Cheap beachfront property in Portsea, anyone?

I am thinking of starting a social media campaign to get Sarah Clarke, the ABC’s Environmental reporter, sacked … you know, along the lines of the campaign to get Alan Jones sacked.  I have come to this conclusion having read the first round of naive and preposterous bollocks she has produced as part of her five part series.

How is climate change expected to impact on different parts of Australia? This is the first of a five-part series in which environment reporter Sarah Clarke sets out to provide answers.

Climate scientists are urging Australian authorities – and residents – to prepare for rising sea levels that could put about $300 billion worth of commercial property, infrastructure and homes at risk.

The United Nations’ chief science body will meet in Hobart tomorrow for the latest round of talks before the release of its fifth major climate paper in September.

More than three-quarters of Australians live near the ocean, and Alan Stokes from the National Sea Change Taskforce says sea-level rises will challenge many Australians’ beachfront lifestyles.

The Federal Government has developed a series of initial sea-level rise maps to show climate change’s potential impact in key urban areas.

“We like to live as close to it [as we can], we like to spend our holidays there and we like to spend Christmas holidays there – as we are at the moment,” he said.

Mr Stokes also lives near the water in a harbour-side, Sydney suburb, but he has concerns about the future of that kind of coastal living.

“If the climate science is right – and that’s that we can expect a sea-level rise of somewhere between 80 centimetres and 1.1 metres by the year 2100 – that lifestyle is under threat,” he said.

“Also under threat are the properties that are going to be developed in vulnerable areas along the coast which are being approved at the moment in states all around Australia.”

Rising sea levels are a direct result of melting glaciers, and according to some of the most recent peer-reviewed reports, the melt is accelerating.

Are you worried rising sea levels will affect your property – leave your comments here.

John Church is from the CSIRO’s atmospheric research section and a lead author on sea-level rise for the UN’s chief science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

“The Greenland ice sheet is increasing its surface melt … if we are to avoid some of the extreme scenarios, to avoid the complete melting of the Greenland ice sheet, it’s urgent that we start mitigating or reducing emissions significantly and in a sustained way into the future,” Dr Church said.

 Australia’s Climate Commission has done modelling on a rise above one metre, which it says could be devastating for all Australian coastal cities, as well as the 6 million people outside the main population centres.

For example, in Sydney it forecasts that runways at the main domestic airport could be inundated and terminals flooded.

In Brisbane, homes in inner-city suburbs such as Windsor and Albion may go under water.

It is the same for other cities like Melbourne and Adelaide.

Mr Stokes says that while some residents are not fussed by the new potential waterfront living, others are trying to sell.

“I’ve heard people wanting to sell up and trying to sell up … finding that the market suddenly isn’t working with them, that the values of the property have dropped,” he said.

Around the country up to 250,000 properties could be potentially exposed to inundation with a sea-level rise above one metre. The price tag on that is up to $63 billion.

The Gold Coast is a key example of a major city centre that typifies oceanfront living. It has plans in place to guard against a 27-centimetre sea-level rise but councillor Lex Bell says the council is yet to go any higher.

“We’re sitting back and monitoring the situation but we’re not panicking,” he said.

As it stands, there is no national benchmark on a minimum sea-level rise that states must take into account.

This is the first in a five-part series by Sarah Clarke on climate impacts. Still to come:

  • Part 2: What effect will climate change have on agriculture and food production? (Coming Tuesday)
  • Part 3: What effect will climate change have on health in the Pacific? (Coming Wednesday)
  • Part 4: How will climate change affect biodiversity and ecosystems? (Coming Thursday)
  • Part 5: How will climate change affect Australia’s oceans and reefs? (Coming Friday)

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

102 Responses to Cheap beachfront property in Portsea, anyone?

  1. kevin

    Is she funded by the same groups which fund dear old Tim?
    Or does she just have the same scriptwriter?

  2. Token

    Wow, Robin “100 Meters” Williams has an acolyte.

    Where does the $300 Billion come from?

    Peter Martin’s favourite report?

  3. Gab

    “Also under threat are the properties that are going to be developed in vulnerable areas along the coast which are being approved at the moment in states all around Australia.”

    How long before the climate hysterics call for a ban on beachfront property development?

  4. Lazlo

    They can model all they want but sea levels are not actually rising.

    Not that empirical observations have ever put these fundamentalists off their stride.

  5. JC

    The Gold Coast is a key example of a major city centre that typifies oceanfront living. It has plans in place to guard against a 27-centimetre sea-level rise but councillor Lex Bell says the council is yet to go any higher.

    “We’re sitting back and monitoring the situation but we’re not panicking,” he said.

    Thats themfunnies

  6. JC

    The Gold Coast is a key example of a major city centre that typifies oceanfront living. It has plans in place to guard against a 27-centimetre sea-level rise but councillor Lex Bell says the council is yet to go any higher.

    “We’re sitting back and monitoring the situation but we’re not panicking,” he said.

    Thats the funniest quote I’ve seen since IT’s “the sea was angry that day”.

    Ipad is impossible today.

  7. Craig Mc

    Al Gore built his mansion by the sea. Tim Flannery lives on a river. Even warmies don’t believe their own bulltish.

    I’m prepared to take Kirribilli off the government’s hands for a song if they’re genuine about it all.

  8. Nuke Gray

    But Greenland IS melting! Saw a TV show recently about a new mine being opened in Greenland worth about a billion dollars- the site was only discovered when the ice had melted enough for it to be identified as a good source of lead and zinc. So good for mining, but the world gets flooded and kills off all your customers!

  9. Rabz

    More than three-quarters of Australians live near the ocean

    With the resulting opportunities for rafts (PTP) of punitive taxes and destructive, meddling regulations just too juicy for stupid statist dickheads to pass up.

  10. Kaboom

    Greenland is also where Viking settlements spanning centuries have been discovered, complete with cemeteries, farms and other artefacts of a vibrant civilization, being discovered UNDER receding ice sheets!

    Not much global warming back then, was there?

    The settlements had to be abandoned during the first millennium as result of encroaching ice and cold.

  11. Gab

    As someone else posted previously:

    AN ISLAND the size of 25 football pitches has appeared seemingly out of nowhere off the coast of Germany.

    The landmass, which is composed of sandbanks, gradually emerged from the violent waters of the North Sea over the past few years.

    Damn that rising sea level!

  12. JC

    Mr Stokes also lives near the water in a harbour-side, Sydney suburb, but he has concerns about the future of that kind of coastal living.

    “If the climate science is right – and that’s that we can expect a sea-level rise of somewhere between 80 centimetres and 1.1 metres by the year 2100 – that lifestyle is under threat,” he said.

    I can’t believe they’re peddling this trash.

    Assuming that stokes is say 50 years old… Why is he talking as though he’ll be around in 2100 when he’d be 130 years old or so.

  13. Rousie

    Part 6: what effect will Climate Change have on my mooching?

  14. Token

    So good for mining, but the world gets flooded and kills off all your customers!

    Hyperbowl.

  15. I heard some of Sarah Clarke’s garbage on this too.

    A campaign to sack the stupid bint is a great idea. She’s an affront to taxpayers.

  16. Gab

    Someone ought to warn Nova Scotia! Or is the impending sea level rise only for Australia?! home of the climate hysterics.

    Bay of Fundy highest tides in the world.

  17. Rabz

    As it stands, there is no national benchmark on a minimum sea-level rise that states must take into account.

    Might I suggest 100 metres?

    Think of teh kiddies™!

  18. Rabz

    Part 7: What absurd apocalyptic scenario will idiotic, anti-scientific fact and evidence free numpties obsess about next?

  19. JimD

    Sarah ‘one meter a century’ Clarke, thanks for the tip. Must tell the kids not to sell the farm for 60,000 years when it becomes idealic seaside grazing.
    BTW young lady your ABC seems to have the cart before the horse as in, quote, “She reported for Landline from 1994 to 1996. Prior to this she was a reporter in the Brisbane newsroom from 1996 to 1998.”.
    To steal a saying ‘don’t you just love it’.

  20. John Comnenus

    The Honourable Peter Kramer Member for Kingsford Smith talks to a constituent about sea level rises whilst on the way to see Treasurer Wayne Swanstanza who is busy with the Henry Review

  21. Bruce

    Sarah Searise forgot to mention that Jeff McCloy beat out the ALP for Mayor of Newcastle because he came out against loopy government guidelines on sea level rise.

    My local member, a Mr Beachfront House Combet, might be interested in this result given he is only on a 15.3% margin.

  22. James of the Glens

    Isn’t Ms Clarke Tony Jones’ spouse?

    The fraud of sea level rise is being foisted on local government as a way of implementing the UN ratbaggery.

    All evidence, and there is huge body of it, showing sea level rise is actually slowing since the last Ice Age is disregarded by these charlatans.

    Among the many papers is one in the Aug. 2010 Journal of Geophysics – Oceans showing, “there has been no acceleration in sea level rise for the past 100+ years”.
    Another from the Mar. 2011 Journal of Coastal Research shows there has been a deceleration of sea level rise of late (from the steady minute rise since the last Ice Age).

    All while CO2 has increased significantly, and the very opposite of what the unsupported models predicted.

    The work of Prof. Niels Axel-Morner in the Maldives (scene of the attempted scam claiming the islands would soon be awash) is studiously ignored. And of course no mention of the new sea-level runway being built there is ever made.

    Ms Clarke should hang her scientifically illiterate head in shame.

  23. Gab

    No, that’s Sarah Ferguson, James, who is also another ABC “journo”.

  24. jupes

    Mr Stokes also lives near the water in a harbour-side, Sydney suburb, but he has concerns about the future of that kind of coastal living.

    Mr Stokes says that while some residents are not fussed by the new potential waterfront living, others are trying to sell.

    And which group are YOU in Mr Stokes, the not fussed or the fussed? As you haven’t mentioned that you are selling, I’m willing to bet you are in the not fussed group.

    Then again, why would you want to get rid of the perks associated with the gravy train you are currently riding?

    You are a pathetic hypocrite.

  25. John Comnenus

    I’m waiting for my house innCanberra to become waterfront property to sell to all the wealthy climate refugees fleeing monster sea level rises.

  26. The New Communists want us looking out to sea so we can’t see their fires approaching.

  27. JimD

    Gab,

    No, that’s Sarah Massivie Ferguson Tractor,who ripped the guts out of James’ cattle business, who is also another ABC “journo”. Fuckwit.

  28. Luke

    JC – if you actually listen to these mob they all talk like. I think they actually believe they will be (they don’t accept that they will be dead).

    I guess that’s what happens when you consider people not to be individuals who only exist between their birth and death, but rather as just part of some transtemporal group.

    It explains a lot of progressive policies. Take any policy which seeks to impose a very real injustice on people alive today in order to address some historic, or even fututre, injustice suffered by some since dead or not yet existent people. See if people are just some transtemporal group than Group A’s past suffering can be addressed by something in the present (it doesn’t matter that no one making up Group A today was ever alive to have actually suffered in the past)

  29. Gab

    They’re the modern day doomsdayer evangelists, Luke.

  30. Gab

    Repent, repent for the end is nigh!!

  31. Craig Mc

    Once I asked the Larvatus Prodeo crowd when I might expect to observe these massive man-made sea level rises at Elwood beach for myself.

    One spark replied that the sea level rises would be localised elsewhere of course because Melbourne is in a bay.

    Seriously.

  32. JC

    One spark replied that the sea level rises would be localised elsewhere of course because Melbourne is in a bay.

    Seriously

    Also must have been a Deltoid commenter.

  33. blogstrop

    Judith, I sympathise, but just getting rid of Clarke won’t be more than a dropkick in the bucket. But she deserves the aggro, so go ahead. The ABC deserves to be filleted big time, since I think it’s become obvious that it is beyond reform.

  34. Token

    Repent, repent for the end is nigh!!

    i.e. Absolve yourself from your carbon “sins” by funding the ABC.

  35. Brc

    More than three-quarters of Australians live near the ocean, and Alan Stokes from the National Sea Change Taskforce says sea-level rises will challenge many Australians’ beachfront lifestyles.

    I would like to see evidence of people selling waterfront land. I’m willing to bet there will be no sea level problems. In fact I already have, seeing as I put a chunk of my hard earned and a big chunk of my unearned into sea level property. I’d be willing to short sell it to a true believer, if they like. I doubt anyone would step up, given most of the true believers also have cOastal property.

  36. Token

    I would like to see evidence of people selling waterfront land.

    If the seas were increasing 1 m per 100 years, how hard would it be to invest in levy banks to ensure the low points don’t get inundated?

    FFS.

  37. Scott

    Better to leave this nut-bar in place. Doing so makes the case for skeptics easier every passing day.

  38. Cynicmonster

    But this is good news. I was planning to retire to the seaside in about 20 years time, so I should be able to pick up some nice cheap property around that time. Live out another 25 years there. Doesn’t matter what happens after that.

  39. JC

    If the seas were increasing 1 m per 100 years, how hard would it be to invest in levy banks to ensure the low points don’t get inundated?

    FFS

    For the US we have an estimate of $10 billion – a figure that David Friedman recited from a warmer academic by the name of Naudhaus. Naudhaus came up with the number as an estimate of what would need to be spent by , I think, 2085.

    That’s the total cost the US would incur as a result of rising sea levels in today’s US dollars if present estimate became a reality.

    I’m panicked. Aren’t you?

  40. ugh

    Apart from everything else already pointed out, Albion and Windsor are:

    a) not inner city Brisbane suburbs and
    b) not waterfront suburbs.

    FFS its insulting – do these people not even consult a map when making up this stuff?

  41. Token

    The Cost of Inaction (if sea levels are rising) in Australia:

    to prepare for rising sea levels that could put about $300 billion* worth of commercial property, infrastructure and homes at risk.

    * Note, not substantiated in any way by the ABC

    The cost of mitigation in the US (would Aus be the same with a lower density population?):

    For the US we have an estimate of $10 billion – a figure that David Friedman recited from a warmer academic by the name of Naudhaus. Naudhaus came up with the number as an estimate of what would need to be spent by , I think, 2085

    Wow, is that $10B down to protect $300B?

    That is less than 1/4 what was projected for the NBN (yes, it will be greater) and barely a number they round to in the US which has $1 Trillion budgets.

    FFS.

  42. Aard Knox

    do these people not even consult a map when making up this stuff?

    Do these people even know how to read a map?

  43. Thumbnail

    Tried to comment on the story but have long forgotten my password etc to log in. Will read the comments with interest.

    Anyone who feels guilty about burdening their granchildren with weather is dumb enough to write this crap.

  44. Splatacrobat

    Apart from everything else already pointed out, Albion and Windsor are:

    a) not inner city Brisbane suburbs and
    b) not waterfront suburbs.

    I heard this report this morning on AM and laughed that Albion and Windsor were used as prime examples.

    Both suburbs flood due to flooding of Breakfast Creek and Enoggera Creek that back up when the Brisbane River is flooding. It is usually worse when there is heavy rainfall over a short period combinded with a king tide. This has nothing to do with sea level rise.

    Back in 2009 Windsor got flooded as a direct result of contractors blocking the creek during the construction of the Clem 7 tunnel at the same time there was a large storm. Some of these properties were not affected by the 2011 floods.

    Very lazy journalism. I think Sarah must have googled this report from the flood enquiry and just thought it had to do with only two suburbs. How unfortunate that Albion and Windsor were top of the list.

  45. Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

    In the Northern Hemisphere some land is still sinking and other land rising due to the release of pressure from the last major ice age causing differential adjustment to the earth’s crust in various places (much of southern England is effectively sinking and/or being battered into the Channel by the north sea, while the other side is risng slowly, as it has been for millenia. Germany and Scandinavia produce new islands and occasionally drop a few cliffs down a bit. I don’t think climate zealots factor this at all into their ‘sea level’ predictions, nor any other rise and fall of land elsewhere in the world. We do not live on or in a static world in the long term scheme of things. In the shorter term (say a coupla thousand years or more), you would be safe in most places to purchase up big on the beach and enjoy.

    Let alone that fact that under the no-warming scenario that looks most likely, any talk of sea level rises that are perceptible is complete bollocks anyway.

  46. Tropical

    No wonder this woman is so out of touch. She used to be one of those sad Canberra presstitutes in the gallery of darkness.

  47. face ache

    I seem to remember that NASA observed some years ago that the Maldives had actually sunk a bit which to someone wanting lots of money from the rapacious first world would look just like the sea level rising.

  48. nilk

    If the seas were increasing 1 m per 100 years, how hard would it be to invest in levy banks to ensure the low points don’t get inundated?

    Tokes you’re being practical.

    Stop it. Just shut up already – too much logic might cause brain implosions.

  49. Biota

    The Dutch seem to manage to mostly live below sea level so the tchnology is already out there.

  50. mct

    The Dutch seem to manage to mostly live below sea level…

    I think you’ll find that’s a different type of sea level.

  51. Biota

    I think you’ll find that’s a different type of sea level.

    Good one :)

    Actually you are correct. The Dutch type is the type that stays up and needs to be kept out whereas the Australian type stays the same while going up alarmingly.

  52. Mick Gold Coast QLD

    “More than three-quarters of Australians live near the ocean …”

    Okay.

    “… up to 250,000 properties … exposed to inundation with a sea-level rise above one metre. The price tag on that is up to $63 billion”

    Not okay.

    That’s $252,000 each – on the Gold Coast east of the highway you cannot buy a rickety old one bedroom ’60s fibro flat in the garage out back for $252,000, or $352,000 or … .

    Jamie Packer paid a million or so for his Q1 apartment, where they’ll be rowing out from the third floor. If there are one bedders in his pile you’d pay $400,000. It’s poofteen stories high – say 200 units x $700,000 = $140m the lot.

    There’s a lot of apartments here enjoying the Coral Sea view – I dunno, maybe 50,000 of them for $30 billion all up, if you’re quick.

    Add the Rose Bay and Kirribilli and The Spit and St Kilda and Freemantle frantic sellers and the gummint real estate office is going to run out of money fairly smartly.

    If a quarter of the three quarters of Australians are in the 250,000 doomed near-ocean fronts then they’re living like foreign language students, 18 to each house, and the poor buggers are only going to bank $14,000 each (if they do their own conveyancing :) ).

    This is not a very good business plan I think.

    I’m in the drowning zone, although the Broadwater might not rise ‘cos it’s only attached to a little bit of the ocean at the Seaway. Like Craig Mc’s Port Phillip Bay example at 2:20pm.

  53. Rousie

    That settles it. $10B Clean Energy Fund to become the ‘Just in case we need levies at some far off time in the future fund’.

  54. .

    It’s a different type of estuary.

  55. Cold-Hands

    When I heard this report on Early AM my bullshit meter exploded. As this it looks to be just the first salvo in an extended campaign of Climate Change agitprop brought to you by “Our ABC”, if you do begin a a social media campaign to get Sarah Clarke sacked, I’m in.

    However, can an ABC employee be sacked? Aren’t they tenured for life?

  56. JC

    Okay, I’m in. How do we get her booted.

  57. Gab

    Please. The last person to get booted from the ABC had child p0rn pic collection charges laid against him, and even then there was a lot of sympathy from the ABC towards Andy Muirhead. I got the impression they “let him go” reluctantly.

  58. James in Melbourne

    The new Godwin’s Law is the invocation of ‘our grandchildren’ in an article by a warmenista, used to justify anything from shutting down the economies of the developed world to their own latest first-class airfare to an IPCC wankfest.

    Fufuxake.

    ‘Our grandchildren’ will be deploying technology of which we cannot remotely conceive, and will regard us as horse-and-cart sepia-photo curiosities.

    They do not need protecting from us.

  59. Irving J

    nothing commies like more than some fellow deviant

  60. Mundi

    What pathetic is even the Ipcc don’t say 80cm to 1.1m in 2100, they last said 47cm +- 30cm. Sarah didn’t even bother to look it up and realise even by Ipcc standards she was talking to an alarmist.

  61. Rohan

    I’ve been working on a solution to all this CAGW induced sea level rises and flooding in inland regions from these massively frequent weather events. Essentially you build a kinda hybrid houseboat that sits on piers. In the heart of each pier, you have a telescopicly expandable steel pillar, that is anchored to the house frame so it doesn’t float away, but the pillars are capable of extending by at least 8 stories, as Tim Flannery did state in the Age in 2006, “Picture an eight-storey building by a beach, then imagine waves lapping its roof.”

    Obviously this design is not suited to an eight storey building…

    Now for houses that will reside in the newly formed CAGW induced flood plains, having a hybrid house boat might not be the most aestheticly stylish thing to do, but here is my genius solution: deployable floatations skirts like those on armoured vehicles. When they’re not deployed, they double as an attractive awning.

  62. Token

    The last person to get booted from the ABC had child p0rn pic collection charges laid against him, and even then there was a lot of sympathy from the ABC towards Andy Muirhead.

    …Peter Roebuck would’ve had a spanking good chance at a job for life at the ABC for his efforts to African youths if he hadn’t jumped.

  63. PoliticoNT

    We need to refer this formally to the Press Council.
    (Judith, see my similar comment under ‘Howard was a big spender.’ If we don’t complain we’re simply giving in to the abuses of the Left.)

  64. Steve of Ferny Hills

    The new Godwin’s Law is the invocation of ‘our grandchildren’ in an article by a warmenista

    At least that’s evidence that they are in retreat. It used to be ‘our children’

  65. WhaleHunt Fun

    Do you get to click for her to be sacked or will there be options like imprisonment, witch-burning, wooden stake through the heart sort of thing?
    What was the bit about burying at a crossroads at midnight? Would Kings Cross qualify?

  66. WhaleHunt Fun

    “We need to refer this formally to the Press Council.”
    Would that be a council made up of leftie journos or are they actually balanced?

    Can Non-lefties be on the council? Do I get to wear a wig and that little black piece of cloth when I announce the capital punishment for warm-mongering?

  67. JC

    At 1:52 PM, March 01, 2012, Blogger David Friedman said…

    To Anonymous:

    Thanks for the link–an interesting piece. The population figure is indeed based on people within one meter of high tide. Note that:

    “While the damages from sea-level rise are substantial, they are small compared to the total economy, provided that coastal protection is built.”

    Looking at Figure 10, total damage cost for the decade 2080-2089 for a .5 m rise, which is about what current IPCC projections suggest, are about 10 billion dollars–a tiny sum in terms of the world economy. Even for the 1 m rise, the total is only a little over 100 billion–or 10 billion a year during that decade. All of these figure are assuming optimal diking and including the cost of the diking as part of the damage costs.

    http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/richard-lindzen-on-global-warming.html

  68. Leigh Lowe

    …Peter Roebuck would’ve had a spanking good chance at a job for life at the ABC for his efforts to African youths if he hadn’t jumped.

    The ABC eulogising was sickening.
    And defending him by saying the boys were “over age”.
    Yeah right …… “Take a spanking on the arse or go back to living in a mud hut”
    The fact that, as soon as Saffie Plod knocked on his door, he entered a sixty foot guilty plea onto the hotel awning says it all.

  69. Leigh Lowe

    …Peter Roebuck would’ve had a spanking good chance at a job for life at the ABC for his efforts to African youths if he hadn’t jumped.

    Actually, technically he did have a job for life.
    He was working right up until the triple somersault with pike out of room 303.

  70. James Rubenstein

    I thought this article pretty much summarised what this rubbish is all about
    http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/06/the-economics-of-inundation

  71. Won’t all seaside properties be written off through depreciation in 30 years time? I think I read that here last year…

    They could reuse the rubble for the foundations of the new row behind.

    It’s not like there’s a shortage of beach around, what about Stockton Beach north of Newcastle and 7 Mile Beach North of Nowra. There must be a couple of Gold Coasts there alone…

  72. Harold

    Portsea was already decimated by the Port Phillip dredger, wasn’t it?

  73. Boambee John

    Gab @ 1304:

    Already in place in some places (if I recollect correctly, an ALP minister in the previous Victorian government banned further development in many areas just after he bought a beachfront property).

  74. Gab

    Heh. I’m just not surprised, Boambee John. If you can find a link that would be appreciated. Had a quick search myself but couldn’t find.

  75. Leigh Lowe

    We have two modest properties.
    One is about 3 metres AMSL.
    The other is about 800 metres AMSL.
    I am equally concerned about inundation in both of them.

  76. Lazlo

    Just warming up.

    My complaint to the ABC will be based on the following.

    Clarke, on ABC News (not current affairs, nor opinion, but News) stated that the IPCC are forecasting sea level rise of between 20-80cm this century. This is untrue. IPCC Assessment Report 4 (AR4), allegedley the gold standard, forecast a potential rise of 20-59cm in the 21 C. This has not been enough for some alarmists, including the ABC, who have been repeatedly making up a more alarming prediction since then.

    I have pinged them on this lie before, which they admitted.

    Clarke also repeated another lie when she said that sea level rise has been ‘accelerating’. Empirically this is not the case. Even by the warmie standards of the satellite datasets from Colorado they can find no more than a 3mm/year sea level rise, which would result in a 30cm rise for the 21C. Those same datasets show a deceleration in sea level rise over the last decade. Tide gauge measurements show no sea level rise at all.

    Sea here for a good introduction.

    Then we have Alan Stokes saying he has ‘heard’ of people unable to sell coastal properties. Add to that Certificate 4 photoshopping of maps, and you have a bunch of complete morons. Paid for by people here who make a real living.

    Any feedback from people here on this formative complaint to the ABC appreciated..

  77. Mick Gold Coast QLD

    “Then we have Alan Stokes saying he has ‘heard’ of people unable to sell coastal properties.”

    I saw that rubbish trotted out on TheirABC tonight.

    The first bust to which I paid attention was in the late ’70s, when Parkes Developments and other famous big shows fell over and Adelaide Steamships and Citicorp were emerging forces. Professor Maurie Daly wrote about it later in Sydney Boom Sydney Bust.

    Every 7 to 10 years since I’ve seen the market cycle behave the same way. Now we have a soft job market, poor business results, increasing living costs and so on, and weak property prices and longer selling periods – a buyers market.

    In another few years we’ll see the same shrill reporters gasping in astonishment at the rocketing house prices.

    In all the time since I’ve never heard a prospective owner occupier or an investment punter ask whether the tide is in or out.

  78. Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

    Da Hairy Ape is a water view man. In our property portfolio we have three fairly modest close waterfront or beachside properties: one on Queensland’s Gold Coast, one on Sydney’s Eastern Harbour, and one on Jervis Bay. We love ‘em. These are the ones we want to hang on to for family and fun, forever if we can.

    We are not one iota concerned about rising sea levels. Not even a tiny little bit. Not a skerrick. Nix worry about that. Zilch. Off the agenda.

    Nor is anybody else around us in these places personally concerned.
    Most tellingly, even if they are greenies. They enjoy this good life.

    What duplicitous humbug they peddle to the gullible… what fraud’s they are!

  79. PoliticoNT

    Lazlo, the key is that one of us actually has to put a formal complaint in. You, me, Judith – it doesn’t really matter. If we don’t, there’s no point in complaining when people like Alan Jones are targeted because he has different views to the Left.

  80. Gab

    THE latest science on sea level rises has found no link to global warming and no increase in the rate of glacier melt over the past 100 years.

    A paper published last month in Journal of Climate highlights one of the great uncertainties in climate change research – will ocean levels rise by more than the current 3mm a year?

    The peer-reviewed article, “20th-century global-mean sea-level rise: is the whole greater than the sum of the parts?” by JM Gregory, sought to explain the factors involved in sea-level rises during the last century. It found that sea-level rises had not accelerated “despite the increasing anthropogenic forcing” or human influence.

    Australia’s pre-eminent sea-level scientist, John Church, contributed to the paper, which said it could not link climate change and the rate of sea-level rises in the 20th century.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/sea-rise-not-linked-to-warming-says-report/story-e6frg8y6-1226553928313

  81. JC probably didn’t notice that the recently estimated cost of doing a sea barrier for New York alone is this:

    Dr. Aerts, who is expected to present a draft of his findings in January, estimates that any barrier system would cost $10 billion to $17 billion. New York would need $10 billion to $12 billion more to shore up the areas on the sides of the barriers, he added. Still, he said, the city should consider building the barriers.

    Huh. Up to $29 billion dollars. For one major city.

    And JC seems to think you can dike the world for $100 billion. Because of a throwaway line from a free market economist.

  82. Real Climate discusses the paper and its meaning:

    The Gregory et al. paper was greeted with enthusiasm in “climate skeptics” circles, since it includes the peculiar sentence:

    The implication of our closure of the budget is that a relationship between global climate change and the rate of global-mean sea-level rise is weak or absent in the past.

    The abstract culminates in a similar phrase, which can easily be misunderstood as meaning that global warming has not contributed to sea-level rise. That is wrong of course, and the claimed closure of the sea-level budget in this paper is only possible because increasing temperatures are taken into account as the prime driver of 20th Century sea-level rise.

    When read in full context, the true meaning of the statement becomes clear: it is intended to discredit semi-empirical sea-level modelling. That is both fallacious and odd, given that the paper does not even contain any examination of the link between global temperature and the rate of global sea-level rise which is at the core of semi-empirical models, and which has been thoroughly examined in a whole suite of papers (e.g. Rahmstorf et al. 2011). Instead, it dismisses semi-empirical models offhand based on two arguments.

    The alleged lack of acceleration is also disputed in the Real Climate lengthy post.

  83. JC

    And JC seems to think you can dike the world for $100 billion. Because of a throwaway line from a free market economist.

    Look dickhead, if you understood 1% of what you were reading it would be a gain.

    The flood barrier being discussed flood NYC is entirely different to the discussions that occurred on David Friedman’s blog.

    Friedman talked about proofing the areas of the US that needed to be in order to protect against sea level rises. Not the storm experienced last year. those are two entirely different engineering parameters. anyone with an ounce of brains would tell you that.

    The discussion about NYC that you’re linking to is to protect against a storm of the force that was seen late last year.

    Do you even understand the fucking difference, you moron or is what I wrote enough for you?

    Furthermore lets say it took NYC $29 billion to flood proof. Lets also say that represented a fraction of what was needed for the rest of the country. Call it $1 trillion and I’m being extra generous here.

    Now do the sums.

    If you mitigate the shit of of AGW… only taking in the costs without the benefits of AGW… lets say it cost 1% of GDP growth per year for the next 88 years.

    Take a look what it would do to the economy.

    GDP is presently $15 trillion. Assume an unmolested growth rate of 3% and you end up with $202 trillion GDP by 2100. Now lower the growth rate by 1% to 2% weighed by the cost of mitigation and you end up with $85 trillion.

    So heavy duty mitigation will cost you $202 – $85 = $117 trillion.

    So what would you do in this case bozo? Would you spend $1 trillion and flood proof therefore letting the economy rip or mitigate and lose $117 trillion?

    This is why you are absolutely fucking useless talking about this shit and why you’re a waste of fucking space.

  84. JC

    Moderator could you put this link in the ban basket please as it’s about as useless and dishonest as you could find on the entire internet.

    <blockquote>Real Climate discusses the paper and its meaning:

  85. JC

    The alleged lack of acceleration is also disputed in the Real Climate lengthy pos

    Lol.

  86. JC

    As usual the dickweed won’t respond, but if he does it will invariably be laced with… hurt (his) sanctimonious drivel and heavy duty reliance on moral positioning.

  87. Gab

    Give him a time, JC. He has to sift through realclimate for an answer.

  88. JC

    Gab

    Every time he shows up here with that attitude showing his chest like he’s some some of alpha man, he gets clubbed to death like a baby seal. It’s ugly to watch, but enjoyable at the same time.. :-)

    Look at him, half his head’s missing.

  89. JamesK

    Real Climate discusses the paper and its meaning

    - liar-steve® (ad nauseum ipse dixit)

  90. Gab

    half his head’s missing.

    Well, that explains some of his quirks.

  91. JC

    Well, that explains some of his quirks.

    Fucking idiot he is. He has the brain the size of a peanut.

    If the moron thought about it for a second he’d realize a few things.

    That short arsed little prick (Bloomberg) has been on the AGW bandwagon all through the period he’s held office. About 10 years. He’s been the biggest bedwetting idiot after big fat AlGore on AGW.

    The prick has been in office since 2002. What has the arsehole done to flood proof the city and thereby accord with his bedwetting? Zippo. Nothing. Now, after the horse has bolted is he talking about flood proofing against these types of storms, which his religious conviction suggest are going to occur much more frequently. Hypocritical swine.

  92. Gab

    The prick has been in office since 2002. What has the arsehole done to flood proof the city and thereby accord with his bedwetting? Zippo. Nothing

    He was too busy banning large sodas and food donations to the homeless to be bothered with any flood-proofing.

  93. David Brewer

    The ground for dismissal would have to be journalistic negligence. While one doesn’t like to “shoot the pianist”, Sarah is rather “asking for it” here. Consider this:

    The United Nations’ chief science body will meet in Hobart tomorrow for the latest round of talks before the release of its fifth major climate paper in September.

    So she recognises IPCC authority on sea-level rise. Now the IPCC predicted an 18 to 59 cm increase in its Fourth Assessment Report and has bumped this up to 29 to 82 cm in its draft Fifth Assessment Report, which was leaked weeks ago. The latter range starts from a base period of 1986-2005, so slightly exaggerates the likely rise from now to 2100.

    Yet Sarah does not cite either forecast, but merely allows her expert to say:

    “If the climate science is right – and that’s that we can expect a sea-level rise of somewhere between 80 centimetres and 1.1 metres by the year 2100 – that lifestyle is under threat,” he said.

    A minimum figure of 80 cm for the next 87 years is quite preposterous. It is 9 millimeters a year compared with an observed trend, not accelerating, of 3 mm. Yet the statement goes unchallenged, unqualified, and no mention is made of any observational evidence or official forecast.

    This looks like negligence to me – like wilful blindness in the service of a beatup.

    Note also the misleading build-up that “More than three-quarters of Australians live near the ocean” so that a 1-meter rise could “devastating for all Australian coastal cities, as well as the 6 million people outside the main population centres”. Yet when it comes to the crunch at the end of the article it turns out that “Around the country up to 250,000 properties could be potentially exposed to inundation“. In other words, the maximum total impact over a century, assuming a rise higher than any legitimate forecast, would be less than 10 months of current dwelling construction!

    That’s apart from the other valid arguments here about the absurdly long time-frame to be talking about “lifestyle changes”, and the fact that, even if there is a rise, and a row or two of houses is gone in 50 or 100 years, the beach is still going to be there anyway.

    PS Although worriers were urgently solicited to append their comments to the article, that possibility was closed after only five hours. This may be because several commenters made clear they were more disturbed by the silliness of the article that the alleged threat to our beaches.

  94. Token

    Steve Liar in action (who really dispises mitigation as a strategy to deal with AGW):

    JC probably didn’t notice that the recently estimated cost of doing a sea barrier for New York alone is this:

    I see JC responded well pointing out about the fact the $$$ are for storm surge.

    Storm surge warnings existed before your doomsday cult got any strength.

    NY had been warned for generations on the risk of storm surge. Providence RI learned the lesson and was not effected by the storm.

    One of my enduring childhood memories is going with my mother to the lobby of The Providence Journal, where she had once worked, to see the high water mark of the fearsome 1938 hurricane. It was the worst storm that had ever been recorded in New England, with winds of 115 miles per hour and a storm surge 16 feet high. Parts of Providence were 8 feet under water. Nearly 400 Rhode Islanders died.

    Less than 20 years later, Hurricane Carol hit Providence dead-on. With a storm surge of more than 14 feet, it caused 68 deaths; the damage was estimated at $500 million. At which point, Rhode Island had had enough. In 1960, the state issued $15 million worth of bonds to pay the Army Corps of Engineers to build the country’s first storm barrier, aimed specifically at protecting its capital city.

    The Fox Point Hurricane Barrier, a complicated array of dikes, gates, barriers and pumps, completed in 1966, has kept hurricanes at bay ever since. That includes Hurricane Sandy, which wreaked havoc on parts of the Rhode Island coastline, but barely dented Providence.

    Sandy, of course, didn’t let New York City off so easily. Then again, New York didn’t put up much resistance. Lower Manhattan, completely unprotected, was overwhelmed by Sandy’s 14-foot storm surge. The Rockaways and Staten Island were hit even harder.

    That fewer than 50 New Yorkers died in the storm is a testament to what New York has become very good at: evacuating.

    Fact is mitigation works, it is cheaper than all the windpower subsidies and other boondoggles you want the government to waste money on.

  95. Jannie

    You dont complain to the ABC. You can try humbly request their attention. If you are male over 40, you may need to get your mum or wife to speak for you.

    I saw the same global warming alarmism on Channel 9 on the weekend, some weather program. The show also discussed the matter of anti science denialism, these people are either evil carbon capitalists, or too stupid to know they are being conned.

    For a while I thought the CAGW crazies were backing off, but they are coming back and academic fraud is their preferred method of argument.

  96. David Brewer

    The next instalment in Sarah’s saga is up here.

    This time, CO2 is fingered for wiping out crops with extreme climate events, and raising food prices and their volatility. Oxfam interviewed. But again, no actual evidence is advanced. And of course all inconvenient facts are left out entirely. For example, that global food production has risen roughly five-fold in the last 50 years. That the 2008 food price spike was largely caused by greenhouse policy, as one-third of US maize production had been diverted to biofuels. That tropical cyclone frequency has been at 30-year lows, and is projected by the IPCC report to fall not rise. Etc.

    However, maybe our nascent campaign is having some effect, since the article admits:

    A recent survey indicates about 20 per cent of primary producers do not accept the science.

    Hmm…”Do not accept the science” – I wonder if that was actually the question the farmers were asked?

  97. steve from brisbane

    JC: your explanation of costs re climate change is so overly simplistic I don’t know where to start.

    A longer response is coming…

  98. Bruce of Newcastle

    Steve – we will be waiting breathlessly, since the UK Met Office has now discovered ocean cycles and NASA has also noticed that the Sun has a larger effect than they first thought it will be interesting if any massive gigantic appalling warming will take place at all in the next 50 years. I expect zilch zero nil.

    Which means the cost of ameliorating non existent global warming will be less than a Brisbane bus ticket.

  99. Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

    For a while I thought the CAGW crazies were backing off, but they are coming back and academic fraud is their preferred method of argument.

    There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that the MSM like more than a good old moral panic, a great big scare story. AGW is manna from heaven for them. They won’t let it go until the cows come home, which will be when Labor wins the next election and totally pulls the plug on the economy. Then the MSM will shriek blue murder with a new moral panic – food shortages, electricity brownouts, plus a new flu knocking off the starving frozen or fried pensioners – and still, we’re all gonna die unless the money tree is tickled for some more bad fruit.

Comments are closed.