How about balance?

Here's a great review of "The Great Global Warming Swindle" that adds perspective:

http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XXXVIII/Issu ...

But at the same time, Durkin's documentary plays a useful role: it reminds us that the global warming issue is actually debatable. Many people regard global warming as an unquestionable fact because it is reportedly proven by "science." More often than not, the media reinforces this perception. For example, in February, the New York Times cited a "leading international network of climate scientists" from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change who reported global warming as "unequivocal."

The Crisis is bad, sure, but usually the mismanagement of a crisis is what people focus on, often because it is indeed pretty bad. Too many times is the original crisis and it's causes overlooked because of the negative escalation of the Crisis' intensity caused by the Mismanagement.

So the Crisis itself gets worse because the focus is on the mismanagement of the crisis response, not in addressing the original cause of the crisis in the first place. Australia has been dealing with that for years. The country seems to be showing the world what a poster child for catastrophic (yes, losing 72% of your food production deserves that word) climate change looks like.

Things are looking grim for many parts of Oz, thankfully we've had some decent rains here in the last couple of days that may delay the irrigation death knell for some farmers. Seeing this rain has been almost surreal.

But even if this rain does break the drought somewhat; I think Mother Nature has given us the final tap on the shoulder. The danger is now that there's a bit of moisture around, people will think everything's OK. It will take years of above average rains to get us back on an even keel water-wise and given how our climate is becoming increasingly screwed up; none of us can be sure that will happen.

Little Johnny Howler, our Prime Monster, I mean Minister, is really out of touch on the topic of water. He knows on one level how bad it is, but when asked if he would be prepared to have a bucket in the shower to catch the water for use on his garden; he laughed and said that was a little over the top. What message does this put across to the thousands of water conscious Aussies who do this? Some towns now have to have water trucked in. In some states and cities, having a rainwater tank was illegal until recently.

I really feel for the farmers plight, but we've got to all understand, Australia is just not suited to many of the crops we grow here; even more so now given climate change.

I had a block of land in the outback where there was groundwater available. A major farm was then established many miles away and began drawing on that water. Very quickly, many bores in the entire area ran dry. This is happening in many places - aquifers are not being recharged due to lack of rainfall.

South Australia has lost around 80% of native vegetation cover in just 120 years in order to plant wheat and other crops. A look at South Oz via Google Earth gives you a good idea of the result of these practices. It's like a moonscape in many places. The Murray river at this end is a horrid brown/green.

The plight of the Murray-Darling River system has been known by our government for decades. It's now so bad that it's listed as one of the 10 rivers most at risk in the world by the WWF.

Howard knows that global warming is real and is contributing to what could be the final nail in the coffin of the Murray, even his own government scientists tell him that - it's foolish pride that's preventing him from admitting it and his concern about the "economics" of addressing climate change. I certainly hope his own announcement about cutting off irrigation water has smacked him in the face about the "economics" of not attempting to address it.

Michael Bloch Green Living Tips http://www.greenlivingtips.com

"Jabailo"'s quote further states that "Many people regard global warming as an unquestionable fact because it is reportedly proven by 'science.'" It is a fact both reportedly and repeatedly proven by science, with or without the scare quotes. Every statement of the IPCC is vetted by all participating governments, including nay-sayers like the United States and massive polluters like China, and yet they still managed to call the evidence for global warming "unequivocal."

Believing something because it has been proven by science is perfectly rational. Nor can I see how reporting scientific findings invalidates them.

"Jabailo"'a attitude reminds me of Homer Simpson's complaint that "You can use facts to prove anything just because it happens to be true." I wonder if his contempt for "science" extends to televisions, refrigerators, computers, or antibiotics, all products of his despised "science."

I thought these sources were rather informative

http://greyfalcon.net/solar2.png
http://greyfalcon.net/solar4.png
http://www.greyfalcon.net/carbon
http://www.greyfalcon.net/swindle

http://www.climateofdenial.net/?q=node/3
http://www.durangobill.com/Swindle_Swindle.html

http://www.davidmiliband.defra.gov.uk/blogs/ministerial_b ...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/04/ ...
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,, ...

_

But one that I thought was rather interesting was that even Newt Gingrich agrees that the science is solid now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upphPTRr_PE

_

While Gore may be guilty of overselling the exact degree of warming, and severity of the fallout.

Swindle is guilty of using information that had already been scientifically disproven.

-David Ahlport

That detail is most telling, about how John Howard throws off the bucket-in-the-shower suggestion as ridiculous.  It rather reminds me of that fascinating line in the original "King Kong," when Kong, having been chained up as a spectacle in a theater in NYC, breaks free from his chains, and the people in the theater prudently panic and rush for the exits, and one of the producers idiotically cries out, "There is nothing to be afraid of, ladies and gentlemen, this is all part of the show!"

And this tourism ad sounds cheery enough too, from the website of cruisingholidays.co.uk:

<<
Paddlesteamer Cruises on Australia's Murray River
8-day/5-day cruises by paddlesteamer along Australia's greatest river or a 3-night weekend cruise including transfers from Adelaide

The mighty Murray, the world's fifth largest river, courses more than 3,000 kilometres across one third of the Australian continent. From its source in the Snowy Mountains of NSW it travels to the Southern Ocean near Adelaide, the Murray/Darling Basin. The scenery is some of the most ancient on earth - a place where all the colours of Australia converge.
...
The Murray is a haven for over 350 species of birds. It's an outback oasis for a myriad of fascinating wildlife including majestic sulphur crested cockatoos, kangaroos, goannas, black swans, gentle pelicans and the legendary Murray Cod.
>>

I love that: "gentle pelicans."  And that reminds me of yet another dinosaur movie moment, the tranquil yet ironic closing scene of "Jurassic Park."

While Joseph Romm may be worried about agriculture, I am worried about wildlife.  How is this drought cycle affecting them?  The Wikipedia article, s.v. Murray River, says plainly enough that the ecosystems have already been degraded for some time, not least by the ill-advised introduction of new fish species, especially the carp.

You Australians, I am getting the feeling, really take the cake when it comes to less-than-brilliant introductions of new critters, or are at least presenting impressive competition to us Americans.  In a hundred years' time, everything native in Australia will either be extinct or cowering in shadows, while the rabbits and the cane toads take over.

In fact, Australia is a nail-biter of an experiment in evolutionary history, not even because of all the invasives, but because the tectonic plate on which it is resting is moving at a relatively swift rate northward, deep into the Tropics.  Will native species have time to evolve and adapt to an increasingly hot climate?  That is not at all clear.

It is painfully clear, meanwhile, that koalas, e.g., as well as other small fauna, are not well adapted to escaping forest fires.  And the recent fires in the vicinity of Sydney have been especially savage, what with their very swift movement, and oily eucalyptus trees exploding.  A third classic movie, Disney's "Bambi" (in which the only dinosaurs are the birds), falsely suggests that all those dear woodland creatures somehow escaped the forest fire.  Of course, the smaller and slower of them would have perished, most likely, unless they could take excellent shelter (as perhaps some turtles can), while only the largest and swiftest, or otherwise most mobile, with the most acute senses, had a chance of escaping.

And even so, in the New South Wales fires, many kangaroos perished, no doubt with great suffering, for all that they were large, swift, mobile and acutely sensitive.

So, in sum: The not-so-slow but steady northward progress of Australia has already been putting great pressure on native wildlife.  Later, there arrived some very tough and nasty invasive species.  And now, there is global warming, rapidly and starkly manifesting itself.

Plus, there is no sign (?) that a leader such as Steve Irwin can rise up soon to take his place.

What hope is there, then, for the wildlife of Australia?

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

Is the Australian drought a sign of things to come? More likely than not, but a precise answer as of today has to be statistical and with some uncertainty. Does the nasty "Swindle" swindle have anything to do with it? Absolutely not.


mt

Don't waste time engaging him.

Whiskerfish