. I will not hazard a guess at his motives, but he was shown to be wrong about both the levels of water we have received and the dams which have filled.

    I regret the language you have used to describe what is, in the end, my opinion of what amounts to several years of claims by Mr Flannery and others, such as Bob Brown, which have since been shown to be incorrect. M Brown was almost certainly an opportunist in many things he said.

    I will accept your view of what he meant, but beg to differ.

    I am not a liar. If you say I am that is your problem. I may be wrong. I may have the wrong understanding of what has been said and why. But I intend to walk away from his with my integrity intact, because my understanding of what has been said is that the dams will not be filled, therefore there will be no flooding rains to fill them. If I am wrong, I am sorry, but being wrong about something is not lying.

    I think I got his meaning right at the time. I disagreed, as many of us did, and spoke out for dams and water catchments, and prayed for rain against his opinion. Perhaps he has changed his mind. We all do from time to time. But I remember the emotion of the times before the rains came, and he was a very powerful figure then and growing in influence. It was only after the rains broke the drought that people saw things differently.

    The best thing any of us can do for now is pray for rain in the farming districts of Australia. It is God who changes weather. It is He who calms the storm, brings the rain, stops the rain, brings it back again.

    I hope Mr Flannery finds God in his search for truth.

  121. Greg, you are fast becoming the voice of sanity.

    “Ok, I’ve not moderated much…but personal attacks will cease! Any further labeling of anyone as a particular type of person just because you don’t like their position on a subject will not be tolerated and will be deleted.

    You will note I have not directed this at any one person…deliberately!!”

    You should have added “Have I made myself clear?”

    To which I would have said
    “Yes Sir”.

    Well Done.

    🙂

    I will tone it down. Sorry guys.

  122. “I do think, however, that he has made claims which were extreme,”

    Just got me thinking there. Probably most people do that in order to make a point.
    And people get pushed into becoming more and more extreme. Whether it’s Reformation times or husband and wife talking about the other person.

  123. Just got me thinking there. Probably most people do that in order to make a point.

    Like saying he made comments that there would be ‘no more flooding rain’.

  124. It is God who changes weather. It is He who calms the storm, brings the rain, stops the rain, brings it back again.

    Firstly, weather is not climate.

    Weather is the mix of events that happen each day in our atmosphere including temperature, rainfall and humidity. Weather is not the same everywhere. Perhaps it is hot, dry and sunny today where you live, but in other parts of the world it is cloudy, raining or even snowing. Everyday, weather events are recorded and predicted by meteorologists worldwide.

    Climate in your place on the globe controls the weather where you live. Climate is the average weather pattern in a place over many years. So, the climate of Antarctica is quite different than the climate of a tropical island. Hot summer days are quite typical of climates in many regions of the world, even without the effects of global warming.

    Secondly, that theology implies that God causes drought and flooding.

    I hope Mr Flannery finds God in his search for truth.

    Well if he does, it’ll be despite the work of Christians to denigrate him.

Comments are closed.