Australia is drying out thanks to our...

Australia is drying out thanks to our emissions

There are 153 comments on the New Scientist story from Jul 13, 2014, titled Australia is drying out thanks to our emissions. In it, New Scientist reports that:

Australia is drying out, and it's largely our fault. The south-west of the country can expect to see average annual rainfall drop by 40 per cent compared with the mid-20th century, and a new model suggests that the main cause is human greenhouse gas emissions.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at New Scientist.

SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#43 Jul 14, 2014
Lowprofile wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said spaceballs, you need to look around at the shambles your own country has become, we're pretty happy that our government has seen this climate garbage for what it is and dealt with it accordingly. Barry seems to be concentrating on filling your country up with more third worlders, wow is that a step in the right direction, NOT. There's a thing called priorities spaceballs and people like you seem to have missed most of them.
Thanks for your concerns regarding my country. Immigration is a federal responsibility. Nobody asks my opinion about it. Besides it is considered offtopic here in this forum unless you show otherwise.

Whereas man-made climate change is a global human problem. Your CO2 is my CO2, if you will use the science behind it.
Goats Milk Australia

Ryde, Australia

#44 Jul 14, 2014
It's a bit of a disgrace, our lack of action on emissions. What concerns me the most is motor vehicle emissions. There are more and more cars on the roads as the population increases, and they are still all burning either petrol or diesel. We must adopt new emission standards. Electric cars are the answer. Cars like the Tesla model S. That's the future. Cars like the toyota prius and Nissan leaf.
Goats Milk Australia

Ryde, Australia

#45 Jul 14, 2014
5.5 inches of fat D in the back of the Tesla model S. Electric all the way.

It's enough to make any woman wet.
Goats Milk Australia

Ryde, Australia

#46 Jul 14, 2014
All porn films should feature sex in electric cars.
Goats Milk Australia

Ryde, Australia

#47 Jul 14, 2014
Make that 5.5 inches of thick uncircumcised D in the back of an EV.
Jim the Hoax Denier

Pasadena, TX

#48 Jul 14, 2014
SpacedOutBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Let me answer you with peer-reviewed science.
Yeah, I trust EVERYTHING peer reviewed, just like I trust EVERYTHING I read on the internet! Tu comprends?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mi...
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/granitegeek/10...
http://www.the-scientist.com/...
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/sciencecareers/20...
http://barcorefblog.blogspot.com/2012/10/fake...
My French date is showing up soon, so I gotta go. I hear she's really hot! Apologies to State Farm...
Jim the Hoax Denier

Pasadena, TX

#49 Jul 14, 2014
Monty wrote:
Blind faith can be dangerous
What I find fascinating is that derelicts like Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb, is still held in high regard in scietific circles instead of being thoroughly discredited as the fraud he is.
Jim the Hoax Denier

Pasadena, TX

#50 Jul 14, 2014
Goats Milk Australia wrote:
All porn films should feature sex in electric cars.
Kaleeeforniacation banned it. Too dangerous getting that much moisture near an electrical source...

“REFUSE ALL IMITATIONS!!”

Since: Jan 11

Australia

#51 Jul 14, 2014
Jim the Hoax Denier wrote:
<quoted text>
What I find fascinating is that derelicts like Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb, is still held in high regard in scietific circles instead of being thoroughly discredited as the fraud he is.
All part of the J-ewish world-manipulation juggernaut with the familiar guilt-trip ring to it.

Look for his name here ... http://tinyurl.com/n7z267b
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#52 Jul 14, 2014
Jim the Hoax Denier wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, I trust EVERYTHING peer reviewed, just like I trust EVERYTHING I read on the internet! Tu comprends?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mi...
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/granitegeek/10...
http://www.the-scientist.com/...
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/sciencecareers/20...
http://barcorefblog.blogspot.com/2012/10/fake...
My French date is showing up soon, so I gotta go. I hear she's really hot! Apologies to State Farm...
Hahaha you don't comrehend.. Did you read the paper I referenced? Of course, NOT.

Hope your date knows a little more than you to be able to teach you about the difference between newspapers and science papers. But hey, forget about it, LOL.
Harry

Ryde, Australia

#53 Jul 14, 2014
To think that man can pump out huge amounts of pollution day after day, year after year, with no consequences is naive to say the least. Our actions do have an impact.
Yo bro

Australia

#54 Jul 14, 2014
Harry wrote:
To think that man can pump out huge amounts of pollution day after day, year after year, with no consequences is naive to say the least. Our actions do have an impact.
To think that Australia which produces less than 2 percent of the worlds pollution can make a difference is also naive, so slugging another expense on a population already on a tight budget is also reaching a bit. You need to be having this discussion with the Chinese

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countrie...
trev

Geelong, Australia

#56 Jul 15, 2014
define 'pollution'....
co2 is not and never will be a pollutant, only the naÔve BELIEVE it is because BELIEF is required for this new socialist religion because the facts do not support the theories.

Self labelled Climate Scientists, the nutty Paleoclimatologists and the IPCC bureaucrats cannot predict this or Global events like El Nino or La Nina but are confident they can predict the future climate despite clearly lacking a full understanding of some major climate mechanisms. Their arrogance is exceeded only by their ignorance.
Harry wrote:
To think that man can pump out huge amounts of pollution day after day, year after year, with no consequences is naive to say the least. Our actions do have an impact.
Goats Milk Australia

North Sydney, Australia

#57 Jul 15, 2014
Yo bro wrote:
<quoted text>To think that Australia which produces less than 2 percent of the worlds pollution can make a difference is also naive, so slugging another expense on a population already on a tight budget is also reaching a bit. You need to be having this discussion with the Chinese
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countrie...
But why not make a difference here?

Why not reduce our emissions?

It will serve as encouragement and example for others to do the same.
Goats Milk Australia

North Sydney, Australia

#58 Jul 15, 2014
Yo bro wrote:
<quoted text>To think that Australia which produces less than 2 percent of the worlds pollution can make a difference is also naive, so slugging another expense on a population already on a tight budget is also reaching a bit. You need to be having this discussion with the Chinese
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countrie...
Think a little further than the next budget.
Monroe

Saint Albans, WV

#59 Jul 15, 2014
Harry wrote:
To think that man can pump out huge amounts of pollution day after day, year after year, with no consequences is naive to say the least. Our actions do have an impact.
Really? Before anyone gets more hysterical over global warming, before anyone demands economic sacrifice to reduce CO2 output because it causes warming, must first explain why there has been no significant global warming for the last 17 years while atmospheric CO2 has continued to increase.

The models that predict future disaster, predicted warming that has not happened. The models are wrong. The computer programs that predict disaster are wrong. CO2 increased but temperature did not. So global warming became climate change became climate disruption. Whatever it takes to skin that cat.

Anyone with an open mind, or remains rational, would be skeptical about the whole subject.

For those who blame bad weather on AGW, they must show a mechanism where AGW caused the bad weather or admit to being hysterical fools totally dedicated to their faith based religion of AGW.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#60 Jul 15, 2014
Monroe wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? Before anyone gets more hysterical over global warming, before anyone demands economic sacrifice to reduce CO2 output because it causes warming, must first explain why there has been no significant global warming for the last 17 years while atmospheric CO2 has continued to increase.
The models that predict future disaster, predicted warming that has not happened. The models are wrong. The computer programs that predict disaster are wrong. CO2 increased but temperature did not. So global warming became climate change became climate disruption. Whatever it takes to skin that cat.
Anyone with an open mind, or remains rational, would be skeptical about the whole subject.
For those who blame bad weather on AGW, they must show a mechanism where AGW caused the bad weather or admit to being hysterical fools totally dedicated to their faith based religion of AGW.
USA is not the whole globe but :A new report from libertarian think tank Heartland Institute claims that new government data debunks the concept of global climate change. However, an examination of the full data and some critical consideration shows that the organization, whether unintentionally or deliberately, has inaccurately characterized and misrepresented the information and what it shows.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2014/...

Must be your source, huh?

P.S. A misuse of information that could unnecessarily muddy discussion is harmful. What Heartland did with some information from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration can charitably be called distortion.
trev

Geelong, Australia

#61 Jul 15, 2014
what, like manns hockey stick graph?????
what a hypocrite.

your 'science' relies on b.s. consensus and shonky peer reviews to and 'prove' that it is right, rather than actual facts.

Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because youíre being had

the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus
SpaceBlues wrote:
P.S. A misuse of information that could unnecessarily muddy discussion is harmful. What Heartland did with some information from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration can charitably be called distortion.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#62 Jul 15, 2014
trev wrote:
what, like manns hockey stick graph?????
what a hypocrite.
your 'science' relies on b.s. consensus and shonky peer reviews to and 'prove' that it is right, rather than actual facts.
Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because youíre being had
the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus
<quoted text>
Come down from another's horse, thief.

None of what you posted is correct. But your source is in the mud.
Yo bro

Australia

#63 Jul 15, 2014
Goats Milk Australia wrote:
<quoted text> But why not make a difference here?
Why not reduce our emissions?
It will serve as encouragement and example for others to do the same.
Because the cost of living in this country is already through the roof, why put more strain on the population for little to no gain?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weather Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Obama to Mandate Steeper Emissions Cuts From US... 10 hr RustyS 7
News Michelle Grossman - About NBC 10 News Story - W... (Mar '08) Mon red ed 658
News Severe thunderstorm watch issued for Toronto, V... Mon news community 1
News A storm in Goderich on Aug. 2, 2015. Image cred... Mon Storm 1
News 'Alaskan Bush People' are 'On the Prowl' on Dis... Aug 2 singlesweet-brat 14
News Fatal heat wave 20 years ago changed Chicago's ... Aug 2 No8isClassic 8
News Global warming could cut number of Arctic hurri... (Sep '10) Aug 2 Earthling-1 4
More from around the web