Letter to the Editor - October 18: Contradictions and errors
JOHN Edwards, (12-10-13) complained that I ramble on. At least I don't change my story from letter to letter.
John's letters seem to be as changeable and as unreliable as weather forecasts.
A few letters ago he wrote that, in a Northern Rivers Lock the Gate survey, 20,000 replied that they do not want CSG drilling in this area.
When challenged he responded that 20,000 was a total of people surveyed. Oops.
He went on digging his own hole by then saying that only eligible voters in 112 (of the 320) communities had been surveyed and none of these were in the urban areas.
That brought the possible voters down to about 20,000+/-. He then added that they had only interviewed about one in ten in each community.
Then to cap it off he indicated that Lock the Gate policy was to count every house they went past and if nobody was home then they were counted as undecided. His initial letter was published before the election so this fraudulent figure could have influenced voters.
In his 30-09-13 letter after Tony Hunter called him a hypocrite, he wrote "The suggestion that I use natural gas is an indication that there is still a high level of ignorance in the community about gas" and "…The fact is I,… have never used natural gas because I use propane...", except that propane is one of the components of "as extracted" natural gas or CSG.
No matter how he phrases it John is a natural gas consumer.
In voices of the Earth (23-9-13) John told us in detail that the 20 most expensive weather events in the USA adjusted for inflation, occurred in the last 20 years and how this proved that manmade global warming was occurring. Inflation is only one factor; although the main one, which includes growth as well as inflation, is the GDP.
An additional factor is the disproportionate increase in the number of people who have to move to seaside locations.
Just take Yamba as an example. Look at the increased population and the number and quality/size of the houses in Yamba compared to 20 years ago.
The value of Yamba has increased by far more than just inflation so a small storm now could cost more than a large one 20 years ago.
Add to this the following, which came from a US Senate hearing:
It is eight years since a major hurricane crossed the US coast, the longest period since the Civil War. (Sandy by the way was not a hurricane when it hit New York, but a collision of two storms.) And so far in 2013 there have been no hurricanes at all by Sept 30th, a record.
Weather-related dollar losses have not increased worldwide since 1990.
Naturally started forest fires have decreased 15% since 1950 (but have been more intense due to hazard reduction/back burning being limited or even prohibited).
Flood losses as a percentage of GDP have decreased 75% since 1940.
The number of tornadoes has decreased over the last 20 years.
And there has been no change in drought-affected areas worldwide over the last 60 years.
In the Environmental page Noticeboard (14-10-13), there was an article on Australia and India researching the "synthetic" fuel dimethyl ether (DME), a product already manufactured elsewhere in the world.
It has many uses but most is currently used as a replacement for propane. It is made from various hydrocarbon feed-stocks such as coal, gas or biomass, although the writer said it can "even be made directly from carbon dioxide". Carbon dioxide!
Really; alchemy at work. It also stated that making it here in Australia would reduce our reliance on imported fuels but as the greens want to close down our coal mines and stop the production of gas, where is the feedstock going to come from?
Then there was Gary Whale's response to Viv Forbes (who is a he not a she) and his valid comments about CO2.
Climate sceptics agree with most of what Professor Richard Somerville, an expert on the computer modelling of the atmosphere, said in the referenced quote.
Sceptics just add that the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on the climate is negligible, is too small to measure and is not currently occurring based on actual observations compared to the computer models which so far have had a 90%+ failure rate (so much for Prof Somerville's "expertise").
It's interesting to note that in the professor's quote he did not say that manmade CO2 is causing dramatic warming. We now find there are a lot of senior climate scientists who make a grand speech but don't commit to the IPCC doggerel.