Australia to Cut Global Warming Funding by 90%

Discussion in 'Politics' started by madanthonywayne, May 21, 2014.

  1. Bells Staff Member

    Australians notice the changes. The weather conditions are more extreme. The droughts are more severe and more numerous. Dams were drying up. And then you get these extreme rain events.. The one that hit the Lockear Valley resulted in such a tragic loss of lives and it came out of the blue.. What was meant to be a day with showers and some rain resulted in severe flash flooding and a wall of water coming down a mountain and hitting small towns in the valley with people not even having time to run..

    In my home State, we were getting battered by one severe cyclone after another. As for the severe thunderstorms.. It is so bad now that just about every single storm causes damage in some way, shape or form. My parents nearly lost their house in a severe hail storm the likes rarely seen - tennis ball sized hail storm that lasted for over 20 minutes. And the wind.. They nearly lost the roof, the roof tiles were damaged, they suffered severe damage to the internal walls since the hail was coming down so big, thick and fast that it clogged up the gutters in about 2 minutes and the water from that flooded under the roof line and into the walls and ceiling.. The trees were knocked down, those that were not lost all of their leaves and fruit.. This was wide spread and it is literally a daily occurrence in some areas. In the warmer months, these are daily occurrences in many areas of the state. Sure, big storms are a thing in Queensland. But the severity and the numbers of them is increasing every year. I would dare Mr Abbott to come to Queensland and declare that climate change is not real. We know it is very real. The farmers also know it is all too real.

    The threat to people's homes, health and livelihood is all too real here.

    It is a political stunt, by Abbott. The Carbon tax was unpopular, but we adapted, we were given subsidies and aid to cover for it. So in the end it was not that bad. Especially with the subsidies that allowed people to access solar panels.. Abbott won the election on the promise of eliminating the Carbon Tax (after painting it as some sort of dooms day tax) and to not impose any new taxes. The first budget saw the elimination of the Carbon Tax, but the implementation of so many new taxes and cuts to health and education, cuts to the poor and new taxes imposed on them and now cuts to climate change programs as well - which include subsidies for solar panels which reduce dependency on coal burning for electricity. It's ridiculous. When you drive around in Queensland, for example, solar panels are common now. The reliance on environmentally unfriendly sourced electricity fell. People's power bills went down, it was better for the environment. Why would you not continue with such schemes? It is good for the environment, reduces our reliance on oil and coal, we pay less for power.. We are using an energy source that is clean and safe.. It defies logic.

    To put it into how bad it is here and how the weather has changed.. A few weeks ago, my kids went surfing at the beach, the water was warm and the weather even warmer. Usually at the start of May, it is cool enough to make beach swimming an unpleasant experience. But the temperature was in the mid 30's and the water temperature in the mid 20's. It was ridiculous. No one could understand why it was still so warm and why it was as hot as it gets in summer (we had to turn the aircon on). My kids were in the pool every day after school it was that hot. Then on the Thursday night, the weather bureau issued a forecast of possible snow in the ranges behind us (about 30 minutes away). Of course no one believed it. We went to sleep, no blankets because it was so hot and by 3am, the temperature had dropped down to about 5 degrees. Not by 5, but to 5 degrees. It was freezing cold for the next week. Today, it is warm enough for me to be wearing shorts and a t-shirt with fans back on. This is not normal here, at all. Sure, we enjoy a more temperate climate than most of the country, but this? Not normal. And that tool in Canberra cuts global warming funding by 90% because he does not believe in climate change?

    It is infuriating.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    That would indeed reduce global warming, but in its place the atmosphere would be flooded with evil negative ions and world karma would take the damage instead. Power your factories with love, not radiation!
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    This might be symptomatic but only a proper geospatial analysis of temperature increases would be able to tell. I'd be interested in having a go at it, probably under less restrictive thresholds.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    $5.75 billion/year?
    Absolute insanity------better to spend the money on education.

    I wonder how much money the usa is throwing at the ill perceived and conceived "problem" ?
  8. wellwisher Banned Banned


    If you look at natural history, the earth has gone through many changes over the eons, from asteroids that killed the dinosaurs to the last ice age that we have warmed up. In all cases, the earth and life survive and continue to evolve. Why not allow the change, since it always turns out fine in the end.

    The problem with liberalism is, it is based on short term thinking. The man made climate change sales pitch does not include longer term natural explanations which would allow for perspective. The magic trick works by focusing on a narrow time frame. This same short term mentality then extrapolates the now as the long term ideal that needs to be protected at all costs.

    Conservatism is about longer term trends, such as religions that go back thousands of years. This makes one's mind more open to longer term patterns in nature from which the average always works out as a whole.

    As an analogy, if you look at the stock market, it has short terms ups and downs, which are more visible as you narrow the time frame. But if you look at the longest time frame this chatter becomes smoother and is averaged out. The short term liberal mind makes mountains out of mole hills because it gets caught up in the short term data noise, while lacking long term perspective. This animates emotions, not the power of reason.
  9. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Many of the agw alarmist seem to be close minded, in that they do not(or refuse to) recognize a likely connection between us having been in a grand solar maximum during most of the warming during the latter 1/2 of the last century.
    Mention that the warming slowed and stopped as we exited the grand maximum, and peculiar things happen to the conversation.
    Refusal to consider all climate influences seems indicative of mass insanity.

    There is a schism within the study of climate science that is retarding the advancement of the science.
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    It didn't turn out fine for the dinosaurs, though, did it. Or the wooly mammoths.

    Things like that tend to turn out fine for cockroaches. Ants. Burrowing little rodents. Jellyfish. Pond scum. Depends on who you identify with, I guess.

    You mean you get laughed at, and people tell you you're full of shit? Yeah, I can see that happening. Any idea why?

    We just had a near record cold winter in the north central midwest, ended up something like the fifth coldest and longest in recorded history,

    and managed it without setting a single 24 hour record low temperature for any date. And it rained again in January - something like the 17th or 18th consecutive year of January rain, formerly a one year in seven phenomenon. What are the odds? And this is not an odd little corner of the world - it's the middle of the flat, open, hugely expansive center of the North American continent.
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Since 1995 we have been having an unusually quiet solar period, significantly lower in both solar output and sunspot activity compared to the rest of the 20th century. And yet we are still (slowly) warming, with 2010 being tied with 2005 for the hottest year ever. Were you unaware of that fact?
    Next question - what do you think will happen when the sun returns to its average output?
    You mean like deniers start screaming bloody murder? Yes, I've seen that. Fortunately more rational scientists usually prevail.
  12. Ghostwriter Registered Member

    Wasn't it found that Australia's free market capitalism was what started the first ice age? I cannot believe they refuse to take this responsibility seriously!!!!
  13. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    That's a single almost anecdotal observation. Incredible concepts require incredible evidence. The data is online; I might have a go at it once I get done everything else I have to do. I think there might be either traction or problem with the missing factors: that which is not known in the association. I guess it depends on what is available for each modeling run.
  14. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Climate change is an illusion created by an over abundance of news stations, climate scientists and amateur video competition. The effect is similar to when there is a jet liner crash. Although flying is safer than an automobile, it gets sensationalized until a segment of the population thinks it is worse. If you broadcast one event, a hundred times, at many angles, and get all the experts to talk about it, over and over, some minds get confused relative to data weight.

    If I wanted fewer hurricane to look like more, you simply add music and experts and play these from any angles.

    Another aspect of this special effect is connected to more detailed coverage of everything. Before there were satellites, the internet, cells phone cameras, cable stations, and youtube, most things witnessed were never shared like they are now. If I saw a sun beam 100 years ago, I might tell a few close friends but that is as far as it goes in terms of the popular data. It would not be included as valid data if I am the only eye witness. Today if I use my cell phone camera and thousands view it on youtube, it counts more in the general data and looks like more documented sun beams for climate change. The same things of the past, not reported in a reliable way, are now reported, thereby adding what appears to be more data.

    As an experiment, have two groups collecting data from a staged event, with one group having cameras, and the other only word of mouth. They will both see the same things. Which will have more credibility and which data will count more? Nobody wants to put a reputation on the line for word of mouth, but if you have pictures, you will get more support. This tricks the weak mind.

    The cutting of funding will result in less data collection thereby making climate change appear milder.
  15. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    And the analysis of this phenomenon is what to you then?

    The cutting of funding will serve to blind us, and your cynical motives are noted.
  16. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    As this twit tries to wind back any clean energy technology so we can go back to the "golden age of coal" or some rubbish we have this news coming out

Share This Page