Eco suspect

Even Charles Darwin wouldn't believe we could be so dumb

2011-10-11T00:08:00.000+11:00

As to talk about the Kiribati islands, as if the sea level is rising on them .( as ABC TV did after 9pm on 9th October 2011) when SUBSIDENCE is what makes them what they are.
After all Charles Darwin , did the initial research on atolls over 150 years ago and it still stands today . The PC correct junkies at the ABC know better of course.
This week in parliament( with its grand ambition of changing the world with yet another tax) , like this new week at the ABC, is built on a lie.
The tax is--- for what purpose and
---what will it achieve

except more innovative chair moving in the halls of the growing government and the media hype industries?
Only fair to warn you , as a earth scientist , that the the biggest landslides we know of occur off these atolls , with the movement often not stopping till kilometres below the surface . The highest coastal cliffs in the world are formed this way ( Hawaiian Island) Charles Darwin, who discovered the mechanism of atol formation over 150 years ago , would , I feel sure, not believe our age could be so filled with such ignorance and arrogance.The island is Kiribiti's ocean island -only about 3 kilometres wide , a few metres high and sea as deep as 3 kilometres all around it

Carbon overview suggests we know little

2011-03-24T11:58:00.005+11:00

We certainly aren't told enough ; Our pollies rant and rave about my area of expertise in sequestration in a manner akin to excited schoolboys playing with gunpowder. The earth too is more resilient than the MAIN worry warriors would have us believe ( what would they know really?) . The graph below comes from IPCC and shows the huge volumes of carbon that are captured each year by photosynthesis (450 for land ). It also shows how some form of equilibrium is established in spite of 29 . As the concentration of carbon dioxide is rate limiting for terrestrial photosynthesis , the case for increased sequestration by plants and structures must be better stated before we tax ourselves silly. Let alone the case for sequestration and use from water bodies (338) R ememember YOU heard it first HERE see earlier posts copyright Emperors academy .

More about emotion than reason?

2011-03-18T10:31:00.004+11:00

In an age of reason , we all like to think ourselves very reasonable indeed. However the evidence is against us at a public level as they say (Scientists talk about drivers or equations )when you look at what's driving public debate in march 2011 ( Carbon tax for eg in Australia but also responses to recent disasters ) . Tell me I am wrong
Emotion is in the drivers seat.

How then can we claim that the strange amalgum of opinion that is the public's is reasonable . We know many of us feel guilty about say , " driving around in heavy machines "( our cars ) so we tend to project the problem onto someone else ( "the government must do something" )
Why trust such reasoning ?
There is also the persistent myth in secular circles that mere technology (reason) will solve all risk problems .We need a technology to manage humans? - Some leaders call the technology " a tax" .
But who drives the use of the tax ? Would you trust either of them (government or the market?) We have humans in charge - is there really then a way forward?

Why are so many people in a state of fear ?

2011-03-14T23:48:00.000+11:00

Sometimes it seems that the only lasting legacy of the green movement will be to create a sense of fear .
fears that finally prove pointless .
After all we do need to be careful - but the media and many of the old cynics around seem to feed on it . What do you think ?
If young people were looking for hope , there is some amongst even the worst real disasters of the year 2010/11.
The panic about water has been doused by immense amounts o water to restore Australia and
A meltdown in a nuclear reactor in J pans worst case scenario risk situation (emergency water supply also cut off) isn't expected to spread waste very far - so why should we be in too great a panic about well managed reactors .?
Why do we let the media worry young people to the point of panic and inertia ? Julia Gillard has identified the problem but is she too guilty as charged ?

What if carbon oxides are huge buffering agents

2011-03-02T23:24:00.000+11:00

You mean they aren't ? Not according to our polys - "who belives polys esp the ones who talk market but distrust business ?"? The media seem to - strange allegiance - how long can it last ?
As for the basic chemistry controls ( there are a few others but here is one )
While the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere remains the rate limiting factor for photosynthesis, and nearly every leaf on the planet provides evidence of that , I see no reason to worry too much about the very low levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Even Lomborg may have to get used to the idea that his welcome focus on the real issue of alternative energy sources ( rather than Co2) is publicly to lose its biggest driver .
The eco point is that no civilization will survive change if it mistakenly perceives a threat let alone quickfixes it ( as he is saying most so called responsive governments have done in the last 20 years ) The true focus of all effective sustainability action is that it anticipates the truth - and is not distracted by quickfiz

Stupidity on environment is no joke in the bush

2010-10-18T00:07:00.000+11:00

The people in the Murray Darling Irrigation areas are no dumber than the rest of Australia --yet they get treated so by the cynical shells of men like David Maher. Barry Cassidy too, like most journos, is running around when he should sit still for awhile . Its Scoop mode ( Evelyn Waugh)-- chasing the noise but missing the scoop right before his very eyes . His panel would never see that Tony Burke is out of his depth on water issues resorting to completely offbeat catchphrases like algal blooms and acid sulphate soils ( Sure they exist - but only in great proportions in the panic minds of the easily led and the many bureaubrats hanging on in the service through the drip feed )

For the Burkes of this world, there is always another disaster to draw attention to - next week it will be the floods . Barry - worry when a politician smiles at you . It means he's leading and you are following !

Its all very well for city people and the ignorant on ABC Insiders to patronise , ( Maher in particular) but none who got past kindergarten in complex ecological study would come out with these clangers on the Murray Darling Plan ( the italics are the big picture plan conservation constraints)
- "the plants will adjust" ( green spokesman ) basic physiology means plants need a fixed amount of water it you starve plants they will weigh less and more farmers will give them away at below cost price( cauliflowers of late) as they do so often. Trust the greens to think that one fact will make them experts in ecological matters.
-"Over allocation" is not a dirty word . the whole focus on numbers (overallocation ) by polys and the media is understandable- they want to make what's complex simple.
--the whole focus on numbers by polys and the media is understandable- they want to make what's complex simple .

You ask the farmer to live by a number. How about you hold the crap artists in government for a number -- what is an environmental flow ---go on , ask the river health people
- why does Michael Taylor's crew have to spend another few years trying to make sense - don't they know what they are doing?; after all , who else would send people broke over water conservation when OVER allocations is ONLY applicable as a proportion of the supply system .

And if we have to do this to save the river - who cares; the people of austarial( according to the polys ) want the river to be saved .You can't have it both ways . Make up your mind - if you only half do the job you might as well do nothing . Overallocation allows you to store and be a conservationist to do it when there lots around - its true conservation.

The meddling by the river worriers will only ever add a little el to the largely ecologically irrelevant mid peak flows ( in a dry land ) Any who ever studied water conservation on land knows that the seed is specifically placed to grow at the edges of the resilience cycle - not in the mish mash middle where more water would do nothing for the life of the riverine system

-- Burke wants to spend our taxes to try and stop farmers from using water when its there . If he keeps cutting allocations the storage of the current flood water would be forbotten . The dumb focus on overallocation ignores that fact that States have always reviewed how much water a land holder can get in a dry period - Tony Burke is trying to riding a camel in a world that can sometime best support buffalo. The dummmy thinks that its cost effective to lower exepecetations by lowering a few estimates . The people who he takes seriously are more accountant like than ecology accountable

Why do Polys resort to taxes to try and do" conservation" ?

2010-10-06T11:53:00.003+11:00

1. Because we let them, and because the logic is simple .
If you think about that ; It suits them and too many of us

The public don't really want to do something about conservation .They don't want to give up anything . They want the government to do everything . So the government tax our water and power on the logic that we will use less because it costs more - its brilliant logic and it suits everyone .
Everyone that is , who doesn't think deeply about these things or those who are trained to do the hard vigilance planning and disciplined stuff that keeps conservation culture and our caring culture alive -
All this latest move will do is drive is a reaction against conservation .

The trouble with tax driven change of this type is , amongst other things is it gives a licence to our polys to spend our money telling us what to do .

2.Because money can motivate and governments have no other tools in the toolbox( at the moment )see the vehicles below) . Mind you the lack of a method won't stop them trying to find a few,, and wasting money on that effort .

3 . Because the real stuff of conservation is much tougher-- and therefore even the tax money probably won't be used well . They like simple things

.3 Because the real stuff of conservation is much tougher and you require competencies they increasingly don't have

The consequences of this crass coercion is that conservation no longer remains a choice , that only tokens and changing objects of worship will be bought ( dying trees instead of biodiversity sprees) .

Even a lot of noise from the Greens won't be able to stop this unsustainable move into the dark of government directed nannyism and speculation.

The greatest evil is being done in the name of the best of intentions . Will the real conservationists please stand up !

The Carbon vehicle - no wheels yet in sight

2010-08-25T14:07:00.003+10:00

Its August 25th 2010

Where are we with this machine -

put together by a committee .

The scientists who are supposed to support it do not appear - to give the answers to same old same old questions that have been on everyone's lips for years.Who do the polys think we are - dumb ?
Robert Oakeshott is the only independent at today's meeting to tentatively support the vehicle with no wheels that has been talked about for years in dealing with .. whatever it is ...a warming thing or a really wobbling thing - change threat thing (change your story every week and its surprising how you will survive with the slow press in tow) .
Laugh at Katter if you will , but he put the science position well . Some solar is good and much carbon tax is crap . Horses for Courses - representation is representing the proper place. Why trust anyone who can't explain themselves - no problem in the deep north there
Warming went out the window a few years ago and change while it covers all the bases ( in a pedantic and misplaced concreteness way ) will not last much longer either - Can't argue that science is one day supporting warming and the next some sort of new atmospheric abnormality )
The uncertainty of Oakeshott symbolises the confusion of many. But lets remember its a confusion the party system and the media created - where is the independent science forum to explain the shift from "warming to wobbling "
Today's truth telling was so refreshing. The NPC debate today highlights the need to stand back for a week and think about what the party system has done to clarity about the truth - how many silent witnesses, blatant power grabbers and liars do we have there?

Push and Pull views on Population

2010-08-13T08:18:00.000+10:00

Malthus, like many on Quandary last night, are right to worry . Man doesn't seem to care about how he uses resources .(And it good that some care enough to talk about it )

But to shift the debate away from man to mere mechanism is to miss the point .

Malthus's idea and observation is an important one

the increase of population is necessarily limited by the means of subsistence,

That population does invariably increase when the means of subsistence increase, and,

That the superior power of population it repressed, and the actual population kept equal to the means of subsistence, by misery and vice."^[9]

The drivers we find easiest to latch onto are NOT deterministic, just drivers .

The choices we make are the critical things. Because the choice to limit the population of the earth is already being made and reinforced by education there is still some resilience left to plan with .Who on the panel really cared about our great heritage in planning ? the full growth curve contains a few things other than steep lines dummies!

The problem is always the same with the students of mere description they name a few variables and may even have an equation or two together

BUT they don't want to know about feedback looks inside the organism ( Whitehead) the job of sorting this stuff is not for the wannabes but for those who study and show themselves approved ( one area where Flannery and brown are right - but when would they ever put their minds where there mouths are and Listen to production ecologists AND psychologists and sociologists working together )

Misery and vice must not be linked to the mechanism or we will be ack to some socialistic soap opera handing out all our savings to the poor .

So what does Quandary feed ? The road to panic rather than the road to planning .

The inspiration that Perara gave by reminding us about attitude was great . The source of a balance between optimisms and pessimism is hidden to those who skim over the people problems like Flannery , Brown and Malthus .

Big topic for another day - what resources will we really running out of ? We are running out of optimism at the moment?

Expecting too much of price controls

2010-06-18T07:22:00.001+10:00

"Lateline business" on Monday let the water industry get away with murder .The spokesman was all smiles and no wonder. The doctrine of price controls as a means of driving sound conservation behaviour( and we sure need them ) is a valuable idea in the right hands . Its a very dangerous idea in the wrong hands, sending price signals that are blunt , inefficient and unfair for starters .
The biggest danger of all is that it that suits the taxing side of government -
The love affair with anything that works in cuttingedgeconservation has blinded many to its limits . Its too easy with conservation issues to let industry decide - esp. when they have the ultimate god of their own revenue stream , and let's face it--- there is no stream better than the one that the water industry have been living off for eons .
The price of water is so cheap that the windfall profits from trying to limit consumption by pricing ( a really stupid idea because farmers use most of our water (and because its not a finite resource unless you have accountants and simpletons trying to manage it ) would keep the employees in gold armchairs forever -- beating anything Rudd will get out of the miners . The spokesmen on Lateline were smiling, but no taxpayer poly or farmer should be, when these people are more powerful than all of us are- and they want more .Point is, the water industry are on TV because they are well funded . Science is not,

Watch this carelessness breed yet another water industry infrastructure idea that is not worthy of public investment;
You think misinvestment ( fire fighting ) is not a risk ? Look at the list of go nowhere failures ( esp during the drought) we have seen in the last few years alone -desalination , dam watching ,water meters , granny bucket brigades , pipelines to nowhere , pumping aquifers because you can't see the damage ( Barwon water in The Otways )
Why did the damming business in Tasmania get so far out of perspective?

No, rather than fund the water industry ( or agree to giving them more ) we need to tax them and harness them . Vic government has no such restraint apart from Premier in wet behind the ears Holding who has let them lose in catchment management and all manner of conservation areas where they are not even qualified .
They , unlike genuine conservation and protection planners, have always had time and money to go and annoy politicians . Now they use the suspect and very limited argument of price controls to argue for nirvana for their already huge empires becasue polys like Holding and others fall for it .

The water industry doesn't need more money - it needs something ( and has done for decades since dams went out of fashion ) ) to spend its already huge taxes money on (can't do dams easily so they do pipleines and desalination plants etc)
The point is, the water industry is ALREADY well funded and in danger of taking over the advisory system on water and therefore a wide range of conservation areas -During the drought they already have enough runs OFF the board to make them look like the Kindergarten class they are when they are away from their excel charts and out amongst ecosystems.

When it comes down to it, polys have to think and get expert advice on conservation - otherwise its just a BIG game driven by empire builders, wannabes and polys avoiding the too hard basket for the other big risk for Australia's democratic and balanced future ( assuming government is actually a clone of business) Do you know how much engineering the environment could cost the country? - well think about what they feed on now .It ain't conservation and let the people say so !

Expecting too much of science

2010-05-02T23:14:00.002+10:00

Nothing seem to have clouded the boundaries of real knowledge than the very high opinion the public have of what science is seen to achieve. Media attention is not everything its cracked up to be . In fact, if politicians/public think they know something about the value of your work and its controversial in other ways , they may well meddle with it.
My treasured profession is an interesting case in point.One of the best jobs in environmnetal risk assessment has been lost because of political game playing . " The greens know ;No we know : no ,we know" . While my role was one of the frontier applied science areas 20 years ago , I know of noone still doing it. Environmental science has become so popular that its now a political football - and no party or particular research group is able , or even it seems willing , to stop the silly game that is risking its effectiveness and place of respect .
I share many of Robyn Williams ( ABC science show) concerns about the ways scientists seem to be taken less and less seriously, but I disagree with what seems to be driving it. Recently he's been taking to skeptics with a whip - when it' s not them he should be hard on . What about all those dummies in parliament and readers of papers who say the environment is a serious issue, but would rather play the game themselves, than have it properly umpired.Christopher Koch would not be surprised - why are so many "science advocates".

For example , on May 1st program Robyn Williams guests talked about geoengineerng the climate and another guest talked about algae . Both interests reflect the shifting sands of focus away from the "climate change imperatives" of only a few months ago .
The guests were only saying what us skeptics have been saying for years . That to promote a solution you must FIRST understand the ecosystems; That, in itself when it comes to the gas equations, is a big ask .
You must first understand the problem, and it has to be said many of his guests of recent times , not only don't know much, but they are not always willing to admit just how little they know on this grand design of a subject ....and when it comes to scientists changing practice ...more big gaps ( career scientists are the important ones, but they may never in their lifetime , hit the headlines) . The attempt to do popular science is, it seems, risky to sound science .

If any one of us should be so lucky as to understand and then see a solution , the stage should ONLY be open to them and their team - otherwise convincing the rest of us is impossible ( the task the media wannabes have set themselves)
Time for others to comment.

Our Radiator experts

2009-12-01T16:17:00.004+11:00

It might be a bit easier to believe our polys if they weren't always changing their minds on what's important . It used to be ozone or global warming, NOW its the catch all " climate change" . Cool or Hot they win.
The poor scientist who just recently demonstrated that greenhouse was not an appropriate metaphor for our atmosphere might be a bit late - we hope not . He just demonstrated what most of understood from the basic physics - that the atmosphere provides no effective barrier to low frequency radiation. So much for the warming factor of "trapped " Co2 .

The trouble with keeping up with our fan driven warming worriers is they keep changing both the purpose the design and the function of the system -It very handy because like God you can't see it. Is an ETS for cooling or warming or both ? .
Absolutely noone should be taking Rudd seriously - esp at the next election .

The ultimate Fantasy, Action and Horror movie

2009-10-28T14:17:00.017+11:00

Mixing your genres may be a new way to mix your messages; without anyone knowing you don't know what you are talking about - you heard it first on blogger!
The greens are getting a lesson in the limits of their knowledge of human motivation. . If you are a rationalist and/or a scientist you don't have the luxury they have had - you have to set the stuff out in lines called equations.This is "what scientist's say" .

In the important interests of more conservation ( the greatest challenge we face) ,the dark greens best take it seriously because they are increasingly risking the cause of applied science and tax driven advertising/promotion by governments . Like the reactionary left who, having lost their audience in the streets, seek to keep the ABC inline and on cue.

With our taxes, they have tried everything to motivate us, but nothing works - long term . Talk of revolution is cheap, when the testing and experimenting doesn't come out of your own pocket .
Movies and media hype of all kinds are no substitute for the tough talk of science in practice.
It may be boring to watch, but the effects of waiting for the science to come in is sustainability - decisions based on sound science last a lot longer- once settled, the experiment pays.
Those who push anthrop climate change arguments need to be very careful - they are no longer credible- their ticket to experiment will be removed .The may be "well motivated" but they don't know the real life moves that are needed and are only guessing ( they call it changeing or experimenting?) . Talk of revolution is cheap. The only way to run a church long term is to stick with the original doctrine . No longer an ETC its a CPRS ; who would believe the moving target brigade.
Still , they appear to have picked the perfect genre for Fiction ; They might have failed to recognise that with an overseas american politician as the hero, they were stretching the imagination of the most liberal lefty . With blindness of zealots they have also failed to see how a shallow script would be when the characters would only speak one language that of the 4 needed and dealt with ever dilemma in the same way ; The air was as thin as their "invisible clothes ". To top it off, the fear factor did not carry the story further than the front door.
The Gorey Horror movie trick has been tried; now its sciences turn . Oh Sorry there is the parliamentary enquiry.( Parliamentary committee makes news makes history by making the news) Thinking people will read Plimer ( Heaven and Earth )and the hot air will be dissipated by the credibility in connections that seeps out of every page.
Rudd will end up being taken as seriously at Copenhagen as he was at the last conference he big noted himself at .
The air is a bit puffed up, as it were,.... is it not? and at our expense . Sure there is reason to fear - but as Jung himself said the wolf ain't going to go away with just some simple tax, when he's clearly still with us .

As many observers are saying as we speak , there is far too much hype around.
. The careless hype will spell the demise of those who allow exaggeration and inaccuracy to grow in their favoured action movie . You heard it first on BLOGGER .

It seems that action is all many media wannabes are interested in . A great thing to have achieved if its action at great public expense.
Everybody wants action- but dancing naked in the street is going to lose the wannbes their job. Thoughtful Australians would prefer if the show was more convincing and that science, applied science and ecomia were less politically and marginally motivated.

Leave off the dioxide , the floods and the warming

2009-02-23T16:04:00.003+11:00

The people are confused and we have confused em - We might be happy to be on the merry go round but the people are getting dizzy and when they drop off may wake up and realise they have been taken for aride - a big expensive nice sounding ride
First it was the ozone then it was the dioxide and the warming , then it was the warming and the cooling, then the floods were added.
Now Clinton is into "carbon" reduction - have we finally found someting we can agree on? Pity about all those worthless agreements and incentives that focus on CO2 and warming - anyone for an eoomia test?

Garnaut's gambling ramblings

2008-02-25T09:36:00.001+11:00

Undermining Garnaut completely is the fact that even a major change in the production curves in australian agriculture are extremely unlikely to affect the economy.

Climate change and real change

2007-10-25T09:53:00.000+10:00

Monists should be worried . People say one thing and do another . ( A positive surface effect often hides a darker and deeper negative effect - solutions are harder to achieve than the press and mere politics would suggest!)
Consider the superficial tokenism on the environment of the present . The Climate clever docs will be used to switch off one thing but then switch on another. Accountaibility isn't the issue for those who are careful conservationsists - they don't need an incentive and a booklet that dumbs down the challenge .- they know its bigger than the attempt to build cleverness . The clever document does one thing by dumbing down the issue --it gives incentive to do nothing or even something negative - "we did what you suggested "!

The millions spent on the magazines of cheap choices don't offer real choice to cut carbon, just real choice to avoid the hard decsions that might really matter ( see below for more) . The millions spent on presenting a positive angle don't do anything positive to limit the negative side . Lets hear the ABC and the press ask why both parties haven't got a tax on air conditioners as part of the cocontribution to carbon targets. After all governments can't do everything - can they?

Are we heading into summer with lower carbon emissions or just more careless emissions. Copyright Emperors academy

.

Climate change uncertainty

2007-07-12T20:17:00.000+10:00

Update sept 07 . Mr Plimer did well in the Age yesterday . The media fascination with "new science" has caused many of them to miss the intellectual boat completely : "forgeting "as they have for years that geologists have a very legitimate view of earth processes and the best way to work new research in earth science . Old science is infact an expression of what we as scientists respect . It contrasts rather well with the common myopia and wonder working worship of "new science" and the more recent shortsighted preoccupation with the emphemeral - the study of hot air .

Plimer was on the money, but not fast enough for the chasers war on truth ; the fast moving agenda change agents . In his Age article today he uses "global warning " words which like the correct idea of "climate change uncertainty " is fine for scientists because it relates to facts . BUT Such talk is now , it seems, not new enough "science speak" - for those who claim to support science but who are often only interested in moving on ?

Mr Plimer did a great job BUT he still needs to keep up to date with the lost wandering tribes of diversionary tactic specialists .
In a matter of a mere cool spell , they have changed course again !

They now insist on talking only of "climate change" and resisting "global warming" talk . One presumes that their key target ( the audience) is getting cold here in Victoria .
Apperently, the term "global warming" limits their opportunity to say things .

The "new science" brigade want the opportunity to stay in front of the debate; to say anything they like about climate; especially that it does change. Clever , but not new discoveries in science ! You heard it first on blogger !

Keep cool

2007-03-15T09:59:00.000+11:00

No need to get too excited - the world is not falling apart, but
---their is a lot of guilt around trying to find a target that's not too close to home . Point is even if there is a need to act
-----many will be on the blame game and the quick fix game
-----you or someone you know and love may be the target -- not a solution that really WORKS
----- The HOW is dependant on cool rational discussion . not the inflated hype of Gore hysteria and hyster graphics .( my money is on the graph staying rather flatter than he suggests- you heard it first on blogger mar 2007)

Just a bit of history to keep you calm ( I hope)
Add some more to our dateline please !

1977 ---NEWSWEEK ran an alarmist article on global temperature changes entitled " The Cooling World"

1991 ---Mt Pinatubo ( the Phillipines) punched ash into the stratosphere ( as did Mt Agung in 1963) and blocked out sunlight to the extent that the earth COOLED by 0.5 degrees ( New Scientist jan 2007)

2007 Foreign Correspondent this week ran a exciting story on some islands in the Pacific that were being flooded by the sea. Everyone was getting excited the news we have been waiting for at last !!!!!
In an investigation that was reminscient,in style, to that of Margaret Mead, the locals were saying " we'' all be ruined " while a cool mr plimer the geologist clearly had other ideas --which were only briefly mentioned - don't spoil a good story by telling the truth . What was the truth - ar they sinking or is the sea rising?

Howard is God?

2007-02-22T08:21:00.000+11:00

Is Fridays meeting in Canberra about water or power, ecology or elections , a beautiful new bureaucratic machine.
Maybe its about not about ecology and is really about theology (Who do you believe has the power?) .
King Canute would be fascinated . As a effective politician and leader, he once had to remind his courtiers that, while he was very powerful, he was not God, and water was one thing he could not control.
Turnbull taps might be gold plated, but they still won't turn ON when he thinks they will.
Maybe he is too used to 2 straight lines columns on the ledger in his office ( where the simple matter of scarcity can be so easily profitable for the rich to exploit!)

Perhaps he's forgotten to brief himself on the world God made- where real curves intersect without crashing and progress to this point has been beautifully blended for both scarcity and abundance- where the many forms of life manage to live together for eons without his help , profiting in symbiosis without sickly self centered simplicities economia. Copyright

The great defect in talking "the greenhouse effect"

2007-02-03T09:03:00.001+11:00

Nothing undermines the fearmongers case more that their failure to report scientists properly . They quote selectively to suit their old story that the sky is falling .

The latest theories is that co2 is causing global warming when this rare and empehemeral molecule clearly can't absorb much radiation or have much of a role in reflection. When this FACT hits home the investments in carbon trading will go where we know they are headed as both unsustainable ideas and actions.
The greenhouse effect too has got a bad name because it is not being discussed properly . As the UN report this week unclearly hints, land clearing is more likely to increase air temperature and change atmospheric conditions than the amount of Co2 which is busily being recycled before our very eyes. More later.
How much longer will the media be content to mention the name carbon - not long I suggest remeber You heard it first on blogger and otwayfm .

WE lead --others follow

2006-12-30T15:00:00.000+11:00

"Australia's crippling drought, which some lawmakers have called the worst for 1,000 years, is a natural occurrence and has no link to global warming, the country's top science organization said on Thursday." CSIRO December 27th 2006
Some need only the power of office to pontificate on what they think is important -

Others need to process a whole lot of statistics to know what we are trained to assess on the smell of an oily rag . Victoria is poorer in 2006 for the sacking of professional but politically incorrect risk assesors who don't run a quick fix knee jerk reaction to threats which deserve a well balanced and metered appropraite response.

a more moderate and less wasteful age was when ministers relied not on "their feelings" but on some one wisers wisdom . I wonder how mr thwaites and his lapdogs will cope when it rains again...

The Stern report --

2006-11-01T10:39:00.000+11:00

World reaction to yesterday's U.K. report .
A U.S. energy-industry spokesperson .... "fun with numbers," and
OPEC's secretary-general said it reflected "scenarios that have no foundations in either science or economics." Ouch.

2006-11-01T07:33:00.000+11:00

Global warming may be a "political reality" - BUT if the adherents were seriuos maybe it should a different type of reality first.

If they were seriuos about motivating us they would report ad infintum on science forums , not some meetings for the wanna meets and getting politicians like gore and blair to convince us about what is truth.

then we come to the science facts.
Where are we ( you tell me if its any different )
---the seas are getting slightly warmer -- since we started measuring it ( yes)but it might go down again
---The air is getting slighly warmer ( i bet none really has a handle on that and what diiference does it make -- its less indicative than the oceans )
--Co2 are rising, but from very low levels historically and geologically
-- the effect of doubling of C02 on env is not clear
--anthromorphic factors such as raditaion reflection and CH4 can be xepecetd to be more important than Co2 ?

Those who voted at Kyoto have set themselves on tram to nowhere specifically important . If they are going to spend our money on the future I would rather it was their money!

2005-06-08T08:40:00.000+10:00

The point is the governments decision is a popular one - not necessarily a sound one. The deeper point is that you could advise them that this apparenetly long term decsion was weighted with a quick fix pardigm and is not what it seems !Just quick fix

Who would have thought that as practical scientists of the 60's we would face the prospect that our life's work in big picture environmental understanding and risk management would be so often ignored for blinkered, inadequate and even irrational views . The opportunity to invest wisely in conservation is being lost to those with an unrealistic and narrow museum worldview view of the world that avoids buying into the really tough and dynamic cutting edge issues. - the ones that Africa Asia and the Middle east need to move with right now .

Clearly too , if we are going to be more effective , we have to recognize the rational basis for the irrationality that’s out there Things like worldview, denial ,projection and guilt factors and the widespread Western cultures failure to see different value systems as actual heavy weighting factors in human decision making.

What gives the post Christian worldview of “nature worship” so much power is the value its adherents place on matter over mind. Those of us who want to see sound outcomes and not tokens need to take”nature worship” issues seriously because the values systems themselves can powerfully and increasingly distort the mere “evidence on its own “principles.

It’s easy to see elements of distortion , narrowmindedness ,fear, guilt and projection going on in that ‘irrational and emotive opponent” - harder to recognize it in your own worldview. To reduce the degree to which we might be calling the kettle black , we need to understand how to rationally argue both science and values together - to chase objectivity - well done AEF !

We , and our governments , can be a lot more effective in sound conservation investments if we understand and accept the real depths of the paradigm challenges that face each community living in and with each environment . Join in and help us BE objective and avoid cul de sac quick fix and token investments in conservation. http://cuttingedgeconservation.blogspot.com

2005-04-12T09:43:00.000+10:00

Spreading Jam on Wounds
"I've got no doubt that right across the country we're spending far too much on bureaucracy and administration and we need to make sure more of it gets to the pointy end," The HON IAN CAMPBELL said yesterday

While I welcome the focus on the pointy end, the conservatives still give the dollar to the wrong accountability groups simply because they prefer simplicity.
And while I am not one to promote the simple greens, Ian's very talk of "trees" is simple talk all big picture conservationist learn to hate . Sustainable conservation, if its anything, is not simple- spreading jam stuff . Complexity, diversity and success in integration are the key to sustaining life here on earth and its not simple; possible though! .
All those who treat it with tokens waste precious dollars and career opportunitiies for our children. Give our children more than token efforts and advance the real professional and political issues and challenges http://productionecologists.blogspot.com

Our leaders like to focus on the sweets rather than the substance . They still get lulled into a sense of false comfort by the mere mention of the word "enterprise" , unaware of the high risk of isolation rather than integration-
The left hand does not knowesth what the right handeth doeth .The nurse and the CEO talk different languages. One offers jam, the other talks about uneccesary jagged edges( real sustainability issues), and how to avoid them long term .
Government is not business and true accountability ( Minister to Department) is still the key to sore prevention,stable, sustainable and more satisfying staffing and support .
All the other expensive rubbish their revived quango theology has created in the last couple of decsdes will keep coming back to bite them big time- the waste is the current governments creation ---not neccesarily the goodwill and volunteer groups-groups who one presumes still get little money for propaganda purposes.

see also govtisnotbusiness

2004-06-21T17:49:00.000+10:00

Maybe its Ok to be suspiciuus about the logic, but what are the things we should and can change long term ?

2004-05-03T12:16:00.000+10:00

Academics too with no vision, but to close things down? Hard work making decisions about something as simple as the environment! ?????

A sydney academic on the world today last week had no answers for Sugar farmers . Get big - they've got bigger . get smarter ( you name it they"ve done it !
Perhaps he didn't say what he really thought- love to hear from you mate! Rob?
I wonder if he listens to the media and thinks sugar farming is unsustainable ,but wasn't really prepared to say so ----pity the truth is now a large casualty of the war !
More on Sustainable systems? Don't let the media and wannabe leaders tell capable people what is and is not sustainable http://www.rachel.org
Unless you know more than they do or know something they don't ? Why not share your wisdom?

2004-03-27T08:28:00.000+11:00

A site for questions! Check out our list of iconic issues in the links and just where the distortions are.
Reduce the panic in your neighbourhood and makeyourself more effective when you do act for the environment