The climate change debate continues.

[Siso]

Like I said, pretty major part of what they are trying to sell.

[octave]

Whilst a politician misquoting a figure is not the best look, it is also not unheard of. Many a treasurer has misquoted inflation or interest rates at a press conference.  Politicians are not scientists, and their role is to take the best advice. The denier community gets all excited if Al Gore makes a mistake, etc., as if this somehow delegitimises the established science.

 

When it comes to climate science, I stick to my usual methods.   I am not an immunologist.   There is no way I can, for example, prove or disprove whether or not there is a link between vaccination and autism.   I can not do the actual research myself. All I can do is look at the published research and weigh it up against any dissenting research.

 

I believe my approach to science is quite reasonable, and surely most would agree.   Why then do people throw out the peer-reviewed science in just this one area?   If the science is nonsense, then perhaps someone could explain why CSIRO, NASA and a list of the world's most respected science organisations are broadly in agreement. 

 

 Are they poor at science? Are left-wing loonies trying to bring down the world's economy?  Are they all getting together in some kind of conspiracy?  I think deniers owe us an explanation as to how and why this supposed bad science or conspiracy is occurring. 

[old man emu]

8 minutes ago, octave said:

Whilst a politician misquoting a figure is not the best look, it is also not unheard of. 

Who didn't know the amount of GST in the price of a birthday cake? How many politicians didn't know the price of a packet of butter? It's easy to trip up someone on a minor detail, which is what any political opponent of another politician will do for a headline.

[nomadpete]

3 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Who didn't know the amount of GST in the price of a birthday cake? How many politicians didn't know the price of a packet of butter? It's easy to trip up someone on a minor detail, which is what any political opponent of another politician will do for a headline.

True, but....

Our politicians seem to do well at making dumb remarks, and making decisions that seem silly to us. Maybe if they worked on transparent communication they would garner more respect and trust.

 

Let's hear the real logic behind their actions.

[pmccarthy]

Yes, the left-wing loonies have been trying to bring down the economy. Fortunately, there is a growing awareness of the stupidity of net zero and Australia's policies. I am more comfortable now than I have been for ten years that we will have a sensible mix of renewable, coal, hydrocarbon and nuclear energy in our future. 

[Siso]

I'm not a scientist either but know about it and I have no skin in the game. pretty poor really.

[octave]

29 minutes ago, pmccarthy said:

Yes, the left-wing loonies have been trying to bring down the economy

CSIRO and NASA, etc., loony left, really. So, do you believe CSIRO is incompetent or maliciously representing the facts?

 

 

[gareth lacey]

20 hours ago, octave said:

Whilst a politician misquoting a figure is not the best look, it is also not unheard of. Many a treasurer has misquoted inflation or interest rates at a press conference.  Politicians are not scientists, and their role is to take the best advice. The denier community gets all excited if Al Gore makes a mistake, etc., as if this somehow delegitimises the established science.

 

When it comes to climate science, I stick to my usual methods.   I am not an immunologist.   There is no way I can, for example, prove or disprove whether or not there is a link between vaccination and autism.   I can not do the actual research myself. All I can do is look at the published research and weigh it up against any dissenting research.

 

I believe my approach to science is quite reasonable, and surely most would agree.   Why then do people throw out the peer-reviewed science in just this one area?   If the science is nonsense, then perhaps someone could explain why CSIRO, NASA and a list of the world's most respected science organisations are broadly in agreement. 

 

 Are they poor at science? Are left-wing loonies trying to bring down the world's economy?  Are they all getting together in some kind of conspiracy?  I think deniers owe us an explanation as to how and why this supposed bad science or conspiracy is occurring. 

Al Gore said Sydney harbour would be 2 mtres higher after his world tour spouting climate changes (and made 100million) in ten years, guess what its about 2mm he was a climate liar and just in it gor the money

[nomadpete]

I really cannot see any of these alleged 'left wing loonies'.

Who are these people and how are they different from the 'right wing loonies' and 'centrist loonies'?

 

Name calling only hinders any argument.

 

Sure, I am cynical about all our politicians, I think the system impedes progress. Too many things get bogged down instead of efficiently moving forward.

 

In my opinion the real reason for that level of talk is that for any gov't decision, a pathway doesn't get communicated to the public in a transparent and balanced way.

 

We should have the pros and cons plus the tradeoffs (full cost/benefit, not just in $ )

Otherwise we cannot truly see if some policy is 'loony'.

Edited 4 hours ago by nomadpete

[octave]

When anyone presents a quote, I always look for its source. I can't find any evidence that this was ever said.

 

🔎 Where the “2 metres in 10 years” claim comes from

There is no verifiable speech, interview, or document where Al Gore says:

Sydney Harbour will rise 2 metres in 10 years

What does exist is a mix of:

1. 🌊 Misinterpreted statements from An Inconvenient Truth

In An Inconvenient Truth, Gore discusses:

• Potential multi-metre sea level rise
• But only if major ice sheets collapse
• And over long timescales (decades to centuries)

Some critics later compressed that into “he predicted metres soon”, and then it got shortened again into “2 metres in 10 years”—which is not what he said.

---

2. 🧩 Blending with other exaggerated or wrong claims

Online posts often mix together different claims, for example:

• “20 feet (≈6 metres)” long-term possibilities
• General warnings about future flooding
• Local places like Sydney or New York added in later

Over time, these get stitched into a fake quote that sounds specific and outrageous.

---

3. 📱 Social media meme evolution

Fact-checkers have looked at similar Sydney-specific claims and found:

• Memes often use photos of Sydney Harbour to “prove” no change
• These ignore tides and proper measurement
• Long-term data actually shows rising sea levels, not flat or falling

Once those memes circulate, people attach a made-up quote to them (like the Gore one) to give them credibility.

---

4. 📊 Real data contradicts the narrative

• Sea levels have risen 15–25 cm since 1901 globally
• Sydney tide gauges show a clear upward trend, not just 2 mm total

So the “only 2 mm” part is also misleading—it cherry-picks or misunderstands data.

---

🧠 What’s really going on here

This claim is basically a game of telephone:

1. Real science: “multi-metre rise possible over long timeframes”
2. Simplified: “metres of rise could happen”
3. Distorted: “metres soon”
4. Meme version: “2 metres in 10 years in Sydney”

By the end, it sounds like a bold failed prediction—but it was never actually said.

---

⚖️ Bottom line

• ❌ No evidence Gore made that 10-year, 2-metre prediction
• ❌ The Sydney Harbour example is added later, not original
• ⚠️ The claim is a fabricated quote built from distortions
• ✅ Actual measurements show gradual, real sea level ris

 

 

[pmccarthy]

At the end of the Last Glacial Maximum (~21,000 years ago), sea levels were at their lowest. Between roughly 14,000 and 8,000 years ago, the majority of the rise occurred, with about 90 metres of sea level increase in just 6,000 years, corresponding to an average rate of roughly 15 mm per year.

After this rapid rise, sea levels continued to increase more gradually, adding another 30–40 metres over the following several thousand years, reaching near-modern levels around 3,000 years ago. From about 3,000 years ago until the pre-industrial period, sea levels were relatively stable, with only minor fluctuations.

From the IPCC report archive (archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/409.htm😞

• Based on tide gauge data, the rate of global average sea level rise during the 20th century is in the range 1.0 to 2.0 mm/yr, with a central value of 1.5 mm/yr
• Based on the few very long tide gauge records, the average rate of sea level rise has been larger during the 20th century than the 19th century.
• No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.

[facthunter]

On this One I suggest you seek other opinions and more facts I can't find any that support the above assertions. Nev

[old man emu]

One of the causes of a major sea level rise was the release of unimaginable amound of water caused by the collapse of the North American (Laurentide) Ice Sheet which caused  a catastrophic rise in global sea level led to the flooding of the Black Sea and drove dramatic social change across Europe. The collapse of the Laurentide Ice Sheet released a deluge of water that increased global sea levels by up to 1.4 metres.

 

This increase in sea level and associated coastal flooding resulted in the submerging Doggerland. Doggerland was a large area of land in Northern Europe in the southern North Sea. We know the area as the Dogger Bank. Ther are many otehr places identified in oral histories that relate to this global rise in sea level. The flooding of the land bridges between Tasmania and the continent, and in the area of the Timor Sea. Speaking of Sydney, the harbour is the result of rising sea levels flooding old valleys. The same applies to Botany Bay. Local area Aboriginal stories carry nuggets of truth about the effects of rising sea levels.

[facthunter]

How does that Help the Problems we now face about the effect of human activity on the Climate?. nev

[octave]

 

 

People often express disbelief that a gas making up only 0.04% of the atmosphere could have any meaningful impact.

 

Consider ozone (03). Its concentration varies with altitude, peaking between about 15 km and 35 km at just 2–8 parts per million (ppm). By comparison, carbon dioxide (CO₂) sits around 420–425 ppm and is rising by roughly 2.4–2.6 ppm per year.

 

Ozone exists in far smaller concentrations than CO₂, yet its role is critical—without the ozone layer, life on Earth would not survive.

 

Small percentages can still have enormous effects.