Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

jennifer

Humane Society and Japanese Whalers Argue Over Pregnant Minke Whales

By

“Humane Society International (HSI) has reviewed the Japanese reports from their most recent 2006/07 whale hunt in Antarctic waters and found that over half those killed were pregnant.

Of the 505 Antarctic minke whales killed in Antarctic waters last summer, 262 of them were pregnant females, while one of the three fin whales killed was also pregnant.

“These are gruesome statistics that the Japanese Government dresses up as science”, said HSI’s Nicola Beynon.

HSI reviewed the reports in preparation for our court case against the Japanese whalers, which resumes in the Federal Court of Australia this morning.

At today’s hearing we expect the Court to set a date for the full hearing. The full hearing will be to determine whether Japanese whalers are in breach of Australian law when they hunt whales in the Australian Whale Sanctuary in Antarctica and whether the Court will issue an injunction for the hunt to be stopped. HSI will ask for the final hearing to be held as soon as possible before the hunt starts up again this summer. It has been 3 years since HSI launched the case and many hurdles have been overcome to get to this point.

“It horrifies Australians to know that pregnant humpback whales breeding in the warm waters off Australia this winter will be targeted by the Japanese hunters in Antarctic waters this Christmas”, Ms Beynon said.

Japan has issued its whaling company with permits to kill 935 minke whales, 50 fin whales and 50 humpback whales in Antarctic waters this summer and, based on their past hunting grounds, we expect 90% of the hunt to be conducted within the Australian Whale Sanctuary, and a large proportion of the females to be pregnant.

HSI will ask the Federal Court to order a stop to the carnage in the Australian Whale Sanctuary once and for all.

End Media entitled ‘Japan killed 263 pregnant whales in Antarctic waters – HSI back in the Federal Court’
dated 24th July.

Japanese whalers respond:

“The Humane Society International (Australia) demonstrates its ignorance and lack of understanding of marine science with its latest claims, the Institute of Cetacean Research in Tokyo said today.

“Humane Society is ignorant, displays a unique lack of understanding of whale management and, unfortunately, plays on an equally ignorant media to manipulate the Australian and New Zealand public,” the Director General of the ICR, Mr Minoru Morimoto, said today.

“It is widely well known that the Antarctic minke whale population has increased more than the pre-commercial whaling era and is currently in a very healthy condition, with over 90 percent of the mature female whales becoming pregnant year to year. This consistent reproduction provides strong reassurance the population will easily sustain an annual commercial quota.”

Of the 286 mature females, 262 or 91.6 percent were pregnant. The remaining 24 were non-pregnant mature minke whales.

The research employs a random sampling method and the sampling of pregnant whales is taken into account under the JARPA II research program, in line with the International Whaling Commission’s Revised Management Procedure, which is a risk-averse method for calculating sustainable catch quotas.

In 1990, the International Whaling Commission’s Scientific Committee agreed an abundance estimate of 760,000 Antarctic minke whales. That figure is currently under review but even if the abundance estimate is lower, the stock condition is very healthy and the taking of 850 minke whales poses no risk.

The breakdown of Antarctic minke whales sampled in Japan’s latest research program is outlined below.
• Total: 503 (Male: 154; Female: 349)
• Immature, non-reproducing females: 63; mature females 286 (Pregnant mature females 262 or 91.6 percent; non-pregnant mature females, 24 or 8.4 percent.)

End media release from the Institute of Cetacean Research in Tokyo entitled HUMANE SOCIETY DEMONSTRATES IGNORANCE dated 25th July 2007

Some Weekend Reading from Marc Morano (Part 5)

By

1. Coldest Temperature Stations shut down in old Soviet Union caused artificial rise in global average temp

Excerpt: With data provided by Ross McKitrick the number of temperature stations around the world dropped by about 7000 in the 1989-1990 time frame. Thousands of these were in the Soviet Union at the time when that nation was going through major upheaval and economic collapse. With much bigger problems, these temperature stations were shut down. Now try to imagine the problem in calculating an average global average temperature when thousands of the coldest stations are shut down? An average temperature using the remaining stations showed an increase in global temperature of about 1 degree C. This is called a major data quality problem.

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?260c3ffc-6af0-40f6-b4c1-0afb46987770

2. Metallica lead singer disses LIVE EARTH: ‘I didn’t quite agree with what was going on there’

Excerpt: James Hetfield “Our philosophy is ‘think for yourself’ at the end of the day — do what you think feels right. I really believe that humans will survive. I have a lot of faith in mankind that we will overcome and adapt — whatever it is; whether it’s man-made or God-made, or Earth/Mother Nature — we have a lot of smart people on this planet that will make something good out of bad.”

http://blog.nam.org/archives/2007/07/metallica_the_v.php

METALLICA’s ‘Live Earth’ Appearance Translates Into Record Sales

http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=76943

3. America’s gas price survey maven mocks climate fears as ‘unfriendly brainwashing’

Excerpt: I think that there has been friendly as well as unfriendly brainwashing taking place. And when I say friendly and unfriendly, I’m talking about decades of extremist views that have now achieved mainstream acceptance. And the No. 1 item among those affecting current oil politics in Washington is the boogeyman, also known as global warming.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/07/10/fa.lundberg.qa/

4. Eating beef found to be more harmful to Earth than driving

Excerpt: Producing 2.2lb of beef generates as much greenhouse gas as driving a car

non-stop for three hours, it was claimed yesterday.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/19/nbeef119.xml

5. Bees disappearance solved? Scientist says Asian parasite is killing Western bees

http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/43163/story.htm

6. Bees Dying: Is It a Crisis or a Phase?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/17/science/17bees.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

7. Russia plans big nuclear expansion

Excerpt: Leading the globe in construction of new plants, it also hopes to export as many as 60 plants in the next two decades.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0717/p01s04-woeu.html

8. Vandals slash tires and scratch eco note on DC man’s Hummer & Prius driving neighbors seem to approve

Excerpt: Now, as Groves ponders what to do with the remains of his $38,000 SUV, he has been the target of a number of people who have driven by the crime scene in his upscale neighborhood and glared at him in smug satisfaction. “I’d say one in five people who come by have that ‘you-got-what-you-deserve’ look,” said his friend Andy Sexton, 27, who is visiting from Arkansas and has been helping Groves deal with fallout from the crime. < > “They’ve got everything at their disposal in this city to make a statement in a legal way,” Fremaux said of the bat-wielding men who struck out at the Hummer. “I consider this a hate crime.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/17/AR2007071701808.html

9. Flashback: Prius Outdoes Hummer in Environmental Damage (March 7, 2007 – THE RECORDER – Central Connecticut State University)

Excerpt: Building a Toyota Prius causes more environmental damage than a Hummer that is on the road for three times longer than a Prius. As already noted, the Prius is partly driven by a battery which contains nickel. The nickel is mined and smelted at a plant in Sudbury, Ontario. This plant has caused so much environmental damage to the surrounding environment that NASA has used the dead zone around the plant to test moon rovers. The area around the plant is devoid of any life for miles.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=14304 &
http://clubs.ccsu.edu/recorder/editorial/editorial_item.asp?NewsID=188

10. Australian city sees coldest day on record

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/articles/2007/07/19/1184559902397.html

11. Live Earth – Dead Africans?
Policies that prevent energy development have lethal consequences for Africa

http://www.webcommentary.com/asp/ShowArticle.asp?id=driessenp&date=070719

12. Effort to Curb Climate Change May Hurt African Farms

Excerpt: A bid to slow global warming by reducing the tonnes of food air freighted around the world ran up on Tuesday against the worries of poor African growers who fear it will hurt their business. <> “The repercussions will certainly be bad. This ban will only serve as an incentive to kill all environmentally friendly agriculture in Kenya,” Stephen Mbithi, Chief Executive of Fresh Produce Exporters Association of Kenya, told Reuters.

http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/43143/story.htm

13. Organic food air freighted should be stripped of organic status roundup

Excerpt: Food imported into Britain by air is an “absolute catastrophe” and should be stripped of any right to organic status, campaigners have claimed.Greenpeace and leading figures in the organic industry called on the Government to take action against “air freight”, which they claim undermines the whole ethos of wholesome, sustainable agriculture.But opponents pointed out that a ban would unfairly penalise poor farmers in developing countries and fail to make a meaningful impact on the problem of greenhouse gas emissions.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/07/17/eamiles117.xml

14. Briton swims at North Pole to show effects of global warming

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070715211336.h2lllk66&show_article=1&image=large

Meteorologist raises questions about truthfulness of arctic swimmer (James Craig of Wood TV in Michigan)

Excerpt: This man was in the water for almost 19 minutes wearing nothing but a speedo! Is that possible? Does the first picture look like a man who has just spent this much time in subfreezing water? http://blogs.woodtv.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/screenshot_012.jpgAnd take a look at the next picture. http://blogs.woodtv.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/screenshot_011.jpgI have never been to the North Pole but is it possible to see the curve of the horizon there? Doesn’t this picture look faked? Perhaps there is a camera lense that would produce this effect.

http://blogs.woodtv.com/?p=2284

Flashback: Scientists say open water at the North Pole isn’t unusual

Excerpt: According to Rothrock and other scientists who study the Arctic, open water at the pole is a common occurrence. ROTHROCK: “There’s a lot of open water, a lot of crack of this size they describe in the sea ice in the summer. So in and of itself, that doesn’t seem so bizarre. I think they played it up as something a little bigger than it actually was. It seemed to me that mostly, it was a disappointment to the people who wanted to step out and say they stood on the North Pole.” In fact, at any given time during the summer, 10 to 15 percent of the Arctic Ocean is not covered by ice, says Dr. Mark Johnson, a physical oceanographer at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. Johnson spends a great deal of time modeling the ever-changing dynamics of the ice cap. He says the six-mile-long opening in the ice—called a lead—that tourists saw, sounds about right for this time of year.

http://seagrant.uaf.edu/news/00ASJ/08.30.00_MeltingIcecap.html

15. An Interview With Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist and co-author with Physicist Henrik Svensmark of a new 2007 book entitled “The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change”

Excerpt: Q: How do you respond to the paper by Lockwood and Froehlich, which claims to comprehensively ‘settle the debate’ on the cosmic ray hypothesis (& Solar-climate link) you describe in The Chilling Stars? NC: How often we’ve heard it before, that the debate has been settled! But this is an interesting case because these scientists accept that the Sun has played a big part in climate change over hundreds and thousands of years, just as we explain in the book. They even allow that it was involved in the warming in much of the 20th Century. And when Lockwood and Froehlich go on to say that the intensification of solar activity seen in the past hundred years has now ended, we don’t disagree with that. We part company only when they say that temperatures have gone on shooting up, so that the recent rise can’t have anything to do with the Sun, or with cosmic rays modulated by the Sun. In reality global temperatures have stopped rising. Data for both the surface and the lower air show no warming since 1999. That makes no sense by the hypothesis of global warming driven mainly by CO2, because the amount of CO2 in the air has gone on increasing. But the fact that the Sun is beginning to neglect its climatic duty — of batting away the cosmic rays that come from ‘the chilling stars’ — fits beautifully with this apparent end of global warming.

http://www.londonbookreview.com/interviews/nigelcalder.html

16. What global warming, Australian skeptic asks (Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter)

Excerpt: Carter: “The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4%) in atmospheric carbon dioxide. “Second, lower-atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little, if any, global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17%).”

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=d71dfa89-384c-4ede-a759-55fb7ffdcfc2

17. When Physics Trumps Hysteria in Global Warming

The climate forces which have led to the estimated 0.6C degree temperature increase over the past 100 years or more (according to the International Panel on Climate Change) have been assumed to be man-made CO2 emissions from advanced nations including the U.S. We know this can’t be true for several reasons. The first is that water vapor provides 95 percent of the total of the greenhouse gases, not CO2. The total of the CO2 represents less than 3 percent of the total. The second is that of the total atmospheric CO2 inventory, the manmade fraction is less than 3 percent of the CO2 total and therefore far less than 1 percent of the total greenhouse gas inventories. Third, studies of the recent climate variations are finding, for example, (See article by J. Oestermans, Science, p. 375, April 29, 2005) that glaciers have been receding since 1750 or so, well before any significant man-made CO2 emissions occurred. The mid 1700s were at the very depths of the Little Ice Age, which we have learned was the coldest climate over the last 5000 years. Obviously, other warming forces were at work before humans had anything to do with it.

http://www.grassrootinstitute.org/GrassrootPerspective/PhysicsTrumps.shtml

18. MAYOR SAYS NJ GOVERNOR, SIERRA CLUB ARE HYPOCRITICAL ON GLOBAL WARMING

Excerpt: Cassella, whose town encompasses the state-owned meadowlands property that is the future home of the massive Xanadu mega-mall project and the new Giants-Jets stadium – said the state is being hypocritical when it is pushing a global warming initiative on state utility companies and private corporations while ignoring the greenhouse gases created by the projects it controls.

“Just a few yards from where Gov. Corzine, Al. Gore and New Jersey Sierra Club President Jeff Tittel were holding their photo-op and proclaiming their concern for the global environment is the site of two of the biggest, energy wasting projects in the state,” said Cassella.

http://www.politicsnj.com/mayor-says-corzine-sierra-club-are-hypocritical-global-warming-10344

19. Meteorologist Anthony Watts finds more questionable temperature sensors

Excerpt: I just didn’t think it possible NOAA would allow a consumer grade sensor in the USHCN dataset.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1817

20. Meteorologist debunks notion of a ‘consensus’ on global warming (James Craig of Wood TV in Michigan)

Excerpt: “International surveys of climate scientists [were] conducted in 1996 and again in 2003 by two German environmental scientists. More than 530 climate scientists from 27 different countries provided answers for the surveys. The surveys were password protected to ensure that scientists in climate related fields were the only ones with access. The Heartland Institute’s booklet is entitled Scientific Consensus on Global Warming (PDF) and gives the following summary of the 2003 survey: The 2003 survey results show climate scientists at laboratories, universities, and offices around the world nearly all agree that global warming is underway and the media influences the public’s perception of climate change. On all other questions, there was significant disagreement. Specifically, there is no consensus regarding the causes of the modern warming period, how reliable predictions of future temperatures can be, and whether future global warming will be harmful or beneficial. After you read the article, send it to the very next person who claims there is a consensus on this issue. As the article states: ” those who say the time for debate is over are at odds with half of the scientists they claim to be speaking for.”

http://blogs.woodtv.com/?p=2269

21. Even UN IPCC Concedes Antarctica not melting away

Global Warming Debate Upside-Down: Antarctic Update

Excerpt: If you consult the latest report of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), you would find statements on the subject in the summary including “Antarctic sea ice extent continues to show inter-annual variability and localized changes but no statistically significant average trends, consistent with the lack of warming reflected in atmospheric temperatures averaged across the region” and “Current global model studies project that the Antarctic ice sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and is expected to gain in mass due to increased snowfall.” Amazing – one would never suspect such conclusions given a cover story in National Geographic titled “THE BIG THAW.”

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/07/17/global-warming-debate-upside-down-antarctic-update/

22. How the “Climate-Change” faithful spin cold weather

Excerpt: The “Climate-Change” faithful now have the power to levitate above the embarrassment of awkward evidence. To deal with exceptions, they have conceived the metaphysical category of the “Extreme Event”. This phrase does not refer to weather which has extreme consequences, such as the past 48 hours in Victoria. The significance is altogether different. The “Extreme Event” is a device for ruling out the very possibility of contrary evidence and, thus, for denying the prospect of Popperian falsification. < > If all swings in the weather are worshipped as manifestations of “Climate Change”, that hypothesis is elevated above the realm of rational enquiry. Its advocates have entered the domain of theology where all outcomes — even the cruelest — are accepted as God’s working in his mysterious ways to reveal his omnipotent Goodness.

https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/002161.html

23. Global warming has its upside

Excerpt: Yet to the delight of some global warming naysayers, previously cool vineyard regions are finding that climate change can offer good news. Where once only two or three German vintages each decade saw ripe grapes, now nearly every vintage has been riper. Nearby northern France has seen the same.

http://www.kansascity.com/living/food/story/193259.html

24. Is Gore correct in asserting mankind is causing more droughts?

Gore’s testimony of 21 March 2007 before the United States Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee for confirmation of this fact, wherein he states – without equivocation – that “droughts are becoming longer and more intense,” but, of course, without offering any evidence in support of his contention.

The 30 major droughts of the 20th century were likely natural in all respects; and, hence, they are “indicative of what could also happen in the future,” as Narisma et al. state in their concluding paragraph.

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V10/N29/EDIT.jsp

25. Snowless in a warming world, ski resort in French Alps bids adieu

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/07/19/europe/EU-GEN-France-Too-Warm-To-Ski.php

26. Gore: human species in a race for its life

Excerpt: “What we’re facing worldwide really is a planetary emergency,” Gore said. “I’m optimistic, but we’re losing this battle badly.” <> Gore has spent 30 years trying to bring the world around to the effects of global climate change, and the last several touring with his slideshow (now the Oscar-winning documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth”), writing books, and teaching 1,400 people worldwide how to deliver the global warming message in several different languages. Next week it will be China, then India.

http://www.aspendailynews.com/article_20762

27. Animal Rights Activists Have ‘No Choice’ but Violence, Spokesman Says

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200707/CUL20070719b.html

27. Environmental Extremists Likely to Attack, Says NIE

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200707/CUL20070719a.html

28. Greenpeace plan nude global warming stunt

http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/19/1982884.htm

29. Eco-warrior Al Gore serves up endangered fish at daughter’s party

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=469277&in_page_id=1811

30. Humane Society criticizes Gore for serving threatened fish species at daughter’s wedding

Excerpt: ONLY one week after Live Earth, Al Gore’s green credentials slipped while hosting his daughter’s wedding in Beverly Hills. Gore and his guests at the weekend ceremony dined on Chilean sea bass – arguably one of the world’s most threatened fish species.

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22090734-5001031,00.html

Claim: Restaurant claims Gore did not dine on endangered fish

Excerpt: [The fish] had come from one of the world’s few well-managed, sustainable populations of toothfish, and were caught and documented in compliance with Marine Stewardship Council regulations.

http://www.fishupdate.com/news/fullstory.php/aid/8120/Gore_fish_dish_was_green,_says_restaurant_.html

31. Scientists invent device to stop Global Warming

Excerpt: Chemists at the University of California, San Diego have created a device that uses sunlight to transform harmful CO2 gas into fuel that could replace all the gasoline used in transportation.

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/nextnews7.16b.html

32. IT AIN’T EASY BEING GREEN, AL

http://nypress.com/20/16/news&columns/JohnDeSio.cfm

33. Island of Vanuatu rates happiest nation on Earth roundup

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6897485.stm

34. Corn biofuel ‘dangerously oversold’ as green energy

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12283-corn-biofuel-dangerously-oversold-as-green-energy.html

35. Continuing the Green Revolution – By NORMAN E. BORLAUG

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118472139326369773.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

36. Global warming may bench a baseball staple

Excerpt: The White Ash Tree is in danger of being wiped out, and that could threaten a long baseball tradition. The wood from the ash tree has been used for decades to create a majority of the nation’s baseball bats, including those for Major League Baseball.

http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007/07/baseball_bats_and_global_warmi.html

37. Mars Once Shuffled Its Icy Poles

http://www.livescience.com/space/scienceastronomy/070713_mars_ice.html

38. Meat is murder on the environment

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19526134.500-meat-is-murder-on-the-environment.html

39. Gun battle over valuable wild fungus kills 8, wounds 44 in China

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22098335-5006003,00.html

40. What It Feels Like…to Be Mauled By a Bear

Excerpt: Then its teeth were in my left thigh. I thought, How strange, I’m actually being bitten by something. The grizzly’s fangs sank to my femur, and it jerked me all over the trail. I couldn’t tuck into a fetal position, so my front side was exposed, and I thought, Man, it’s going to rip my intestines out. So I dove off the trail, about twenty feet down.

Dense alder bushes broke my fall, and it looked like the bear might ease off. I yelled, “Jenna, come down here!” At the sound of my voice, the grizzly came charging down at me fast — like you can’t imagine how fast, like out-of-this-world fast. I curled into the fetal position. The bear’s jaws clamped on my backpack and lifted me up and down. I tried to scramble out from under it but instead forced us into another tumble thirty feet down the mountain. < > It gnawed on my head, and I could feel flesh tearing away. I grabbed the animal by the throat; its fur felt like a dirty wet dog, only thicker. I hit it with a rock, but the rock crumbled, so I wiggled back into the fetal position. Its teeth cut deep into the bottom of my skull; I actually heard bone cracking.

http://www.esquire.com/dont-miss/wifl/mauledbybear0807

Many thanks to Marc Morano for all these links.
Happy reading and have a good weekend.

The Great Great Barrier Reef Swindle: A Note from Peter Ridd

By

Those of you who watched the ABC’s presentation of The Great Global Warming Swindle might not have been convinced by the arguments challenging the conventional wisdom that carbon dioxide is responsible for global warming. However, it should be apparent that scientists and politicians such as Al Gore, who have been telling us that the science is unquestionable on this issue, have been stretching the truth. It seems that there are some good reasons to believe that we may have been swindled.

Closer to home, there is a swindle by scientists, politicians and most green organisations regarding the health of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR). We are told that the reef is a third of the way to ecological extinction, is being smothered by sediments, is polluted by nutrients and pesticides, and is being cooked by global warming. Some scientists and organisations give the reef only a couple of decades before it is finished.

In the light of all this dismal news comes a new study by Scientists from the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) which indicates that the corals are more tolerant to rising waters temperatures than first thought by most people.

Under conditions of extremely high water temperature, corals expel the symbiotic algae called zooxanthelae that reside within the polyp making them appear bleached white. Some coral die from this bleaching and there have recently been some major mass bleaching events in the Great Barrier Reef and around the world, particularly in 1998 and 2002. The AIMS work shows that the corals can adapt to rising water temperatures by using strains of zooxanthelae that make them tolerant to higher temperatures.

In biological circles, it is common to compare coral reefs to canaries, i.e. beautiful and delicate organisms that are easily killed. The analogy is pushed further by claiming that, just as canaries were used to detect gas in coal mines, coral reefs are the canaries of the world and their death is a first indication of our apocalyptic greenhouse future. The bleaching events of 1998 and 2002 were our warning. Heed them now or retribution will be visited upon us.

In fact a more appropriate creature with which to compare corals would be cockroaches – at least for their ability to survive. If our future brings us total self-annihilation by nuclear war, pollution or global warming, my bet is that both cockroaches and corals will survive.

Their track-record is impressive. Corals have survived 300 million years of massively varying climate both much warmer and much cooler than today, far higher CO2 levels than we see today, and enormous sea level changes. Corals saw the dinosaurs come and go, and cruised through mass extinction events that left so many other organisms as no more than a part of the fossil record.

Corals are particularly well adapted to temperature changes and in general, the warmer the better. It seems odd that coral scientists are worrying about global warming because this is one group of organisms that like it hot. Corals are most abundant in the tropics and you certainly do not find fewer corals closer to the equator. Quite the opposite, the further you get away from the heat, the worse the corals. A cooling climate is a far greater threat.

The scientific evidence about the effect of rising water temperatures on corals is very encouraging. In the GBR, growth rates of corals have been shown to be increasing over the last 100 years, at a time when water temperatures have risen. This is not surprising as the highest growth rates for corals are found in warmer waters. Further, all the species of corals we have in the GBR are also found in the islands, such as PNG, to our north where the water temperatures are considerably hotter than in the GBR. Despite the bleaching events of 1998 and 2002, most of the corals of the GBR did not bleach and of those that did, most have fully recovered.

Of course, some corals on the Queensland coast are regularly stressed from heat, viz. the remarkable corals of Moreton Bay near Brisbane which are stressed by lack of heat in winter. A couple of degrees of global warming would make them grow much better.

Even the GBR has seen massive changes in its comparatively short life. Eighteen thousand years ago, the GBR did not exist as water levels were about 100m lower than today. At that time, the Australian coast was about 100km from its present position, and the small hills upon which the reefs were to form dotted a broad and flat coastal plain that would become the GBR lagoon. When the sea level started to rise at the end of the ice age, the coast eroded at a phenomenal rate. The Aboriginal people living on these coastal plains lost land at a rate of about 50m each year as they witnessed the birth of one of the natural wonders of the world.

The reef was born in conditions that most biologists would regard as horrific for corals and far worse than what most of the present GBR would see: rising temperatures, high water turbidity due to the erosion, high nutrient concentrations due to erosion and the closer proximity of river mouths, rising CO2 concentrations, and rapidly rising sea levels (10mm per year). These are all factors presently regarded as threats to the GBR.

A few millennia later, Aboriginal people were to witness the greatest loss of coral ever seen by humans in Australia, for about 5,000 years ago, whilet civilisations were being born around the world, the sea level of eastern Australia started to fall. The coral reefs that had grown rapidly upwards to the low tide level were now exposed to the air and sun during spring tides. They died and formed the extensive dead areas called reef flat that make up a large proportion of many reefs in the GBR. It is ironic that if we see a modest sea level rise of one metre due to global warming, these dead areas of reef will explode into life, potentially doubling the coral cover. Sea level rise will be bad for Bangladesh and Venice but it will be good for the GBR.

Other threats are also overstated. Studies have shown that the quantity of sediment in rivers’ plumes that wash out into the lagoons is much less than sediment that is resuspended from the seabed every time the south-easterly trade winds blow. Pollution due to nutrients is also probably restricted to a few reefs close to a couple of river mouths as the rest of the lagoon receives relatively small nutrient loads from rivers compared to other sources, and the water is rapidly flushed to the Coral Sea.

Fishing pressure is very limited. The coast adjacent to the GBR contains about half a million people compared with 50 million for the similarly sized Caribbean reefs. Most Queenslanders never visit the reef and do not use it as a significant food source unlike most other reefs around the world. The northern 1,000 kilometres of the reef has a population that can be counted in 100’s. It has been barely touched by mankind.

With the exception of Antarctica, I challenge anyone to name an ecosystem better preserved than the GBR. The sheer lack of people pressure on this huge system, and its distance from the coast has saved the GBR from the fate that has befallen the Caribbean and other areas. It did not suffer the equivalent of land clearing for agriculture, cities, dams and roads. It does not have problems with infestations of noxious weeds and feral animals such as cats and cane toads, or the mass species extinctions of the Australian land.

Apart from a reduction in turtles and dugongs, it is doubtful that Captain Cook would notice any difference to the GBR if he sailed up this coast again. Pity we cannot say the same about the land that he visited. Whereas the coral reef that he struck near Cooktown is alive and healthy, the land around Botany Bay would be unrecognisable.

So why have we been swindled into believing this almost pristine system is just about to roll over and die when it shows so few signs of stress. There are many reasons and processes that have caused this and some of them are the same as why we should all be more than a little sceptical about the hypothesis that CO2 is causing global warming.

The first reason is that there is some very bad science around. Second, a mainly biological oriented scientific community seems to take little heed of the geological history of corals. Third, we have many organisations and scientists that rely for funding on there being a problem with the GBR. Most grant applications on the GBR will mention at some stage that a motivation for the work is the threat to which it is exposed. I confess that I do this in all my applications – it’s the way the game works.

Why does a scientist and environmentalist such as myself worry about a little exaggeration about the reef. Surely it’s better to be safe than sorry. To a certain extent it is, however, the scientist in me worries about the credibility of science and scientists. We cannot afford to cry wolf too often or our credibility will fall to that of used car salesmen and estate agents – if it is not there already. The environmentalist in me worries about the misdirection of scarce resources if we concentrate on “saving” a system such as the GBR. Better we concentrate on weeds and overpopulation and other genuine problems.

So I’m thinking of asking Martin Durkin to come over to Australia and do another show called The Great Great Barrier Reef Swindle. I’d have to make sure he got all his graphs right and did not talk to anybody who thought smoking didn’t cause cancer, but I reckon he could put a very compelling case that the GBR is in great shape and that there is little to fear, especially relative to other environmental issues, such as overpopulation and https://sildenafilhealth.com invasive species.

Peter Ridd is a Reader in Physics at James Cook University specialising in Marine Physics. He is also a scientific adviser to the Australian Environment Foundation.

This article was first published by On Line Opinion and is republished here with permission from the author.

Cold Weather for ‘Climate Change Believers’ by Humphrey McQueen at Crikey

By

Snow on the Dandenongs and the heaviest falls on Mt Buller for seven years provide further proof of “Climate Change”, if not of global warming. Keeping that distinction in mind is a precondition for not being swindled.

A second line of defence against mumbo-jumbo is to recall that the philosopher Karl Popper promoted falsifiability as essential to the logic of scientific enquiry. He reasoned that any hypothesis which is so structured as to be incapable of refutation is pseudo-science.

The “Climate-Change” band trumpets all data about rising temperatures as evidence to buttress their hypothesis. However, not so long ago they were perplexed by inconvenient truths such as the occasional severe winter. On the face of it, such cold snaps surely count against global warming? This is where the “Extreme Event” comes in handy.

The “Climate-Change” faithful now have the power to levitate above the embarrassment of awkward evidence. To deal with exceptions, they have conceived the metaphysical category of the “Extreme Event”. This phrase does not refer to weather which has extreme consequences, such as the past 48 hours in Victoria. The significance is altogether different. The “Extreme Event” is a device for ruling out the very possibility of contrary evidence and, thus, for denying the prospect of Popperian falsification.

The “Climate Change” sophists proceed thus: the anthropogenically-enhanced greenhouse effect does more than push up average temperatures. It also increases instability. So, while a denser greenhouse mostly makes the planet hotter/drier, it will also make it colder/wetter in some places at certain times.

That Janus outcome is indeed possible. Hence, to decide whether each event is evidence for or against one or other of the current explanations for the latest changes in climate, we need to specify causes. The devastation from Hurricane Katrina was so extreme because of policies of US governments. It is pseudo-science to attribute every hurricane or blizzard to an amorphous “Climate Change”.

If all swings in the weather are worshipped as manifestations of “Climate Change”, that hypothesis is elevated above the realm of rational enquiry. Its advocates have entered the domain of theology where all outcomes — even the cruelest — are accepted as God’s working in his mysterious ways to reveal his omnipotent Goodness.

by Humphrey McQueen in an article entitled:
How the “Climate-Change” faithful spin cold weather
at Crikey.com.au
Subscribe now.

Whaling in the North: Update Part II from Ann Novek

By

Norwegian and Icelandic media have reported that Iceland is hoping to export whale meat to Japan in the 2008 whaling season.

We have also heard that the world famous whaler, Kristjan Loftsson, has also expressed hopes to export his Fin whales to Japan this year.

According to the Icelandic Minke Whalers Association, this 2007 season’s minke whales are for the domestic market. With between 10 to 15 minkes, out of 28, to be killed this summer before the hunting season closes September 1.

http://www.fiskaren.no/incoming/article138873.ece

Icelandic and Norwegian whalers have always been looking for the opportunities to sell their whale meat to Japan, as a means of keeping the whaling industry alive. However, the Japanese whalers are not too keen on competition from foreign whalers .

The Icelanders had investigated the Japanese market and there was room to export between 300 and 400 whales per year to Japan. The Icelandic Government will make a decision on this already this year.

The whalers seem optimistic but the Minister of Fisheries stated:

“The government had not made a decision on continued commercial whaling, but added there had not been a change in whaling policy with the new administration.

Gudfinnsson said a decision would be made after news had been received on whether the whale meat caught last season could be sold. The minister told Channel 2 that if there was no market for the meat, whaling would automatically discontinue. “

http://icelandreview.com/icelandreview/search/news/Default.asp?ew_0_a_id=283694

On a more macabre note from Norway. The newspaper Fiskaren writes that the rock star, Iggy Pop, has posted an e-mail to the festival committee in Tromsö, that he “wants to experience whales dead or alive” !

The festival committe has promised to offer him and his gang whale burgers!

And I thought that all rock stars were anti -whaling to keep up their image.

http://www.fiskaren.no/incoming/article139044.ece

Cheers,
Ann Novek
Sweden

Playing the “Corporate Money” Canard is Intellectual Thuggery: A Note from Lorenzo

By

One of the striking experiences about being involved in public debate in Oz is how people who have put up their head to disagree with progressivist orthodoxy have common experiences which function as something of a bond even if they disagree about everything else.

Such as awareness of the way the “racism!” abuse is used to attempt to close down debate and punish dissent. Particularly in indigenous affairs and migration matters. When I worked in Parliament house in Canberra, I knew four people who were strongly against immigration. Two had Chinese wives, one an Iranian wife, one a French wife. But opposition to immigration was (of course) a sign of “racism”. When one of the four wrote a paper that pointed out that there is, on balance, no strong economic argument for immigration, he got the treatment. Given his Chinese wife (they have since had children: he is also literate in Chinese and has a deep interest in Chinese culture), implying he was racist was hard, but folk gave it a go. All part of a whispering campaign against him: it was quite vile. And entirely typical of what happens when you put your head up in public against various progressivist orthodoxies.

And, by the way, his argument was entirely reasonable. Mass migration is against the interests of the resident working class*: a major factor in its costs and benefits “evening out” overall. But mass migration is in the interests of landowners and owners of capital (both business and intellectual), such a winning combination that opposition to migration is anathematised. (It’s racist, or at least associated with racists, and that’s all the matters, right?)

Another form of abuse to close down debate is “corporate money!”, That one works for, has worked for, has received a grant from, business “proves” your evil motives and so anything you say must be discounted. Sourcewatch is an online resource for this.

The bias involved is patent. Compare Sourcewatch on the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) with Sourcewatch on the Evatt Foundation. The Evatt Foundation gets treated on its own estimation, with no mention of funding. The IPA gets the full loaded language, with all the implications of illegitimacy.

Apparently, union funding (the Evatt Foundation) is so virtuous, it does not even have to be mentioned. Not that all corporate funding is bad: consider Sourcewatch on the Australia Institute. Clearly, corporate funding for a progressive think tank is also so virtuous, it doesn’t even have to be mentioned. So corporate funding is OK if it’s for a “good” cause.

Just part of the game of trying to de-legitimise dissent from progressivist orthodoxy.

But there are grounds to “follow the money”, just not the ones Sourcewatch is fond of. So, let’s consider three organizations significant in public debate in Oz. Two not-for-profit advocacy organizations funded by private donations—Greenpeace and the IPA—and a not-for-profit government organization mostly funded by taxes, the ABC. (Notice Sourcewatch’s attentive ideological labelling of the “conservative/right wing” ABC Board members and the lack of such labelling in the cases of Greenpeace, the Australia Institute and the Evatt Foundation—it is very important to label the evil ones, after all, so folk know what they’re dealing with: and right wing and conservative bias on the ABC, it’s such a problem. Or maybe it is having the ABC polluted by such impure and unclean folk that is the issue?)

The IPA and Greenpeace are both advocacy organizations. Which means, in both cases, they attract folk who share the values of the organization.

Which is the first mistake the “corporate money!” canard makes. People in such organizations don’t support a particular ideological line because they are paid to do so, they work for such organizations because they share its values. The job attracts the folk, they are not “empty vessels” that funding gives form to. A point no doubt obvious about people who work for Greenpeace but sneeringly reversed for those who work for bodies such as the IPA. (Because, of course, those who work for “right wing” organizations don’t have genuine moral concerns or intellectual principles.)

Bodies such as H R Nicholls Society, Samuel Griffith Society, Bennelong Society, Lavoisier Group are operated by folk who devote considerable amounts of their own time, completely unpaid, because they believe in what they do. And do so at least as much as any Progressivist Ascendancy activist. Indeed, typically probably more, since they have to put up with much more sneering abuse from folk playing status games predicated on the basis that supporting such societies is a sign of moral and intellectual delinquency.

The whole point of the “racism!”, “coporate money!” canards is to make such bodies, and paid-staff institutions such as the IPA and CIS beyond the pale. Which leads to two mutually supporting syllogisms:
Why do folk participate in such beyond-the-pale bodies?
Clearly for evil motives (racist!, corporate money! etc).

Why are such bodies beyond the pale?
Because the folk in them do them for evil motives (racist!, corporate money! etc).

At no point is there any need to consider anything they have to say (except to “prove” their moral and intellectual delinquency). And since “they mounted some good arguments” is ruled out as a possible explanation for any policy influence, one is stuck with buckets of money, perversion of debate or the ignorance and vulgarity of the masses as “explanations”.

Consider the way Sourcewatch treats Australian Environment Foundation and Independent Contractors of Australia. They are both labelled “front organizations” for the IPA, who allegedly founded them. The IPA is far too shoestring an operation to have fronts. But, in fact, both were independent foundings. Yes, there is some overlap in personnel, because they express similar values and it is how folk get to know about each other. But, of course, the notion that such folk might believe in what they do is precisely what is being ruled out by the “corporate money!” canard.

It does matter, but not in the way suggested
But, regardless of ideological bent, advocacy and fundraising do have their incentive effects. First, working within an advocacy body is likely to have reinforcing effects. That is, members are likely to reinforce each other’s views in ways that can distort perspective: the “echo chamber” effect. The more folk do not have to genuinely grapple with alternative views, the worst the effect will be. This does not de-legitimise the body, but it does give a clue on where to look for weaknesses in their output.

The sources of funding will also affect what the advocacy body concentrates on, what it emphasises. Greenpeace has an obvious incentive to play up environmental dangers and concentrate on those one that are “sexy” to the middle class Westerners who are its funding base. The IPA has an obvious incentive to concentrate on private sector solutions and play up fears about regulation, taxes and government action. Again, it does not de-legitimise either body, but it does give a clue on where to look for weaknesses in their output.

An approach that views advocacy bodies as “moral” or “corrupt” based merely on their ideology or funding is playing a status game. Even looking at how open an advocacy body’s funding arrangements are, how dispersed their funding is, only gets you so far. Ultimately, their arguments stand and fall on their own merits. But, of course, the point of the “corporate funding” canard is to define folk out the ambit of legitimate debate so one doesn’t have to bother to consider the merits of their arguments. (See previous comments about echo chambers.)

A fairly clear subtext of the “corporate money!” canard is that “tax-paid is good”. Which is simplistic nonsense. Funding something via taxes has its own selection and incentive effects.

Consider the ABC. An organization funded by taxes is probably going to have folk working in it who are in favour of the politics of funding things via taxes (consider Canberra’s federal voting patterns). In favour of the politics of “society needs fixing, and fixing by people like them”. (After all, what is the point of public broadcasting if there is not something inherently wrong with private media that only having public media will fix?)

Which is, of course, the problem with public broadcasting: over time, it is very unlikely to be representative of the opinion of the society that pays for it; as the ABC clearly is not. With all the “echo chamber” effects that has. Effect that are the more intense the larger the organization since size provides insulation. A particular problem when folk in the society are compelled to pay for said organization. So unrepresentative, and under-examined, perspectives get a massive (and coerced) institutional advantage.

If one wants an example of how noxious that can be, it is hard to go past the IMF. The specific content of the ideological bent selected for is different, but the deeper issues are the same. I am in favour of closing down the IMF as well as the ABC and the BBC for exactly the same reason: they are insular, inadequately accountable and destructive organizations that have outlived their usefulness.

The “corporate money!” canard also operates on a highly selective notion of conflict of interest. For example, having your preselection being dependent on specific unions is a far more disastrous conflict of interest than any amount of private shareholding, precisely because no real attention is paid to it. If one thinks that union (and other) preselection power was not a factor in the Cain-Kirner Government’s fiscal debacle, or in Kim Beazley’s screwing up of telecom policy (which we are still paying for), you’re dreaming.

Simply having the regulator also being a producer is a major conflict of interest: if the regulator is the major producer, then you have a compromised regulator. As the history of public education provides ample examples of. But defining “conflict of interest” in narrow “only private business generates conflict of interest” way has its own biasing effect.

Not that “racism!” and “corporate money!” are the only sticks used to deny legitimacy to dissenters. There has been something of a multiplication of thoughtcrimes. Such as “denialism” for folk who don’t accept a particular set of predictions about the future.

Orwell’s 1984 was supposed to be warning, not a how-too manual.

Rarely acknowledged at the time—and almost never since—is that there were grounds to be sceptical about whether significant warming was occurring at all. For the satellite, balloon and rural ground station temperature data simply did not show warming. The debate has moved on, but it was not a ridiculous position.

But, again, we come back to the “corporate money!” canard. The suggestion that the climate debate is “of course” distorted by a (at most) a few million in corporate and foundation money but not at all by at least equivalent sums from environmental advocacy groups, or the billions of dollars in climate research grants which would dry up if humanity was deemed to be little more than spectators in the climate, is simply magical thinking. Or status thinking—bad people (denialists/sceptics) are easily bought, but good people (catastrophists) are decent, righteous folk.

Consider this LJ comment (I won’t link because it is not a personal shot) “political correctness” (a right-wing perjorative name for giving a shit about other people). Any criticism of political correctness is because you don’t care. The commenter is an honours humanities graduate of Melbourne University and has apparently taken away from an education in its Faculty of Arts a dissent-is-defined-as-malign moral casuistry whose closed-mindedness a Counter-Reformation Jesuit would be ashamed of.

The game, in all its forms, is simple intellectual thuggery which functions to de-legitimise dissent and narrow the range of debate motivated by a shared sense of moral and intellectual superiority. (Which is what is really being sold.)

The framing in terms of motive is precisely because it is a status game, but a status game which adversely affects the health of public debate.

This blog post is from http://erudito.livejournal.com/585968.html a great journal.