You obviously equate lots of rain with no global warming.
Poirot,
The rainfall in South new Guinea, West Irian & Torres Strait has come down from days & days of rain during two months of wet to the odd day of heavy rain. there hasn't been a proper wet since the 80's.
Paul1405,
Camp means where people set up camp not boot camp & I don't know how else to explain to you the difference between military & non military service.

doing their non military national service, fairing with 800mm of rain bucketing down on them during a cyclone.
Paul1405,
Oh those poor young people having to experience reality for two years. Do what every sensible person does, stay out of the rain if you don't like getting wet. They could spend time on farms, working on the railway line, working on fences etc. In fact they'd get two beneficial experiences. They could get work experience whilst at the same time experience work. Just imagine a 21 year old realising that other people have to work for a living. I know it would be quite a shock but it would be a good shock even if they don't know what hit them.
Who'd pay for it all ? the same people who pay for unemployment benefits & baby bonuses & all other benefits. Us, the taxpayers & as more young people develop a sense of responsibility the service would become less costly over time. We all benefit.

individual,

What don't you understand from my comment about the "increased frequency of extreme events"?

rehctub, "KNOWINGLY LIVING IN HIGH RISK AREAS"

Is that so?

Then presumably the town planner, surveyor, developer and final seller would have known prior.

Guess what? For the lion's share it was government that was fulfilling all of those roles.

As well, in Brisbane to take an example, in 2011 land that was above the government's 100 year flood plains went under. I know of cases where such houses were flooded past the height of the first floor ie above 2800mm.

Just to mention one of the many other controversial matters, many of the large storm water drains on the Brisbane River do not covers to prevent the nasty hydraulic effects that were noted. Large geysers that flooded land.

Elsewhere government has replaced creeks with underground pipes and surveyed and sold building allotments on the flood plains.

These are all inconvenient truths and it is what happens when federal governments put growth and record migration ahead of the development of the necessary infrastructure to support large increases in population. That had been happening for many years and the gross damage done to private and public assets from floods illustrate the lack of government planning and inconsistency (more like turf wars) between the levels of government. It is not helped by the corporatisation of government agencies and the growing political patronage in senior appointments in public agencies.

Of course it is convenient to blame home owners, but the truth is very different. It is not like ministers and their senior public servants to admit fault.

"increased frequency of extreme events"?
Poirot,
Are they ? Is it just possible that our generation happens to exist at a time of change that is a natural occurrence that hadn't been recorded before ?
The mind wanders to Atlantis, the Pyramids, the Nasca Plains & several other mysteries. Is it within the realm of possibility that these periods involved industrial pollution to effect climate change ? Or is it simply part of evolution ?
What exactly is people's primary concern anyway ? Is it that they can't accept change even if it's natural or are they worried that they can't do anything about it. One thing is certain the Carbon tax does nothing that could enable us to do something to affect this change.
The frequency of natural events is just that, natural. Is the ferocity of these events natural or enhanced by the activities of man is another mystery we still haven't solved. If it is then how will the Carbon Tax counter the effects ? If flooding does indeed get worse will the Carbon Tax pay for the relocation of the homes ? I think it should pay for building flood canals.

onthebeach, a large portion of the blame lies with lawyers and the like, as developers/owners often won't take no as an answer, so, off they go to the land court in an effort to have government rulings overturned.

Now it is obvious you failed to understand my meaning, or at least, my use of the word 'knowingly', as if you did, you would not be referring to the houses that went under, that were above the 100 year flood levels.

Now having said this, if they were flooded in 2011, then again this time, then they are on their own this time in my view, as they have been 'knowingly' living in a high risk area.

Now while the insurance may be huge, it is available and the tax payer should not be called upon to bail them out AGAIN.

Having said this, anyone who lives on the banks of the Brisbane river must realize that there is a chance they can be flooded.

Now I own a unit on the river, on high ground, however, if it were right on the river it would be worth about a million$ or more extra, simply due to the location.

Finally, if we are to impose another levy, surely it would be the perfect opportunity to trial a very small transaction tax, as it would collect money and test the tax at the same time.

But, any funding provided must still be in the form of a loan, not a gift, as a loan can be used multiple times, as a gift can only be used once.

As an example, many of the homes that were fixed last time round would have ended up in much better shape that prior to the floods, so it's only fair that once that home is sold, the money goes back in to the kitty to benefit another vicim.