Not to mention that even if AGW IS real, if China continues with its industrialisation, all the billions wasted on Australia's carbon tax will delay our thermal Armageddon by exactly six days.

I hope the warmists enjoy their extra week, because it's going to cost us a fortune.

It's possible the sceptism generated by the floods may be as long lasting. The long term effects are what's going to hold not short term events. The truth will stick, because it is the truth.

But I won't make any predictions, I know how you are about that.

Despite their failures has any Scientist put their hand up and admitted being wrong? Don't think so. Maybe wet is the new dry.

Jon ,
that was a silly thing to say. More extreme weather events are a consequence of global warming. The extreme floods come after many years of extreme drought.

Also China is making huge changes in energy production especially renewable energy. Modern power stations using ancient high density coal make that possible.

IF Australia, China and others do not succeed in limiting temperature and sea level rises hundreds of millions of people will die. Australia will have to cope with mass unemployment and social unrest.

Then millions of refugees will come with modern weapons. Get real, 110 million people been killed in wars since 1910 and an alliance of desperate countries will desperate populations will come with war ships and container ships full of military hardware.

The National security risks of climate change is ignored by denialists, who do not understand that risk management is necessary. When the poo hits the fan their evil advocacy will have a name ; treason

Keep bashing Mark….since the failure of the Copenhagen climate talks in 2009 and the ‘Climategate’ debacle of early 2010, media interest in climate science has declined, and the public become somewhat more sceptical about its veracity. Yet the evidence base itself has only become more robust in that time. Conveying the certainties and uncertainties of climate science to the public – through a media that has become much more polarised about the subject – is a recurrent challenge. You are a classic case in point.

In relation to flooding and climate change, there is a systematic influence on all of these weather events now-a-days because of the fact that there is this extra water vapour lurking around in the atmosphere, this is one manifestation of climate change. Looking only at individual extreme events will not reveal their cause, just like watching a few scenes from a movie does not reveal the plot. We should continue to expect increased flooding associated with increased extreme precipitation because of increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas.

The comments above are based on science not economics, any intelligent person knows economics is not science. How about writing something related to economics, apparently this is closer to your true calling. Let the scientists do their work and how about sticking to something you really know about!

What a great article Mark, full of common sense & reason. Of course all these bureaucrats are pushing the story they are told to push by their masters in Canberra. No thinking person pays any attention to them, or the ABC any more, as we all know the truth, & their pronouncements have no association what ever.

You are slightly off the mark, at least as far as south east Queensland is concerned, with rainfall.

One of the things about Beattie that used to infuriate me was his bull about drought. Yes the dams were going down, but that was because of how the rain fell, not how much. Small regular rainfall events will never fill large dams.

I was an irrigaor living on, & irrigating from a little river, south of Brisbane. I was down at the river at least daily for 20 years. I have records of the daily river height, & rainfall records on my property, both for that period.

The 90s were quite a bit drier than the 2000s in this area.

In the 90s my river stopped flowing [totally dry] 12 times, for up to 6 months at a time.

In the 2000s it only stopped flowing 3 times, never for more than a couple of weeks.

Not only were their projections wrong, but their statements about the amount of rain that did fall can only be called lies.

Mark Lawson here

tnks fellas.. few more specific comments.

Geoff of Perth - look closely at the article. I don't say a word about the science itself. What I have done is contrast the warnings with what actually happened. If, say, the scientists in 2009 has said be prepared for a lot of floods after the drought which is due to end soon, then they would have a case. But they didn't say that at all. If you look at the fine print of the reports floods get a vague mention as likely to happen some time. Its no good now trying to say that they really meant something else back then.

Bugsy at least had the grace to acknowledge this, but again, please note, I haven't said the long term projections are wrong as such (ast least not in this article). What I'm saying is that the scientists clearly got it wrong over rainfall and the future state of dams, resulting in a major waste of money, and they were so obviously wrong that the bulk of voters may well have noticed

Mark, you may by right that the floods will cause some who don't respect real science and scientists, such as yourself, become more sceptical of global warming.

But you have not given us links to the statements that you claim the 'CSIRO - BoM scientists' made to the effect that the climate would remain permanently dry and that the 'dams would never fill'. Give us the links, name the scientists and quote the actual words.

The truth is that other points in your artcle are correct - " original forecasts emphasised that both droughts and flooding would increase as the world warmed (to be fair, some of the forecasts also mentioned floods)....

"The federal government's Climate Commission has also issued a statement that people should look beyond the past two years of rain, floods and dams full to overflowing, and instead consider the 10 average which is still pretty dry compared to previous periods".

I give you points for including these truths; you thus maintain some professional journalistic even-handedness.

However this is an opinion column and your usual 'Curmudgeonly' and climate skeptical spin has prevailed in this article, as we have come to expect from you.

Mark, your entire article smacks with your bias.

Can I suggest you read "Climate Factsheets" written by the Public Interest Research Centre, link as follows:

http://pirc.info/Climate_Factsheets_PIRC.pdf

Climate change is more about forcing than warming, if you understand the logarithmic function related to weather and climate you may learn quite a bit.

Geoff

Anyone that doesn't think climate change is upon us is more than a skeptic.
England is having water restrictions this year, more-so than
normal.
The wild weather patterns are enough on their own, on a global scale.
There is nothing to say the big drought's will not come again.
West in drought and the east in flood, x 2 years.
Victoria experiencing weather from the top end, with humidity and rain.
Ocean temps; eating away polar ice shelf, and increasing.
We are lagging behind with our attempts at cutting green house gasses.
The America's are miles in-front, all we can do is watch.

My tip is that this carbon tax, as we know it, wont happen as planned.

A few things may happen before July.

Julia may be replaced and the new leader would not dare tax us to this extent.

Or, the government may well be tossed out before, which will mean there will be no tax.

Or, Julia may well see the writing on the wall and scale down the tax.

Meanwhile, the dilutional supporters of this tax will of cause keep supporting it, as they are of the opinion that it will simply 'slip in ' un noticed.

Yea, right!

The evidence for the changes with the climate, one only has to view the last ice-age(10.000 years plus ago) to see the global deserts are expanding.....in other words....the planet is drying out.

This has happen before in the
Permian 280 to 245 mya
Sail-back reptiles. Amphibians abundant. Pangaea forms. Ends with mass extinction. If I have it right, the whole earth at that time was dry as a bone......and it might be time for it again.

These changes have been happening for millions of years off and on. The only evidence that mankind has something to do with it, is compared with the 19th centuries industrial revolution.
Combined that with the whats above, and presto....C02 and our actions equals rapid change.

cc

Mark Lawsoner here..

Roses1 - the references can easily be checked.. just do a search and you'll find them.. Tim Flannery's pre-floods statements about rainfall are particularly well known. I note that you agree readily enough with statements that fitted into your world view but rejected those that did not with the feeble excuse that I did not link them.

Geoff of Perth - had a quick look at your link, which indicates that you've missed the point of the article entirely. I haven't said a word about the science (not in this article, at any rate), or even about global warming. I even agreed that the forecasts said, somewhere, that floods might also happen. The point was that the scientists said clearly and loudly one thing was going to happen, then something else entirely happened. Further the contrast was so great that the public at large have noticed.

If they had said at the time, look we expect cycles of floods and drought with the floods expected to start soon and fill the now empty dams, but then be followed by a cycle of drought, then people like me would stop doubting them. But they didn't say that. In fact there were people who said it, using climate cycle theory, but that's for another story.

Whenever 'scienitst' speak about what the climate was a million years ago you know they are talking c-ap. They have learned how to lie with a very straight face. When peoples pockets are about to be hit by the faith filled 'scientist' people start to question. ' These questioners are demonised and attempts are made to silence them.

Then comes the 'science is settled' dogma which makes the likes of Gore and Flannery look like fools after ridiculous scientific predictions based on corrupted data and fantasy. They however have become rich by spreading their idiotic views. Then we have Ms Gillard advising Mr Rudd to hold off on the carbon tax (probably because finally the public could smell a rat). Gillard in a dirty desperate deal with the Greens having already knifed Rudd then decides to knife the people with her blatant lie. This Government has done more for those who refuse dogma than all the honest scientist in the world. That is why most people have woken up to the gw myth.

LOL...oh thats right:) runners world is only 6 thousand years old.......sorry for being so silly...." walking away whistling a happy tune....."

cc

The other Grand lie is that the sea level is rising.On Q&A the other night,no one challenged this mantra.

The reality is that the earth's plates are rising and falling.You cannot have a rise in the level of the oceans in one place on the planet and not another. The Moon's influence is situational and temporary.Gravity holds the Oceans in a sphere around the planet in a pretty uniform equlibrium.The same happens in you bath tub when filled with water.The water cannot be higher in one spot and not another.The Earth's mass does not change,so if it bulges in one spot there will be an equal and opposite reaction of a negative bulge in another.The water levels around the planet will stay the same.

It is impossible to a have a sea level change of 200mm in England and not have a commensurate change around the rest of the planet.The Islands in the Pacific were not suffering sea level rise,but were sinking.

The sea ice of the Artic when melted will not make sea levels rise since 90% of the ice is below the water anyway.Only if the Antartic and Greenland icepacks melt will sea levels rise and this has not happened.

They lied to us about the Y2K bug,Vietnam and the Gulf of Tonkin incident,Iraq was a lie,they knew about the imment attack on Pearl harbour,they lied to us about 911(there is now absolute scientific proof that explosives were used http://ae911truth.org/ ) and they lied to us about the carbon tax.

They also refuse to charge anyone over the financial fraud of the GFC.95% of the Fannie and Freddie loans were fradulant and not a single person has been charged.Only Occupy protestors get bashed and put in gaol because they are questioning the establishment and want justice.

According to this study the sea level is rising at about 2mm a year. http://academics.eckerd.edu/instructor/hastindw/MS1410-001_FA08/handouts/2008SLRSustain.pdf

Tide gauges and satellite altimeters are used for the measurements. Tide gauges must take into account changes in the height of land itself caused by local geologic processes.

In my local are of Torquay Victoria I have noticed that the established dunes on Whites beach have been significantly eroded away. Not evidence of rising sea levels by itself but it does fit in with the other evidence.

I agree lack of GFC charges is disgraceful.

The Sahara desert was once the granary of imperial Rome. Now it is endless bone dry desert. The atmosphere above the desert is loaded with moisture and rain regularly falls, but evaporates before actually reaching the ground. Climate change? Perhaps? Or was it due to the eternal and unsustainable result of endless timber harvesting?
After all, an acre of trees evaporates 2.5 times more water vapour than an acre of ponded water! Proven science.
And this water vapour often is all that is required to force an already moisture laden atmosphere to give up much of its water as falling rain; and no better demonstrated than in so-called rain forests.
A much greener Australia was once covered coast to coast in verdant forests. However, virtually all rain forest species are not fire tolerant, and will eventually reappear and spread, if fire as a management tool is completely abandoned.
The greenhouse effect is just that, with Co2 just a super fertilizer! Arguably, the real thermal blanket is atmospheric moisture and borne out by endlessly repeatable tests; the very bedrock of science.
Every boy and his dog knows that an overcast night is a warmer night and conversely a clear night with dry air is one often accompanied by frosts and freezing temperatures.
In a warmer wetter world we can expect more atmospheric water to inhabit higher and higher atmospheric zones. We can expect warmer oceans and consequently, more self sustaining evaporation and exponentially increasing wind speeds and fire storms, with more desertification, plus higher moisture loads, which eventually will build up into unsustainable loads and fall as record breaking flooding rain over shorter and shorter time frames, which will likely see even more disastrous inland water-wall flood events?
Even so, longer dry periods could persist between record flood events; meaning, the critiqued desal plants could ultimately prove invaluable and very worthwhile visionary projects? Rhrosty.

I think most people are accepting or eventually will accept that increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are affecting our weather. In the recent La Nina wetter period we should have had dams in place to store this water for the coming drier period. Dams are able reduce flooding by holding back stream flow and releasing it during dry periods. If it were not for water held in our dams there would have been no water available for South Australia and rivers of the Murray Darling system would have ceased to flow in the recent drought. The flood damage to property would have been minimised and the extra hydroelectric power available from new dams would add to our supply of clean energy.
We need to build more dams now to accommodate the huge variance in rainfall that we will inevitably face. The need to increase water holding infrastructure must happen now without consideration to environmental or heritage issues. We may have to strengthen government power to resume land and override environmental concerns for the future of everyone.

Siller; great post and great pragmatism mate. Water is arguably the most inert substance we know? Therefore, modest dams placed in gorges and areas of similar erosion, will do as you say, all while limiting/ending erosion. Placing them in gorges will store water, without increasing evaporation factors.
Nathans gorge, i.e., will hold back more water than that contained in Sydney harbour? A modest hydro electric plant, would ensure that a moderated flow, would still serve both irrigators and the environment alike?
Strategically located dams would do all this; all while protecting and preventing the marine environment being inundated and damaged by the millions of tons of suspended solids, that always accompany major flood events!
Arguably, the principle reason for "GREEN" opposition to damming the headwaters of many rivers; has its foundation in their anti development aspirations; and or, preferred agrarian modelled future?
Likewise, their ongoing opposition to the nuclear option, even though we now have operational thorium reactors, which cannot make waste that can then be used in nuclear weapons; or, comparatively safe pebble reactors, which can be mass produced and trucked on site; meaning, the nuclear carbon free energy option can now be provided for less than current coal-fired power. Cheers, Rhrosty.

Siller/Rhrosty core drilling's of the corrals of the great barrier reef many years ago found firm evidence of droughts, worse than our last one with greater duration. They also found evidence of floods that make anything experienced in Queensland, in our time appear like a minor event. Perhaps you should keep your water wings handy.

Just before Cook cruised the reef there was one of these droughts that lasted 27 years. I saw some of this stuff back in the 70s, & wondered how we would cope, & decided it would be very badly.

This does not prove that CO2 has no effect on our weather, but it does prove that worse droughts were roaming the country long before anyone thought of SUVs.

I think it is fair to say that you will find nothing but support for more, & bigger dams among non greens, provided not too much of it is wasted in "environmental flows", code for lets stuff up their water use.

Rhrosty the US navy have been operating small packaged nuclear reactors for many years, in the very difficult environment of war ships. My small experience with the US navy did not convince me that they are the best trained folk on earth. If they can do this, safely for years, I'm sure nuclear, even with todays technology can be operated quite safely.

Personally I don't think it matters, as CO2 is not a villain to me, but for those brainwashed to believe the hype, I'll go along with it, if it eases their troubled minds.

Mark Lawson here.
Rhrosty - actually it was Egypt that was the granary of Rome, specifically the strip along the Nile and the delta which remains reasonably fertile (albeit not as it was), not the Sahara. At that time it was still desert.. However, the Sahara was fertile back before recorded history. Just what scientists say about why the shift occured now slips my mind, but it was long before anyone could reasonably claim that humans were altering climate.

SILLER - look you can cling to this idea that scientists might be able to prove that human activity has changed climate significantly if you like, but the stuff you are talking about concerning dams is flat wrong. There is no case for building more dams. As the article points out, efforts by scientists to forecast rainfall patterns using greenhouse theory were completely contradicted by events. Although I did not explore alternatives in the article it is possible that the current wet conditions in SE Australia will persist for at least a couple more decades. So when dry conditions return will they be dryer? The only indication we have that might be the case is greenhouse theory which, to restate the obvious, was found to be completely wrong in forecasting for the short term. Verdict: existing infrastructure probably needs to be reviewed for its effectiveness in preventing floods. Water storage doesn't enter into it.

In regard to dams Curmudgeon the glaciers above rivers emanating from the Himalayas and Swiss Alps are retreating at a rate that will make huge dams the only way to provide continuing flow in these rivers. In Australia we do not have the luxury of glaciers that release a reliable and constant flow of water. Dams are the only realistic solution. Also the southern oscillation index is again in negative territory which indicates lower than average rainfall at least for the coming winter. We have already experienced a drier than average April in South East Australia and Western Australia.

@Arjay, Saturday, 28 April 2012 8:52:36 AM says...
"The sea ice of the Artic when melted will not make sea levels rise since 90% of the ice is below the water anyway.Only if the Antartic and Greenland icepacks melt will sea levels rise and this has not happened."

From Nasa's website...
"The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005."

Mark says ...
"The point was that the scientists said clearly and loudly one thing was going to happen, then something else entirely happened. Further the contrast was so great that the public at large have noticed."

The problem is they were actually correct, there has been massive droughts and changes in other parts of the globe; hottest and driest in the US, similar in the UK ( they are now planting grapes in parts of Britain where nothing commercial would grow).

The point is that the climate is changing rapidly, 100 of times faster than ever before, and it affects weather which is much more volatile and so less predictable year on year but that does not make Flannery et al culpable for erroneous prediction, it merely emphasizes how difficult it is to predict and quantify the actual damage from AGW.

Mark Lawson here

Peter King
No, go back and look at the article. The forecasts I was referring to were for South East Australia, not the other places you mentioned. So they made those forecasts for a specific area and it was proved wrong. You can't then say well it was right, because other places thousands of kilometres away were dry. You're trying to redefine the original forecast. I won't get into your other claims about climate (100 times faster) but the basic sequence in the article is that of forecast for a particular region was made; proved wrong by events.

SILLER
Look, I dunno how to break this to you but you do know that the business about Himalayan glaciers melting faster than ever has been completely overturned by recent events. they found that the IPCC report on that point was taken from a scientist quoting a greenpeace report or some such. I lost track. Anyway its not happening. In any case, you are relying on greenhouse forecasts to make your case for these dams when, as the article shows, the theory turned out to be completely useless in the short term for SE Australia.

'similar in the UK ( they are now planting grapes in parts of Britain where nothing commercial would grow).'

and yet

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17897982

uk has wettest April in 100 years

gw religion continues to pump out the propaganda despite the evidence. They will need to look at different parts of the world as they have been exposed with their myths in US, UK , Europe, Australia etc etc

Runner, this might be a tad 'complex' - but give it a go:

A warmer world leads to more water evaporation.

More water evaporation leads to inreased precipitation of said water (rain/snow).

Which part are you having difficulty with?

This site has many pleasures; one is Geoff of Perth who intones:

"In relation to flooding and climate change, there is a systematic influence on all of these weather events now-a-days because of the fact that there is this extra water vapour lurking around in the atmosphere,"

The nasty, lurking water vapour! But Geoff, are you sure it is lurking anywhere given that relative humidity has been falling at all levels post WW11:

http://jennifermarohasy.com//wp-content/uploads/2009/05/globalrelativehumidity300_700mb.jpg

And if RH is falling then it is impossible for specific humidity to be rising and indeed it is not:

http://www.palisad.com/co2/sat/wc.png

Geoff, obviously warming to the subject, whatever it is, then says:

"Climate change is more about forcing than warming, if you understand the logarithmic function related to weather and climate you may learn quite a bit."

A forcing is a factor external to or introduced to the climate system which affects, for a period, the radiative balance at the Tropopause, the boundary between the Troposphere and the Stratosphere. The IPCC recognises 2 main types of forcings; greenhouse gases, the most dominant one being CO2, and solar radiation.

Does Geoff mean that a positive imbalance at the Troposphere, however caused, that is more radiation coming in then leaving, does not produce warming? I mean it can work the other way round where you can have an increase in global average temperature with NO positive radiation imbalance at the Troposphere [can you work out how Geoff?] but how can it work the other way?

Of course there is no heating because the radiation imbalance is converted into heat which is stored at the bottom of the ocean. At least that is the IPCC explanation. Too bad it is rubbish at the latest levitus paper shows.

But don't stop Geoff, magic stuff.

Bonmot

'A warmer world leads to more water evaporation.

More water evaporation leads to inreased precipitation of said water (rain/snow).'

Someone forgot to tell Tim Flannery. Maybe since you are such an expert you should.

Runner, you were linking to the wettest UK in 100 years.

I know it might seem simplistic to you (it has to be) ... but which part are you having difficulty with:

>> A warmer world leads to more water evaporation.

More water evaporation leads to inreased precipitation of said water (rain/snow) <<

"Runner, you were linking to the wettest UK in 100 years.

I know it might seem simplistic to you (it has to be) ... but which part are you having difficulty with:"

Patronising to the end; whatever part Runner is having difficulty with the MET also had the same problem; their forecast:

"Met Office 3-month Outlook
Period: April – June 2012 Issue date: 23.03.12

SUMMARY – PRECIPITATION:
The forecast for average UK rainfall slightly favours drier than average conditions for April-May-June as a whole, and also slightly favours April being the driest of the 3 months. With this forecast, the water resources situation in southern, eastern and central England is likely to deteriorate further during the April-May-June period. The probability that UK precipitation for April-May-June will fall into the driest of our five categories is 20-25% whilst the probability that it will fall into the wettest of our five categories is 10-15% (the 197-2000 climatological probability for each of these categories is 20%)."

In fact the period was the wettest for over 100 years.

In years to come the synonym for stupid and arrogant will be AGW supporter/scientist.

cohenite

thanks for putting it so clearly. Also if what bonmot is so confident of then he/she must be convinced of how stupid successive State Labour parties have been in listening to the Greens and not building more dams for our increased population.

"Patronising to the end; whatever part Runner is having difficulty with the MET also had the same problem"

Now there's a poser ... Who is the pot and who is the Kettle?

OMG, those damn probabilities again ... 20-25% dry vs 10-15% wet.

Who'd wanna a be a weatherman ... I'm sticking to climate.

"In fact the period was the wettest for over 100 years." Well duh, exactly the point.

To simplify even further (always a risk) ... in some regions, weather will be more varied (hotter, drier, wetter, take your pick) and more extreme.

Anthony, today the synonym for religious zealot and political ideologue are the same. Science has got nothing to do with it - as you and the likes of runner have so aptly demonstrated with the Lord Monckton road-show.

Oh, and runner ... take your blinkers off. Successive Labor AND Liberal governments have not planned enough for the future.

Why? Because when they do, it scares the bejeebus out of the electorate and they're voted out.

Perhaps it's got something to do with selfishness and greed.

When do you think we should start preparing and paying (literally and metaphorically) for the future, runner?

Hint: prayers alone won't be enough.

bonmot,

"Anthony, today the synonym for religious zealot and political ideologue are the same. Science has got nothing to do with it..."

It would seem so - and cohenite and runner teaming up demonstrates your premise well.

It's all about biased assimilation in cohenite's case, and belief in runner's ("evidence just bounces off"). This from the following article:

"....the more scientifically literate people are, the more their ideological filters kick in when reading information about climate change. It might seem counterintuitive, but the more confidence people have in their ability to grasp the science, the more able they are to slot it into their existing world view."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/30/belief-climate-change-scepticism

Just highlighting an article embedded in the last one.

Vicky Pope - senior scientist at the British Met office.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/23/climate-change-believe-in-it

I've said this before and it is always worth saying again: the so-called AGW science cannot even get it right in the immediate present yet we are bombaded with continuous claims that the AGW science is certain about what will happen in the medium and far future [10 to 200 years].

How can that be when NO prediction of AGW has come to pass.

AGW is a theory which has been disproved, simply by what has happened in the weather and climate over the last 30 years.

Unfortunately there is too much money and too many egoes involved in propping up AGW for people to let it go.

So, which explains the commentators', here and elsewhere, slavish support for this dead but not buried theory: money or ego?

Yo, cohenite,

Strangely enough, your "absolute conviction" that AGW is a failed theory is reminiscent of runner's equally intractable position that evolution is a fiction.

Carry on, though - it's fascinating...

(What's your take of General Relativity?)

This is what I mean; stupid ad hom, completely irrelevant juxtapositions by alarmists.

Sceptics think AGW is rubbish therefore they must think evolution and other basic science paradigms must be too.

Stupid and puerile.

Just for the record I not only think Evolution is real but Devolution is too; and alarmists would be a case in point.

General Relativity is an accurate description of a context which does not include macro, black holes, or micro, quantum, factors.

Which would explain I suppose why CERN has discovered evidence that Neutrinos can travel faster than light.

Speaking of black holes why don't you and bonmot disappear into one.

cohenite,

I believe that the "neutrinos can move faster than light" excitement was down to a loose bolt or some such anomaly....nothing can move faster than light "through space".

And why shouldn't we question the psychological aspects of denialism. It's clear that skeptics don't have a problem with scientists from other fields - but maybe they don't see them as threatening the status quo.

Poirot

and your something from nothing dogma that you swallow leads you to such idiotic pseudo science conclusions that are fiction and fantasy. No wonder science is so belittled!

So Anthony Cox believes neutrinos can travel faster than light.

Says it all really eh, Poirot?

As a Cohenite supporter has revealed himself ... Cohenite's something from nothing dogma that he has swallowed has led him to such an idiotic pseudo science conclusions that is fiction and fantasy. No wonder they are so belittled!

Nuff said, and thanks for the link to Vicky Pope Poirot - see you in a black hole not to far away :)