Why Evolution is True

[biggles53]

The problem is you throw the baby out with the bath water. Some of the things Andrew Bolt says are right and if you read his comments you will see that what he has said has been shown to be true.

And a busted clock is right twice a day....but why would you bother keeping it....!?

Tim Flannery is one scientist used by the labor government. He predicted in 2005 that Sydney's dams would be dry in as little as 2 years and we would be facing a major lack of water for Australia's largest city. Thats when we were in a drought and everyone was going on about how bad it was and all the alarmists were predicting all sorts of things about running out of water. In fact there were some stupid policies made on the run because of this which ended up costing the tax payer heaps of money. Then we had the flooding rains and our dams were full to the brims.

In 2008, Flannery said: "The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009."
In 2007, Flannery predicted cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains, as global warming had caused "a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas" and made the soil too hot, "so even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and river systems ... ".

Check the Murray-Darling system today: in flood. Check Brisbane's dam levels: 100 per cent full.

Some politicians, voters and investors have taken this kind of warming alarmism very seriously and made expensive decisions in the belief it was sound.

So let's check on them, too.

In 2007, Flannery predicted global warming would so dry our continent that desalination plants were needed to save three of our biggest cities from disaster.

As he put it: "Over the past 50 years, southern Australia has lost about 20 per cent of its rainfall, and one cause is almost certainly global warming ...

"In Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane, water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months."

One premier, Queensland's Peter Beattie, took such predictions - made by other warming alarmists, too - so seriously that he spent more than $1 billion of taxpayers' money on a desalination plant, saying "it is only prudent to assume at this stage that lower-than-usual rainfalls could eventuate".

But check that desalination plant today: mothballed indefinitely, now that the rains have returned.

Now if you go to the other side of the debate the liberal government can be shown to use science stats to promote their agenda of getting rid of the carbon tax. Not so much that they deny global warming anymore but the methods and ways in which it is happening and how to deal with it. So they will find all the data that supports warming not being caused by man and that its not as bad as we think it is.

But the main piece of evidence would be the fact that in any debate you will find that their is scientific data and stats for both sides of the argument. There is even a whole topic on the manipulation and politicizing of science. So that in itself shows how science can be wrong as both sides cant be right at the same time.
Politicization of science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But you have missed the point by not allowing me to use other areas where science has been used by governments and organizations to promote certain agendas like with sugar and diets. The point I was trying to make was that science can be used and manipulated. It is not just the facts and stats that science will make , its the point that humans can and will twist and manipulate things to their own beliefs or agendas. Side tracking the debate to focus on whether the government uses science wrongly is not the point of was making.

Oh, I see....all that water worry was unnecessary...?

How about you explain that to the farmers in 80% of Queensland, who are experiencing the worst drought in Australia's recorded history....!

 

[dad]

And a busted clock is right twice a day....but why would you bother keeping it....!?


Oh, I see....all that water worry was unnecessary...?

How about you explain that to the farmers in 80% of Queensland, who are experiencing the worst drought in Australia's recorded history....!

Maybe they should pray for rain.

 

[dad]

Then, how the hell did you decide that climate change was, in fact, real...!?

God built in climate change to this present state. He plans to expedite it greatly as we progress toward the end of this state also. Men will gnaw their tongues in pain and thirst and heat. Don't think recycling will help!

 

[stevevw]

And a busted clock is right twice a day....but why would you bother keeping it....!?


Oh, I see....all that water worry was unnecessary...?

How about you explain that to the farmers in 80% of Queensland, who are experiencing the worst drought in Australia's recorded history....!

your still missing the point. I am not denying global warming. In fact you were just saying how can i be deciding if there is global warming like you didn't believe in it. Now your trying to promote it. So I dont know what you believe.

But that is still not the point. Getting into a debate about whether climate change is real is side tracking the point I was trying to make. The point is that scientists can and sometimes do use data wrongly and make wrong predictions. They can be influenced by other agendas. In Flannerys case he was a paid scientists for the labor government who believed in climate change and wanted to push their carbon tax.

The point is Flannery made alarmist predictions about Australia facing major problems and having permanent droughts. That even if rain fell it would be enough to fill our dams. He said the wine industry would collasp and as western Sydney sweltered in a heat wave people would revert to crime and go mad. The government backed this and decisions were made costing billions of dollars were based on this advice.

What followed his predictions was floods, floods and more floods. The dams did fill, the wine industry did continue and western Sydney went into having freezing weather during the winters.

Yes we are having some droughts in some areas but they could be followed by floods again. After all as far as anyone can remember Australia is a land of droughts and flooding plains and there were no green house gases affecting anything back when that song was made. But whether the droughts at the moment are caused by global warming isn't the point. Its the misuse and alarmist science that was being used which has sinse been shown to be wrong. Remember Flannery said there would NEVER be rain enough to fill the dams again and we would be in permanent drought.

 

[biggles53]

your still missing the point. I am not denying global warming. In fact you were just saying how can i be deciding if there is global warming like you didn't believe in it. Now your trying to promote it. So I dont know what you believe.

But that is still not the point. Getting into a debate about whether climate change is real is side tracking the point I was trying to make. The point is that scientists can and sometimes do use data wrongly and make wrong predictions. They can be influenced by other agendas. In Flannerys case he was a paid scientists for the labor government who believed in climate change and wanted to push their carbon tax.

The point is Flannery made alarmist predictions about Australia facing major problems and having permanent droughts. That even if rain fell it would be enough to fill our dams. He said the wine industry would collasp and as western Sydney sweltered in a heat wave people would revert to crime and go mad. The government backed this and decisions were made costing billions of dollars were based on this advice.

What followed his predictions was floods, floods and more floods. The dams did fill, the wine industry did continue and western Sydney went into having freezing weather during the winters.

Yes we are having some droughts in some areas but they could be followed by floods again. After all as far as anyone can remember Australia is a land of droughts and flooding plains and there were no green house gases affecting anything back when that song was made. But whether the droughts at the moment are caused by global warming isn't the point. Its the misuse and alarmist science that was being used which has sinse been shown to be wrong. Remember Flannery said there would NEVER be rain enough to fill the dams again and we would be in permanent drought.

Please show the quotes of Flannery making those supposed statements....or withdraw them....

And YOU complain of others making inflammatory claims to further their agenda...!?

 

[stevevw]

Please show the quotes of Flannery making those supposed statements....or withdraw them....

And YOU complain of others making inflammatory claims to further their agenda...!?

Wait a minute your accusing me of something and you havnt given me a chance to reply to. Besides one effort to look into what i said would easily know that it is true. You are an Australian and it was common knowledge and a national joke that Flannery got it so wrong. He even predicted some meter rise with the ocean with such a short time despite owning a waterfront property himself.

But once again why are we getting bogged down by this. Are you saying that scientists and people dont manipulate figures and data to suit their own agendas sometimes.

Perhaps of even greater significance, Flannery is being publicly criticised by prominent meteorologists. Indeed, The Weather Channel’s Dick Whitaker recently stated: “People ideally suited to (weather forecasting) are meteorologists. From what I can see on Tim Flannery, meteorology wasn’t one of his specialties.”
Flannery out of his depth as flooding rains return « Australian Climate Madness

This is an interview with Tim Flannery on landline ABC
Landline - 11/02/2007: Interview with Professor Tim Flannery . Australian Broadcasting Corp

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/enoughrope/transcripts/s2369164.htm

The mistake that Tim Flannery, as well as the numerous expert commentators made, was that they confused climate variability for climate change. The future impact of climate change is very uncertain, but when one “wants to believe”, then it is all too easy to get sucked in and to get it spectacularly wrong.
Climate and floods: Flannery is no expert, but neither are the experts

Appointed by Climate Change Minister Greg Combet to his $3,000 per week, part-time job in February, Flannery is tasked with turning around the climate change debate for the minority Labor administration.
His comments, made in a 2004 interview with the Sydney Morning Herald, are just one indicator of the depth of Flannery's quasi-religious fervour for climate change, not to mention his exaggerated sense of self-importance.
Many commentators have noted the extensive use of quasi-religious language by climate activists. Followers of the hypothesis that man is responsible for so-called dangerous climate change are referred to as ‘believers' whilst doubters are often labelled ‘deniers,' ‘sceptics' and even ‘heretics.'
The public shaming and bullying of any scientist who differs from climate science orthodoxy is eerily reminiscent of a latter-day Salem Witch-trial or Spanish Inquisition, with public floggings meted out-metaphorically speaking-for their thought crimes. Indeed, ‘dissenters', as they have also been labelled, suffer ritual humiliation at the hands of their colleagues and the media, with their every motivation questioned and views pilloried.
Elements of the climate change movement are beginning to bear more resemblance to a religious cult than a scientific community. Dalliances with authoritarianism are never far from the fringes of the green movement.

http://ipa.org.au/publications/1888/tim-flannery-climate-prophet

 

[createdtoworship]

Wait a minute your accusing me of something and you havnt given me a chance to reply to. Besides one effort to look into what i said would easily know that it is true. You are an Australian and it was common knowledge and a national joke that Flannery got it so wrong. He even predicted some meter rise with the ocean with such a short time despite owning a waterfront property himself.

But once again why are we getting bogged down by this. Are you saying that science and people dont manipulate figures and data to suit their own agendas sometimes.

Perhaps of even greater significance, Flannery is being publicly criticised by prominent meteorologists. Indeed, The Weather Channel’s Dick Whitaker recently stated: “People ideally suited to (weather forecasting) are meteorologists. From what I can see on Tim Flannery, meteorology wasn’t one of his specialties.”
Flannery out of his depth as flooding rains return « Australian Climate Madness

This is an interview with Tim Flannery on landline ABC
Landline - 11/02/2007: Interview with Professor Tim Flannery . Australian Broadcasting Corp

The mistake that Tim Flannery, as well as the numerous expert commentators made, was that they confused climate variability for climate change. The future impact of climate change is very uncertain, but when one “wants to believe”, then it is all too easy to get sucked in and to get it spectacularly wrong.
Climate and floods: Flannery is no expert, but neither are the experts

your doing better than myself with biggles, (so far I have had him on ignore twice for belittling and being outright rude).

 

[stevevw]

your doing better than myself with biggles, (so far I have had him on ignore twice for belittling and being outright rude).

Thats Ok I'm not looking for a fight, just some friendly banter. If it goes beyond that then there is no sense in taking it any further. It doesn't really matter in the end as its not going to make or brake me as a person. If I am wrong then thats fair enough and there's no points for who is right. There are no winners and losers its just a debate.

 

[biggles53]

Thats Ok I'm not looking for a fight, just some friendly banter. If it goes beyond that then there is no sense in taking it any further. It doesn't really matter in the end as its not going to make or brake me as a person. If I am wrong then thats fair enough and there's no points for who is right. There are no winners and losers its just a debate.

Steve, I'll now ask a second time.....show me where Tim Flannery supposedly made ANY of those statements that you have accused him of making....or admit that you are simply repeating what you've heard from others....

Specifically,

- you accused him of stating that heat waves would cause western Sydneysiders to go mad and commit more crime ...
- you accused him of stating that our wine industry would collapse...
- you accused him of stating that our dams would NEVER fill again...


Now, if you have a shred of honesty, you will either find those specific quotes and present them here, or you will admit that you are doing specifically what you are complaining about.....making alarmist statements...!

So....put up or shut up...!

 

[biggles53]

your doing better than myself with biggles, (so far I have had him on ignore twice for belittling and being outright rude).

"You're"...!

You have been belittled for the simple reason that foolish and blatantly dishonest things tumble from your keyboard...!

 

[createdtoworship]

"You're"...!

You have been belittled for the simple reason that foolish and blatantly dishonest things tumble from your keyboard...!

you and all your buddies have yet to prove a single allegation toward me. You didn't like where the facts and conclusions logically led, therefore you resorted to belittling. Classic example of adhominem attack.

 

[biggles53]

you and all your buddies have yet to prove a single allegation toward me. You didn't like where the facts and conclusions logically led, therefore you resorted to belittling. Classic example of adhominem attack.

Doesn't Christendom have enough martyrs by now...!?

Your....cough, cough...'arguments' have been regularly trashed on these pages....combination of your idiotic statements, your complete ignorance of the issues at hand and your propensity to lie when it suits your purpose...

 

[stevevw]

Steve, I'll now ask a second time.....show me where Tim Flannery supposedly made ANY of those statements that you have accused him of making....or admit that you are simply repeating what you've heard from others....

Specifically,

- you accused him of stating that heat waves would cause western Sydneysiders to go mad and commit more crime ...
- you accused him of stating that our wine industry would collapse...
- you accused him of stating that our dams would NEVER fill again...


Now, if you have a shred of honesty, you will either find those specific quotes and present them here, or you will admit that you are doing specifically what you are complaining about.....making alarmist statements...!

So....put up or shut up...!

You dont need to get so personal about it. Its only a debate and a difference of opinion. I dont know why you are so focused on this. My point was about whether people and even scientists can use figure and exaggerate and even misrepresent the truth sometimes.
Anyway here are the links.
- you accused him of stating that heat waves would cause western Sydneysiders to go mad and commit more crime ...

Headed by Chief Commissioner Professor Tim Flannery, the Climate Commission predicts mental health complaints will be worse during the predicted heat waves.
Asked about mental health and other impacts raised in the report, she said heatwaves led to surges in violence.
https://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/tag/tim-flannery-failed-predictions/

- you accused him of stating that our wine industry would collapse...
"Predictions are that if temperatures rise another 2 C, growing vines will become untenable in many of the world's more renowned wine regions by 2050. One such case is Australia, whose vineyard area could disappear entirely... in such an event, water, not wine would become the overriding priority."
https://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/tag/tim-flannery-failed-predictions/
Climate experts predict permanent drought could end wine industry in Australia - newsnet5.com Cleveland

- you accused him of stating that our dams would NEVER fill again... I think you will find I said " even if the rain fell it wouldn't be enough to fill our dams. In fact I made a grammar mistake and said would be enough to fill our dams.

In 2007, Tim Flannery, who is currently serving as Australia’s taxpayer funded Climate Commissioner said, “so even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems …”
Landline - 11/02/2007: Interview with Professor Tim Flannery . Australian Broadcasting Corp

I had already included these links in my last posts. If you read them they have all the quotes there from Flannery. One from the ABC landline and one from Andrew Denton on enough rope.

Not just that other scientists and many commentators from various outlets have posted his quotes and all say the same thing, he got it spectacularly wrong. He has even come out recently and retracted his statement about waterfront property being at risk within years from rising seas. This is after he bought another waterfront property as well as owning one on the Hawksbury river. He said there is no risk of any waterfront property being flooded in his life time.

Professional alarmist Tim Flannery in 1996 warned that global warming would drown beachfront houses eight storeys high (see from 4:23):

Anyone with a coastal view from their bedroom window, or their kitchen window, or whereever, is likely to lose their house as a result of that change, so anywhere, any coastal cities, coastal areas, are in grave danger.
​

But the very next year he bought a house just four or five metres from the edge of the tidal waters around the Hawkesbury estuary:

According to property searches, in 1997 Professor Flannery bought one house on the Hawkesbury with his wife, Alexandra Leigh Szalay, for $274,000.
Five years later—even as climate scientists, including Professor Flannery, claimed evidence of global warming and rising sea levels was even more solid—the couple bought the property next door, for $505,000.
​

And now the shameless alarmists contradicts that earlier scare, without apologising for it:

For a week, Professor Flannery declined to speak to journalists about his properties, but he broke his silence yesterday to tell The Weekend Australian that while waterfront property generally was at risk, his little bit of paradise was secure for his lifetime.
”There is no chance of it being inundated, short of a collapse of the Greenland Ice Shelf,” Professor Flannery said.
​

GREENIE WATCH

 

[stevevw]

Sorry double post.
http://antigreen.blogspot.com.au/2011/08/al-gore-acknowledges-failure-al-gore-is.html

 

[biggles53]

You dont need to get so personal about it. Its only a debate and a difference of opinion. I dont know why you are so focused on this. My point was about whether people and even scientists can use figure and exaggerate and even misrepresent the truth sometimes.

And you've failed miserably to make that argument, as I'll show shortly...

And yes, I get personal when I find people either deliberately lying to push an agenda, or, at the very least, being too lazy to find out the facts for themselves and rely instead on the hacks like Bolt and Paterson for their talking points...

Anyway here are the links.
- you accused him of stating that heat waves would cause western Sydneysiders to go mad and commit more crime ...

Headed by Chief Commissioner Professor Tim Flannery, the Climate Commission predicts mental health complaints will be worse during the predicted heat waves.
Asked about mental health and other impacts raised in the report, she said heatwaves led to surges in violence.
https://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/tag/tim-flannery-failed-predictions/

Those comments were NOT made by Tim Flannery...they were made by Professor Lesley Hughes, who has the necessary credentials in mental health to make comments upon the relationship between heat waves and mental states...

STRIKE ONE against your honesty....

- you accused him of stating that our wine industry would collapse...
"Predictions are that if temperatures rise another 2 C, growing vines will become untenable in many of the world's more renowned wine regions by 2050. One such case is Australia, whose vineyard area could disappear entirely... in such an event, water, not wine would become the overriding priority."
https://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/tag/tim-flannery-failed-predictions/
Climate experts predict permanent drought could end wine industry in Australia - newsnet5.com Cleveland

Those comments were NOT Made by Tim Flannery....they were made by a journalist writing for the Prague Post...! Did you think I wouldn't check....??

STRIKE TWO against your integrity....

- you accused him of stating that our dams would NEVER fill again... I think you will find I said " even if the rain fell it wouldn't be enough to fill our dams. In fact I made a grammar mistake and said would be enough to fill our dams.

In 2007, Tim Flannery, who is currently serving as Australia’s taxpayer funded Climate Commissioner said, “so even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems …”
Landline - 11/02/2007: Interview with Professor Tim Flannery . Australian Broadcasting Corp

You quoted the liar Bolt, in saying that Flannery had said the dams would NEVER fill again.....do you want me to embarrass you further by showing the relevant post, or can you at least get THAT much right yourself...!?

Are you aware what Flannery was speaking about when he made those comments...? I suggest you lift your gaze from those denial sites and do a little broader research

It was a QUOTE MINE Steve, and you got completely sucked in by it...!

STRIKE THREE for your honour....

I had already included these links in my last posts. If you read them they have all the quotes there from Flannery. One from the ABC landline and one from Andrew Denton on enough rope.

No they don't....only what you had HOPED would be there...

Did you really think I wouldn't have checked it all out myself before challenging you over it...?

If you're big enough, I think an apology is in order, or at least a retraction....

 

[stevevw]

And you've failed miserably to make that argument, as I'll show shortly...

Do you even know what the argument or should I say debate which is fast turning into some sort of argument is about. Do you even remember. If you remember i tried to also use the diet industry as well as an example but you said what does that have to do with the point I was making. It had everything to do with it. As I said this is another area where the science can be distorted and misused. The heart foundation is another organization in which their scientific expertise is found wanting and has been influence by vested interests. But I cant see how you can say I have failed to show a case. I would have thought that any fair minded person would agree that there are cases where organizations have used their expert opinion on products or data for different organizations or governments and been shown to be wrong. They have either not used the proper methods for equating the data or they have omitted or even misused date and stats in their scientific info. The heart foundations tick of approval on items that have a lot of sugar is one example and that they say its ok and give it the tick. Sugar has been known for a long time to be more dangerous than fat and a bigger contributor to diet and weight gain as well as health problems to do with the heart.

And yes, I get personal when I find people either deliberately lying to push an agenda, or, at the very least, being too lazy to find out the facts for themselves and rely instead on the hacks like Bolt and Paterson for their talking points...

Haven't done any of this. I have no agenda. I was merely making a statement that science can also mislead people and here we are 10 posts later on something completely different. We are now trying to determine whether Tim Flannery ever makes misleading statements. Its not about Tim flannery its about all or any scientist or government body who can and will misuse science. So take any scientists or person or group that has mislead or misused science to push an agenda or exaggerated their points. I haven't been dishonest because there is nothing to hide. You are the one making this us against them type thing. Its like your reacting that anyone who says something about science is bad and lying. Take a step back and look at what you are doing. You are over reacting yourself. Its like the defender of the realm or something.

Those comments were NOT made by Tim Flannery...they were made by Professor Lesley Hughes, who has the necessary credentials in mental health to make comments upon the relationship between heat waves and mental states...

Professor Lesley Hughes was part of the climate change commission in which Tim Flannery was head of. He supported everything that professor Hughes has said. But I'm beginning to wonder what your intentions are now. Are you more interested in trying to catch me out as a liar or some sort of person who wants to deceive by side tracking this debate into a witch hunt for exposing lying Christians. Or can we get back to my original point about what I said. Forget about Flannery and Hughes and any other particular scientist. The questions are do any scientist mislead with science. Are you wanting me to go and find some that do. Are you saying that Flannery hasn't mislead or exaggerated the truth. Are you saying the climate commission hasn't. Its not about Flannery its about science in general and some of the people and organizations behind it. And for balance sake I am not saying all science in fact the majority are fine. This isn't about science v religion. Its about a balanced truth.
STRIKE ONE against your honesty....

Those comments were NOT Made by Tim Flannery....they were made by a journalist writing for the Prague Post...! Did you think I wouldn't check....??

Ah Ok I may have misread this one. Because it was under the articles for flannery and written in the same writing I have thought it was about flannery. After reading it again I can see it was included as it was related to what Flannery had said about the droughts in Australia and Flannery was quoted and mentioned by the article. But this is not dishonesty but not understanding the article at first. Still doesn't change the fact that flannery has mislead and exaggerated climate change.

STRIKE TWO against your integrity....

Bonus points for acknowledging my mistake. At least I do that.

You quoted the liar Bolt, in saying that Flannery had said the dams would NEVER fill again.....do you want me to embarrass you further by showing the relevant post, or can you at least get THAT much right yourself...!?

You have it in for bolt but many think hes great. Yeah hes a little over the top sometimes but not everything he says is wrong. I happen to quote what he had on his site but that is a quote from the original site in the telegraph and land line. Bolt is only saying the same thing that a dozen other sites have said. We all understand it the same way, thats the way Flannery said and meant it. He was being an alarmist and scaring people back then with his comments that either exaggerated the true state or ommitted certain facts that put the situation into its right context.

Are you aware what Flannery was speaking about when he made those comments...? I suggest you lift your gaze from those denial sites and do a little broader research

It was a QUOTE MINE Steve, and you got completely sucked in by it...!

Ah the quote comes direct from an interview he did on late line ABC. He was speaking about how the ground dries and gets heated and its harder to get the rain to soak in and then fill the dams. So he said that the dams will not fill in the future. Not long after that we had floods and the dams overflowed. They have been near full sinse then. What he wasn't acknowledging is the context of that statement. He was implying that the drought was caused by man made pollution on behalf of the government. They were pushing the carbon tax. It was in his interest to make a case that we were looking at a future of problems because of that man made pollution. He didn't mention that Australia has been going through this for centuries and its part of our natural cycle. That is where the misleading comes in and causes some to get the wrong impression. It also causes people to make wrong decisions based on the governments say so that can lead to other problems. It wasn't a fair and balanced thing for a person in such a powerful position whose words carry a lot of weight.

But let me get this straight. Are you saying that Tim Flannery hasn't made statements on global warming that have been misleading or exaggerated. Because if you are you are about the only one. Here in Australia its well known that he was a zealot for climate change.

STRIKE THREE for your honour....

You seem fixated on showing people up. All this strike three your out stuff is a bit childish dont you think. We are just two people having a debate. Its not a game. It seems like it is stemming from an anti religious thing. Like one side is the religious nutters and the other side is the normal balance ones who need to expose the nutters at all costs. There just seems to be more anger or you seem more upset over something that is just a simple debate over a topic on climate change. To me it doesn't matter, like I said I have no stand that I want to take on global warming that going to make me get upset about. I can listen to both sides and take the best of all opinions. I have no agenda here myself.

I will have to say it for the third time now the link from landline is an interview done with flannery. He is replying and his quotes are recorded as he speaks them. He says as part of those quotes.

We're already seeing the initial impacts and they include a decline in the winter rainfall zone across southern Australia, which is clearly an impact of climate change, but also a decrease in run-off. Although we're getting say a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas of Australia, that's translating to a 60 per cent decrease in the run-off into the dams and rivers. That's because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture. So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that's a real worry for the people in the bush. If that trend continues then I think we're going to have serious problems, particularly for irrigation.
Landline - 11/02/2007: Interview with Professor Tim Flannery . Australian Broadcasting Corp

I have to say just about the whole paragraph he quotes is a little misleading as well.

He stated this when we were in drought and he predicted more of the same. He was implying that the drought was something that was going to continue and we were going to face grave problems and lack of water. It caused a lot of panic and over reaction and the government based a lot of their policies on it. A lot of those policies have been moth balled or have become a waste of money.

I am not saying anything about whether flannery is right or wrong. I am saying that some of his statements were over the top and exaggerated which distorted the debate for that time. We have been going in and out of drought for thousands of years. The point was he was making out that the reason were were going into drought was because of man made pollution when that wasn't the case. Much of it or at least most of it is because we have always been having drought. That is how the weather is here in Australia.

But for the 4th or 5th time now you keep side tracking my original point. Remember it was about someone saying that religion leads people astray with their pictures and stories about God and the bible. I said that so does science. So it would be good if you answered the original statement instead of bringing up unrelated issues.

Do people use science to mislead people. Can scientific data be used to support a particular agenda. Can scientists paint a false impression of evidence with how they use that data. Are scientist human and therefore subject to the same influences for what religious people are accused of making a religion out of what they believe with science. Can they be swayed by vested interests and distort the data to support that interest.

 

[biggles53]

Steve, you have tried to push the line that "scientists mislead us"...

Your problem is that you've tried to use Tim Flannery as an example of that....and you've failed miserably...

Let me inform you of the REAL story behind all those supposed quotes.....you've been sucked in by those with an agenda similar to yours....you've wanted to hear from someone that "scientists mislead us" and you've jumped at the first 'evidence' of this, even though it's all lies...

One more time...

Flannery has NEVER made comments about people in Western Sydney going mad with the heat and committing crime...liars like Bolt would like the gullible like you to associate him with the comments of others...

Flannery has NEVER made comments about the Australian wine industry being about to fail....again, the same people would like you to think that...

Flannery did NOT make the comment that our dams would NEVER fill again....again, that exaggeration was added by the deniers....to catch people like you... Flannery was speaking about a SPECIFIC location and a SPECIFIC time, when run off rates had been reduced by, from memory, 60% of the normal rate. His statement was that, if that situation persisted, that the water falling would not be able to fill the dams, at that time...!

You have seen what you wanted to see Steve.....you are convinced that "scientists mislead us" and have eagerly gobbled up the muck served up to you by those with a dishonest agenda....

No...I didn't think there'd be an apology....honest people tend to make those....

 

[biggles53]

But for the 4th or 5th time now you keep side tracking my original point. Remember it was about someone saying that religion leads people astray with their pictures and stories about God and the bible. I said that so does science. So it would be good if you answered the original statement instead of bringing up unrelated issues.

It would be good if you could offer some real evidence to back up that charge....all that you've done so far is to reinforce the argument that the religious will lie and spread mistruths in order to further their views...! And it's very much "related"....the best defence you could muster was a lame tu quoque excuse....and you had to lie to even achieve that much...!

 

[stevevw]

It would be good if you could offer some real evidence to back up that charge....all that you've done so far is to reinforce the argument that the religious will lie and spread mistruths in order to further their views...! And it's very much "related"....the best defence you could muster was a lame tu quoque excuse....and you had to lie to even achieve that much...!

See now you are calling me a liar. This is where you get into trouble. Making accusations like that all the time is not going to get you far. I have not lied at all. I have no reason to lie and like I said there is no skin off my back if I dont happen to prove anything with you. I am just stating what I believe to be true and what I can see a lot of others think the same.

But the real truth of the matter isnt in what I say its what you are not saying. That is that you dont even admit what everyone would know as being true that people can and do use science as a way of pushing their agendas. They can and do distort the truth with stats and data. They cab and do misrepresent the truth with scientific info and that scientists can and do do it themselves sometimes.

The reason I know this is true isn't because I need a whole lot of data and evidence to show its true. The reason is that I and many others know its true because its human nature. Its the nature of the beast to try and do this. We are weak at times and our personal agendas can get in the way. We can be influenced by a compromised position for one reason or another. It maybe money, it maybe our position at work and it maybe our reputations that are at stake so we will make things a little easier for us to keep these things or make our lives easier. I can admit it happens with religion and I can admit it happens with people in science. But you cant.

 

[MuchWiser]

I can admit it happens with religion and I can admit it happens with people in science. But you cant.

Of course atheists tell lies just not as often as Christians, Christians lie every day when they say 'I know God exists' because they nor anyone else knows that Gods exist, to say they 'know God exists' is a lie, they might 'feel' or 'believe' it but they don't 'know' it.