Who's to say that the rainfall of 30-40years ago was normal or what should be.
mhaze,
That's what I have been asking too when they talk of global warming. Are we just simply into another natural cycle or is actually man made. I can appreciate it if the argument was that man's activities are quickening the supposedly every 10,000 year ice age cycle by a few years.
I have checked on historical journals of sea fares & explorers who wrote of weeks & weeks of rain. I recall rains like that especially in the Northern Peninsula. Further North in Torres Strait & southern New Guinea rainfall has also become of less volume in the past few years then it was 25 years ago.

Tony Levis,
re your idea of cloud seeding, well there certainly is some seeding going on but it's with consultants & other experts.

Poirot,

Oh Poirot you as part of the sisterhood take the cake for double standards.

You label guilt by association with Lord Monkton and you defend your PM sister who lived with a criminal and then clained to be naive. The old evolutionist demonisation of anyone who shows up their fantasy. You are brilliant at it. I am sure you learn''t that at some arts uni.

runner,

What are you babbling about?

What is the "sisterhood"?

And where have I been shown to defend something termed a "sisterhood"?

And will you at least attempt to fossick around in your rhetorical kit-bag and try and come up with "anything" that resembles cogent argument - rather than your usual off-the-cuff spite...('twould be a welcome change:)

(btw, you're slipping. You didn't once mention your "ace" term "high priest" in your last post)

For mhaze:

Correct, it was the Bush Administration’s policy to fuel the US transport fleet with bio-fuel. As to its “instigation and cheering of the dedicated alarmists” – I do not think former Australian Prime Minister John W Howard would agree with you. Indeed, he had direct implication in introducing ethanol blended fuel here in Australia. Many people don’t realise that the combustion of any hydrocarbon produces CO2 as an end product. Many people also don’t realise that removing or not maintaining the filters (quite common in the States and other developing countries) produces a ‘dirtier’ combustion product that also contributes to global warming. You knew this of course.

Correct also mhaze, the “CPRS had (has) nothing to do with reducing CO2 levels blamed for causing climate change”. By slowly (it will take decades) moving Australia to a ‘low carbon’ economy, we will be preparing our country for the anticipated future shock of higher prices for all ‘non-renewable’ hydrocarbon fuels (oil, coal, gas) – it will happen, sooner or later. Unfortunately, as you might well be aware, many governments have not prepared for the future – take infrastructure as just one example; power transmission, public transport, waste management, water supply, add your own.

In fact, anyone who knows anything at all about ‘long-lived-greenhouse-gases’ (SPQR obviously doesn’t) they would understand that even if the whole planet (forget about Australia) stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow, warming is still going to occur – decades hence. The aim is to adapt to a warmer and wetter world. This is important mhaze: Any mitigation effort will help limit the increase in warming that will occur, but it will not reduce the warming that will occur in decades to come. This is something that many people don’t understand – would you like a reference to some research on this?

Thanks for linking to BOM – AGW sceptics think BOM (and the CSIRO) are involved in some kind of world-wide conspiracy.

…

For sonofgloin: You should familiarise yourself with GRACE (for example) before you make more foolish remarks.

Runner and reason are not linked poirot.
Thought you knew that, interesting SOG is unaware tides have far different heights and impacts not just in the northern hemisphere but even here, see tides in Darwin vs Sydney.
Telling however, the baseless things some use to prove nothing is changing, well try to prove.

For runner : )

It seems to me that the ‘church’ (of all religions and doctrines) wants power and control over the masses and their wealth.

Despite your shrill to the contrary, science is not a faith based religion.