Wrong, wrong, wrong. The Wright brothers drew on, among other things, the work of Lawrence Hargrave, in particular papers he presented to the Royal Society on the shapes of wings. Priests said the world was flat and the earth was the centre of the universe and scientists proved them wrong, and your attempt at hyperbole is just as wrong.

So until science became a thing the birds were walking?

Lighten up, Choppa Reid's weather forecasts were pretty spot on.

No, but pilots were.

You forgot the lightbulb.

And by that we are to assume that the people now holding those positions, that these FORMER heads held, know nothing and are not advising or planning what is required before each fire season?

It is an insult to the people who were appointed to replace these FORMER heads upon their retirement/leaving.

Want to know why people don't believe scientists anymore?

https://electroverse.net/uk-met-offi...0oBIDuZR6MdOew

Who do we believe? What's to say that article isn't bull**** either? Do we stop believing all sciences? Shall we get the church back to control the world again? Maybe put criminals back in the gallows and go to war in the Crusades again, ohh hang on we basically already do.

Like I said, natural or not, there is plenty of scientific evidence (You can't tell me thousands of scientists worldwide are all in on some sort of conspiracy, what have they got to gain from it? They're already getting money) that proves that severe weather is becoming more common and more severe. Now what are the powers that be doing about it?

Whether we have 6 power stations or 6,000, it's such an old technology and you can't tell me pumping that **** into the atmosphere is good for our health either. I'm certainly no environmental activist, but there's a reason why we don't use steam ships across the North Atlantic anymore, so why do we use the same technology to power our homes?

dr dre. France is the first country to impose a climate tax on aviation to deter people from flying. Expect more soon. I understand the tax on a packet of cigarettes in Australia is now $35. I do not think this deters most smokers from continuing from smoking.

France can do that because long distance flying in France isnt really necessary due to their TGV network . State owned as is Af so govt don't really lose but can achieve something.

Climate change is one of those ' bet the farm issues'- the activists may be wrong but if they are not then the consequences are completely catastrophic. the fact that people like Trump say its wrong tends to suggest its probably right but expensive.

This is utter bollocks.

Smoking rates are lower and lower every year. 15.5% in 2014 down from 26% in 2001

Is there anywhere in the article linked to above where AD directly blames what scientists would call climate change (increased carbon in the atmosphere, greenhouse effect) for the change in prevailing winds in Sydney this year?

"This has been caused by two factors,” Mr David said. “One is the impact of climate change in the last four months. We have seen wind *velocities 34 per cent higher than the average of the last 30 years, and it’s a prevailing westerly *rather than the south-south-westerly we’ve seen in the past. That’s led to runway closures, meaning (aircraft) movements are slowed. Add that to the issues we face in Sydney and Melbourne in peak hours and that has led to a degradation in on-time performance.”

Hardly a beat up.

We don't need to be climate scientists to take advice from climate scientists.

We just need to be capable of balancing our ideologies with our intelligence and common sense.

At the moment, climate science appears to interfere with the right wing ideologies of a free market, low regulation and low taxation, because most of the suggested solutions have involved increased regulation and/or taxation. So, surprise, surprise, most of the climate deniers are right wing. Do they really distrust the scientists, or is it just that they don't want to believe it.

So, no, I'm not a climate scientist, but if I want to know something about climate, I will ask a climate scientist, not a politician or radio shock jock.
I'm not an engineer either, but if there is something wrong with my aircraft, I will take advice from a professional aircraft engineer, not a politician or radio shock jock.

Kiwi, cmon admit it, you Googled that.

China vs Australia perspective:

China consumes around 3800 MT of coal per annum, at a population of 1.4 billion, that's 2.7 T per capita. Despite building more power stations, that consumption figure has been pretty stable since around 2011 as improvements in efficiencies have been implemented. China has been seeking to cap consumption at current levels, but doesn't expect any reduction until around 2040. They have been trialling certain forms of carbon trading. They'll start running out of coal around 2050.

Australia consumes around 125 MT of coal per annum, at a population of 25 million, that's 5.0 T per capita. That figure has reduced around 20% from its peak around 2006, as alternative electricity sources have been implemented. By the way, we have a lot more than 6 coal power stations. I believe the current figure is around 20.

Also note that Australia actually produces 4 times that amount (500 MT), but around 75% is exported, to countries like China. Adani will add another 60 MT to the exports.

For comparison, the USA consumes around 700 MT of coal per annum, at a population of 340 million, that's 2.1 per capita. That figure has reduced around 40% from its peak also around 2006.

(source: I've plucked these figures from various websites - mostly wikipedia)

So, per capita, we don't look so flash - and we don't even manufacture anything. At least China is using that electricity to make all the worldly possessions the rest of the world craves.

Climate change is real as we all know the earth has been mainly warming for thousands of years, long before humans had any affect on the environment. Nothing we can do about the climate imo but we can do our bit to reduce pollution and the single greatest act we can do to reduce pollution by humans would be to reduce the world population. Way too many people.

Is anyone concerned about the rate at which magnetic North is changing? How can Al Gore make money out of this?

One little problem with that theory of yours, its just a theory.

Produce the definitive study that proves man made Global warming or Climate Change {as it is called these days} beyond a reasonable doubt.....oh look at that...no proof...Hmmmmm!!!

10 years ago all those LEFT WING scientists were caught fudging the figures of MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING which was completely debunked, hence CLIMATE CHANGE these days yet not a shred of evidence besides that fantastic well respected Qantas theory which must prove it of course!!

Nobody denies the worlds climate changes over the centuries with various temperature fluctuations and has cycles but going all GRETA THUNBERG on us and claiming its MAN MADE is a touch much dont you think!!

Thats what this whole argument is about, LEFTIES claiming climate change is all man made....get a grip!!!

and India but under all the climate change agreements "developing countries" have been given permission to generate as much electricity as they want so their living standards can catch up with the rest. Its a pity that they don't change the definition of a developed country to one that has a space program because then Australia can be classified as a developing country and then we can get cheap electricity again.

The per capita statisitic is such a furphy as the reality is Australia generates very little of the worlds total CO2, which after all is the problem, from what I keep getting rammed down my throat. If the science is so sound how come 10 years ago they didn't predict that the climate emergency would exist in 2019? For much the same reason they can't predict TS over Sydney on a humid day, its all driven by computer modelling, which is only as reliable as the assumptions built into it.