It is amazing how hard it is to have serious discussion on such important issues, like the Asian Tsunami and global warming, without it getting nasty and personal. Cranky and the Usual Suspect seem little intersted in the issue itself, instead just looking for a chance to misrepresent what Mcmahon actually said and make personal slurs. As if what Mcmahon gave to the Tsunami appeal has any bearing on his right to comment. We should remember that personal abuse always indicates a lack of better argument. And at least McMahon is not working for some right wing think tank with a vested interest in killing all debate about envinonmental matters.

As to the connection between the Tsunami and global warming (one Mcmahon made in terms of effects, not cause), Sir David King said that "the Asian Tsunami disaster underlined the threat posed by climate change", that "other effects of global warming such as increased storms and flooding were already happening" and that "one side of this is we need to prepare ourselves against these increased impacts." But what would he know - he is only the British Government's chief scientific adviser.

Cranky, the Usual Suspect and all the other commentators who so quickly revert to personal attacks and vitriolic language should ask themselves whether they do even want a proper debate about these matters. If not, what is the point of OnLine Opinion?

Yes, solarboy, you've put your finger on what I was feeling when I read those other comments. No useful purpose is served by personal attacks except for a person to blow off steam about something else or someone else in their life which they are unhappy about. I don't think this forum is an appropriate place to do that, at least I hope not.
MB

Solarboy, when you find it, let me know where I was nasty and personal. I take it because I don't accept what Peter or you have to say I've got no right to an opinion? You've certainly hit on a fantastic way to have a proper debate on a subject. "I'm right, all who agree with me are right, you're wrong so shutup". Rather "left" of you if I may say so. (And I say that in the nicest possible way).

What makes you think Peter is aligned in anyway to the left or right? I don't think that the environment debate is drawn along those lines. Sure politicians have hijacked the environmental debate, as they do everything else, but caring for our environment for the benefit of ourselves and the future is not the sole domain of the left.

I never misrepresented what Peter said. It's quite obvious what he said. I disagreed with the blatently sly attempt to link and compare the two. As if the disastrous effects of a tsunami, hitting countries out of the blue with power that we can't even imagine, will be the same as sea levels rising a miniscule amount every year. Especially when the science that predicts this is suspect at best. The science of climate is one of the most imprecise. They can't tell you what's going to happen next month but everyone's sure what's going to happen in 10 years. Yeah right! Reminds me of the "civilization as we know it" ending millenium bug.

As for Dr.King! Big Deal!! I haven't heard where he's the final arbiter on the subject. He's just another scientist (a chemist I think) among many. Once appointed by the government he's just another politician towing the party line. His statements are just as misleading and opportunistic as Peter's.

You seem pretty good at reverting to personal attacks and spewing vitriol yourself solarboy. But at the end of the day you've added nothing to the debate.

MB, just because I don't agree doesn't mean I have a controlling mother, distant father and/or self-esteem issues. Now I'm not allowed to voice an opinion because I'm "troubled". God help us!

Solarboy and MB, where does it get personal?

All I did was ask Peter to read about the links between higher temperatures and tornados.

My question to him about how much money he has donated is a valid one considering he is criticising the "West" about contributions.

The environmental debate is exactly that - a debate. Just because many people are suspicious of the science and motives behind global warming does not render their opinion pointless.

And thank you for your personal assessment of my life. My New Year's resolution is to live a perfectly happy life, free of any kind of personal and financial stress while I dance around the Maypole and sing with fairies. Fingers crossed.

While it is good that we have the debate about climate change and how the rise in sea levels may well aggravate the effects of tsunamis, the real issue, what actually caused the earthquake and the preceding one off New Zealand, a week earlier, has not been touched upon by Peter McMahon. I did some internet searching earlier on this week, and I was astounded to find an overwhelming body of arguments that support a direct and causal link between the effects of global warming and the resulting meting of the icecaps, and how this has altered the pressure on the continental plates around the planet. I wrote it up for this week's edition of NewMatilda.com:

http://www.newmatilda.com/home/articledetailmagazine.asp?ArticleID=407&HomepageID=56

and left a copy on our website here

http://www.safecom.org.au/envirogees.htm

This is the real news that should be out there, so politicians can be pressured to implement Kyoto and a raft of other legislation, that reduces the likelyhood of a repeat of the events, and so churches can tell those in the pews that it was an Act of Man, rather than an act of God.

Jack

The notion of increased storms due to "global warming" is pure fantasy. Here is an extract from a study on this very subject:

It is generally accepted that, all over the world, property damage from tropical cyclones (TC) has increased over the years. There is a common perception in the media, and even in government and management circles, that this is due to an increase in tropical cyclone frequency and perhaps intensity, probably as a result of global climate change.

However, studies all over the world show that though there are decadal variations, there is no definite long-term trend in the frequency or intensity of tropical cycles.

In this paper, we review recent worldwide literature on trends in tropical cyclone frequency, intensity, and impact, with special reference to the North Indian Ocean (NIO) basin…Evidence from this analysis supports the view that the increase in vulnerability and damage is due to societal factors rather than any increase in cyclone frequency or intensity.

The specter or tropical cyclones increasing alarmingly due to global climate change, portrayed in the popular media and even in some more serious publications, does not therefore have a sound scientific basis.

Reference:

Raghavan, S., Rajesh, S., 2003. Trends in tropical cyclone impact. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 84:635-644.