Precambrian Rabbi wrote:So - to get this straight - you think that smaller countries should be lobbying larger, more powerful, countries whilst doing nothing themselves? Otherwise they're being hypocritical?


"Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do a little." - Edmund Burke

When you are talking about the reality of a world economic and trade situation where the big guys have all the power and the small guys have little power, yes indeed. Why change our ways and make us less competitive when our opposition doesn't have to do anything?

That won't help the climate...but it will help the economies of the countries that aren't bound by the same red tape we are slapping all over ourselves...

That won't help the climate...but it will help the economies of the countries that aren't bound by the same red tape we are slapping all over ourselves..

What precisely would need to change, John, to decrease the rate of human produced emissions? Assume for the moment that globally everyone would jump on board and do their allotted task.

johnbrandt wrote:My point is, if controlling emissions is so dramatically vital to stopping climate change, then why concentrate on smaller countries with piddling emissions levels that you know are going to do something anyway, when that something makes a drop in the ocean to total world emissions?

Newsflash, we don't control the Chinese government.

We would be hypocrites to tell China to drop it's emissions while an extremely rich country such as ourselves don't do anything. The fact is that emitting co2 has been identified as a damaging action. If the human race is going to be sustainable, at some point in the future we are going to have an industry run on a low-co2 intensive energy.

It's really not that big of a deal to drop our emissions even if China doesn't act as fast as us. I mean seriously, you may as well argue that our over-fishing laws are hurting our competitiveness against corrupt african countries that catch way more than us. But you don't argue that do you? Because that would sound retarded. Yet we are all supposed to accept what you tell us here...

This is what gets people skeptical on the whole subject...if carbon emissions are so damaging and are causing climate change, and we know that there are much worse polluters out there than us by many orders of magnitude, why are we the ones who, by changing something or bringing in a tax, are somehow able to change the world climate...?

It's probably been explained to you 500 times that the carbon tax in Australia isn't designed to change the global climate. The fact is people like yourself just selectively apply arguments to the carbon tax for whatever personal reasons you might have.

You are yet to give us one good reason to deny the basic principles of climate science. You seem to rubbish the conclusions of scientists on the basis that you disagree with the carbon tax, which is a huge non-sequitor. Either that or you keep bringing this topic up to try and distort the conversation away from the science, because you aren't interested in whether or not climate science is accurate.

sennekuyl wrote:What precisely would need to change, John, to decrease the rate of human produced emissions? Assume for the moment that globally everyone would jump on board and do their allotted task.

Why should I assume that? If they did, it would change emissions from human industry. But it won't happen. Full stop. What is the use in imagining some hypothetical future where all the worlds various governments suddenly put aside the economic good of their individual countries, the need to provide employment and reliable plentiful relatively cheap power for the population and industry, and decided to act as one single entity?

It's probably been explained to you 500 times that the carbon tax in Australia isn't designed to change the global climate.

That's not what we're being told here...it's there to force a cut in our emissions and "help stop climate change"...

So that you didn't just attempt to blow off the question. But you did anyway. No, it won't happen except in an ad hoc piecemeal manner. There are more carbon pricing schemes today globally than there were a decade ago with more countries coming on board. Most are implementing a carbon pricing scheme, some a cap & trade system. So what would need to change to get industries in the various economies to take measures to reduce carbon emissions?

johnbrandt wrote:
Why should I assume that? If they did, it would change emissions from human industry. But it won't happen. Full stop. What is the use in imagining some hypothetical future where all the worlds various governments suddenly put aside the economic good of their individual countries, the need to provide employment and reliable plentiful relatively cheap power for the population and industry, and decided to act as one single entity?

Good point. Why would all the words governments put aside economic good for slavery?
Why would all the words governments put aside economic good for womens rights?
Why would all the words governments put aside economic good for anti-pollution laws?
Why would all the words governments put aside economic good for anti-racism laws?
Why would all the words governments put aside economic good for over-fishing laws?

Look, if someone came here using that logic to justify another idea, no one would accept it. So why do you expect us to buy into this agenda driven nonsense?

Coal is NOT cheap power and if the true costs were calculated you'd be out of a job. JB

Bottom Line

Ultimately it's a significant problem that we rely so heavily on coal to meet our energy needs due to its artificially low market price. It's like eating junk food for every meal. It's cheap, it tastes good, but it's not healthy and eventually you'll pay the price through poor health, high medical bills, and a shortened lifespan.

We may not pay the costs of climate change, lost biodiversity, air and water pollution, adverse health effects, etc. up front, but we do have to pay them eventually. We need to follow the recommendations of Epstein et al., transform our energy infrastructure, and move away from our dependence on coal and other fossil fuels.

Coincidentally, the US EPA has just proposed national standards for mercury, arsenic and other toxic air pollution from power plants. These standards will "require many power plants to install widely available, proven pollution control technologies to cut harmful emissions of mercury, arsenic, chromium, nickel and acid gases, while preventing as many as 17,000 premature deaths and 11,000 heart attacks a year." This is a good step in ensuring that some of the externalities discussed in this article are internalized and taken into account. Coal power plants were exempted from meeting the requirements of the Clean Air Act until 2000, and these new EPA standards will finally ensure that air pollution from coal power plants is regulated, rather than being freely released into the atmosphere.

Gilles at 21:45 PM on 18 March, 2011
"If we include the coal externalities, it increases the levalized costs to approximately 28 cents per kWh, which is more than hydroelectric, wind (onshore and offshore), geothermal, biomass, nuclear, natural gas, solar photovoltaic, and on par with solar thermal (whose costs are falling rapidly). Suddenly coal doesn't look like such a good deal."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/true-co ... power.html

damn right it doesn't

Emissions are going down in many areas despite population growth and places like Sweden are well on their way to carbon neutral in a couple of decades.
You are destined for failure in this campaign - with Obama in power coal is dead centre in the gunsights.
Ontario will eliminate our last coal plant in 2014 and save millions in healthcare costs.
Get used to it - your horizon approaches.
Were is not for China's need to industrialize ( rapidly approaching saturation ) the writing on the wall would be a lot clearer.

Here's comparative costs when downstream costs are factored in and you can bet there are lawsuits coming.



That's what it took to get S02 reduced to manageable levels.....up next...C02 and coal is the Ace of Spades in that hunt to kill deck.

Is this johnbrandt?

The Right Wing Ideologue – To this creature, Al Gore invented climate science (just like the internet) and pretty much the only refutation they need for any argument you might make will involve a reference to either Al Gore’s weight or the size of his mansion. Therefore climate change is not happening and if it is it is not humans and if it is it is a good thing and if it isn’t it is still better than taxes.

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2 ... -bestiary/

johnbrandt wrote:Remind me again why the public is so skeptical of the whole thing...?

Probably depends on where in the world you are. Not that it matter with regards to the facts. In the US, 40% of the population don't believe in evolution. That number is probably close to 80% in Saudi Arabia. The point is that what the public believes or is skeptical about has very little to do with what's actually true. People often believe what they do because of their environment and upbringing. Also, there's quite a lot of large economic interests in denying man-made global warming. I wouldn't claim any one thing in particular is to blame, it's a combination of many factors.

General lack of education in science in general.
General disinterest in science.
Religiously motivated denial (god made the earth for us etc. etc.).
General lack of media exposure of the problems.
Actual misinformation peddled by miseducated denialists or by lobbying and interest groups.
Some people don't believe we can do anything about it.
Some people can't be bothered doing anything about it and are more worried about other things in their everyday lives.
Some people simply don't care.
Some people actually want it to happen(to use a silly movie line, some people just want to watch the world burn ).

I can't say which one is the most contributing factor, but the issue as a whole is influenced by all of these.

johnbrandt wrote:Also remind me why countries like Australia are made out to be so evil because we don't do more for the environment?

I don't know that Australia is made out to be evil. I'm from Denmark, I don't think Australia is particularly evil.

johnbrandt wrote:How about concentrating on making the real polluters change first? Our politicians come out with crap that they honestly believe that if a little country like ours changes it's ways, the big countries will somehow suddenly "come to their senses" and restrict their industry and economy the same way...

Everybody has to do their part, we all contribute to global warming. We can change our own ways while encouraging others to do so too. Some countries are huge and will consequently have much larger carbon footprints, that's not a valid excuse not to do something about it outselves.

johnbrandt wrote:There is also the little reported fact that while green groups here who crow loudly that China is shutting down 20-odd old dirty coal fired power stations, they conveniently forget to mention that China is replacing these old ones with over sixty new coal fired stations...

What do you mean "there's also" here? Do you think people here think China's somehow "excused" from the issue?

We should all move away from Coal power where at all possible, including China. This is not an excuse not to do something about it ourselves, and it doesn't mean we can't also try to encourage China, the US and other big polluters from doing something about it too.

johnbrandt wrote:So...again, I ask...why does Australia have to be under such pressure to change it's ways to somehow save the world

Are they? Don't mistake the presence of a political or econimic pressure with an assumtion that no such pressure is applied elsewhere too. And I don't think Australia is being relied upon to save the world, that seems to me a bit hyperbolic.

johnbrandt wrote:when the real big polluters are not required to do anything?

Noone is "required" to do anything, including Australia. The best we can do is to take personal action as citizens in our respective countries and demand of our goverments, through voting for certain parties or policies, to make changes aimed at combating global warming.

johnbrandt wrote:I'm always reminded of the cliche of a little kid in the playground surrounded by bigger kids, who are trying to convince him to eat a worm, promising that they will do it as well...as long as he does it first...*snigger*...

Everyone should be doing something about this, not just Australia. If Australia is subjected to some kind of unusually large outside pressure, this is still not an excuse for not doing anything (or too little) at all. This goes for every country.

johnbrandt wrote:As for the BBC decision, I imagine it's comfortable for the faithful to have a news network that decides not to report on such things as this little inconvenient truth and other "denialist" stuff...

There's more to the global warming issue than the BBC and Australia, and I see very little in what you have said so far that qualifies as any kind of reason to dismiss global warming or calls to do something about it.

johnbrandt wrote:There was this though...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19168574

Is Germany's Green Revolution about to turn black with coal dust?
As the country moves away from nuclear, the builders of coal-fired power stations are moving into action.
When Chancellor Merkel announced the closure of all the country's 17 nuclear reactors by 2022, there were loud cheers from environmentalists.
But less well heard were the cheers from the coal industry.
The organisation which represents it in Europe said the change of policy meant "the prospects for coal in general, and especially for coal-fired power plants under construction or in the planning stage, have become somewhat brighter".
Poland's Prime Minister Donald Tusk, just a river's width away from Germany, was also jubilant.
"From Poland's point of view, this is a good thing not a bad one," he said.
"It means coal-based power will be back on the agenda."

Hey, if you refuse to use nuclear power in an industrialised country, a bit of solar and wind just isn't going to cut it for proper base load reliable power...you need mass power generation, and if nuclear won't do, there's only really one tried and true option...and it's black and hard and comes out of the ground.

Bet the green groups who called for the nuke plants to be shut down didn't see that one coming...

Looks like a bad decision to me too. This is still not an excuse not to do something about global warming ourselves.

Country X makes bad decision is not a valid reason not to do something about global warming ourselves, nor is it a valid basis for dismissing global warming as man-made either.

It seems to me in that post you had very little in way of actual arguments agaist the fact of man-made global warming or whether to do something about it.

What's your endgame here John? Global warming is false? Global warming happens but we can't do shit about it so we should give up? A third option?

If anyone wants a dose of sanity ie, regarding Johns rants about the particular Australian carbon pricing scheme in question... http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/ ... 210f7.html

Yet another objection is that, since there's nothing an individual country can do to have a significant effect on global emissions of greenhouse gases, in the absence of a binding agreement to act by all the major countries there's no point in us doing anything.

Trouble with that argument is it increases the likelihood of failure. Only if enough countries demonstrate their good faith by getting on with it is effective global action likely to eventuate. We should line up with the good guys, not the bad guys - and we're far from the only good guy.

But if all else fails - if you can't find any other argument to confirm the wisdom of your original conclusion the carbon tax is a terrible thing - just tell yourself that, when the vast majority of scientists specialising in the area warn us continued emissions of greenhouse gases will lead to devastating climate change, they've got it all wrong.

edit... and

johnbrandt wrote:
That's not what we're being told here...it's there to force a cut in our emissions and "help stop climate change"...

Both major parties agree to cut co2 emissions, and we have set a goal reduction for 2020 and following decades. The goals are simply put in place because mass co2 pollution has been identified as harmful to the environment and it's not in our best interest to keep polluting it on this scale forever. Our economy will need to change it's way at some point.

How you go from that to concluding australia's carbon tax is designed to stop global climate change is beyond me. The carbon tax will only be in place for a few years before they switch over to other schemes, think about that.

If a politician claims that the carbon tax will fix the global climate, correct them on it. Don't save the quote to your desktop so you can spam internet forums with it to support your pre-conceived conclusion. Or if you actually believe they are trying to stop climate change with a short-term carbon tax, change the source you get news/information from.

You haven't challenged anything I said before. You are on your own here, and if you are consistent with your outrage you will end up having to vote for some fringe neo-nazi political party.

Does anyone know what the deal was with William "scienceblogs.com/stoat" Connolley and Wikipedia a couple of years ago?

First: Banned as an administrator

Then: Climate topic banned

Is it fairly accurate to say that Connolley was whipping denialist asshats into shape by being a bit harsh, and then some clueless arbitrator came around and ignored the fact that Connolley was actually right, and revoked his admin privileges?

But what about being banned from editing? Another case of clueless Wikipedians who think some random anonymous denialist is as qualified as Connolley?

kris wrote:

byofrcs wrote:When a good percentage of the people in world's biggest culprit on pollution think the world was created 6000 years or so by God for their own use then climate change denial is so far down the list of the faux-reality that they walk around with in their brains then we have to take them out of the decision loop.

Many people I have encountered in my country are not religious at all, they just don't really care.

People say things like, 'Why would I recycle, I'm not going to be alive anyway.'

Then you should respond with, "Wow dude you really don't give a shit about your kids do you - you know, the ones that will be dying because of your apathy, selfishness and ignorance".

Just how much did the icecaps receed this year again? Any of the moron deniers wish to make a comment?

I wonder if we're too late. Look how long we've been polluting the planet and look at how long it's going to take to stop it. At least no other species can hold up their hand and they they were the sole cause of their extinction.

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/records-tumble-during-spring-heatwave-bom-20121204-2ascn.html

Eighteen weather stations in south-eastern Australia recorded their hottest November days on record last week as the country sweltered through one of its most significant spring heatwaves.
According to the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) people better get used to it - they'll become more common as a result of climate change.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/coldest-december-morning-on-record-20121206-2awjz.html

The mercury in Canberra plummeted to 0.3 of a degree overnight - the coldest December minimum on record.
The unseasonably chilly temperature was recorded at 5.44am, and by 6.45am the mercury was still only sitting at four degrees.
A duty forecaster from the Canberra office of the Bureau of Meteorology said the minimum this morning was the coldest Canberra has experienced in 75 years of records.
Advertisement
"A frontal system has moved up from the south bringing cold air with it," she said.
"It's what we call an air-mass change."

One is blamed immediately on Climate Change, the other is nothing, it's only an "air mass change". Remember a couple of years back when there were record cold spells in the northern hemisphere, but the "C" word never left anyones lips.

Why is it only climate change when it's hot...?


Of course, not everything goes to plan, and stories like this show that we know bugger all about the climate of a dynamic planet-wide system.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/stagnating-temperatures-climatologists-baffled-by-global-warming-time-out-a-662092.html

Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years. Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots, while others explain it through ocean currents.

Otherwise, however, not much is happening with global warming at the moment. The Earth's average temperatures have stopped climbing since the beginning of the millennium, and it even looks as though global warming could come to a standstill this year.

...cont'd...

The problem is that there is no "normal" with the climate...it keeps on changing. Just because it's pleasant for us at this brief period of time we are living in, why do people somehow think Earth is "finished" with climate changes and upheavals? The world wasn't designed to be a nice place for us to live...it's changed before and it will change again. Why does anyone think it won't?

John

From the two articles you linked, one of them is not like the other. The first one describes results from 18 fairly widely separated stations which all reported record high temperatures. From the article:

Article wrote:Eighteen long-term stations in Victoria, NSW and South Australia had their hottest November days on record," the BoM statement said

The other one refers to more local temperatures in Canberra.

So, one is a geographically distributed trend and the other is a more local anomaly. Yes, it's incorrect to point out that the former can be attributed solely to climate change, but the matter remains that climate change refers to trends and not local anomalies.

With regards to your Der Spiegel article, you really need to get new material. That article is from 2009 and does not correlate with data series obtained later:



Obtained from this Real Climate summary of a Foster & Ramstorf paper.

Oh FFS did you even read the articles you posted? Seriously, WTF?

johnbrandt wrote:

One is blamed immediately on Climate Change, the other is nothing, it's only an "air mass change".

NO, they said this occurrence would become more common with climate change. Here are some key quotes from the article:

The BoM on Tuesday issued a special climate statement saying the event started with a build-up of extreme heat in central Australia over the weekend of November 24 and 25.

According to the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) people better get used to it - they'll become more common as a result of climate change.

The bureau's NSW climate services centre manager, Aaron Coutts-Smith, says you can't link any one event to global warming.

"(But) in terms of climate change and the longer-term outlook - over decades - we do expect to see more of these types of events," he told AAP

Everything they say is a well established. If you disagree, you are denying simple facts. Which is why I link your cause to the creationist one, the way you twist the truth and constantly make fundamental errors is too similar.

Remember a couple of years back when there were record cold spells in the northern hemisphere, but the "C" word never left anyones lips.

Well the only reason this impresses you is because you invented the strawman argument above. The only way you can come to this conclusion is by failing to understand basic english, or diliberately misrepesenting what scientists are saying.

Why is it only climate change when it's hot...?

They aren't applying a double standard, as I have shown. You are just making stuff up

Of course, not everything goes to plan, and stories like this show that we know bugger all about the climate of a dynamic planet-wide system.

This is just wrong on so many levels, I'll leave it at that.

The problem is that there is no "normal" with the climate...it keeps on changing. Just because it's pleasant for us at this brief period of time we are living in, why do people somehow think Earth is "finished" with climate changes and upheavals? The world wasn't designed to be a nice place for us to live...it's changed before and it will change again. Why does anyone think it won't?

Oh wow, thanks for these words of wisdom. You really put the climate scientists in their place this time didn't you John?

I love how just above you say we don't understand the global climate, and then in the very next sentence proceed to lecture us on why we know the earth's climate always changes. But making contradictory statements is only bad when scientists do it ey?

The fact is there is literally nothing in this post that reflects reality. You just can't face the fact that the more research that is done on the global climate, the more the evidence keeps piling up for AGW. Rising sea levels, rising ocean temps, melting sea ice, rising land temps, and the list goes on. Your misguided rants on Canberra's overnight weather don't change a thing. The chance of the AGW theory being overturned tomorrow are pretty similar to that of the theory of evolution being overturned tomorrow. But don't let that stop you...

Perhaps if they wanted the public to stop questioning the official state religion of climate change belief, and to accept the common come back that "weather events aren't climate" then perhaps they should stop tacking the words "climate change" onto every news item about a heat wave or flood or whatever weather event they are reporting on...

And yes, they do report every heat wave or hot day as an example of "what to expect more of in the future"...however, they never attach the same importance and say to "expect more of this" when it's record cold spells...climate change is still irrevocably linked to the older out of fashion term "global warming" by the looks of things. If it's hot, it's climate change...if it's cold, well, that's just a bit of a variation.

And I won't back away from the statement that a lot of climate change proponents seem to project an image that they honestly believe that the Earth is finished with climate changes and is now a stable unchanging system. The way you read news items and articles, it seems that they expect the world to stay within a degree or less of what it is today, and to never change again, giving dire predictions of what will happen if it rises a degree or two over the next century or more. Why is this so? Why not let the public know that the world changes all the time, with or without our help, so they'd better get used to it?

Sea levels rising?
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/sea-level-fall-defies-climate-warnings/story-e6frg6nf-1226483797934

You cannot be serious? I would reply but every second sentence would be "go and read a fucking book, educate yourself". There is no point in me getting a warning over this bullshit. BECAUSE I CAN PROVE YOU WILL BE BACK IN 2 WEEKS REPEATING THE SAME SHIT I'VE JUST DEBUNKED.

You see, why bother posting in a discussion forum IF YOU DONT PAY ATTENTION TO REPLIES. Just above you have repeated the "scientists claim it's global warming when it's hot and climate change when it's cold". Despite (1) not having any evidence supporting this and (2) having been corrected on this before.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/news- ... ?#p1380045
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1 ... l#p1108421

Why should I bother showing you this error again when you will be back in a month to say the same bullshit? Either you need to apologize for having a poor memory, or you should get banned for wasting our time and trolling. This is a discussion forum, not your blog. No one has any fun going in circles having to discuss ground already covered with you, just because you don't have anything valuable to bring to the discussion. Nothing you have said in this thread, or in fact any post on climate science is backed up by evidence.

This is trolling and you know it.

johnbrandt wrote:http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/records-tumble-during-spring-heatwave-bom-20121204-2ascn.html

Eighteen weather stations in south-eastern Australia recorded their hottest November days on record last week as the country sweltered through one of its most significant spring heatwaves.
According to the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) people better get used to it - they'll become more common as a result of climate change.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/coldest-december-morning-on-record-20121206-2awjz.html

The mercury in Canberra plummeted to 0.3 of a degree overnight - the coldest December minimum on record.
The unseasonably chilly temperature was recorded at 5.44am, and by 6.45am the mercury was still only sitting at four degrees.
A duty forecaster from the Canberra office of the Bureau of Meteorology said the minimum this morning was the coldest Canberra has experienced in 75 years of records.
Advertisement
"A frontal system has moved up from the south bringing cold air with it," she said.
"It's what we call an air-mass change."

One is blamed immediately on Climate Change, the other is nothing, it's only an "air mass change". Remember a couple of years back when there were record cold spells in the northern hemisphere, but the "C" word never left anyones lips.

Why is it only climate change when it's hot...?

It's really simple here John. If you get 10 hot record for every 1 cold record, is it getting hotter or warmer? That's all there is to it. Nobody's saying new cold records are going to become impossible, the weather will always be fluctuating. The question is one of TRENDS. The weather being a chaotic and largely stochastic system still has biases, there is no black-and-white here.

There will be more warm than cold days, and the warm days will be warmer than they used to be. You'll notice that nowhere in that statement does it follow that "there will be no more record cold days at all".

johnbrandt wrote:Perhaps if they wanted the public to stop questioning the official state religion of climate change belief, and to accept the common come back that "weather events aren't climate" then perhaps they should stop tacking the words "climate change" onto every news item about a heat wave or flood or whatever weather event they are reporting on...

And yes, they do report every heat wave or hot day as an example of "what to expect more of in the future"...

No, actually they don't. Hyperbole is not your friend in this debate.

however, they never attach the same importance and say to "expect more of this" when it's record cold spells...climate change is still irrevocably linked to the older out of fashion term "global warming" by the looks of things. If it's hot, it's climate change...if it's cold, well, that's just a bit of a variation.

As Rumraket has pointed out, trends are important and not isolated incidents and the trend is undeniably upwards (per the graph I posted above). Neither the hot nor the cold days are individually the result of climate change but, overall the trend is for more of the former and less of the latter. Hence, based on the trend, we would describe warm days as "expect more of these" and cold days as "these are increasingly rare".

And I won't back away from the statement that a lot of climate change proponents seem to project an image that they honestly believe that the Earth is finished with climate changes and is now a stable unchanging system. The way you read news items and articles, it seems that they expect the world to stay within a degree or less of what it is today, and to never change again, giving dire predictions of what will happen if it rises a degree or two over the next century or more. Why is this so? Why not let the public know that the world changes all the time, with or without our help, so they'd better get used to it?

Actually, the IPCC minimum assessment is for a 2C rise. That's basically their best case scenario and it will involve significant hardship for a large portion of the world's population. I'd say that people are correct to worry about that because it's a bit hard to get used to salt water logged fields forcing millions of Bangladeshis into Pakistan or Australia's wheat belt producing significantly less than what it does now.

Sea levels rising?
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/sea-level-fall-defies-climate-warnings/story-e6frg6nf-1226483797934

You're going to cite The Australian as a reliable source for climate data? Bravo! That takes real chutzpah!