Talk:Effects of global warming on Australia

message: The Effects of global warming on Australia page was started on 20 February 2007. All contributions most welcome. dinghy 13:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effects of global warming on Australia page started 

message: A redirect to Climate of Australia was done without discussion on this page. This has been reverted. Effects of global warming on Australia is not about the climate, it is about the impact the changes in climate will have on Australia and her people, industries, environment, ecology, international standing etc. dinghy 21:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effects of global warming on Australia is not about the Australian Climate, but the impacts of changes to climate 

message: List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions per capita says that, as of 2003, Qatar had over 3 times the CO2 emission of Australia. Maybe Australia's pulled ahead since then, or maybe other gases make up the difference, but a citation would be nice. Also, isn't Australia a net energy exporter? Andjam 23:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highest per capita in the world? 

message: Australia??? Uber555 17:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ? 

message: This article looks as if it has a great many citations.  But they mostly come from a reference list in a single CSIRO report (http://www.csiro.au/files/files/p6fy.pdf).  It is improper to copy citations in this way without making clear that the editor involved saw only the report and not the original sources.  See Wikipedia:Citing sources#Say where you found the material. 
I have added a "One source" tag with the hope that other sources which have actually been sighted will be added. Please also make sure to include the specific page number from where the cite actually came. Johnfos (talk) 05:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Article mostly based on one source

message: Unless there is an objection, I plan to remove text from this article which has been affected by plagiarism, copy-vio, and overuse of a single source.  Johnfos (talk) 02:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Johnfos (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing affected text

message: In terms of now adding more content to the article, I would think that useful material could become available as part of the Garnaut Climate Change Review. Johnfos (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional content

message: I have fixed the copyright violations and made clear that the article previously put as references were cited in the CSIRO article. On this basis I have put the detailed effects of global warming back in.
I have reinstated the one source warning for clarity and hope that other authors may be able to contribute further references or view the article cited by the CSIRO article and reinstate them as references if appropriate. Amberclaire 2041 (talk) 04:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  fixed copy vios and referencing, and reinstated detailed material 

message: The article Climate Change in Australia states that Australia is the world's ninth highest emitter of greenhouse gasses, while the article Effects of global warming on Australia states that Australia is the highest emitter. Which of these is correct? Sstr (talk) 01:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Australia is the highest per capita emitter of the Annexe 1 countries to the Kyoto Protocol (the developed countries) and ninth overalldinghy (talk) 08:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction: First or Ninth Highest Emitter?

message: I've done a search for this but I can't work it out.  It may mean something to specialists but aren't encyclopaedias intended for the general reader? Can someone please render this section (entitled "Brisbane") intelligible:
A sea level rise of 10m would completely inundate the Gold Coast. New developments are required by law to have a minimum floor height 27 cm above the Q100 storm height...   Thanks, Melba1 (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a wild guess, but might it mean the height that would be reached by the sea level innundation caused by the storm surge from a 100-year flooding event? ~AH1(TCU) 14:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Section has been rendered intelligible.  Thanks for the tip.--CurtisSwain (talk) 08:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the heck does "q100" mean?! 

message: I think some or all of this article may qualify as original research under WP:CRYSTAL, as it is simple laying predictions for a future event. Please correct me if I'm wrong though.--Qizix (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research 

message: I removed a new section cut and pasted from   --Greenmaven (talk) 06:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright violation 

message: The article said 
"Australian Greens leader Bob Brown,[9] argued that increased fire days due to climate change, was likely to blame for the fires but the Black Saturday Royal Commission found that the amount of fire fuel reduction burning should have been double of what had done.[7]", 
which I then re-phrased as 
"Australian Greens leader Bob Brown argued that increased number and intensity of fire days due to climate change were likely to blame for the fires[9], however, the Black Saturday Royal Commission concluded that the amount of fire fuel reduction burning should have been double of what had been done.[7]".  (purely grammatical fix for clarity)
However, on going to check the source for [9], I find that Bob Brown's actual quote is "[The fires] are a sobering reminder of the need for this nation and the whole world to act and put at a priority the need to tackle climate change".http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1878220,00.html. So first of all I have updated the entry to include his actual quote. Secondly, as the quote doesn't even mention fuel loads or fuel reduction burns, and considering that "The Greens have a strong and proud record of supporting fuel reduction burning (cool burns), conducted by the proper authorities, as a vital tool for protecting lives and property"http://tas.greens.org.au/content/tasmanian-bushfires, I have removed the word "but/however" linking the two clauses, as I think it is irrelevant and misleading. 
I updated the Royal Commission's "findings" (about the recommendation to double prescribed burns) to cite the the Age article, because I couldn't find it in the primary source, http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Commission-Reports/Final-Report/Summary/Interactive-Version. Fuel reduction burns aren't mentioned in the section on "Reducing the number of fires", but they are mentioned in the section "Reducing the damaged caused by fire > Land and fuel management". The only Recommendation that includes the word "prescribed" or "reduction" is Recommendation #56: "The State fund and commit to implementing a long-term program of prescribed burning based on an annual rolling target of 5 per cent minimum of public land." Presumably it was ~2.5% prior to Black Saturday and that's where The Age are getting their "double" figure from. 
Charbono (talk) 08:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bushfires, royal commission findings & recommendations