kiteboy dave said...How does a council get personal gain by hyping erosion? or why does a council "support climate change scare mongers" for no other reason than that?
Sorry, doesn't make sense.
"Climate change scare mongers" include the vast majority of scientists in the world, NASA, CSIRO, and even the world bank has released a new report stating that urgent action may even be too little too late.
www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/19/world-bank-warns-climate-change/1715165/You can stick your head in the sand because by the time the worst of it hits you'll be dead and your kids will be dealing with it. But being in denial won't make it magically disappear.
I wouldn't say that I'm in denial, I do have an understanding about climate change and not from internet-based research. My comment re; council (and gov't) is that they are making decisions that affect property-owners based on a climate model that was designed on a 'worst-case' scenario and assuming that the distant predictions will affect us immediately. They also have a habit of making decisions from media hype and local extremists that are pushing their own agendas in order to gain local support. (re; recent Vic planning overlays - Bushfire-prone areas & Aboriginal Cultural Heritage overlays), both of which were recently legislated without adequate consultation and are both now being reviewed after the realisation that they are incorrect.
The earth
is warming...the ocean
is rising, but it's all happened before and will again in a few centuries, possibly after the next 'global cooling' cycle.
The local coastline that I'm referring to (I'm not commenting on areas that I know nothing about) has aerial photography dating back over 40 years and it clearly shows, using measurements from landmarks, trees, buildings etc. that the land mass has increased over 30m in depth.
The local landowners which I have had many discussions with, have stated that in their youth they could see the ocean from their homes (these homes still exist, many for several generations), now the ocean is obscured by dunes that have increased in height over the decades.
Unfortunately, many locals are not privy to this information and when recently an objector to development put up a petition to sway the council and used before & after photos showing 'eroded beaches' (which clearly showed an increase in the beach, but gave an impression that the vegetation had decreased) the local council jumped to the conclusion that the coastline was volatile and would 'fall in to the ocean' at any point.
The professional consultants that visited the site have declared that there is no 'immediate cause for concern' (on-record) and off-record have divulged that they would wager that that land will still be there for many centuries to come.
The 'scare-mongering' of the whole 'climate-change' debate will go on regardless of any facts to the contrary because the more noise the scientists make the more funding they will get. Although it also adds to the economy by increasing jobs and research into alternative fuels etc. it is also having a detrimental effect on development and giving power to organisations that do have their own agendas. For those that aren't convinced (me included) it does have benefits, including encouraging the (many uneducated) masses to live more responsibly in regard to reduction in energy use, disposal of waste.
I just think that we should tread carefully and make the right 'informed' decisions, and not jump to conclusions based on knee-jerk reactions and extremist propaganda.
