Pontoons drowned

The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info

Last updated on March 6th, 2018 at 12:31 am

SMH reader Ted Harkness asks:

Why would the floating pontoons at the Spit disappear by 2100?

Posted by Tim B. on 10/30/2006 at 02:23 PM
    1. The global-warming-caused change in the Earth’s magnetic field caused the Bermuda Triangle to shift positions to Down Under, which also explains the missing boats from the earlier.

      Posted by andycanuck on 2006 10 30 at 02:29 PM • permalink


    1. [earlier]… post.

      Posted by andycanuck on 2006 10 30 at 02:30 PM • permalink


    1. Probably Andrew McGahan’s novel about an anti-Muslim dystopia comes true, and the desperate believers take to the pontoons and row them to a safe haven in Indonesia.

      Posted by paco on 2006 10 30 at 02:45 PM • permalink


    1. Beazley ate them.

      Posted by curious george on 2006 10 30 at 02:46 PM • permalink


    1. Drowning polar bears seized them.

      Posted by Major John on 2006 10 30 at 02:58 PM • permalink


    1. They were made out of petroleum based plastics, and for the first time ever all the peak oil twits turned out to be right. It’s all part of the horror that awaits us. Only if we reduce our environmental footprint will we survive.

      I suggest shooting all the celebrity environmentalists, with the resultant cut back in aviation fuel we should be safe.

      Posted by pache on 2006 10 30 at 02:58 PM • permalink


    1. Why would the floating pontoons at the Spit disappear by 2100?

      Gorebal Warmening IS that powerful. Fear the Warmening!


      Posted by Spiny Norman on 2006 10 30 at 03:08 PM • permalink


    1. Can’t resist a little Patrick O’Brian here : there’s something fascinating and nautical going on here, but I can’t quite smoke it.

      Posted by Sharon_Ferguson on 2006 10 30 at 03:22 PM • permalink


    1. They were made out of the only wood that doesn’t float: Natalie Wood.

      Posted by iowahawk on 2006 10 30 at 03:24 PM • permalink


    1. Naah, you’re all wrong.

      You see, the water isn’t going to rise by a centimeter or so per year, like everyone would think.

      It’s going to wait 99.99+ years and come up in a few milliseconds, making the pontoons implode from the sudden increase in pressure.

      That also explains why there’s no docks or boats.  The boats also collapsed, and the docks were mashed into splinters, which were eaten by Mutant Aquatic Termites.

      Posted by cirby on 2006 10 30 at 03:25 PM • permalink


    1. Because pontoons are halal, that’s why.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 10 30 at 03:46 PM • permalink


    1. Because Kevin Costner stole all the… oh, never mind.

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 10 30 at 03:49 PM • permalink


    1. wronwright!!!

      Posted by Achillea on 2006 10 30 at 04:07 PM • permalink


    1. #8: You can’t quite smoke it, for all love? We have only until 2100 to raise those pontoons or we’ll have missed our tide. There is not a moment to be lost! (Which the SMH is the great doom-monger of the world; Cassandra ain’t in it.)

      Posted by Paul Zrimsek on 2006 10 30 at 04:41 PM • permalink


    1. Raise the poltroons!

      The boats are all at Friday prayers, by the way.

      Posted by rhhardin on 2006 10 30 at 05:04 PM • permalink


    1. I like the next comment to:

      Not surprised to see that in 2100 the work to widen the Spit Bridge has still not started.

      David Culkin Lavender Bay

      Posted by tim maguire on 2006 10 30 at 05:08 PM • permalink


    1. There’s good news on the polar bear front . Seems they’ve found another potential source of nutrition.

      Via the always thought-provoking Blue Crab Boulevard .

      Posted by paco on 2006 10 30 at 05:29 PM • permalink


    1. #14: Aye, and the lubbers who are peddling this nonsense are as ill-looking a parcel of bastards as you’ll ever see on dry land(Killick! Another bottle of Madeira!)

      Posted by paco on 2006 10 30 at 05:41 PM • permalink


    1. The 200 million climate refugees from the Stern report moved onto the pontoons and the Australian Navy was forced to sink them so Howard could win the 2098 elections.

      Posted by The Prez on 2006 10 30 at 06:22 PM • permalink


    1. Some people are saying I’m stupid for saying Richard Gere was in Waterworld instead of Kevin Costner. Well I say YOU’RE stupid because Richard Gere and Kevin Costner are the same person and that’s provable with SCIENCE.

      Posted by Amos on 2006 10 30 at 06:48 PM • permalink


    1. #19 Nice try Prez, but I’m thinking it could be because someone parked Lebanese ambulances on them.

      Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 10 30 at 07:07 PM • permalink


    1. 9 out of 10 climatologists agree with you Amos.

      Posted by lingus4 on 2006 10 30 at 07:07 PM • permalink


    1. Because they’re made of cat meat?

      Posted by swassociates on 2006 10 30 at 07:16 PM • permalink


    1. You’re blinding me with SCIENCE!

      Posted by SwinishCapitalist on 2006 10 30 at 07:47 PM • permalink


    1. cause Reuters wants it to disapear!

      hey, it’s “Bring out the Beef” promotional campaign launched in Australia, was this a plot by the Sheik to promote Aussie Covered Meaty Beef for our economy?

      (The campaign’s key objectives are to remind Australians of their love of beef and to encourage them to prepare a beef meal for tonight’s dinner.)

      Check out the beef eating kid

      [Page-destroying, off-topic long url removed. The Management.]
      Posted by 1.618 on 2006 10 30 at 07:58 PM • permalink


    1. At best, it is no longer possible to prevent some damage to the world’s climate and weather patterns; at worst, greenhouse gas pollution could induce a change in global temperatures so dramatic it would rival the last ice age, a British report on climate change says.”…This is the start of a front page article in today’s SMH. It is not labelled opinion, it is from a report they label “the world’s most important analysis of the phenomenon” by an ex World Bank economist.  Our fearless reporters are Wendy Frew and Stephanie Peatling.

      Don’t know how to react to this one: I could try to get their phone numbers as they must be “catmeat” to anyone with a line or just to wonder at the fact that anyone at all thinks the Fairfax company (publishers of SMH) is worth buying.

      Posted by allan on 2006 10 30 at 08:01 PM • permalink


    1. You’re all wrong.

      In the future we’ll all drive hydrogen powered hover cars capable of driving across water.

      If you notice in that picture, the road is underwater too.  Why wouldn’t future Aussies raise the road level?  Because there’s no need to for hover cars.  Why won’t there be boat docks in 2100? Hover cars made them obsolete.

      Posted by Marcuso on 2006 10 30 at 08:13 PM • permalink


    1. On the radio this morning (Vega 91.5) the news had the cheery news that Australia is on target to meet carbon emission reductions or whatever they are called.

      Even without signing that Kyoto dreck.

      Apparently the world should be looking to us because a)we know all about strategies for water conservation and b)we have to have strategies for water conservation.

      Well, DUH!

      How about that – we didn’t sign Kyoto and we’re winning the carbon race.

      I’ll bet some heads will implode over that.

      Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2006 10 30 at 08:18 PM • permalink


    1. How to win with the environment

      1. Sign the Kyoto/Honolulu/Tahiti/Noosa Accord or whatever the hell the latest one is.

      2. Go nuke

      3. Buy New Zealand using carbon credits

      4. Build coal fired power stations in “the land of the long grey cloud” and keep said New Zealanders in perpetual slavery.


      Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 10 30 at 08:35 PM • permalink


    1. By 2100 I’ll be living the good life as Emperor of the Alpha Centauri system, so who gives a shit

      Posted by Rachel Corrie’s Flatmate on 2006 10 30 at 08:38 PM • permalink


    1. Yoots borrowed ‘em for a smokin’ fishfry down at the madrasah.

      Posted by stokes on 2006 10 30 at 09:39 PM • permalink


    1. OT but has anyone read “Liberalstein”. Would be interested to know if it is worth buying

      Posted by The Prez on 2006 10 30 at 09:46 PM • permalink


    1. Senator Ian ‘dead parrot’ Campbell on Lateline last wednesday night, about the new solar power plant in Mildura.

      TONY JONES: If it’s cheaper than coal fired power stations, why not just decommission all the coal fired power stations in the country, gradually replacing them with large scale, solar powered stations like this, 178 of them?

      IAN CAMPBELL, ENVIRONMENT MINISTER: There is no reason why you wouldn’t, Tony. You’d be mad not to. If the sums add up, that’s what could happen.

      …ummh, yes senator, it’s called nighttime.

      Posted by loki on 2006 10 30 at 09:47 PM • permalink


    1. Strewth, this is as wretched a parcel of rum coves as ever I’ve seen.  We’re right up the clinch with no knife to cut the seizing.

      Obviously, the floating pontoons disappeared because the boats that don’t float pulled them under when they catted their fish, as the mariners say.

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 10 30 at 09:47 PM • permalink


    1. Just so long as they leave the floating spitoons at the Pont.

      Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 10 30 at 09:56 PM • permalink


    1. Regarding the comment: “You’re blinding me with SCIENCE! Posted by SwinishCapitalist on 2006 10 30 at 07:47 PM

      I say people should stop confusing the issue with facts.

      Posted by stackja1945 on 2006 10 30 at 10:00 PM • permalink


    1. Why would the floating pontoons at the Spit disappear by 2100?

      I blame pirates…

      or if it’s not pirates, ninjas.

      Or maybe by 2100, pirates and ninjas have set aside their animosity and have combined their awesome talents to steal everything. If only Howard had signed Kyoto.

      Posted by Art Vandelay on 2006 10 30 at 10:20 PM • permalink


    1. The animal’s hunger illustrates how global warming is beginning to make life harder for polar bears.

      (On)an archipelago in the Norwegian Arctic which had not been visited by humans for 25 years before their arrival for a five week shoot.

      Ok, let me get this right, no one has been to this place for 25 years, yet we can safely assume (apparently) that its globular warmenising that made this bear hungry?

      Pull your heads out of your arses you smelly hippies.

      Posted by The_Wizard_of_WOZ on 2006 10 30 at 10:25 PM • permalink


    1. Quote in #38 is from the article Paco linked in #17.


      Posted by The_Wizard_of_WOZ on 2006 10 30 at 10:27 PM • permalink


    1. have just had a quick read of the stern report (well, the extended summary and skim through the document, i will read it more carfeully later).  Quite interesting, but the solutions recommended are definitely out of the EU school of getting economic advantage (just like Kyoto, surprise, surprise).  Initiatives currently underway that were not invented here (ie preferably the UK, otherwise EU) hardly get a guernsey.For example, the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate does not get a mention, even though one of the three pillars of the propsoed response is tenchological development and exchange.  Simialry, extensive Australian and US modelling of the impact of carbon trading, adpatation and other abatement measures on a wide range of countries is not mentioned.
      One interesting comment i will share with you now is that Stern is of the view that there will not be a fossil fuel shortage over the next century, putting those peak oil scaremongers in a rather difficult position – mind you they would be moving on to the next scare story by now.
      The other thing is a more rational view of the implications of climate change, although he still largely uses the IPCC 2001 estimates (hairy IMHO) as the baseline.  The scary figures (ie 5 degree increase in temp) is pushed out to 2100, rather than 2050 you often hear.
      The headline figures being bandied about are a Business As Usual (BAU) scenario, which essentially implies no technologic step ups in reducing carbon reliance for energy production,no change in consumption or any geological, solar or other events that would change the result of the model.
      His solutions are 3 fold: carbon trading (along EU guidelines-Bwwaah ha ha); adaptation; and technology.  Put me down for options 2 and 3 as something that will actually do something.
      Stern also mentions Kyoto in almost holy terms, although he is careful to call it a “framework for future developments”, or something like that. I guess that is as close as he could bring himself to “crock of shit in its current form”.

      Posted by entropy on 2006 10 30 at 10:35 PM • permalink


    1. They could have been rammed by the swarms of icebergs cast loose by a melting Antarctica…

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 10 30 at 11:00 PM • permalink


    1. They were sunk by top secret IDF radiation weapons after they were converted into red cross pontoons.

      Posted by bondo on 2006 10 30 at 11:16 PM • permalink


    1. Somewhere in that BBC story there’s a ‘bare meat’ joke just crying out to be made.

      Posted by Achillea on 2006 10 30 at 11:22 PM • permalink


    1. #20 LOL, Amos!  Anyway, the burden of proof is on those scoffers who claim that Richard Gere and Kevin Costner are not the same person.  Have they ever made a movie together?  Have you ever seen them together?  Well have you?!  I thought not!

      Posted by cuckoo on 2006 10 30 at 11:44 PM • permalink


    1. Because of rising sea levels in France, we had to take French refugees.

      The French promptly rioted and burned most of the boats, and then French Secret Service frogmen attached limpet mines to the remaining ones and sunk them.

      Import french cheese, not french men.

      Posted by mr creosote on 2006 10 30 at 11:50 PM • permalink


    1. I take it this SMH thingy is one of those supermarket tabloids that feature headlines like – “Tom Cruise fathers alien baby.” And is illustrated with an obvious photoshop of Cruise’s head on a alien baby.

      If not, do they not have ANY journalistic integrity?

      Posted by rinardman on 2006 10 30 at 11:52 PM • permalink


    1. Richard Gere and Kevin Costner starred together in “Twins”.  Richard was the one with the gerbil.

      Posted by deadparrot on 2006 10 30 at 11:56 PM • permalink


    1. Obviously because by 2100 we won’t need boats. We’ll have teleporters instead. http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/

      Posted by Jonathan Lowe on 2006 10 30 at 11:59 PM • permalink


    1. Webdiary used the boats to store all the left over italics and bolds when the site crashed – and the boats promptly sank.  In fact the boats all became sentient and mass suicided once they read some Webdiary entries.

      Posted by mr creosote on 2006 10 31 at 12:00 AM • permalink


    1. What a shame Media Watch is in hiatus; otherwise they’d be poking fun at the smh too.  Wouldn’t they?

      Posted by slammer on 2006 10 31 at 12:01 AM • permalink


    1. Leeches. Why don’t they use leeches? It was good medicine then and its still good now. There’s nothing that can’t be cured by a sensible regimen of bleeding.

      Posted by SingleMalt on 2006 10 31 at 12:03 AM • permalink


    1. Everyone knows that the cool toy to own in 2100 is a submarine.  Boats are old hat.  All the submarines are parked underwater to avoid spoiling the view.

      Posted by mr creosote on 2006 10 31 at 12:09 AM • permalink


    1. The pontoons will disappear because Gaiazilla ™, the reptilian manifestation of Gaia’s centuries-long buildup of enviroangst, will have arisen from [insert body of water next to this spit] to rip all evidence of man asunder, except for bridges. Yeah, that’s the ticket…

      Posted by Tommy Shanks on 2006 10 31 at 12:57 AM • permalink


    1. Heavy hail outside – must be more proof of the global warmenisation.

      Posted by Ian Deans on 2006 10 31 at 01:25 AM • permalink


    1. Maybe Shane Warne nicked them. He had a pretty cool party to go to with tons of chicks from British tabliods. Waiting for him to SMS me the pictures now.

      Posted by curious george on 2006 10 31 at 01:49 AM • permalink


    1. #53 – the body of water is Middle Harbour.

      Posted by craigo on 2006 10 31 at 01:53 AM • permalink


    1. #52, I think you’re on to something. We’ll all be living in special underwater domes by 2021 (no doubt to escape from the warmening).

      Posted by Art Vandelay on 2006 10 31 at 01:55 AM • permalink


    1. OH NO!  Its Gaiazilla(tm)!  Someone call Robert Smith from The Cure…

      Posted by The_Wizard_of_WOZ on 2006 10 31 at 01:58 AM • permalink


    1. Pamela Anderson or Dolly took them?

      Posted by crash on 2006 10 31 at 03:19 AM • permalink


    1. Where are all the European refugees?

      Posted by flying pigs over mecca on 2006 10 31 at 05:51 AM • permalink


    1. There’s something hilariously pathetic about trying to project outcomes for mankind out as far as 2100.

      To understand how ridiculous such thinking is, try imagining how some Cassandra in 1906 believed 2000 would turn out.

      Hell, you can use even shorter timescales to the same effect.  In 1980, what did we think 2006 would be like?  Consider these two factors alone from 26 years ago:

      1.  The Soviet Bloc was still a “real and present danger”; and

      2.  The personal computer and the Internet were (for all practical purposes) entirely non-existent.

      Posted by JJM Ballantyne on 2006 10 31 at 07:36 AM • permalink


    1. All of that additional global warmenising CO2 over the next 94 years and the vegetation along the Spit doesn’t grow an inch ?  CO2 causes seas to rise but stunts plant growth ?  And people actually buy that rag ?

      Posted by Ubique on 2006 10 31 at 08:49 AM • permalink


    1. #61, For comparisons sake; they hadn’t even laid the keel of RMS Titanic in 1906.

      Arch Duke Ferdinand was alive and well.

      Tank meant a vessel for the storage of water.

      And on May 22, 1906 the brothers Wright were granted patent #821,393 for a “Flying Machine”.

      Therefore, I predict that by the year 2100 my decendants will have colonised all known life supporting worlds.

      I call dibs, so nyer nyer Wronwright and Paco…

      Posted by The_Wizard_of_WOZ on 2006 10 31 at 10:09 AM • permalink


    1. Why would the floating pontoons at the Spit disappear by 2100?

      Philco Adams walked out on the end to watch the rising ocean?

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 10 31 at 09:50 PM • permalink


Page 1 of 1 pages

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.