Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

History

A Note from the Daintree

By

Hello Jennifer,

Tourism in the Daintree Rainforest is continuing to decline, partly because of the relative value of the Australian dollar.

Recent upturns in the global economy have been met with a proportionate recovery in other parts of Australia, but the far north seems to have suffered the double whammy of natural disasters which have been overly-publicised to the extent that many travellers to Australia are still shying away from Queensland.

The challenge for the people of the Daintree Rainforest is to get the word out that we are enjoying unobstructed accessibility, are open for business and waiting to showcase the rich diversity of experiences that make a great nature-based holiday in the oldest rainforest in the world.

If you feel inclined to assist, kindly forward this eNewsletter onto a friend who may be considering travelling in the not too distant future…
[Read more…] about A Note from the Daintree

Lake Eyre, Still Flooding

By

For the last three autumns, Lake Eyre in central Australia has received runoff from good flooding rains.

These photographs were taken by Rhyl as she flew from Quilpie to Birdsville to Lake Eyre in July 2010.

And the flood waters are arriving again this year.

Wild flowers as a mass of yellow from the air.

A land of patterns, according to Rhyl.

Click on each image for a better view.

It Never Rains

By

“POETRY, said Auden, makes nothing happen. Usually it doesn’t, but sometimes a poem gets quoted in a national argument because everybody knows it, or at least part of it, and for the occasion a few lines of familiar poetry suddenly seem the best way of summing up a viewpoint…

“Before the floods, proponents of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) view had argued that there would never be enough rain again, because of Climate Change. When it became clear that there might be more than enough rain, the view was adapted: the floods, too, were the result of Climate Change. In other words, they were something unprecedented. Those opposing this view — those who believed that in Australia nothing could be less unprecedented than a flood unless it was a drought — took to quoting Dorothea Mackellar’s poem ‘My Country’… 

Read more from Clive James here http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/node/3743/full

[Via Neville]

Big Bang Rebuttal, Part 1: A Note from Joseph A. Olson

By

SUPERSTITION has exerted a powerful force on human psyche and history.  Strengthened with a few facts, a superstition becomes accepted reality until new perceptions can reopen debate.  That is an exciting possibility in today’s Nouveau Renaissance.  Humanity’s new course needs a road sign: “Caution, Falling False Paradigms Ahead”.

Climategate has shown that even the most well funded science can be wrong.  All objective, science trained minds have left the Global Warming station.  Well meaning scientists are already doing damage assessments and future hazard avoidance studies.  It is now a perfect time to reassess another possibly defective theory on the origin of the universe.

Celestial Spheres

The ‘Flat Earth Theory’ required an explanation of cyclic visible planetary movements of the then know members of our solar system.  The Sun rose over the Earth everyday in a predictably variable pattern.  The moon waxed and waned between full and new.  The inner orbit planets, Mars and Venus arose predictably and briefly as morning or evening stars.  The outer planets, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn crossed the complete sky and then disappeared for long and varying periods of time.

Fourteenth century scientists struggled to explain these readily observable events and attempted to explain them as nested spheres, driven by great gears, which were below the flat Earth and thus invisible.  Mechanical clocks were just then being perfected and animated character clocks made this seem plausible to the masses.

[Read more…] about Big Bang Rebuttal, Part 1: A Note from Joseph A. Olson

Another Report into Climategate

By

Climategate was the scandal that erupted in the lead-up to Copenhagen resulting from the release of over one thousand emails detailing correspondence between leading climate scientists exposing conspiracy and collusion including how to stack review committees, exaggerate warming trends, and avoid the disclosure of sensitive information. 

Today in the UK, the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology released its second report into the scandal:

 http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/science-and-technology-committee/publications/

According to David Holland, this report is one for which it definitely makes sense to start by reading the ending first.   On page 39, the Committee minutes show that of its eleven members only five met to consider and approve the final report.   Graham Stringer MP proposed that paragraph 98 be rewritten as below, but was in a minority of one against three with the Chairman not voting:

“The disclosure of data from the Climatic Research  Unit has been a traumatic and challenging experience for all involved and to the wider world.   There are proposals to increase worldwide  taxation by up to a trillion dollars on the basis of climate science predictions. This is an area where strong and opposing views are held.

“The release of the e-mails from CRU at the University of East Anglia and the accusations that followed demanded independent and objective scrutiny by independent panels. This has not happened. The composition of the two panels has been criticised for having members who were over identified with the views of CRU. Lord Oxburgh as President of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and Chairman of Falck Renewable appeared to have a conflict of interest. Lord Oxburgh himself was aware that this might lead to criticism. Similarly Professor Boulton as an ex colleague of CRU seemed wholly inappropriate to be a member of the Russell panel. No reputable scientist who was critical of CRU’s work was on the panel, and prominent and distinguished critics were not interviewed. The Oxburgh panel did not do as our predecessor committee had been promised, investigate the science, but only looked at the integrity of the researchers. With the exception of Professor Kelly’s notes other notes taken by members of the panel have not been published. This leaves a question mark against whether CRU science is reliable. The Oxburgh panel also did not look at CRU’s controversial work on the IPPC which is what has attracted most series allegations. Russell did not investigate the deletion of e-mails. We are now left after three investigations without a clear understanding of whether or not the CRU science is compromised.”

Read more from Mr Holland here:
www.ventalize.org.uk/Climate%20Change/Climategate/HoCSTC/HC444_Comments.pdf

UPDATE  FROM DAVID HOLLAND

Its worth noting that the Committee has published the unsolicited evidence it received after announcing that it planned to interview Russell and Oxburgh.  It is here:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/444/444vw.pdf
 
I think historians will wonder how climate scientists managed to get away with it for so long.

*************
And in a paper entitled,

ACCESSING ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION RELATING TO CLIMATE CHANGE: A CASE STUDY UNDER UK FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LEGISLATION
Environmental Law and Management, Volume 22, Issue 1, pgs 3-12

John Abbot and I draw on evidence from David Holland to show scientist at both the CRU and the Met Office are part of a culture antagonistic towards disclosure of information and why this has serious implications for both the effective operation of FoI legislation and the openness and transparency of climate change assessments.

The National Parks: America’s Best Idea

By

ONE of the best Christmas presents I received this year is a film by Ken Burns and Dayton Duncan entitled ‘The National Parks: America’s Best Idea’ – as twelve episodes contained in a case of five DVDs.

So far I’ve watched episodes one to four which begin with John Muir’s campaign to protect Yosemite in the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California from commercial development and ends with his failure to stop the flooding of Yosemite’s Hetch Hetchy Valley.

As the case cover explains: “Nearly a decade in the making, The National Parks: America’s Best Idea…  is a breathtaking journey through the nation’s most spectacular landscapes and a celebration of the people – famous and unknown – who fought to save them for future generations to treasure.”

The first four episodes provide tremendous insight into not only the environmental campaigns lead by John Muir, who founded the Sierra Club, but also the important role of President Theodore Roosevelt in establishing and protecting national parks and also national monuments in the US.  

The film is a reminder of how much was at risk before there was environmental legislation and protection.  The story of the slaughter of bison in Yellowstone National Park to the verge of extinct is particularly harrowing.  

John Muir would nowadays be called an environmentalist, or conservationists, but one hundred years ago he was recognized as a preservationist.   In losing the fight to protect Hetch Hetchy Valley it may have appeared that the preservationists had lost to the conservationists.  

In fact John Muir may have lost the battle, but won the war: Most of today’s environmental and conservation groups campaign for preservation, rather than conservation.    And of course the management of national parks today in Australia, is mostly in accordance with the preservationist’s philosophy.

The film is narrated from the perspective of the preservationists with a deep respect for natural history and natural landscapes.  

*******************
Following is an explanation of the difference between preservation and conservation. 
from Wikipedia… 

“In July 1896, [John] Muir became associated with Gifford Pinchot, a national leader in the conservation movement. Pinchot was the first head of the United States Forest Service and a leading spokesman for the sustainable use of natural resources for the benefit of the people. His views eventually clashed with Muir and highlighted two diverging views of the use of the country’s natural resources.

Pinchot saw conservation as a means of managing the nation’s natural resources for long-term sustainable commercial use. As a professional forester, his view was that “forestry is tree farming,” without destroying the long-term viability of the forests.

Muir valued nature for its spiritual and transcendental qualities. In one essay about the National Parks, he referred to them as “places for rest, inspiration, and prayers.” He often encouraged city dwellers to experience nature for its spiritual nourishment. Both men opposed reckless exploitation of natural resources, including clear-cutting of forests. Even Muir acknowledged the need for timber and the forests to provide it, but Pinchot’s view of wilderness management was far more utilitarian.

Their friendship ended late in the summer of 1897 when Pinchot released a statement to a Seattle newspaper supporting sheep grazing in forest reserves. Muir confronted Pinchot and demanded an explanation. When Pinchot reiterated his position, Muir told him: “I don’t want any thing more to do with you.” This philosophical divide soon expanded and split the conservation movement into two camps: the preservationists, led by Muir, and Pinchot’s camp, who co-opted the term “conservation.” The two men debated their positions in popular magazines, such as Outlook, Harper’s Weekly, Atlantic Monthly, World’s Work, and Century.

Their contrasting views were highlighted again when the United States was deciding whether to dam Hetch Hetchy Valley. Pinchot favored the damming of the valley as “the highest possible use which could be made of it.” In contrast, Muir proclaimed, “Dam Hetch Hetchy! As well dam for water-tanks the people’s cathedrals and churches, for no holier temple has ever been consecrated by the hearts of man.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Muir