Come on Max Green, just like Paul, you should try a little honesty.

Yes this year could equal the 1950s, but it has a very long way to go,[about 250mm], to equal the 1893 level. Incidentally that was the year that Brisbane experienced the biggest flood since settlement, & some aboriginals pointed out flotsam in trees showing previous floods were even higher. Could it have been those 1800 coal mines causing that flooding?

Next time you want to bleat about a drought just remember that Barrier reef drillings have shown that in the early 1700s there was a period of 24 years where our major rivers deposited no silt at all on the reef. The longest period post then was 3 years. When we get the next 24 year drought, you will be sure to blame coal mining & SUVs if you act in your usual green twisting of statistics. Of course you could use this information to avoid such lies, but will you?

Hasbeen,
That reminds me of the no doubt climate induced major flooding on the Hunter River in 1955, I was involved as3RAR deployed to the Maitland area on flood relief; Operation Fodder, Commanding Officer, Colonel Hay and Officer Commanding HQ Coy, Major Bales ( i jest not) Highest flood the town had ever experienced, water was so high that a wireless operator was killed when his aerial contacted a high voltage power line.
Of course the floods were caused by climate change, 1954 was much different.

Incidentally, on a visit to St Mary’s CofE church in Maitland, to check family records, I was shewn half a dozen anchor pins that were driven into the ground at the back of the church.
The Army had driven them in to tie up the DUKWS and had left them behind, the Church kept them as a reminder of when the water was only 6 inches below the level of their grounds.

"So you can take that off the $54 billion coal we sell overseas"

Queensland has sold more than $80 billion in coal this year. I think the national figure for fossil fuels this year will exceed $200 billion. Figures can support any argument if you make them up. Cheap energy is a driver of economic prosperity. Renewable energy, where implemented, does not appear to be cheap.

MHAZE,
I'm not against government intervention in the market in any way whatsoever. It's just this echo-chamber has this shrill hysteria about the government doing anything 'green' in intervening, but is apparently just fine when the government chucks literally BILLIONS in completely the wrong direction!
Your argument about roads to Qantas was fun but misleading - because that would be a road to a major piece of transport infrastructure (an airport) that has multiple companies working at it.
But what if the road was never going to be built except for the fact that *one* company was going to work there? Like these fracking roads which are built for them and then probably never used again once the fracked area dries up.
___
"Federal
Building the Kurri Kurri Gas-fired power station ($200 million).
Concessional finance for Olive Downs coal mine ($175 million).
Road construction for fracking in the Northern Territory ($173 million).
Capital investment in Hunter Valley coal railway network ($161 million)."
___

But Mhaze - interesting that you overlooked the single biggest subsidy! Ooops! (winks)

___
"The largest subsidy is the federal Fuel Tax Credits Scheme, at $8.07 billion, which exceeds the $7.5 billion spent on the Australian Army."
http://australiainstitute.org.au/post/australian-fossil-fuel-subsidies-surge-to-11-6-billion-in-2021-22/

This is where I can't help but agree with Mr Campbell.
____
“It is long past time for these irresponsible budget measures to be reversed and these resources directed to combating climate change and preparing Australians for its consequences,” Mr Campbell said."

"In 1990 the world had 1.0275 trillion barrels of crude oil reserves.
In 1998 the world had 1.1412 trillion barrels of crude oil reserves.
By 2008 it had GROWN to 1.4938 trillion barrels.
By 2017 it had GROWN to 1.7275 trillion barrels.
A year later it had GROWN to 1.7297 trillion barrels.
By 2020 it had GROWN to 1.7324 trillion barrels."

I note you haven't sourced this? Please always source - it makes you more credible. But anyway, I agree with the trend. There have been remarkable new technologies invented over the last few years. But your conclusion is ridiculous. We've lost resources because we've hunted them to extinction. There are plenty of empty mine shafts and pits all over the planet.

Also, we haven't run out of oil *globally*, but there are plenty of regions that cannot produce it *locally*. That has had profound effects on their economies and geopolitics as they now have to import it.

This geopolitical leverage can be vastly more dangerous and sudden than any global geological peak. Rich oil nations get rich, consume more, and suddenly go from oil exporters to oil importers.

"It models the decline in oil exports that result when an exporting nation experiences both a peak in oil production and an increase in domestic oil consumption. In such cases, exports decline at a far faster rate than the decline in oil production alone.

The Export Land Model is important to petroleum importing nations because when the rate of global petroleum production peaks and begins to decline, the petroleum available on the world market will decline much more steeply than the decline in total production."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_Land_Model

Oh, and all this in a world that World-O-Meter shows to have 1.6 trillion barrels, burning 35.7 billion barrels a year = 46 years left. Let alone when we peak, or have any Export Land Model shocks. The international market for oil dries up WAY sooner than the oil does!

http://www.worldometers.info/oil/#:~:text=World%20Oil%20Reserves&text=The%20world%20has%20proven%20reserves,levels%20and%20excluding%20unproven%20reserves).

Hey Max,
"It's just this echo-chamber has this shrill hysteria about the government doing anything 'green' in intervening, but is apparently just fine when the government chucks literally BILLIONS in completely the wrong direction!"

The right direction Max, is the one that allows us to pay for the things on your wish-list.
Not one that sends us broke and makes these things unattainable.
You never answered my question.

I told you already, I'm not opposed to things that are better for the environment, but I won't cut my nose off to spite my face.

Would you sell the trillion dollars worth of resources if it allowed you to have you the items on your climate wish list immediately?

- Because if the answer is no, then it's you that is part of the problem and you that is preventing us from taking steps forward into a better future.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=9984&page=0#340751

Your ideas (firstly regarding food, and secondly how to pay for new energy infrastructure) lack human dignity and are impractical.

You've gone AWOL, stop misconstruing the truth, we will check the statistics and look at things from a common sense viewpoint.
Get back on track and more people will likely support your ideas.
In the case of food, just get rid of that plan entirely.

You don't win friends with salad.
http://youtu.be/wx59zLqBRuI