I'll offer a second interpretation :

It was concluded that neither climate model was proven beyond a reasonable doubt and that adopting a 0.99m rise in sea level for the purposes of approving planning applications, defining coastal management systems and as a design input into public highway and infrastructure construction standards would be so onerous to the community and economy that the risks of adopting a 0.99m rise do not out-weigh the likelihood and consequence of a 0.99m rise.

Following detailed risk analysis the more conservative figure of 0.2m sea level rise will be offically adopted for the time being. 0.2m was found to strike an acceptable balance between risk to the environment, community, state assets and economy and the likelihood of occurance.

If further on-going research and events in the real world demonstrate a different level of rise should be adopted then it will be.

The legislature moved to have the report recognised as non-fact such that the state cannot be sued if somebody builds their house on the sand and the tide comes in.

Carantoc said...

I'll offer a second interpretation :

It was concluded that neither climate model was proven beyond a reasonable doubt and that adopting a 0.99m rise in sea level for the purposes of approving planning applications, defining coastal management systems and as a design input into public highway and infrastructure construction standards would be so onerous to the community and economy that the risks of adopting a 0.99m rise do not out-weigh the likelihood and consequence of a 0.99m rise.

Following detailed risk analysis the more conservative figure of 0.2m sea level rise will be offically adopted for the time being. 0.2m was found to strike an acceptable balance between risk to the environment, community, state assets and economy and the likelihood of occurance.

If further on-going research and events in the real world demonstrate a different level of rise should be adopted then it will be.

The legislature moved to have the report recognised as non-fact such that the state cannot be sued if somebody builds their house on the sand and the tide comes in.

"Proven beyond reasonable doubt"???.......What?

"If further on-going research and events in the real world demonstrate a different level of rise should be adopted then it will be".

Isn't that what the scientists are saying?

^^ Alan Jones is in trouble for coming out with nonsense and claiming it as a fact. He is allowed to say anything he likes as long as it's clear that it's his opinion and he's not trying to pass it off as a scientific fact.

Opinion/nonsense/idea/hypothesis/notion/feeling/conspiracy | Fact

Two different things separated by a huge wall.

Some people can't see the wall and merrily charge from one side to the other..

she'll be right mate

decrepit said...

landyacht said...

she'll be right mate

That's OK for somebody about 600kms from the coast to say.
Try living right on the coast, gives you a different perspective.

I read somewhere if all the ice on Antartica, Greenland, the Arctic and everywhere else melted, sea levels will go up by about 20 meters. Sure that sucks if you live by the beach or river but life will go on.

If you did live by the beach and lost your place, you could possibly move to Antartica. It could be quite pleasant down there.

kiteboy dave said...

dinsdale said...

kiteboy dave said...

^^ Alan Jones is in trouble for coming out with nonsense and claiming it as a fact. He is allowed to say anything he likes as long as it's clear that it's his opinion and he's not trying to pass it off as a scientific fact.

Opinion/nonsense/idea/hypothesis/notion/feeling/conspiracy | Fact

Two different things separated by a huge wall.

Some people can't see the wall and merrily charge from one side to the other..

Well that's your opinion anyway.

No, it's a fact.

Completely right Daveboy


Alan Jones made a statement that he claimed to be fact. Somebody complained to the obudsman.

The ombudsman asked the station to justify what he said as being true, or as being reasonable to believe as true, or as having a independant source which itself was claiming it to be true.

Now, what the station said was not 'here's the evidence' or even 'here are some other people who are also claiming it to be true' - but their official reply was 'the station did not derive these facts, Alan Jones' conducted his own research and we believe this statement came out of his own imagination'.

Not much back up from the station then. Alan Jones chose not to provide anything in his defence.

Hence the ombudsman had to uphold the complaint as being in breach of the station's licence to provide factual and truthful broadcasting.

If Jones had said 'in my opinion less than 0.0000000001% of CO2 is produced by man' or even 'yes obudsman, here is a web page that is claiming this and I read it and had no reason to believe it wasn't true' or even 'the atmosphere is 0.4% Co2, the atmosphere is 1 billion m3, man produces 1 m3 of Co2 per year, hence less than 0.00000001% has come from man' (or whatever the numbers are) then he would not have been in trouble.


But he didn't, he made a statement claiming to be fact which he could not justify and he is operating on a licensed radio station, not a public internet forum for freaks and weirdo's (like I am, therefore I am not in breach of any licence when I knowingly lie).

nebbian said...

It's 70 metres, but yeah it is limited.

nsidc.org/cryosphere/glaciers/quickfacts.html

Yeah a bit higher than what I thought but its not a doomsday end of the world scenario. The loss of coastal and low lying land would probably be offset by the availability of large amounts of land in Canada and Russia along with Antartica, that is basically useless at the moment as its too cold to survive there except in very limited way.

^^^ careful there fellas this is seabreeze, don't go grounding the discussion in reality or you'll take all the fun out of it

Just wanted to add, 70 metres doesn't sound like much, but I've been doing a bit of civil drafting lately, working with land contours etc, and basically I've been learning that vertical metres are worth so much more that horizontal metres. 70 metres of elevation would cover a fk of a lot of the currently populated areas of Oz. Essentially the great dividing range would be our new coastline. (on the East side)

Imagine that.. Toowoomba becomes high value coastal real estate