Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Posts tagged 'Tim Flannery'

Tag Archives: Tim Flannery

The winds of change, or Flannery’s flim flam to be “cloud funded”


According to media reports the abolition of the Climate commission will save the long suffering  people about half a  million bucks a year, almost chump change in the greater scheme of things but how it has  upset the AGW luvvies, with many of them getting upset that the government should do precisely what they promised on the campaign trail would be right up there with getting new stationary  by abolishing this useless quango. Some one should explain to the luvvies that if the Australian people want to find out about the subject they can do the same as everyone else and just use the internet. Because its always been the case that the likes of Flannery et al have NEVER produced a single instance of unique research all that they have ever done is to rehash the many papers and pseudo-scientific claims of impending doom as if they are some sort of holy writ.  The fact that Flannery now claims that he and his fellow Profits of the Green religion are now going to carry on their “work” while begging for public support should make for an amusing aside to discussions of the topic. I just can’t help wondering if the AGW luvvies will dig deep enough to make up for Flannery’s now absent 180 grand a year stipend or if the cold hard reality of them having to spend their own money (rather than that of the taxpayer) is in action.

While we are on the subject of the internet  who has not noticed that Malcolm Turnbull has got the NBN board to all fall on their swords?  It both delights me to see the nincompoops who have done such a crappy job on Labor’s signature high-tech infrastructure project fired and to see that we now have a the prospect of the very necessary upgrading of our internet services in the hands of a minister who understands how to run something properly  and that we may just have in prospect a change in the debate from the flights of  of fantasy about what a warp drive will do on the electric super highway to what has to be done to properly deliver on the promise.

Cheers Comrades


The redundancy of Tim Flannery

Tim Flannery has had a really good session with his nose in the money trough under the patronage of the Labor Government but of course he should be unsurprised that when his patron falls that he will be cut off from the largesses that he has enjoyed over the last few years.

click for source

click for source

What amazes me is that under a Labor government we have seen the creation of such a useless department as the one devoted to climate change, worse still that they have been paying Flannery so much money to sprout the same nonsense that the waterfront home-owner has so hypercritically been yelling from the roof tops for free.

Sadly I expect that making Flannery redundant will  probably entail a substantial severance package. Even so the nation will be better off on the day that he has to front up to centerlink ….

Cheers Comrades

The relief felt is amazing

The relief felt is amazing

Floods wash away carbon tax support


By Mark S. Lawson

In August 2009, after three years of computer modelling, a joint team of scientists from the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology announced that they had linked greenhouse gases to the drought then reigning over south-eastern Australia. They also declared that the decline in rainfall was likely to be permanent as more of those gases accumulated in the atmosphere and the world warmed.

The results of the South Eastern Australian Climate Initiative were one of many warnings issued at the time, with the drought still in full swing, that rainfall patterns had changed and that dams had been built in the wrong spots. They would never be full again.

Warnings such as this, playing on understandable fears over what had proved to be a very long, dry period, prompted the building of desalination plants in Melbourne, Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane. More importantly, these warnings were repeated by a parade of activists and scientists (the distinction was often blurred) who found their way into the media both before and after the initiative announced its results. In early 2008, the Bureau of Meteorology’s head of climate analysis, David Jones, was reported as declaring that the extreme dry climate of the time was permanent. In 2007, Tim Flannery who is now the Federal Govenrment’s climate commissioner, declared that there had been a decline in the winter rainfall zone across Australia.

But in the end the warnings did little more than illustrate the problems of forecasting, any forecasting. For no sooner had the CSIRO-BoM scientists declared that the drought would continue than it started to rain and, it seems, has not stopped raining in South Eastern Australia. One result of all that rain, including two years of flooding due to back to back La Ninas, and now quite full dams, has been to wash away a great deal of public support for previous assertions about global warming.

Most of those who listened to or read the various gloomy forecasts made at the height of the drought would have little idea of any of the scientific basis for them, and would have barely heard any of the counter arguments. They have better things to do than get to the bottom of a technical issue. But they do know a lot of water when they see it, and would remember that the experts had told them their patch of Australia was drying up.

In the grand tradition of forecasters caught out by reality, the experts have broadly reinterpreted what was originally said. Media consumers are now told that the original forecasts emphasised that both droughts and flooding would increase as the world warmed (to be fair, some of the forecasts also mentioned floods).

The federal government’s Climate Commission has also issued a statement that people should look beyond the past two years of rain, floods and dams full to overflowing, and instead consider the 10 average which is still pretty dry compared to previous periods.

The trouble with these hurried reinterpretations is that those living in rural areas know perfectly well the level of the last severe flooding, perhaps back in the 1970s, as it is usually marked on a handy feature. The last set of floods came up to those marks. They and their city cousins may also have heard somewhere that rainfall is subject to cycles, and that the climate of Australia’s eastern seaboard has returned to the notably wetter conditions that prevailed from the late 1940s through to the mid-1970s. They may put those bits of information together to conclude that the experts were quite wrong in their assessments of the reasons for the drought.

Staunch defenders of global warming theory may brush aside such quibbles by pointing out that temperature and rainfall forecasts are quite separate matters, and they would be correct. It is possible to have both high temperatures and high rainfall, as anyone who visits a rain forest would know. The trouble is that scientists in 2009 were confidently linking increasing greenhouse gases to the drought, and telling everyone the dams would never be full, and promptly got more than two years of rain and full dams. It does them little good now to point to averages. In addition, the state governments built desalinisation plants with political fumbling making them difficult to switch off or dismantle in some states. They have become monuments to the folly of believing in forecasts.

This creates a problem for the Gillard government, even bigger than the self-generated political mess into which it has fallen. It is committed to the carbon tax, which will come into effect in July, but even the least media-savvy voters are becoming suspicious of the warnings about climate change that inspired the tax. Voters in marginal electorates don’t follow politics much (who can blame them), but may well have heard about the problems with the desalination plants. If the experts were so wrong about rainfall, why can’t they be wrong about temperatures and so why do we need this tax? Or so the reasoning will go.

The Climate Commissions’ assurances, plus another climate report put out by the CSIRO earlier this year, and yet another by the IPCC, reiterating warnings that greenhouse gases will lead to substantial additional warming, will do little to offset this massive increase in scepticism.

On top of this is the general angst over increases in electricity prices, which on average have risen almost 40 per cent more than inflation since the election of the Rudd government in 2007. The Rudd and Gillard governments are only partially to blame for this increase, through legislation requiring a massive increase in green electricity. Most of the increase is due to changes in networks which will not be discussed here.

As noted earlier the carbon tax has yet to start, but once it is up and running it will be a handy scape goat. Voters can relieve their feelings over the high bills they have to pay by demanding it be abolished, and abolition will at least prevent a part of future price increases. All of this means that voters already suspicious of the carbon tax will soon consider it to be in the same category as the desalination plants in each state – as an expensive white elephant that should not have to pay for.

Labor may commit political suicide for a host of reasons unconnected with the tax, but it’s certainly not going to help them at the polls.

This piece is reproduced under the terms of its Creative commons licence and the original can be found here


Give it  up Tim, NO one belives your crap any more…

Cheers Comrades


Saturday trifecta

Cheers Comrades

No effect from our emission reductions for nearly 1000 years according to Tim Flannery

click for MTR audio

I was rather bemused by the rant from Jonathan Holmes on the ABC’s media watch where he was basically whining about the number of sceptics  who are the broadcasters on commercial talk radio and the way that they don’t seem to have that many AGW true believers on their programs as guests. Well hats off to Steve Price and Andrew Bolt  for inviting Tim Flannery to speak on their show this morning.

Sadly though Tim did not do so well, even though he did reluctantly  to admit that all of the pain of this government’s attempts to reduce our emissions will not make any difference for nearly a thousand years (if at all) which sort of makes all of the AGW mitigation arguments rather moot… Unless you happen to be on the gravy train like our Tim here

Cheers Comrades

Flannery flummoxed

this should not be happening according to tim Flannerys predictions...

this should not be happening according to Tim Flannery's predictions... (click to enlarge)

A delicious piece in the Canadian Press shows all would be prophets of doom just how fraught is the prediction business , especially if you are an “Australian of the year”.

Yep, our own bone “expert” on AGW doom-saying is being lampooned for getting it oh so wrong…

The Australian segment gave a good deal of airtime to Down Under’s foremost alarmist, Tim Flannery, author of the best-selling Weather Makers and 2008 “Australian of the Year.” It suggested that the current drought, unlike many previous ones, “doesn’t seem to be ending.” Professor Flannery indicted government inertia and even suggested analogies with Alberta, where the locals were allegedly proving slow to realize they shouldn’t be digging up the tar sands.

All depressingly typical so far. But then, yesterday, The Current returned to the issue after a correspondent informed them that many parts of Australia had recently, and joyfully, been inundated with rain! Meanwhile, the program also acknowledged a recent column titled “Top 10 dud predictions,” by an Australian journalist, Andrew Bolt, which pointed out that Professor Flannery’s apocalyptic projections had proved way, way, off.

Last March, Mr. Flannery pronounced that “The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009.” Last month, Adelaide’s reservoirs were up to 75% full. In June, Professor Flannery opined that Brisbane might need desalinated water within 18 months. Brisbane has in fact just had its wettest spring in 27 years. Professor Flannery had previously made similarly off-base doomsterish forecasts for reservoirs in Sydney and Perth.
The fact that northern Australia wasn’t as drought-ridden as models predicted was due, he said, to “brown cloud pollution” in Asia that was cooling the ground and causing monsoons to shift south. But then didn’t this undermine climate change theory, asked Ms. Tremonti? Ah, declared Mr. Flannery, that theory is “complex.” We shouldn’t look at particular weather incidences.

But then isn’t that exactly what Mr. Flannery and his ilk constantly do, quoting Hurricane Katrina or the 2007-08 loss of Arctic sea ice (since reversed) as “conclusive proof” of their beliefs?

Mr. Flannery warned Ms. Tremonti against “any simplistic view.” After all, Australian industry was trying to mislead the public because it had just been lumbered with an emissions trading scheme. So they were “stirring the pot” when, presumably, it was only alarmists who should be allowed spoons.


Don’t you just love it? I make jokes all the time about the paucity of any predictions about the weather and I have outright contempt for any claims that any prediction beyond what may happen on any particular day will be “accurate” because every one knows that prediction becomes exponentially more difficult the further that you look into the future.

Ah, but Tim Flannery is a joke , an articulate and persuasive one but a joke none the less. Sadly his foolishness reflects badly on us all as Australians because when we make such a man our person of the year what does that say about us?
Cheers Comrades

Computer Models vs Chicken entrails

While some people want to endlessly debate the “science” of AGW and will get extremely heated about how many Tim Flannerys or Al Gores could dance on the head of a pin* the reality is that the further into the future that you try to predict anything the greater your potential for error actually is. And once you get up past the coming weeks or months such predictions become as fanciful as the writing of Lewis Carroll or Jonathan Swift. Not that such a thing will impinge upon the beliefs of your average Warminsta…

The piece from today’s Oz that I quote below points out the problems with such prognostications.**

A frequent commentator on carbon reduction schemes, Professor McKibbin said the carbon pollution reduction scheme proposed in a green paper, and the subject of an upcoming white paper, was the result of a “diabolical policy process” and risked disadvantaging Australia in global markets.

Speaking at a Committee for the Economic Development of Australia lunch in Brisbane, the economics professor said the Garnaut Report, released on September 30, was originally commissioned by the states, partly as a political tool to attack the federal Coalition, and has since had to be embraced by the incoming Labor Government.

He questioned whether that required Climate Change Department secretary Martin Parkinson to have a “schizophrenic” approach to policy development.

But Professor McKibbin, from the Australian National University, was most critical of Treasury’s long-term economic modelling, which was used by the Rudd Government to allay fears an emissions trading scheme would damage the economy. While partly involved in the modelling, Professor McKibbin said he was not responsible for the scenarios and believed it was “stretching the imagination” to believe you could forecast 100 years in advance and use that process to determine targets.

“I don’t think we can calculate cost-benefit analysis over 100 years into the future,” Professor McKibbin said.

“We just have very poor tools at our disposal to work out what the costs will be, or what the world economy will look like, in 2100, just as we didn’t have a really good idea at the turn of the 20th century, in 1900, what the world would look like today.

(my bold)

What we can be sure of is that once it comes to predicting the future a hundred years from now is that we can have as much faith in a soothsayer examining the entrails of a chicken as we can in the Climate scientists and economists, slaving over their computer models and we could at least make a tasty meal out of the poor chicken.

Cheers Comrades


*The number can not of course be determined, but as the latter gent is of a more corpulent stature it is clear that more Tim Flannerys could dance there than Al Gores though 🙂
** I love this word too Ray



%d bloggers like this: