As a further illustration of quite how childish our newspapers have become, we can set the scene with a robust opinion piece in the Australian Sunday Herald Sun, addressing the continuing scandal of the Brisbane floods. Exploring the role of management of the Wivenhoe Dam, under the heading: "Greens be dammed, we need protection," this piece notes that: "Eco-catastrophists always cite the precautionary principle: if they are right and we don't reduce CO2 emissions, we face Armageddon. If they are wrong, all it costs is dollars." It then goes on ...

View full article here

Those 'down-under' always had problems deciding which way is up, but reading today's news I think the whole world has gone on tilt. anybody got a little tropical island for sale with or without hot and cold running water.?

I believe that we have been conditioned to consider as unimportant anything that is not covered by the commonly recognised media outlets (the MSM). I'm probably stating the obvious, but if I am correct then until this conditioning is addressed there will be no movement in the attitude of the majority population. And therefore no change for the better.

As I've said elsewhere, a local councillor friend of mine told me that early last year there had been some proposals to update our council's snow clearing machinery, but they had been dropped as potential political suicide in view of the government's position on global warming and the fact that some professor had announced that it was unlikely that English children would ever see snow again in their own country.
No doubt companies such as BAA and the railways took the same view, why spend money on something the experts say is never likely to happen?
I imagine exactly the same happened in Australia. Having read last year that "experts" had decided that long term drought was now Australia's biggest challenge, no doubt those charged with flood prevention were thinking in exactly the same way as my friend - why spend money raising dam walls and on flood defences when the experts tell us they will never be needed.
In my view, the climate change fanatics should have a lot on their consciences, including all the deaths that have occurred in these floods. Lets hope all the money now being spent on "green" matters in Australia is diverted to ameliorating the effect of these floods.

There is also a tension between city finance and public protection. A city can increase its property tax base by allowing construction in high-risk areas. A good example of this was in Belgium recently, where flooded areas had houses that were only a couple of years old. Not sure if this was also the case in Australia. Greenies don't like (sub-)urban sprawl, but what if the only alternative is to construct more homes in high-risk areas?

Wivenhoe Dam deceission an admission of failure
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/na ... 6005370326

Good link.