When the issue of victims compensation, it is always in terms of bushfires. Lawyers have to get involved and tens of millions of dollars is paid.

However with victims of climate change, like with the NSW extreme flooding - no such compensation comes into play. Victims are left with virtually nothing - despite the fact government policy is linked to the impacts of climate change.

"Australia and its region will probably be hit by almost twice as many severe floods this century like the ones that devastated southeast Queensland four years ago, according to new research."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/climate-change-to-cause-twice-as-many-severe-floods-in-australia/story-e6frg6xf-1227197990872

Why the government is allowed to get away with this is appalling -considering the death of three people so far, huge calls for emergency assistance and loss of homes - in these ‘cyclonic’ storms.

http://www.9news.com.au/national/2015/04/21/05/54/nsw-coast-lashed-by-wild-storms

Will the government pay out compensation to the victims? Or will they continue to 'deny' the issue of climate change?

How many years of litigation would it take to establish that the Government is liable and then how long to establish the percentage of that liability?

I don't recall Governments ever admitting liability for bushfires, some Government Dept may sometimes be liable but not often.

As for trees falling on houses, cars etc. if the householder hasn't applied to the local council for permission to remove the tree or complained about the perceived danger of a council owned tree, then said householder doesn't have much chance of compensation.
If the council acknowledged the request or complaint and refused then there would be cause to enter into possibly very expensive litigation.

There are a million, or so, trees close enough to our roads so that their falling could result in serious injury or death but will climate change affect them?

Come on Nathan, you can't be serious.

1) Householders have, or should have, insurance. If they don't why should the government be blamed and accountable for a 'once in a life time weather event' ?
2) Even the most avid man-made climate change advocates admit you can't blame any single severe storm directly on climate change.
3) climate change may possibly be a natural / cyclical event, the jury is still out even though a new religion has been borne for the climate
change faithful.
4) How can you hold the Australian government responsible for climate change when it's a world wide phenomena? Even if CO2 is responsible, Australia is only contributing 2% of the man-made CO2. One volcano going off for one day creates more than Australia can in a year.
5) some people are so used to living off government hand outs they have started to believe the government should pay for everything, but these people don't even pay tax. I hope you are not in this category.

Sorry Nathan, I think you are way off base with this proposal.

NathanJ a quote from Tony Abbott

"Climate change argument is absolute crap."

Even the most ardent climate change skeptic must be getting jittery with the unusual weather phenomenon overtaking the planet our the past few years. As a leader Abbott is not intelligent enough to realise climate change is real, and is happening here and now. Or is he simply pandering to vested interests, and the almighty dollar. Like Nero, Abbott fiddles while the planet burns.
As for short term compensation from this mob in Canberra or Mac Street Sydney, or where ever, fat chance!

What disgusting crap NathanJ. In the 50s & 60s the hunter used to flood a couple of times a decade. It happened so often I used to wonder how people could go back to those places. Of course those effected looking for a handout, with their problem would prefer to forget that. Many of the younger people probably have no idea of the history of that severe flooding.

The rabid conmen of the global warming brigade will try to use their misfortune to make claims like you are doing here, but those with a bit of knowledge of even just the last 50 years are here to show you up as lousy opportunists, trying to make use of others misfortune.

Actually disgusting is far too kind a description for this behaviour. We know there has been no warming for 18 years. We know there have been less cyclones & major weather events in the last 2 decades, so I guess these claims are the desperation of the global warming profiteers & their fool supporters who will continue to make these claims, even as the ice builds.

Not true.
Even if governments dont/wont help after severe flooding/disasters etc, it is my experience that the Australian people are happy to open their hearts, wallets, homes etc and help out the victims.
We have seen it time and time again. It is the Australian way. We know what this country can be like and we are prepared to help out in any way we can.
No doubt there are already appeals and assistance happening following this weeks horror weather in NSW.

No matter what the future brings with climate change/sea level rise etc I expect(hope) this lefty, socialist characteristic of the Australian people continues and it never becomes the selfish, uncaring attitude expounded by the rightards among us.

My impression is that trying to link individual events to ACC is a belief based approach rather than an evidence based one.

There is some debate about the stall issue, most seem to admit that overall surface temperatures have not risen during the period but there are claims that the extra heat is accumulating deep in the ocean's.

Either way it's very hard to tie weather events to ACC unless significant rises are identified close to the ocean's surface or in the atmosphere and the evidence becomes somewhat clearer that said rises are caused by or significantly contributed to by human activity.

Far too often our disasters are the result of ignoring the extremes of the past. ACC was claimed as the cause of the floods in SE Qld a few years ago, as though Brisbane had no flood history. Have a read of the linked article on the 1893 floods in Brisbane http://www.ask.com/wiki/1893_Brisbane_flood?o=2802&qsrc=999&ad=doubleDown&an=apn&ap=ask.com Wivenhoe Dam provides some protection from such events now (but I doubt that if near full before the event much help would be gained during an event dumping over 900mm in a 24hr period.

As for government compensating for "bad" policy. So just who gets to decide which bad policies are worthy of compensation. I'm guessing the lists that could be drawn by those on the left and those on the right of the political spectrum would be vastly different. Generally both sides think the others policies are the cause of the harm they detest and that fix is more of their own approach (the approach the other side sees as the cause).

R0bert

"Either way it's very hard to tie weather events to ACC unless significant rises are identified close to the ocean's surface or in the atmosphere and the evidence becomes somewhat clearer that said rises are caused by or significantly contributed to by human activity."

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/record-seasurface-temperatures-in-pacific-point-to-record-warmth-in-2015-and-2016-20150414-1mjooh.html?stb=twt

"Record sea-surface temperatures in Pacific point to record warmth in 2015 and 2016"

"Sea temperatures around Australia are posting "amazing" records that climate specialists say signal global records set in 2014 may be broken this year and next."

"March sea-surface temperatures in the Coral Sea region off Queensland broke the previous high by 0.12 degrees – a big jump for oceans that are typically more thermally stable than land."

Let's say the Climate doomsayers are right. Evil CO2 is the cause of all weather changes and the slight increase in ocean temperature.

If the government passed a law to reduce all CO2 omissions by 75% by the end of 2016, does anyone believe that would change the weather we are experiencing in the immediate future? How is Australia going to stop a global event? New Zealand's actions have changed anything.

Did the Carbon Tax improve the weather before it was repealed?

If we are looking to blame someone (government) for not acting quick enough, why aren't we pointing the finger at Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong? They had their chance and muffed it.

In a word; Prove it !

ConservahiveHippie,

Don't you know that volcanic action is triggered by an excess of greenhouse gas seeping in through the volcanic vents?

Climate change causes volcanoes to disrupt; ask Paul1405 he'll tell you the official Green explanation.

"Consumer group Choice is warning the cost of home insurance could almost double in the decades ahead with predictions extreme weather will become more common." The report was in relation to climate change.

Some property values could also reduce by as much as 20%. Some properties in general will also not be able to obtain insurance at all (because of damage caused by climate change) in the future, due to the location they live in.

The insurance industry rejects the price increase element by saying they: "Only price policies for the year ahead and do not take into account longer term projections".

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-05/insurance-premiums-in-many-areas-could-almost-double-due-to-cli/5501988

Well I believe they do. What the insurance lobby group (The Insurance Council of Australia) says is nonsense as they are in this business to make a profit and they will pass costs onto consumers.

So in this recent case, will the government provide assistance beyond insurance, and realise many have suffered - and realise the real impacts of climate change? Also now a number of other large countries are now seriously reconsidering their commitment to the issues around climate change and reaching targets on sustainable energy for example due to Australia's stance on the issue.

NathanJ, "However with victims of climate change, like with the NSW extreme flooding - no such compensation comes into play...government policy is linked to the impacts of climate change"

Greens Bob Brown, who volunteered himself as the first president of the 'New World (totalitarian) Order' famously claimed that the coal miners were responsible for the Queensland floods. Later, he wasn't so sure. Brown has taken his golden handshake and jolly nice fully indexed parliamentary super courtesy of the Taxpayers and is playing pirates on the high seas.

Maybe some intrepid reporter with water-wings and a microphone in a plastic bag could find Bob Brown for his revised opinion?

It could be the mice,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdLHLW1YhlA

Again; Prove it !

Ratepayers may be able to sue councils for damages if the sea rise is
not as predicted.
As far as insurance companies go, fair enough, if their claim figures
show an increase let them change their premiums; that is what they do anyway.
Before anyone makes a claim on government, the IPCC, Tim Flannery or
anyone else they will have to prove that it is not a natural event
and that a particular organisation caused it or could have prevented
the particular even to happen.

I don't like your chances of that !

Poirot, interesting article however based on the graphs attached hardly conclusive. Those graphs are notable for the large fluctuations (relative to the scale of the graph) which seem to occur quite often.

The overall trend in the graphs appears to be an overall rise from around 1905 with the peak being discussed looking like it fits easily within the trend. So dips below the trend, some rises above it all through the period shown.

R0bert

The warmist religion have just written a song

I love a sunburnt Country,
A land of sweeping plains,
Of ragged mountain ranges,
Of droughts and flooding rains.
I love her far horizons,
I love her jewel-sea,
Her beauty and her terror -
The wide brown land for me!

What a disgusting religion that tries to cash in on tradegy.

Regardless of whether you believe that a god or humans caused our climate to change, there is absolutely no doubt that our climate is liable to change, just as it has done for a long time.
I feel sorry for the poor people of NSW, and I hope there are no climate change arguments that will over-shadow what really matters.

Hi Suse,

Been a little hairy here in Sydney this week with high winds and driving rain, but things have settled down this morning, stars in the sky, and hopefully sunshine later. I think the worse of it has well and truly passed. Unfortunately two women were washed away in their car north near Maitland in the Hunter which has copped the worse of it.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-22/fears-for-pair-caught-in-maitland-floods-as-nsw-deluge-continues/6410792

The climate change skeptics in the Australian Government have painted themselves into a corner because of the short term political decisions they have made. No matter how strong the evidence to the contrary, these politicians have no option, other than to mouth the same old nonsense they have been since the debate begun, derision and ridicule is their game plan. To change opinion now with the overwhelming evidence presented, would cause conservative politicians, the likes of Abbott and others, to loose face with the general public, and worse still the support of big oil, and big coal, which have vested interest in opposing any action on climate change what so ever, big business is always driven by the short term profit motive.

Beach, Bob Brown served the Australian people as a distinguished member of both the Tasmanian and Australian Parliaments from 1983 to 2012, about 30 years, unlike your own fearless leaders, the convicted criminals, Jim Salem and Pauline Hanson who during the same period served jail time at taxpayers expense. As a hypocrite with a anti Green phobia, you take the cake.

Paul, I would be careful about calling Pauline Hanson a criminal.
She was found to be not guilty on appeal as she had been setup.

You might well have left yourself open to be sued.
I have no idea who Jim Salem might be.

Even Tim Flannery has been reluctant to call the storm to be due to AGW.
He has never been reluctant in the past to nominate anything in sight
so if he won't then I wouldn't.

This b^&*dy stupid argument as to whether AGW is real or not is just
a distraction to what has to be done about alternative energy.

Both coal & oil ERoEI are falling and we will have to replace them.

The situation with oil has become critical;

Goldilocks is dead !

There is now no "Just Right" price for oil.
It is either too high for the economy or too low for the producer.

And you lot are arguing about AGW !

Paul,

Here's the transcript where Kerry O'Brien exposes Abbott's involvement in bringing down Hanson.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2003/s933489.htm

"TONY ABBOTT: Well, I think that I can live with my conscience.

I think it was very important to challenge the Hanson juggernaut back then in 1998.

The difference is, Kerry, that a lot of people who were angry with her then feel sorry for her now, and I suppose I do myself, because I think that there's a sense in which the punishment meted out to her doesn't really fit the crime, but certainly, at the time, the reality of her so-called party needed to be exposed and I was happy to try to do it.

KERRY O'BRIEN: We know you established that fund to use Terry Sharples as a stalking horse in 1998."

"KERRY O'BRIEN: And you're saying now that wasn't a lie -- not just Liberal Party funds but any other funds?

TONY ABBOTT: I had promised that he wouldn't be out of pocket, but there's a difference between telling someone he won't be out of pocket and telling someone that you're going to have to pay him money.

KERRY O'BRIEN: What's the difference?

If you say to me, "Kerry, you won't be out of pocket for this", aren't I entitled to assume that means you're going to guarantee the funds for me?"

Read the whole interview - it's fascinating.

Trying to sue the government for flooding due to climate change would be the height of stupidity for the following reasons:

A) Australia contributes only 1.3% to emissions thus at best would be liable for 1.3% of damages.
B) The plaintiff would have to show that the particular flood was entirely due to climate change. A 50% probability would reduce this to about 0.7%.
C) To get the 0.7% of damages the plaintiff would have to show that the only reasonable action of the government would be to reduce emissions by today to zero. A 20% reduction would reduce the liability for damages to about 0.15%.
D) Finally to get anything, the plaintiff would have to show that the accident was due to no fault of the victim, and that driving through flood waters was a rational decision and that they were unaware of the advice not to do this.

Q.E.D.

When someone questions climate change and links it to environmental destruction they are often attacked - as being "rude" (in terms of the victims of an issue - like flooding or bushfires).

What many people (including government) do not realise is that people live on the planet earth, and if climate change is having an impact, the governments of Australia are responsible in many ways and in some ways the public - unless we are willing to take on serious lifestyle change.

It in many ways relates to any policy. So lets say farmers are suffering in a particular area - because there is virtually no water left, due to say to being in a drying climate - is it their fault?

So instead of playing silly politics on the issue, we need to realise the real impacts of climate change - but our federal government doesn't want to accept that. They seem to want to write the issue off, for the element of constant economic growth at any cost.

Compensation after some bushfires - are at levels as high as $10 million dollars, and if politicians don't realise environmental vandalism damages our lives - do they really care about the public at all?

I can hear it now. All the conniving greenies blaming our energy use next time we get a severe drought. Yes I said next time, because we "aint seen nothing yet".

The barrier reef cores drilled over 50 years ago on the southern reef show a period of 27 years, just before Cook & the Endeavour sailed reef, when no silt came from the Fitzroy river. Now that's a drought.

This makes anything experienced since settlement just a short dry spell. These of course have been quietly hidden away, as they show climate variability far greater than anything experienced since the development of electric power, or the dreaded motor car.

It is very embracing for greenies & the lefties riding the global warming gravy train to have to confront such dramatic evidence. Yes evidence, not some concocted computer modellers fantasy.

I really do get disgusted by these people who refuse to look at solid evidence, but keep waffling on with their global warming caused by a little CO2.

It is obvious they are fools or conmen. Which category most suits you NathanJ?

" Bob Brown served the Australian people...."

Not all of them I'm happy to say.

NathanJ, you just don't get it do you? Climate change is not caused by the Australian government or the people of Australia.

The families of idiots that drive into flood waters do not deserve compensation from the government... eg tax payers.

And finally for the record, people and the government are well aware of the fact that 'people live on planet Earth.'

I seriously doubt you are a tax payer.

time for all the foolish State Governments who never built dams to apologise for listening to the gw religious brigade. How much water, power and money has been wasted? Billions I suspect. Instead of apologising the warmist keep rewriting the story to fit their religous narrative. The high priests however continue to profit.

Well what do you know. It is the warmist & greenie conmen who are changing their tune.

Everyone should remember, "even the rain that does fall will not fill our rivers & dams again". You all know who it was claiming this, & it sure wasn't a rationalist disclaiming global warming, it was a warmist conman.

Yep it was those conmen who persuaded fool lefty governments to build desalination plants at a cost of billions. Of course the unions loved it, but those plants are sitting idle, never having any job to do.

Didn't I hear some clown claim global warming was responsible for the bitterly cold winter most of the US have experienced these last couple of years. The mind bogglers.

Hasbeen,

It certainly does boggle.

After all there's still "snow"....and we all know how comprehensively that fact disproves global warming.

SNOW, I tells ya!

One of these days Poirot, you will submit a post that actually says something. Well I do live in hope, even if forlorn.