https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/resources/new-climate-council-report-weather-gone-wild/

Temperatures nudging 50 degrees, bushfires ravaging rainforests and people at increased risk of cardiac arrests because of heatwaves — this is the new normal for Australia and it’s being driven by climate change.

The Climate Council’s latest report, “Weather Gone Wild” has found climate change is increasing the frequency and/or severity of extreme weather and that Australians are suffering as a result.

“The Coalition Government has been in power for five years and it has obstructed action on climate change while extreme weather worsens. It’s unconscionable,” said Climate Council CEO, Amanda McKenzie.

“We are experiencing climate change right now across Australia, from flooding in Townsville to bushfires in Victoria and Tasmania,” said Ms McKenzie.

Report Key Findings

The past four years have been the four hottest on record for global surface temperature, continuing a long-term warming trend.All extreme weather events are being influenced by climate change, as they are occurring in an atmosphere that contains more energy than 50 years ago.Extreme weather events are very costly, with insurance companies in Australia paying out more than $1.2 billion dollars in claims last year.

“Climate change is also leading to more intense rainfall, increasing the risk of flash flooding events, like the one we’re seeing in Townsville.  Greenhouse gas pollution is warming the climate system, increasing the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere. This leads to heavier rainfall,” said the Climate Council’s Head of Research, Dr Martin Rice.

“The Federal Government’s current climate policy is an abject failure, with greenhouse gas pollution increasing over the past four years. Tackling climate change effectively requires a credible national policy to drive down pollution across all sectors,” said Dr Rice.

“We have the solutions at our disposal but there’s only a tiny window of opportunity left to tackle climate change,” he said.

i forecast abuse and trouble.

ChrispenEvan said:

i forecast abuse and trouble.

On this forum?

Ian said:

ChrispenEvan said:

i forecast abuse and trouble.

On this forum?

Yes, strange as it may seem.

:-)

ChrispenEvan said:

Ian said:

ChrispenEvan said:

i forecast abuse and trouble.

On this forum?

Yes, strange as it may seem.

:-)

Your forecast may well be accurate.

But it raises the question, for those people and organisations who think that Australia should be doing more to reduce GHG emissions, what is the best strategy for making this happen?

I doubt that publicising extreme weather events is helpful.

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Ian said:

On this forum?

Yes, strange as it may seem.

:-)

Your forecast may well be accurate.

But it raises the question, for those people and organisations who think that Australia should be doing more to reduce GHG emissions, what is the best strategy for making this happen?

I doubt that publicising extreme weather events is helpful.

Extreme weather events are just a part of the problem, the global warming has a wider scope than local events.

>>>what is the best strategy for making this happen?

Better worldwide education on the scope of global warming.

Making as much information available as possible, connecting related information together to create a knowledge-base.

Funding more money into worldwide science organizations that research climate change.

Funding more money into sustainable living research to create better accurate forecasts for population growth / reduction.

Put more diplomatic pressure onto countries that are the highest global warming contributors.

Look at sanctions for non cooperating countries.

>But it raises the question, for those people and organisations who think that Australia should be doing more to reduce GHG emissions, what is the best strategy for making this happen?<

Sure. I think we should be promoting moving as rapidly as possible towards zero thence negative emissions worldwide while doing whatever we can to minimize our own household’s emissions.

In this country we will shortly have the chance toss to out a goverment that has been taken over by deniers. There’s an election imminent… it’s been in all the papers.

>I doubt that publicising extreme weather events is helpful.<

1. I thought they were interesting looking images.

2. How does it hurt?

I would like to see obstructing action on climate change to be made a serious crime.

This would mostly apply to business and politicians like Abbott.

ChrispenEvan said:

Ian said:

ChrispenEvan said:

i forecast abuse and trouble.

On this forum?

Yes, strange as it may seem.

:-)

Fanciful. I see no evidence so far to match your predictions.

party_pants said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Ian said:

On this forum?

Yes, strange as it may seem.

:-)

Fanciful. I see no evidence so far to match your predictions.

all in the goodness of time. have patience grasshopper.

Ian said:

“The Coalition Government has been in power for five years and it has obstructed action on climate change while extreme weather worsens. It’s unconscionable,” said Climate Council CEO, Amanda McKenzie.

This is just unacceptable. Tony could have solved this man made global warming catastrophe years ago, simply by changing australia’s electricity generation to 100% renewable, & reducing global emissions by 0.3%. Shame on you Tony for not doing this. Its all your fault

Ian said:

>But it raises the question, for those people and organisations who think that Australia should be doing more to reduce GHG emissions, what is the best strategy for making this happen?<

Sure. I think we should be promoting moving as rapidly as possible towards zero thence negative emissions worldwide while doing whatever we can to minimize our own household’s emissions.

In this country we will shortly have the chance toss to out a goverment that has been taken over by deniers. There’s an election imminent… it’s been in all the papers.

>I doubt that publicising extreme weather events is helpful.<

1. I thought they were interesting looking images.

2. How does it hurt?

Anyone who finds this evidence convincing will be convinced already.

There are a large group of people who whilst not being active deniers (or pseudo-skeptical alarmists, as I prefer to call them), are very ready to believe that climate change is a conspiracy of the elites that run the planet. Presenting weather events as definite evidence of climate change can be refuted by simplistic arguments, and is therefore likely to reinforce rather than reduce the belief in conspiracy “theories”.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Ian said:

>But it raises the question, for those people and organisations who think that Australia should be doing more to reduce GHG emissions, what is the best strategy for making this happen?<

Sure. I think we should be promoting moving as rapidly as possible towards zero thence negative emissions worldwide while doing whatever we can to minimize our own household’s emissions.

In this country we will shortly have the chance toss to out a goverment that has been taken over by deniers. There’s an election imminent… it’s been in all the papers.

>I doubt that publicising extreme weather events is helpful.<

1. I thought they were interesting looking images.

2. How does it hurt?

Anyone who finds this evidence convincing will be convinced already.

There are a large group of people who whilst not being active deniers (or pseudo-skeptical alarmists, as I prefer to call them), are very ready to believe that climate change is a conspiracy of the elites that run the planet. Presenting weather events as definite evidence of climate change can be refuted by simplistic arguments, and is therefore likely to reinforce rather than reduce the belief in conspiracy “theories”.

Weird as I’d think a conspiracy to hide our effect on the planet is real and covered up

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Ian said:

>But it raises the question, for those people and organisations who think that Australia should be doing more to reduce GHG emissions, what is the best strategy for making this happen?<

Sure. I think we should be promoting moving as rapidly as possible towards zero thence negative emissions worldwide while doing whatever we can to minimize our own household’s emissions.

In this country we will shortly have the chance toss to out a goverment that has been taken over by deniers. There’s an election imminent… it’s been in all the papers.

>I doubt that publicising extreme weather events is helpful.<

1. I thought they were interesting looking images.

2. How does it hurt?

Anyone who finds this evidence convincing will be convinced already.

There are a large group of people who whilst not being active deniers (or pseudo-skeptical alarmists, as I prefer to call them), are very ready to believe that climate change is a conspiracy of the elites that run the planet. Presenting weather events as definite evidence of climate change can be refuted by simplistic arguments, and is therefore likely to reinforce rather than reduce the belief in conspiracy “theories”.

Weird as I’d think a conspiracy to hide our effect on the planet is real and covered up

Sure, but those who believe in the alternative conspiracy theory will just dismiss all evidence that supports it, one way or another, or just ignore it.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Anyone who finds this evidence convincing will be convinced already.

There are a large group of people who whilst not being active deniers (or pseudo-skeptical alarmists, as I prefer to call them), are very ready to believe that climate change is a conspiracy of the elites that run the planet. Presenting weather events as definite evidence of climate change can be refuted by simplistic arguments, and is therefore likely to reinforce rather than reduce the belief in conspiracy “theories”.

Weird as I’d think a conspiracy to hide our effect on the planet is real and covered up

Sure, but those who believe in the alternative conspiracy theory will just dismiss all evidence that supports it, one way or another, or just ignore it.

Yes and what needs to be done will require drastic change over a long time and unless we find a way to generate large amounts of cheap clean energy quality of life and leaving the planet in better condition that what we were born into won’t happen. You can understand why people deny it as it’s not something easily fixed

>Weird as I’d think a conspiracy to hide our effect on the planet is real and covered up

there is of course the old, tired, hackneyed idea of overpupulation. Thinking about the latter is similar to asking a human to stop being human. The proposition breed less is not entirely different to don’t breed, the remedy is more of the same.

i’d say more, but there’s something sham about the living’s views about the unborn that way, the yet-to-be-conceived, well, it seems unfair, not the spirit of democracy. Democracy’s there waiting, for new blood.

transition said:

>Weird as I’d think a conspiracy to hide our effect on the planet is real and covered up

there is of course the old, tired, hackneyed idea of overpupulation. Thinking about the latter is similar to asking a human to stop being human. The proposition breed less is not entirely different to don’t breed, the remedy is more of the same.

i’d say more, but there’s something sham about the living’s views about the unborn that way, the yet-to-be-conceived, well, it seems unfair, not the spirit of democracy. Democracy’s there waiting, for new blood.

Radical ways of thinking might be required.
You could pay people not to have children and they get sterilised to inforce it

transition said:

>Weird as I’d think a conspiracy to hide our effect on the planet is real and covered up

there is of course the old, tired, hackneyed idea of overpupulation. Thinking about the latter is similar to asking a human to stop being human. The proposition breed less is not entirely different to don’t breed, the remedy is more of the same.

I disagree.

The two propositions are entirely different.

Cymek said:

transition said:

>Weird as I’d think a conspiracy to hide our effect on the planet is real and covered up

there is of course the old, tired, hackneyed idea of overpupulation. Thinking about the latter is similar to asking a human to stop being human. The proposition breed less is not entirely different to don’t breed, the remedy is more of the same.

i’d say more, but there’s something sham about the living’s views about the unborn that way, the yet-to-be-conceived, well, it seems unfair, not the spirit of democracy. Democracy’s there waiting, for new blood.

Radical ways of thinking might be required.
You could pay people not to have children and they get sterilised to inforce it

Stopping paying people to have more children would be a start, and might be sufficient.

The proposition breed less is not entirely different to don’t breed, the remedy is more of the same.

(shrugs) People are already breeding much less, without being asked.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Ian said:

>But it raises the question, for those people and organisations who think that Australia should be doing more to reduce GHG emissions, what is the best strategy for making this happen?<

Sure. I think we should be promoting moving as rapidly as possible towards zero thence negative emissions worldwide while doing whatever we can to minimize our own household’s emissions.

In this country we will shortly have the chance toss to out a goverment that has been taken over by deniers. There’s an election imminent… it’s been in all the papers.

>I doubt that publicising extreme weather events is helpful.<

1. I thought they were interesting looking images.

2. How does it hurt?

Anyone who finds this evidence convincing will be convinced already.

There are a large group of people who whilst not being active deniers (or pseudo-skeptical alarmists, as I prefer to call them), are very ready to believe that climate change is a conspiracy of the elites that run the planet. Presenting weather events as definite evidence of climate change can be refuted by simplistic arguments, and is therefore likely to reinforce rather than reduce the belief in conspiracy “theories”.

I was posting this morning’s series of images (stripped of any explanatory text) purely as nice/intriguing images. An isolated weather event cannot be used as evidence of CC. Sorry if this was confusing.

Expert’s statmentents within the BOM: Extreme Summer/Climate Statement thread, the Climate Council Report: Weather Gone Wild one and the Climate change. Flanagan one find a CC signal within all of the wierd weather of recent months…

‘Climate change is the long-term driver. “The warming trend which has seen Australian temperatures increase by more than 1C in the last 100 years also contributed to the unusually warm conditions,” Watkins said.’

I think these sort of abnormal seasons which everyone is directly experiencing is clarifying what it means to be living in a CC affected world. It is another strong line of evidence that all of the cherry-picked graphs that the pseudo-skeptical alarmists, deniers or contrarians (whichever term) like to present cannot refute.

dv said:

(shrugs) People are already breeding much less, without being asked.

Unfortunately, only the clever ones do this.

I didn’t mean to criticise. More of a general point for discussion.

roughbarked said:

dv said:

(shrugs) People are already breeding much less, without being asked.

Unfortunately, only the clever ones do this.

I’m pretty sure that’s not actually true.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

dv said:

(shrugs) People are already breeding much less, without being asked.

Unfortunately, only the clever ones do this.

I’m pretty sure that’s not actually true.

http://www.unesco.org/education/tlsf/mods/theme_c/popups/mod13t01s005.html

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

>Weird as I’d think a conspiracy to hide our effect on the planet is real and covered up

there is of course the old, tired, hackneyed idea of overpupulation. Thinking about the latter is similar to asking a human to stop being human. The proposition breed less is not entirely different to don’t breed, the remedy is more of the same.

I disagree.

The two propositions are entirely different.

yeah, I didn’t agree with myself when I wrote it.

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

>Weird as I’d think a conspiracy to hide our effect on the planet is real and covered up

there is of course the old, tired, hackneyed idea of overpupulation. Thinking about the latter is similar to asking a human to stop being human. The proposition breed less is not entirely different to don’t breed, the remedy is more of the same.

I disagree.

The two propositions are entirely different.

yeah, I didn’t agree with myself when I wrote it.

I’m a bit guilty of overpopulating, 10 little Zarky’s running around, me noggin maybe broken but other parts arent

Zarkov said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I disagree.

The two propositions are entirely different.

yeah, I didn’t agree with myself when I wrote it.

I’m a bit guilty of overpopulating, 10 little Zarky’s running around, me noggin maybe broken but other parts arent

your apostrophes are.. broken.

roughbarked said:

Zarkov said:

transition said:

yeah, I didn’t agree with myself when I wrote it.

I’m a bit guilty of overpopulating, 10 little Zarky’s running around, me noggin maybe broken but other parts arent

your apostrophes are.. broken.

Them people that hear god probably are broken, lots of people in the asylum claim this

Lightning thunder time.

dv said:

The proposition breed less is not entirely different to don’t breed, the remedy is more of the same.

(shrugs) People are already breeding much less, without being asked.

Is that why the world population is expected to reach 11.2 billion around the end of THIS century?

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

The proposition breed less is not entirely different to don’t breed, the remedy is more of the same.

(shrugs) People are already breeding much less, without being asked.

Is that why the world population is expected to reach 11.2 billion around the end of THIS century?

fuck sake, not this argument again?

ChrispenEvan said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

The proposition breed less is not entirely different to don’t breed, the remedy is more of the same.

(shrugs) People are already breeding much less, without being asked.

Is that why the world population is expected to reach 11.2 billion around the end of THIS century?

fuck sake, not this argument again?

Not much could be done to stop a biological instinct so strong I imagine

ChrispenEvan said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

The proposition breed less is not entirely different to don’t breed, the remedy is more of the same.

(shrugs) People are already breeding much less, without being asked.

Is that why the world population is expected to reach 11.2 billion around the end of THIS century?

fuck sake, not this argument again?

Please direct that comment to dv, I don’t think he understands.

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

PermeateFree said:

Is that why the world population is expected to reach 11.2 billion around the end of THIS century?

fuck sake, not this argument again?

Please direct that comment to dv, I don’t think he understands.

no, it is you who don’t get it, even though we have explained it to you numerous times. you still bring up the same crap.

ChrispenEvan said:

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

fuck sake, not this argument again?

Please direct that comment to dv, I don’t think he understands.

no, it is you who don’t get it, even though we have explained it to you numerous times. you still bring up the same crap.

You have NOT given an explanation at ALL! You just assert!

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

PermeateFree said:

Please direct that comment to dv, I don’t think he understands.

no, it is you who don’t get it, even though we have explained it to you numerous times. you still bring up the same crap.

You have NOT given an explanation at ALL! You just assert!

Besides mass genocide how can you reduce the human population

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

PermeateFree said:

Please direct that comment to dv, I don’t think he understands.

no, it is you who don’t get it, even though we have explained it to you numerous times. you still bring up the same crap.

You have NOT given an explanation at ALL! You just assert!

We could team up, my genius and your hill billy smarts we could do anything

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

no, it is you who don’t get it, even though we have explained it to you numerous times. you still bring up the same crap.

You have NOT given an explanation at ALL! You just assert!

Besides mass genocide how can you reduce the human population

for those watching at home. Population growth is one thing, the world’s population will continue to grow despite the lower fertility rate, which is people having fewer kids. so DV’s contention that we are breeding less is to do with fertility rates, we’re having fewer kids.

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

no, it is you who don’t get it, even though we have explained it to you numerous times. you still bring up the same crap.

You have NOT given an explanation at ALL! You just assert!

Besides mass genocide how can you reduce the human population

the way we are doing it atm. educating people so they have a better life outcome and don’t require so many kids to survive.

ChrispenEvan said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

You have NOT given an explanation at ALL! You just assert!

Besides mass genocide how can you reduce the human population

the way we are doing it atm. educating people so they have a better life outcome and don’t require so many kids to survive.

The overall population still goes up though even if the growth percentage may be lower, would take a century to see much difference.

ChrispenEvan said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

You have NOT given an explanation at ALL! You just assert!

Besides mass genocide how can you reduce the human population

for those watching at home. Population growth is one thing, the world’s population will continue to grow despite the lower fertility rate, which is people having fewer kids. so DV’s contention that we are breeding less is to do with fertility rates, we’re having fewer kids.

IKR. Should level off around 10, 11 billion..

Except climate change, wars, pestillence….. it’ll never get there.

ChrispenEvan said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

You have NOT given an explanation at ALL! You just assert!

Besides mass genocide how can you reduce the human population

for those watching at home. Population growth is one thing, the world’s population will continue to grow despite the lower fertility rate, which is people having fewer kids. so DV’s contention that we are breeding less is to do with fertility rates, we’re having fewer kids.

We in Australia are having fewer children, but in many parts of the world they are NOT! We more than correct our birth deficiency by bringing in around 250,000 people a year, which on their own, more than make up for the drop in our birth rate, but many of these people come from countries where large families are the norm. To just say people are reproducing less is a gross misrepresentation and does not reflect the true situation. This is the elephant in the room and should not be glossed over with simple and unrealistic statistics.

Cymek said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Cymek said:

Besides mass genocide how can you reduce the human population

the way we are doing it atm. educating people so they have a better life outcome and don’t require so many kids to survive.

The overall population still goes up though even if the growth percentage may be lower, would take a century to see much difference.

yes. but not resorting to mass killings there isn’t really any other way.

ChrispenEvan said:

Cymek said:

ChrispenEvan said:

the way we are doing it atm. educating people so they have a better life outcome and don’t require so many kids to survive.

The overall population still goes up though even if the growth percentage may be lower, would take a century to see much difference.

yes. but not resorting to mass killings there isn’t really any other way.

plus no one who wants the population to reduce faster appears willing to start the ball rolling by topping themselves.

ChrispenEvan said:

Cymek said:

ChrispenEvan said:

the way we are doing it atm. educating people so they have a better life outcome and don’t require so many kids to survive.

The overall population still goes up though even if the growth percentage may be lower, would take a century to see much difference.

yes. but not resorting to mass killings there isn’t really any other way.

No

ChrispenEvan said:

Cymek said:

ChrispenEvan said:

the way we are doing it atm. educating people so they have a better life outcome and don’t require so many kids to survive.

The overall population still goes up though even if the growth percentage may be lower, would take a century to see much difference.

yes. but not resorting to mass killings there isn’t really any other way.

So we adopt the opinion of lets just forget about it and hope it goes away? Of the money America was donating to poor countries, some of which they used for contraception, but once the Pro-life lobby in America found out this was stopped. If we EVER we want to reduce human population the birthrates in poor and developing countries need to be addressed.

Cymek said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Cymek said:

The overall population still goes up though even if the growth percentage may be lower, would take a century to see much difference.

yes. but not resorting to mass killings there isn’t really any other way.

No

Probably get the optimum population if all right handers died

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Cymek said:

The overall population still goes up though even if the growth percentage may be lower, would take a century to see much difference.

yes. but not resorting to mass killings there isn’t really any other way.

So we adopt the opinion of lets just forget about it and hope it goes away? Of the money America was donating to poor countries, some of which they used for contraception, but once the Pro-life lobby in America found out this was stopped. If we EVER we want to reduce human population the birthrates in poor and developing countries need to be addressed.

They do yes

Cymek said:

Cymek said:

ChrispenEvan said:

yes. but not resorting to mass killings there isn’t really any other way.

No

Probably get the optimum population if all right handers died

Humans are going out of their way to promote the production of children, IVF is a good example. Changing attitudes is imperative.

PermeateFree said:

So we adopt the opinion of lets just forget about it and hope it goes away?

strawman. nobody has said that. keep educating that is what has been said. over and over.

ChrispenEvan said:

PermeateFree said:

So we adopt the opinion of lets just forget about it and hope it goes away?

strawman. nobody has said that. keep educating that is what has been said. over and over.

But it is only having limited effect that is so slow as to be of little benefit. You need to tackle the birthrate of rapidly growing poor countries, not pass it off by simply saying birthrates are dropping, because globally they are not.