For some reason Queensland needs to be really worried about stronger winds as the result of climate change. Researchers say it, so it must be true. Right? Nope, no matter how many “possible’s” and “might’s” and “maybe’s” they throw in, their work just fails to convince.
A new study predicts more intensen cyclones and storm surges, but what they base that on is unclear. Researchers have analysed data and came to the conclusion that La Nina is really dangerous. But wait, La Nina is a perfectly natural phenomenon, that has always been there and has never had anything to do with climate change. And nobody knows why it happens (and the same goes of course for El Nino). Actually when you dig into it, all these climate scientists know very little about weather. That’s the reason why they can’t predict the weather two weeks in advance. And why a forecast of ordinary bad weather can turn out to become a natural disaster (as we experienced earlier this year).
Queensland has set aside a lot of money for studies that identify the risk of rising sea levels. But these are “potentially rising” sea levels, aren’t they? Climate scientists have been warning us for rising sea levels for decades and the water is still at the same level. So I fail to see the urgency. Sea water levels are very hard to measure, as there are numerous factors that influence it, most of which are unknown or can’t be measured. But at those places where they have simply put a pole in the water the sea levels are still the same as 50 years ago.
The spokesperson for this stuff says that “there is some settled science”. Wow, SOME settled science? That doesn’t sound convincing. I’m not sure what he means. Water is wet and wind can blow houses away. That science is settled. The rest: not so much. Whenever you hear that “science is settled” all your red lights should light up immediately. Science is never settled and always open for discussion, criticism and improvement. When that’s not allowed, there is no science.
According to this guy Queensland should start building sea walls and then he starts making comparisons with Holland. Wait, comparing Queensland with Holland? A bit of geographical knowledge would be really helpful to protect this guy from saying really stupid things. A big part of Holland is below sea level. Queensland is not. Australia does not have polders, but I don’t think the guy would know what a polder is anyway. Someone should have told him.
This study is just made of potential possibilities that might happen if things go the way computer models suggest. Studies like this could make really nice fiction, though they need quite a bit of work. As far as science goes: let’s have a cup of tea and forget about this study really, really quickly.