Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Opinion

Dugong Slaughter: Finally Some Reporting of the Issue

By

Dugongs are large marine mammals that swim about northern Australian waters. Indigenous Australians are allowed to hunt dugongs even though their numbers are probably in serious decline.

There are two criteria that should be applied to the harvest of an animal species: 1. Are the numbers taken sustainable, and 2. Is the method of killing humane?

But these criteria do not apply to the slaughter of native animals under native title legislation in Queensland.

I’ve written on the issue before, but not much since 2008. [1]

There has been a campaign wagged out of Cairns to get this issue on the national agenda and finally tonight there was some reporting of the inhumane slaughter of dugongs in northern Australian waters by the ABC TV 7.30 Report.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2012/s3448943.htm

Well done to Sarah Dingle and Lesley Robinson for following up on a story documented by Ruphert Imhoff.

*******

[1] https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/2008/01/ignoring-the-slaughter-of-dugongs-in-northern-australia/

The Fiction World of Rajendra Pachauri: Tony Thomas

By

HOW much do you really know about IPCC Chief Rajendra Pachauri and melting Himalaya Glaciers?

‘The Fiction World of Rajendra Pachauri’ by Tony Thomas is an easy to read, informative and insightful piece of investigative journalism available here:

http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2012/3/the-fictive-world-of-rajendra-pachauri

It includes comment that:

“The IPCC’s Himalaya forecast was based on nothing more than speculation by an Indian scientist, Syed Hasnain, in an Indian eco-magazine in April 1999, recycled into the New Scientist and then into a report in 2005 by the activist group WWF. The grey-lit WWF report was then cited in the IPCC’s draft glacier chapter in 2007…

Six IPCC experts reviewed the draft chapter and none saw anything odd. Twelve reviewers looked at it again in second draft. One of them (from Hebron University) said caustically that two elements in the forecast contradicted each other. Another, (from Newcastle University in the UK) told the authors to look up certain contrary references that cited glacier expansion (the IPCC authors’ brief is to assess the full range of scientific views on a topic). The reviewers’ comments were ignored. None of the total eighteen reviewers found anything untoward about the lone WWF citation for the dramatic forecast…

Later, the second draft was taken up and run in the all-important Summary for Policy Makers. The draft summary was reviewed line-by-line by 190 government representatives (if the politicians’ changes clash with the science sections, the science sections are altered retrospectively). Only one commented, hitting the bullseye: “This is a very drastic conclusion. Should have a supporting reference otherwise should be deleted (Government of India).”

Even then, IPCC rigour was not to be seen. The summary was watered down, leaving untouched the howlers in the source text.”

Consensus Against AGW Deception

By

A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about “global warming.” Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

So began a recent opinion piece by sixteen scientists published in the Wall Street Journal on January 27, 2011. It is republished here with permission from Bill Kininmonth…

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: “I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: ‘The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.’ In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?”

In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the “pollutant” carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific “heretics” is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

[Read more…] about Consensus Against AGW Deception

Sold Down the River by Canberra

By

WHEN former Labor leader Mark Latham was campaigning to win the 2004 federal election, he promised to add 450 gigalitres of environmental flows to the Murray River in his first term of government and an extra 1,500 within ten years.

Australian Greens leader Senator Bob Brown said he would return 1,500 gigalitres within five years – in half the time.

Back then 1,500 gigalitres seemed like a lot of water.

In a June 2003 interview for ABC Television’s Four Corners, the late Peter Cullen from the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists also mentioned 1,500 gigalitres and indicated that volume was scientifically derived.

In their Blueprint for a National Water Plan, the Wentworth Group proposed the water be returned through an annual incremental increase of 100 gigalitres for environmental flow. Based on this 2003 plan, by last year at least 800 gigalitres would need to have been returned to the river.

In fact, when campaigning during the 2010 federal election Julia Gillard said over 900 gigalitres had already been recovered.

The Wentworth Group should be happy with progress.

But it isn’t.

The group now claims no less than 4,000 gigalitres must be returned to the Murray Darling river system. The Australian Greens are also now claiming that a minimum of 4,000 gigalitres must be returned to ensure the Murray River’s survival and 7,600 gigalitres if it is to be healthy.

What has precipitated such a momentous change in the volume of water required to save the river?

In 2003 the water was apparently needed because of declining water quality and rising river salinity. This was shown to be a furphy: river salinity levels had been falling since the early 1980s since implementation of the salinity management strategy of the Murray Darling Basin Commission.

So now less, not more, water should be needed. But the focus has switched to the bottom of the system with claims more water is now needed to keep the Murray’s mouth open.

Professor Cullen was talking about the Murray’s mouth in that June 2003 Four Corners interview. Had he mentioned the need for a minimum of 4,000 gigalitres back then it would have been considered greedy.

Not any more! Expectations have changed.

I put the change down to two initiatives lead by former prime minister John Howard. In 2007 the Water Act became law, creating priority for environmental water. In the same year $10 billion was allocated for implementation of the associated Murray-Darling Basin plan.

Thanks to Mr Howard, Ms Gillard now has a legal obligation to send a volume of water about equal to the total current baseline diversions for the NSW Murray (1,812/year GL) and also the Murrumbidgee (2501 GL/year) to South Australia every year.

***************
First published in The Land newspaper on January 19, 2012

The Age of Apocalypse?

By

“When questioned, Jesus of Nazareth had this to say on the subject of the end of the world: ‘But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.’ (Mark 13:32) We don’t seem to have improved on that forecast since and not all the research associates and interns toiling at Mead GHQ crunching all the computers that money can buy have been able to come up with anything more precise.

“But whether or not we get the Big Bang or the Big Whimper, the new decade is going to be haunted by the specter of an approaching apocalypse; a lot of people will think the world is ending, or could end, and the mixture of hope, fear and apocalyptic energy unleashed by that perception will be affecting both national and international politics on an increasing scale as time goes by.” So, predicted Walter Russell Mead on his blog in January 2010, at the beginning of the new decade.

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/01/19/2010s-7-end-of-the-world/

But I’m not sure. The global warming scare appears to have almost run its course. What comes next or what just for this new year, 2012?

The Musselroe Wind Farm Travesty: Keith H.

By

Hi Jennifer.

Following is a request for help!

Tonyfromoz kindly did an excellent article titled Wind Power Australia – The Musselroe Wind Farm Travesty in Tasmania

http://papundits.wordpress.com/2012/01/18/wind-power-australia-the-musselroe-wind-farm-travesty-in-tasmania/

It is a very good summary of the situation from both the viability and value claims for the energy and the obvious hypocrisy of The Greens, other environmentalists and groups.

I am trying to raise world awareness of the devastation that is about to be unleashed at Musselroe Bay, already a designated Conservation area and one of the most environmentally fragile environments in Tasmania. Together with the nearby Mt.William National Park, home to many species of native wildlife, plants, endangered birdlife including wedgetail eagles, and in the path of at least three migratory bird species including the legendary mutton bird, the whole area encompasses some of the most naturally beautiful places on Earth.
A documented template of what is about to happen was recorded by those locals who unsuccessfully opposed the Cefn Croes wind development, the largest onshore windfarm in Wales. They made a photographic record of the whole environmentally disastrous venture there.

Google “Cefn Croes campaign website” and check the photo gallery.

Tasmania is the current home of both Bob Brown, who led the successful “Save the Franklin” campaign and Christine Milne, the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens. In a further twist, the Tasmanian Greens supported Labor after a “hung” election and Greens Leader Nick McKim and his partner Cassie O’Oconnor were rewarded with Cabinet posts. Cassie, who is Minister for Climate Change gained much of her public profile in the successful “Save Ralphs Bay” campaign.

What an incredible irony that these four prominent Greens are cheerleaders in a push that will destroy the Musselroe Bay Conservation area. Whilst celebrities and various leading environmental protestors flocked to Tasmania from all over the world to “Save the Franklin”, they are now conspicuously absent and silent while this travesty proceeds. Nothing could demonstrate more clearly the political and ideological selectiveness they use to decide whether they support or oppose desecration of pristine areas!

You may feel it worthwhile doing an article or commenting in some way but any help would be appreciated. As usual, our MSM are silent on any downsides of the development.

Best wishes to all,
Keith H.