Bill, I think the author's anti-green religious fervor is obvious. As for climate change - more extreme weather events are a consistent prediction. Warmer sea surfaces during weather patterns that draw air inland across them makes for more rainfall and global warming affects sea temperatures. As does ENSO which plays it's part in sometimes preventing such weather patterns (el Nino) or in producing them (la Nina). I think I'll wait on what the Bureau of Meteorology has to say on the details of this specific event but I'm confident they won't be saying the long term trend of drying for SE Australia has ended and we can ditch our rainwater tanks forever.

What Bob Brown has said is politically opportunistic but it is in line with what climate and weather science can tell us. But he's not the only politician to try and take some political advantage from this extreme weather event. Barry York's attempt to blame the Greens for lack of flood mitigation infrastructure is also politically opportunistic and his veiled swipes at climate change 'alarmism' almost superfluous in his fervor to paint real and credible concerns of ordinary Australians an evil green colour - a consequence of being misled by extreme ideology rather than as a result of being informed about well established science like climate change.

It is easier to stop or destroy things than to build them. This is what the greens are good at. The day that the greens ever build anything of real use to humanity I will eat my hat.

Ken,
I think Green politics has contributed to inadequate forward planning wrt floods, fires and energy - although there is no denying its current popularity.

Judith Curry is a climate scientist who puts the focus on the need for adaptation rather than attribution to climate change, (which she does not deny):

"How does attribution help save lives and property? We will still have floods and droughts, whether or not we stop burning fossil fuels. We have a big adaptation deficit with regards to floods, droughts, and hurricanes, relative to the events of the last two decades. If climate scientists were pushing strategies to adapt to extreme events through better land use policies, infrastructure, and better forecasts, then I would be more impressed. Instead, these attribution statements get tied up with statements about reducing CO2 (e.g. Trenberth’s statement, Santer’s statement, Somerville’s statement, etc.) Thinking that floods and droughts and hurricanes will go away if we stop burning CO2 is beyond a joke. Looking back at the 1890's, we saw a horrendous rash of extreme weather events that had nothing to do with global warming"
- http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/15/attribution-of-extreme-events/#comment-31852

No, Passy, I do not support 'state capitalism' or any kind of capitalism (save for those undeveloped countries where it would constitute an advance on existing feudal or semi-feudal conditions). In the Soviet Union and China, dams brought immense benefits, such as electrification and irrigation, to the people. Generally speaking, state capitalism is about as relevant to the C21st as Trotskyism.

As a leftist influenced by Marxism, I defend modernity and support struggle for democracy everywhere, including Zimbabwe, Iran, China, Cuba, North Korea and Burma.

And like any leftist influenced by Marxism's enthusiasm for mastering and exploiting nature to advance humanity, I have no problem in principle with dams.

If you look at the Traveston issue you will find that it was a win for common sense and sound economic decision making, rather than for any side of politics. The Nationals, Liberals, Greens and many independents, individual Qld Labor party people and in the end the Federal Labor Government opposed the dam.

Although it was the endangered species that ultimately stopped it, it would have been a shallow swamp, which would have water in it at times like now when Brisbane already has heaps of water. It involved significant pumping costs as well. As the independent economic analysis Garrett commissioned found, the costings were dubious. It would have produced expensive water, usually at a time when it was least needed.

As for flood mitigation, records show it would have made a marginal difference to the height of the 1999 floods in Gympie (which is downstream), but prolonged the flood (which translates to prolonged cutting of the Bruce highway an innundation of parts of Gympie's CBD). Without having seen an actual analysis of the recent floods yet, I think it is reasonable to assume the dam would have not performed any better in the last few weeks. In fact the dam is likely to have been full at the commencement of January and therefore would have had not capacity to store flood waters (it was not designed for this purpose) and is unlikely to have had much impact on flood height. Also, another major tributary of the Mary River (which already has a dam on it) usually contributes greatly to flows past Gympie. Traveston would have had zero impact on these flows from Six Mile Creek.

In addition, Traveston dam would have been likely to have caused flooding upstream of the dam impoundment because of inflow to the storage being greater than its capacity to be released. This would have affected about four rural townships and numerous other properties including schools.

Kenny makes sense.
re higher previous flood levels - is it perhaps due the far less cleared land hence more dammed up flows ? I don't like ruining nature for the sake of some industrialists or land speculators but I see absolutely nothing wrong with creating freshwater lakes which benefit nature as much as people. By building a dam most threatened habitats are simply moved to higher grounds. I mean no animal can hold its breath long enough to wait out a flood. So, they move anyway. Also, more freshwater attracts more fauna & flora. A dam is not environmental terrorism, it's much more aligned with enhancing nature. An enhanced nature is good for nature. Oh, and people too naturally.