Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Archives for February 2008

Are Climate Models Falsifiable?

By

Philosopher Karl Popper claimed in his book ‘The Logic of Scientific Discovery’ that a hypothesis, proposition or theory is scientific only if it is falsifiable:

“Logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single counterexample is logically decisive: it shows the theory, from which the implication is derived, to be false. Popper’s account of the logical asymmetry between verification and falsifiability lies at the heart of his philosophy of science.”

It seems that whatever happens in the climate system is consistent with climate model predictions. Warmer, colder, less ice, more ice, droughts, floods, more hurricanes, less hurricanes, stronger hurricanes, weaker hurricanes, and so on.

An recent example from the media:

Cold wave in India attributed to global warming

Mumbai: The recent cold wave sweeping across Mumbai and other parts of India could be attributed to global warming, experts said on Tuesday here at an environmental conference.

Would the observed mid-troposphere warming of less than the 2 to 3 times increase over surface warming predicted by climate models represent falsification? Or would a prolonged period of global cooling do the job?

So, what event or observation, or series of events/observations over what timescale are required to falsify the climate modelled hypothesis of CO2 driven climate change or global warming?

This post was inspired by a couple of blog posts over at Prometheus:

The Consistent-With Game: On Climate Models and the Scientific Method

Climate Model Predictions and Adaptation

Serious answers to a serious question, please.

Review of the DVD Apocalypse? No! The Scientific Reasons Why ‘Global Warming’ is NOT a Global Crisis

By

Christopher Monckton’s 2007 presentation to the Cambridge (University) Union

Monckton begins by saying that he is going to present a perspective on climate change science that the audience will have not seen in the media, from politicians or in reports on the science. Like Al Gore, Monckton is not a scientist and he has as much right as Al Gore to talk about climate change. His scientific approach is one of enquiry rather than advocacy. He talks about correct scientific method and quotes T. H. Huxley on scepticism being the improver of knowledge:

“The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.”

He then explains that the debate is not about whether we can freely pollute the planet without care for our fellow creatures, or their or our future, or whether we are adding greenhouse gases to atmosphere, because we are, or that adding greenhouse gases doesn’t enhance temperature – because it does.

Monckton turns his attention to climate alarmism about what might happen if the planet becomes a little warmer, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports.

Monckton points out that Sir John Houghton, the first IPCC chairman, said, “unless we announce disasters no one will listen.”

Al Gore is quoted as saying “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is.”

The science is being exaggerated to make people listen and there is political bias regardless of scientific truth. Hurricane expert Chris Landsea, resigned from the IPCC in 2005, saying, “I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized.”

Monckton shows the error that he found in the supposedly highly scrutinised 2007 IPCC report on the melting of Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, where there are four wrong decimal points causing the figures to be in error by a facor of 10. See more here on page 14.

The IPCC is a ‘corporation’ that puts itself first. It therefore has an interest in maintaining its existence and status.

In order to demonstrate IPCC political bias, Monckton shows 3 statements that were in the 1995 IPCC draft report:

1. None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gasses.

2. No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of observed of observed climate change] to anthropogenic causes.

3. Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.

Politicians ‘got at it’ and took out the above from the final report which stated:

“The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.”

The Consensus is questioned. Monckton suggests that the BBC has abandoned objectivity and then quotes a literature study of 539 papers published between 2004 and 2007, using the search term’ global climate change,’ where only one paper claimed catastrophe, but offered no evidence.

Hansen’s 1988 temperature predictions are examined. Scenario ‘C’ was based on CO2 in the atmosphere being stabilised, but the actual temperature trend has tracked this despite the non-stabilisation of CO2.

So are today’s temperatures unprecedented? Monckton talks about the Medieval Warm Period. The UN IPCC report of 1990 showed a clear Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and a Little Ice Age (LIA), but the IPCC 2001 report showed the ‘Hockey Stick’ graph 6 times in colour with no MWP. So how was this achieved? Data showing a hockey stick shape from Sheep Mountain in California was given 390 times the weighting of the data Mayberry Slough in Arizona, which had a MWP.

The tree ring data set that included MWP was left out, despite the researchers saying that it was included in the publications of 1998 and 1999. It was actually in a computer file marked ‘censored data.’ Monckton asserted that researchers should make both data and methods available to be checked by other scientists. The US National Academy of Sciences panel described the hockey stick as plausible at best, and the ‘validation skill’ not significantly different from zero.

Monckton then provides some of the evidence for a warm MWP:

Data from 6000 bore holes give a rough idea that there was a warm MWP, Stalagmites from the Austria Alps and Southern Africa, Sediments from Sombre lake, Signy Island in Maritime Antarctica, and Lake Huguangyan, Leechow, South China. Formanifera from the NorthWestern Arabian Sea, Oman. The Sargasso sea, North Island NZ, sediment core from Spanish Pyrenees, pollen profile from Northern Fennoscandia, 3 examples of glacial variations from Swiss Alps. Canada, British Columbia, Azores, two from coastal Peru, the summit of Greenland ice sheet. He then shows a graphic of a timescale sensitive reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperature showing the MWP and the LIA. Next he shows a Sediment-based treeline for the species ‘Zelkova Carpinifolia’ demonstrating the Holocene Climate Optimum, the Roman Warm Period, and the MWP. He presents a slide of a 1340AD tree stump in California, well above today’s tree-line.

Monckton points out that warmer is better – most species live in the tropics and hardly any at the poles. He concludes that, because there was a MWP up to 3C warmer than today:

1. Today’s temperatures are not exceptional

2. Nature caused medieval climate warming

3. There was no medieval climate cataclysm

4. Nature may be causing most warming today

5. Climate catastrophe is not looming or likely

He then moves on to talk about natural causes of climate change where his attention inevitably turns to the sun.

First he mentions William Herschel who in 1801 noticed an inverse correlation between the number of sunspots in the 11-year cycle and the price of grain. He then quotes Solanki (2004) who claimed that the past 70 years of solar activity exceptional and similar to 8000 years ago. During the past 11400 years the sun has spent only 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all earlier higher periods of activity were shorter than the current episode.The Sun has been more active than at any time since the last ice age

Monckton then shows a graph for 1880 – 1990 of CO2 and temperature mismatch, pointing out that there is not a good correlation.

A graph of solar cycle length plotted against temperature is a better match – Solanki/Fligg (1999), as is the Central England Temperature (CET) series plotted against sunspot number, for1750 to 2000.

The next slide is from Neff et al (2001), showing Monsoon activity tracking solar activity, followed by a graph of solar activity versus temperature for the Arctic (Soon, 2004).

So, how much influence can the sun have? A slide of the CET, the world’s longest instrumental temperature series, shows a 2.2C rise in just 35 years, 1700 to 1735, suggesting that the sun was the cause of the recovery from the Maunder Minimum. Monckton concedes that this is evidence from one place and one temperature series, but it is evidence nevertheless. He then shows a slide of the rising trend in solar activity from 1715 attributed to NASA’s David Hathaway, followed by conclusions from the International Astronomical Union Symposium in 2004:

1. Solar changes cause most climate change

2. Solar cycles are 11, 80, and 200 years long

3. The Sun caused today’s global warming

4. Today’s warming is normal, not unusual

5. Today’s global warming will end soon

So how do we distinguish natural from anthropogenic warming?

CO2 and temperature is not a good match as we have already seen.

A good match is temperature anomalies for 1979 to 2001 and tropical outgoing long wave radiation. Why? The sun is incident on the tropics – the azimuth angle is 90 degrees – so most heating is in the tropics – the atmospheric transport engine takes heat away from tropics to northern latitudes and to a lesser extent southern latitudes. So, the tropics are the place to look for a ‘hot spot’ of anthropogenic warming. Monckton shows the IPCC 2007 modelled climate forcings for anthropogenic greenhouse gasses, aerosols, ozone, plus solar and volcanic. If they are combined into a single graph, there should be an anthropogenic fingerprint or hot spot in the tropics. However, the fingerprint is absent from the actual troposphere data, or shows only a small signal at best, suggesting a small effect of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Monckton then discusses some of reasons why computer models are wrong and can’t provide proof of anthropogenic global warming, whereas a mathematical model of the pythagorous theorem can provide absolute proof. Physical sciences with inadequate data cannot provide proof. He quotes Syun-Ichi Akasofu as saying, “No supercomputer, no matter how powerful, is able to prove definitively a simplistic hypothesis that says the greenhouse effect is responsible for warming.”

Next, Monckton discusses the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and the huge range of temperature changes published in the literature for a doubling of CO2. Monckton’s own calculation, based on IPCC 2007, is 1.6C for a doubling of CO2, but the IPCC says 3C. He points out that Svante Arrhenius calculated a 4C to 8C temperature change for a doubling of CO2 in 1896, but in 1906, he had the Stefan-Boltzmann equation available to him and re-calculated everything to give 1.6C.

With the wide range of temperature predictions in mind, Monckton looks at the constraints on CO2, which mean that it is not a major factor in climate:

In 1750, CO2 was 0.03% by volume in the atmosphere; in 2007 it is about 0.04%, a change of +0.01%. The IPCC has reduced CO2 forcing by one-fifth in 12 years (1995 to 2007), yet it has kept climate sensitivity at 3C.

Monckton shows a graph of CO2 v temperature over 600,000 years where CO2 and temperature often go in opposite directions, suggesting CO2 is not the main driver of global temperature. The IPCC admits that CO2 went up to about 6000 ppmv in the Cambrian period and the global average temperature was 22C. He claims CO2 residency time is about 5 to 10 years from various publications. The IPCC claim 50 to 200 years based on “the time required for the atmosphere to adjust to a future equilibrium state if emissions change abruptly,” (IPCC 1990). Monckton considers that the IPCC definition has nothing to do with a genuine residency time.

Monckton’s conclusions on the constraints on CO2 as a cause of global temperature change are:

1. There is very little additional CO2 in the air

2. CO2 has few principle absorption bands

3. At the surface, water vapour dominates CO2

4. CO2’s effect diminishes logarithmically

5. CO2 is not potent, only 1/23 the effect of CH4

6. There’s no tropical mid-troposphere hot spot

7. CO2’s atmospheric residency time is short

8. CO2 correlates very poorly with temperature

He then moves on to some of the ’35 errors’ in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ which I won’t dwell on as they are explained in detail here.

Monckton then discusses CO2 emissions saying that China is the one to watch; if the UK reduced emissions to zero, then they would be made up by just the increase in Chinese emissions in less than 2 years. Apply that to Europe, US and Canada, and then China plus India would make up the difference in their own emissions growth in 10 to 15 years. Shutting down the western economy will therefore not make any difference.

He presents a graphic of child mortality up to the age of 5 per thousand born, against CO2 emissions demonstrates that the higher the CO2 emissions per capita, the lower the child mortality. Population increase is faster in developing countries – denying developing CO2 emissions will likely increase their populations.

Monckton then attacks what he calls the murderous ‘Precautionary Principle’ as an expedience used by environmentalist lobby to push policies that would otherwise be unacceptable. He looks at two previous global scares: one real, and one bogus where the policies were wrong because of the effect of pressure groups.

The first is HIV, where he says the correct policy would have been to isolate cases in order to prevent spread of the disease, but this was regarded as totally unacceptable.

The result: 25 million died, with 40 million infected worldwide. 0.7% infected in the US, 1% is the epidemic threshold. 7.5% infected south of the Sahara.

The second is Malaria, where the 3 letters ‘DDT’ are absent from IPCC ramblings in its latest report.

Before DDT was ‘banned,’ there were 50,000 deaths per year from Malaria. After the ban, there were 1,000,000 deaths per year. As a result, excess deaths are put at between 30 and 50 million.

On 15th September 2006, the DDT ban was lifted by WHO. Dr Arata Kochi or WHO said, “Quite often in this field politics comes first and science second. We must take a position based on the science and the data.”

Monckton then addresses the claim by Gore and others that there are ‘moral issues’ in the climate change debate. He agrees that there are – exaggeration, alarmism, false claims, false claims of consensus, to allow insertion of false claims or data into reports by politicians, to exalt computer models over data, lack of objectivity, inflicting energy starvation, false denial of past temperatures higher than today’s, claiming extreme weather events are caused by humans, and so on, are all moral issues.

He concludes with reference to the human race, “We must get the science right, or we shall get the policy wrong. We have failed them and failed them before. We must not fail again.”

After the applause dies down, there is time for a number of good questions, which Monckton handles well. In my view the presentation was well prepared, well referenced and eloquently delivered, with emotional pleas over the genuine moral issues. Christopher Monckton comes across as a sincere man who is persuaded by objective science. The cause of climate realists has been enhanced by his involvement in the climate change debate, and this DVD is recommended viewing for those seeking an antidote to the daily dose of climate alarmism in the media, or an alternative scientific perspective.

The DVD is available here.

apocalypse no.jpg

apocalypsenoback.jpg

18th February 2008

Paul Biggs

This Year Critical for Australian Agriculture, So Greenpeace Sponsors Tour by Anti-GM Campaigner

By

Greenpeace have been running a campaign against the planting of new crop varieties in Australia since about 2001 as part of their global campaign against genetically modified (GM) food. The Australian campaign has been phenomenally successful with bans to prevent the planting of GM canola introduced in 2004 by most state governments.

The bans are due to be lifted this year in NSW and Victoria, though the South Australian government, despite expectations and the recommendations of its own committee, have decided to keep them in place.

As part of its continuing campaign against GM, and noting that 2008 is a critical year because many of the bans are due to expire, Greenpeace has sponsored a visit to Australia by Canadian canola grower Percy Schmeiser.

Mr Schmeiser is famous for taking on Monsanto and losing his ‘David versus Goliath’ battle through the Canadian court system but in the process becoming a martyr for the cause – the campaign against the growing of new GM crop varieties.

In June 2000 Mr Schmeiser was found guilty by the Federal Court of Canada of growing GM canola without a licence thereby infringing patent law.

According to popular mythology Mr Schmeiser was a victim of both contamination of his conventional canola crop with unwanted GM pollen and then a victim of a ‘reign of terror’ by Monsanto who sued him for growing the GM canola which was a consequence of the unwanted contamination.

But the court found that none of the contamination sources suggested by Mr Schmeiser could reasonably explain the extent or quality of his GM canola crop. The Judge ruled that Mr Schmeiser saved seed from a 1997 crop and knowingly reproduced the patented plants by using seed from this crop to plant his entire 1998 crop.

Mr Schmeiser lodged and lost two appeals against the decision.

During the period 2002-2004 Professor Rick Roush compiled the following facts concerning Percy Schmeiser’s public comments:

1. Schmeiser was the innocent victim of Monsanto

PERCY SCHEMEISER: “I lost it all to a contamination because a judge ruled in my case it doesn’t matter how Monsanto’s genetically modified canola gets on my land or any farmers land. You violate the pattern and you infringe on the pattern and your seed becomes Monsanto’s property.” (Source: Australian ABC 7.30 Report TV Transcript, 4 July 2002, from http://abc.net.au/news/indepth/featureitems/s599662.htm)

FACTS: The Canadian court’s record indicates that the judge found that Schmeiser deliberately selected for and multiplied GM seed. In 1997 (for example), Mr. Schmeiser sprayed Roundup herbicide over “a good three acres” from which approximately 60% of the plants survived and continued to grow. At harvest, Schmeiser saved surviving canola seed from these plants and then used them in planting his 1998 canola crop ( see especially paragraphs 39, 40, 102, 103, 104, 119, and 125 of the judge’s decision at http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2001/2001fct256/2001fct256.html). Schmeiser could have saved seed from any part of his farm, but he took the unusual steps of spraying just part of the crop with Roundup (which should have killed three acres of crop, so Schmeiser must have suspected it would do otherwise) and then saved seed from the survivors, which any reasonable person would expect to have a high frequency of GM Roundup resistance. No one tried to establish how Schmeiser got the seed in the first place, but the judge said that was not relevant to the facts that he was intentionally growing it. A three judge Canadian court rejected Schmeiser’s appeal unanimously on all counts, but in January 2004, he took his case the Canadian Supreme Court claiming that Monsanto’s patent was invalid, nor longer trying to argue that he was an innocent victim.

2. Canada’s export markets have been damaged

PERCY SCHEMEISER, CANADIAN CANOLA FARMER: “That means 30 per cent of our exports have been lost just to Europe alone.” (Source: ABC 7.30 Report TV Transcript, 4 July 2002).
–Mr Schmeiser said the fact that Canada could no longer ship canola to the EU had left Canada “sitting on a mountain of GM canola that nobody wants” (source: The Land, 11 July 2002, p. 28).

FACTS: Canadian exports increased during the adoption of GM canola over the first 5 years, the time period over which Schmeiser’s claims applied. In 2000-2001, exports were 25% higher than ever before (according to the Canadian canola website, http://www.canola-council.org/seedexports.html), mainly to Japan, Mexico and China. After drought conditions in 2001-03, Canada exported a record amount of canola in 2005-06. Europe was also a net canola exporter anyway prior to at least 2001, and never purchased more than about 14% of Canada’s canola throughout the period in which Canada was non-GM from the early 1980’s except for 1993-1995.

3. GM will cause financial losses to conventional growers

Schmeiser warned that conventional growers could be fined for an infestation of GM canola on their property, which could also cost them premiums from export destinations that demanded GM-free produce. (source: The Stock Journal 11 July 2002, page 3, reporting on a meeting held in Clare, South Australia)

RESPONSE AND FACTS: Who would issue these fines? On the subject of premiums, neither the Victorian government review of GM free zones nor ABARE has found any significant premiums. “GrainCorp oilseeeds trader Cameron Pratt said that Australia had not been able to identify a consistent premium for GM-free canola, despite it being mandatory for the EU market and desirable for Japan.” (4 July 2002 issue of “The Land”, page 27). Japan takes our canola and mixes it with GM Canadian canola.

Peter Toole, Parkes was cited in the The Land as noting that prices for non-GM Australian canola are in fact slightly below the Winnipeg quoted Canadian price – the world price yardstick. He was supported by Ian Donges, recently retired National Farmers Federation president and a local grain grower, who said that the EU was largely self-sufficient in canola and only “occasionally” had to import. ” I don’t know of any other markets that pay a premium for GM-free canola”, he said, “Japan certainly doesn’t” (source: The Land, 11 July 2002, p. 28, from a meeting at Cowra, NSW)

4. 1800 other (Canadian?) farmers are also being sued.

Schmeiser: (When asked about the host about whether he was the only farmer sued): “We estimated that there is (sic) at least 1800 lawsuits”. (Source: Australian ABC TV’s Landline on 14 July 2002)

FACTS: Landline noted on air in the same program that they could find no support for this claim. I then wrote to 5 Canadian weed and agricultural scientists from across Canada, and they replied that they didn’t know of any. I then wrote to Monsanto in August 2002, who said there were 2 in Canada and 14 in the US, and that was all worldwide. In December 2003, Peter T. Jenkins, Attorney/Policy Analyst at the anti-GM International Center for Technology Assessment, claimed that there are 88 cases, and the anti-GM Center for Food Safety claimed in 2005 that there were 90 lawsuits. Where are the other at least 1700 cases that Percy claimed? On February 21 2004 in Davis California, I personally heard Schmeiser claim that it was 550 lawsuits.

5. Schmeiser denied that GM canola crops improved profits.
(source: The Stock Journal 11 July 2002, page 3, reporting on a meeting held in Clare, South Australia)

FACTS: In 2002 I wrote: “In summary, the total economic impact of transgenic canola production systems has been estimated to be up to $464.0 million over the period 1997 to 2000, inclusive of direct and indirect impacts.” “Transgenic canola yields higher than conventional varieties. Survey results showed that transgenic canola yielded approximately three bushels per acre (>10%) more than conventional canola in 2000. … The yield advantage for transgenic systems resulted from the varieties and a slight increased use of fertilizer, but less summer fallow. Dockage was significantly lower in the transgenic system, largely attributed to more effective weed control….. Transgenic canola growers reported having made fewer tillage passes over their fields than growers of conventional varieties. The majority of the transgenic sample in both the survey and the case studies indicated they practice minimum or zero till on their operations.” (Source in 2002: http://www.canola-council.org/production/gmo_toc.html; this website no longer seems functional). A December 2006 report from European Commission, Economic Impact
of Dominant GM Crops Worldwide: a Review (http://ftp.jrc.es/pub/EURdoc/eur22547en.pdf pages 26-27) supports estimates that the per hectare increase in profits is at least $12.

6. GM canola had become a “superweed”

Schmeiser said that GM canola had become a “superweed” that was virtually impossible to eradicate. (source: The Stock Journal 11 July 2002, page 3, reporting on a meeting held in Clare, South Australia)

…..canola itself had developed into a “superweed” that no chemical would control and was becoming a menace to farmers and municipal authorities alike (source: The Land, 11 July 2002, p. 28)

FACTS: “Canola volunteers are not generally found to be harder to manage in Canada. For example, a study prepared for the Canola Council of Canada (Winnipeg) surveyed 650 western Canadian canola growers on numerous issues, one of which was management of volunteer canola. Half of the producers surveyed grew transgenic herbicide-tolerant canola and half grew non-GM canola. Of the producers planting transgenic herbicide-tolerant canola in 2000, 61% said that the difficulty of managing volunteer transgenic herbicide-tolerant canola was about the same as that of volunteer conventional canola. Interestingly, 16% said that managing volunteer transgenic herbicide-tolerant canola was easier than managing conventional canola varieties. The remaining 23% said that it was more difficult to manage volunteer transgenic herbicide-tolerant canola…. for example, spraying with 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) controls this problem. This chemical application means an additional cost to the producer of 1.50–2.00 Canadian dollars (C$) per acre” (source: Stuart Smyth, George G. Khachatourians & Peter W.B. Phillips, Liabilities and economics of transgenic crops. Nature Bio/Technology (June) 2002 Volume 20 (Number 6) pp 537 – 541)

7. Monsanto covertly dropped herbicide bombs to test a crop it suspected illegally contained its genetically-modified canola

“Percy Schmeiser made the claim in Perth yesterday during a Greenpeace-sponsored speaking tour”
(source: The West Australian, 11 July 2002, p. 33). This claim was also madeby Schmeiser at the Wagga meeting (S. Sutherland, unsolicited email, 24 July 2002).

RESPONSE: This is so crazy that it doesn’t really justify a response, but just what would a Roundup bomb look like, and wouldn’t be easier, cheaper (and more stealthy) just to collect some plants from the road to take them back to the lab for a test, or even just spray some with a hand sprayer? In Davis on February 21 2004, Schmeiser claimed that that the details were all at his website, that the CBC in Canada had covered the story. Schmeiser claimed that Monsanto never even denied it. I found http://www.tv.cbc.ca/national/pgminfo/canola/ at Schmeiser’s website, and this is what it showed:

“The Kram family in Raymore say planes and a helicopter have buzzed their fields. The couple says agents dropped weedkiller on their canola field, to see if the crops had the Monsanto’s gene. Monsanto says they had absolutely nothing to do with it.”

Contrary to Schmeiser’s claims, Monsanto did in fact deny this story. One could find more evidence on the web for alien abductions than that Monsanto is using Roundup bombs.

8. “(Schmeiser) said yesterday that a reign of terror had followed the release of GM canola in Canada” (source: The West Australian, 11 July 2002, p. 33)

RESPONSE: No “terror” is evident in any reports I have seen or replies from Canadian weed scientists. To the contrary, “Social concerns expressed by case study participants centered around the lack of knowledge about transgenic production by those outside industry…. In summary, the transgenic canola systems had a positive economic and agronomic impact when compared to the conventional canola systems in western Canada for the four year period, 1997 to 2000.” Concerns yes, but not “terror” (http://www.canola-council.org/production/gmo_toc.html)

9. “Schmeiser: I have been breeding canola for 50 years and Monsanto took it all away from me. Claims made in Davis in Feb 2004 and at (http://www.percyschmeiser.com/profile.htm).

RESPONSE: Setting aside the issue of Schmeiser’s own responsibility for whatever legal action Monsanto took against him, the very first canola ever, Tower, was released by the Canadian government in 1974, so Schmeiser could not have been breeding canola for 50 years. According to the court record, Schmeiser bought new seed in 1993 for sowing on his farm, a claim with which he agreed in an email to me on 8 March 2004 (“The next point you state that I purchased seed in 1993 which is correct.”), so he has not always relied on his own breeding for 50 years.

Further, canola is a largely self-pollinating plant and professional breeding efforts for it require specialized pollination practices. Professional breeders in Canada have challenged Schmeiser’s claims on this. I have asked Schmeiser what breeding practices he used, but he did not answer this in his email to me of 8 March 2004. I also asked Schmeiser “In addition, a common practice among savers and breeders of traditional varieties is to share and swap seed with neighbors. Did you ever provide access to your seed to any other farmer?” Schmeiser did not answer this question either.

Australian Agriculture Slipping in Adoption of New Crop Varieties

By

Over 114 million hectares of land was planted to GM crops in 23 countries in 2007. Poland and Chile were new additions with Chile producing GM for seed export and Poland grew Bt maize for the first time. The USA, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, India and China top the list in order of hectares planted according to a new report from the ISAA by Clive Hamilton.

For the third consecutive year India reported the largest year-on-year proportional increase of GM crop plantings, with an increase of 63 percent. The area of Bt cotton grown in India increased from 50,000 hectares in 2002, to 6.2 million hectares in 2007 and is grown by 3.8 million farmers.

Australian farmers grew just 0.1 million hectares of cotton in 2007 and the 2008 Australian cotton crop is set to be the smallest in 30 years with just 65,000 hectares of cotton planted late last year because of the drought.

Cotton is the only GM crop that can be grown commercially in Australia. There are bans on the growing of all GM crops in Victoria, Tasmania, Western Australia and the South Australian government has just decided to continue its bans beyond April this year. The moratoriums in NSW and Victoria should be lifted this year.

The NSW government has exempted GM cotton from its bans on GM crops which were introduced in 2004 to prevent the planting of new varieties of canola.

Canadian farmers grew 7 million hectares of GM canola, maize and soybean in 2007.

Adoption of Biotec_clip_image002.jpg
from the ‘Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2007’, by Clive James

South Australian Government Ignores Recommendation to Lift Ban on GM Crops

By

On February 8, 2008, South Australian Premier Mike Rann and the Minister for Agriculture Rory McEwen announced a continuation of the ban on genetically modified plants. They can not be grown in South Australia.

In a media release Mr Rann said Cabinet has decided to maintain the current moratorium from growing GM canola in South Australia beyond the end of April this year when the current regulations lapse.

“We made this decision – which we believe is the right one – because we are yet to be convinced allowing GM crops will have a positive impact on the marketing of our food and wine to our important export destinations around the world.”

The State Government will today release the findings of the GM Crops Advisory Committee, which was formed last year to review the current legislation, the Genetically Modified Crops Management Act 2004.

“The committee received more than 230 submissions and 480 letters both for and against growing GM crops from a wide range of industry, farmers, farming groups, companies, individuals and national organisations.

“The Committee recommended the lifting of the current moratorium in SA, except on Kangaroo Island, after April 28 this year when the current regulations lapse.

“However we have also considered a number of significant market signals that have occurred since then that has led us to believe that maintaining the status quo is more responsible.

“For example:

* Foodland issued a statement saying it would be ensuring all of its home brand products were GM-free,

* Japanese meat importers reaffirmed they wanted a guarantee that none of the meat products they purchased had come from cattle that had eaten GM grains, and

* ABARE indicated that in some of this season’s markets there were significant premiums for GM-free canola.

“It makes sense for us to maintain our current position until there’s more certainty regarding the impact of exporting GM grains.”

Agriculture Minister Rory McEwen says South Australia produces the second highest volume of grain crops in Australia with the greatest volume being grown in Western Australia.

“Significantly, Western Australia has decided, with I am told the overwhelming support of its farming community, to stay GM-free. So has Tasmania.

“At this stage, we believe the benefits of maintaining the current moratorium far outweigh any benefits of overturning it.

“I’m particularly concerned about the future impact on our marketing of SA food products.

“I’m well aware there’s a divergence of opinion within the states with New South Wales and Victoria recently deciding to allow GM canola to be grown this year, while Western Australia and Tasmania continue to maintain bans.

“But we must be mindful that there’s simply no turning back once the moratorium has been lifted. Maintaining the moratorium now will enable us to monitor developments elsewhere.”

Minister McEwen says that in South Australia there is no immediate need to give the go-ahead for what would have been only a small number of growers wanting to grow crops from the two GM canola seeds developed by companies, Monsanto and Bayer.

“We will be watching to see how NSW and Victoria address the key issues of segregation and regulation in their States, as well as monitoring the benefits of keeping a moratorium in WA and Tasmania,” Mr McEwen said.

“The GM Crops Advisory committee’s report revealed a wide range of views and while lifting the current moratorium was supported by a majority of farmers who made submissions, the Government has decided it makes more sense to maintain the status quo for the time being.”

Mr McEwen said there would now be a six-week public consultation period where interested parties would have the opportunity for further comment on the changes to the regulations in the Act that will continue the current moratorium in SA.